Certainly I'm not calling it a failure, but I am calling it out for failing to do at least part of what it was supposed to do. Until Union Station turned the corner, I was happy to bitch about that one, too. Not because I think the money was not well-spent or because I wanted the thing torn down, but because it's like giving away ammo to haters. Some of the (JoCo) haters use these things as justification for their anti-KCMO viewpoints and opposition to cooperation across state lines. Northland KCMO haters use it as evidence that funding downtown projects is inherently foolish, and they complain about their taxes flowing into an urban black hole instead of back into their neighborhoods. We can bitch about "suburban mentality" and "KS haters" all we want, but until the city is no longer giving them something to hang their hats on, we have to accept some of the blame.

If you think that there aren't huge swaths of people on both sides of the state line, and even in KCMO proper, who genuinely feel that KCMO is a poorly run craphole that can't do anything except waste money, I don't know what to tell you. Those people are out there, they're irritated by this stuff, and they vote (and they read the Star and TKC and post negativity ad infinitum in the comments of both). Obviously this is anecdotal. I don't have a scientific study on all this, but it is what I hear at the office, what I hear in conversations with my friends who aren't "city people", what I read online, and, most of all, this seems to me to be evidenced by the fact that Funkhouser got elected at all and James got elected in part on a "we can't afford to finance the hotel" platform.

When P&L starts to perform, and I think it will eventually, all these problems go away. The Star prints favorable pieces saying how well the district is doing, and the haters are left with nothing but, "Well, it sucked AT FIRST!" which is hardly persuasive to the average person. I don't have a magic wand solution to make this happen, but until it does happen I can't help but be frustrated when I feel like people who are otherwise committed to the core are dismissing this as a legitimate problem that is holding us back.



I'm on board with it, although I think people around here have come to accept that highways cost money. Also, they seem to believe highways are worth investing in so they can drive their cars everywhere.

More people use highways than visit the P&L anyway. Of course KCP may not worry about the highway subsidy when he goes to K-State for games or whatever. Or when out-of-towners come to KC using highways for events such as the Big 12 Tournament. Or when the highways were used to bring building materials for the P&L and the SC.

Highways also cost waaaaay more money than P&L ever did.

I think this is worth discussing not because we can go back in time and change things, but because KC is always going to need major projects like this and while I have come around to thinking P&L was a terrific investment despite the subsidy, I think there are some lessons to be learned and things we did wrong that we should look to avoid in the future. Mean is right to bring up the downtown hotel. While I think a downtown hotel might be useful, I'm a bit skeptical based on some of the puffery by Cordish in their projections for P&L. But that doesn't mean I think its shouldn't be built, or even shouldn't be subsidized, just that we need to ratchet our projections to be more realistic and subsidize accordingly.

Speaking of the downtown hotel and codfish. Remember when funk killed their proposal for funding a hotel tower that they were willing to put their own neck and not the city's funds at risk to build? Memories.

Akp my point was a good story to educate people how much we spend on highways. Not that they dont have use. Just as the p&l has use.

For the most part people have a good idea how much is spent on highways. Except for toll roads and bridges highways are not sold to be moneymakers. Roads and bridges are built to move goods and people and at times to spur economic development, like the Little Blue Parkway. If you want to explore how much has been spent on that road and the economic activity it has created go ahead and all of us can have a discussion about that.

P&L was sold to the public with the idea that it would cover its costs, not that it would be a loss leader. Yes, you can bring up the other items and there can be a discussion about what should be and what shouldn't be on the list and how much the contribution is. But that is another discussion about economic development, not on the performance of the district. The P&L was suppose to generate enough tax dollars 'WITHIN' the district to cover the annual costs of the bonds, all of the other was to be gravy.

Incorrect.

Right. I suspect a even a few miles of highway in an urban area with bridges etc cost more than P&L. Highway interchages alone cost phenomenal amounts of money.

The P&L has done exactly what it was supposed to do. There were things done right and wrong but the wrongs have more to do with alienation of local restaurants and Cordish's perceived arrogance than financing. KC pays a bit but they get so much in return such as the Big XII tourney's, events at the Sprint Center, a thriving downtown. Kansas Citian's had enough sense to say no to Funk's world where the resounding attitude is one that the status quo is always better than spending to improve.

P&L subsidies are no more a waste of money that redoing highway intersections and adding bridges way out in the middle of nowhere in the Northland around Shoal Creek, N. Oak, and Ambassador Drive, and then giving subsidies to new shopping centers around them that only draw away tenants from other established ones (Metro North). These new shopping centers are basically speculative endeavors by developers in places where there aren't many people living yet in a market that is already overbuilt with retail. Then to add to it, giving out more subsidies to redevelop the old shopping centers that lost those tenants (again, Metro North and Antioch Center).

Are there the same amount of complaints about subsidizing redevelopment of Antioch Center in the Northland, the former Blue Ridge Mall site (that took Wal-Mart from Bannister Mall area), and also the Bannister Mall site?

Building new roads and bridges for speculative development on farmland with few residents around it is very expensive, and only makes our city less dense, whereas P&L is an attempt to return density to the core and downtown, which is already built.

One of Kansas City's biggest problems is that it doesn't have enough density per sq. mile to pay for itself--its' amenties and infastructure. P&L is at least at attempt to create density, whereas the spending at Ambassador Drive and 152 Highway only creates less density.

Why do you think the Plaza has become such a office center? It's because the infastructure is rigorously maintained, and that there are restaurants and bars within walking distance. It's a pleasant atmosphere. The Plaza also didn't accommodate office tenants by tearing down buildings to create a sea of surface lots. Instead, garages were built as offices were added. Crown Center did the same thing. Even Zona Rosa has added garages as it expanded. It is walkable. This didn't happen downtown. Downtown lost it's cohesive quality that the Plaza maintains.

The Plaza wasn't really conceived to be a regional office node. It was built to be a neighborhood shopping and residential apartment district. I don't recall J.C. Nichols ever saying that he imagined high-rise office buildings being constructed there as a competitor to downtown.

Downtown didn't maintain the infastructure, and employers and retail started to flee. No employer wants a building sitting in a sea of asphalt, and abandoned buildings as neighbors.

Had downtown been allowed to continue to go downhill, it would have probably lost even more employers--probably to Kansas.

Here is an example of what highways cost. One interchange in Johnson County, Kansas, is going to cost $250 million to re-do because of traffic congestion.



http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/news/2012/03/21/hntb-wins-consulting-work-for-250m.html?ana=e_du_pub&s=article_du&ed=2012-03-21

That's the total price tag for the broadway bridge. Daaaaamn.

So?

I would imagine that most if not all of the funding comes from gasoline taxes paid. Besides that interchange has more users (visitors) in a day the P&L. And given the initial cost plus interest during the years P&L costs more than that.

But, then again, the city taxpayers were told the P&L would be self-supporting. In other words, that taxes generated by related development would be gravy to the city instead of being used to help retire the bonds.

Apples and oranges.

This is like saying I don't want my gas tax money going to support construction of an interchange I don't use.

No.

http://reason.com/archives/2011/06/17/t ... sportation

Just referring to the project mentioned, not highways in general.





Not relevant.

Oh that project is funded completely different. Pixie dust. Keep ignorning how much we spend on highway infrastructure. Big bad p&l district is much worse.

What's not relevant is 300 pages of this topic spent over the years by someone trying to find different ways to get their point across that the P&L district was pushed through the system by Mayor Barnes and her cronies and the public was hoodwinked into thinking it would all pay for itself.

http://kansascity.bizjournals.com/kansa ... 1167022800^1394078

www.pitch.com/plog/archives/2010/07/14/ ... d-light-...


www.pitch.com/kansascity/kansas-city-invested-in-the-po

Don't drink and post

[/quote]

I agree with this.

The fundamental premise of P&L isn't flawed. It's likely that Cordish has made some flawed execution decisions, however. Tenants, contracts, rents, etc.

The thing is built. It's not going away. The only relevant question at this point is whether projected revenues can ever grow to the point that the District won't run a deficit.

The answer is clearly YES. The District is 50% full. Revenues can/will double if this place builds out. Over the next 5 years, P&L (which is still in its infancy) could build out. If it doesn't, I'll be upset.

Growth factors:
-Economy improvement
-Civic Initiatives: Streetcar, Make Grand Grand, Convention Hotel
-Private Initiatives: Boutique Hotels, YMCA, Condo/Apt development, Office development, Crown Center development.

Not saying that P&L is a glowing beacon of success. But, the doom and gloom and "I told you so" mentality is a bit premature. A lot of positive growth is occurring in and around the CBD. Hopefully P&L and downtown grow to develop a positive symbiotic relationship.