The Star comes out wrong on the airport

The Kansas City Star published an editorial piece yesterday on our airport and why a single, new terminal is a good idea.

They only made 2 claims and as it turns out, they were wrong on both counts.

Their first contention is that a new airport, however expensive and wasteful it would be, is good for travelers because it would improve security and so, be more convenient for us.

This, after all, is the only reason the airline companies came up with this idea of a new, single terminal anyway. They want to cut their costs for security so the Airport Authority agreed we need a single terminal. They want to keep those airline companies happy.

They also make the point that lines will be shorter, somehow, at a single terminal.

Right. We're all going through one building, especially for security and somehow, magically, the lines will be shorter?

Doesn't that defy logic?

Okay, so if we need one building for security, let me propose here yet again the idea of making terminal B the "Security terminal", still using some of B's gates for flights, if and as needed, and then having walkways to the other two terminals, B and C, for all the other flights?  That would totally work and we wouldn't have to tear any buildings down. We would still not have to go as far to catch our flights as you have to go at, for example, Atlanta's or Denver's airports so it can't be said it's too far to have to trek.

Their second claim is that a new, single terminal would be more evironmentally-friendly because the drainage of cleaning the jets would all be at that one terminal and it could be drained away to treat it better with the new building.

Well, okay, let's totally ignore that you have to tear down and throw away--in a dump--an entire building in order to build this new, single terminal, let's ignore that evironmental nightmare and fact and analyze this idea.

How about, again, instead of tearing down a terminal and throwing it away, additionally, hugely expensive as that is, why don't we go in and do this new drainage to the existing buildings so the chemical runoff from the jets goes where we need it to go anyway? That would surely cost far, far less, at 1.2 billion dollars, than an entire new terminal.

That's got to be far and away more environmentally intelligent and far less expensive than--sorry, one more time--tearing down an entire building, throwing it away, hauling it off to a dump and building a new terminal.

That only makes clear sense.

Sorry, Star. You blew it on this. You're mistaken. You're wrong. A new terminal makes no sense, especially financially but environmentally, too.

Links:   A KCI good for travelers and the environment

 Save KCI!
  
Save KCI | Facebook

Snow. In May. In Kansas City

From photographer/friend Roy Inman :

Last time it snowed in Kansas City in May was on the 3rd in 1907. Union Station was completed in 1914, same year that WWI started. We are talking history-making stuff here folks.

A New Airport and Strange Bedfellows, Part II

After this morning's post on the airport and me teaming up with--gasp--a Right Wing blog, I wanted to also post this, their 2nd note on the stupidity and irresponsibility of throwing away our existing airport, only to build another.

The Emperor’s New Airport

At a recent Kansas City Transportation and Infrastructure Committee hearing, Aviation Department Director Mark VanLoh walked the committee through a slide show featuring lots of exciting computer graphics of an airport that does not exist and likely never will. VanLoh said the images were merely “conceptual;” no architect is bound by them. Yet several news outlets have picked them up to illustrate what the proposed terminal could look like. This future airport is as real as the fabled emperor’s new clothes.

Why is fanciful airport art an issue? Kansas City officials argue that we need a shiny new terminal because we are losing market share to other airports in the region, such as Branson, Mo., and Wichita, Kan.

On KCPT’s Week in Review program (comments begin at 5:07), Scott Parks of KMBZ 98.1, in a courageous act of honesty, questions the whole concept of a city “losing flights” to another city. He says:

Maybe I struggle against this panel mentally. I don’t understand how Kansas City is losing flights. Airlines are a business. If people want to fly to Kansas City for business, for pleasure, to visit family, whatever, they’re going to fly to Kansas City. I heard the argument this week that we’re losing flights to Columbia, we’re losing flights to Branson, we’re losing flights to Wichita. Well if I live in Seattle and I have family that lives in Kansas City, I’m not flying to Wichita and then driving three hours to Kansas City. I don’t understand how flights that were supposed to be coming to Kansas City are now going to Wichita or Branson.

The conversation immediately moved to the cost of security and Kansas City International Airport (MCI); no one addressed Parks’ concern.

Just like the old ministers in Hans Christian Anderson’s “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” Parks states the obvious — doing so almost apologetically. But he is exactly right. If proponents want to argue that the airport is unattractive as a hub — a place where people make connections to other flights but not itself a destination — a shiny new terminal will not address that problem. It will only exacerbate the problem if it results in higher costs to airlines who are already being lured elsewhere with cash.
Week in Review was rife with those same slick computer-generated images that were shown at the transportation committee meeting. Those images are meant to appeal to emotions. The Kansas City Star reported that the aviation department has contracted with an outside public relations firm for $117,000. Are presentations to the Kansas City Council and the public already focused on selling slick and colorful images rather than answering substantive questions? The city council’s committee hearing suggests the answer is “yes.”

Kansas City Mayor Sly James has called for an “adult discussion about the facts,” and that is good. But he and others on the City Council have yet to make their case that the Emperor is not naked.

Excellent, breaking news on the airport

Wonderful, breaking news on the airport and the whole one terminal idea. This from the Kansas City Star this evening:

Last-minute filing launches challenge to one-terminal plan at KCI

From the article:

A group of Kansas City residents filed paperwork with the city clerk’s office Sunday to start a formal challenge to the planning for a new terminal at Kansas City International Airport.

The paperwork, filed by a committee of five petitioners, starts the process to seek a citywide vote on the future of KCI. The group needed to turn in 100 valid signatures of registered voters and gathered more than 160 signatures, according to John Murphy, a member of the petition committee, which is calling itself Friends of KCI.

“We think a $1.2 billion airport is unnecessary and wasteful,” Murphy said.

Once those signatures are verified, the group would have 30 more days to gather about 7,200 signatures to trigger an actual referendum vote.

So now, let's get out there. Let's sign these petitions and share and distribute them. Let's get some input on this whole hair-brained, wasteful, polluting, obscenely expensive idea.

The latest on the airport

Yesterday, the City Council downtown voted to go forward with a study on a new, single-terminal airport for Kansas City and the region.

That's the bad news.

Here's the good news:

Three councilmen voted against it--John Sharp, Scott Taylor and Scott Wagner. To them I say kudos and thank you.

More good news, really: "Mayor Sly James admitted he is not completely sold on the current proposal" according to KSHB 41 News.

I'm thinking that, with good information gotten to the Mayor and the will of the people to not throw away our existing facility for all the reasons available--financial, environmental, practicality on so many levels and sheer fondness for and appreciation of the existing airport--I think he can be shown this new single-terminal airport idea is a poor one that should itself be abandoned.

I think the City Council can--and will--be shown and convinced this walking away from our existing airport and building a new, single and very expensive terminal, expensive in so many ways, is a patently bad idea, effort and investment.

Here's hoping.

Link to story:  City council approves single-terminal plan at Kansas City

2 Letters to the Editor at the Star that get it right on KCI

Exhibit A:

Keep KCI as is

I have a new suggestion for the city officials who think we should spend $1.2 billion for a new airport. Many, many fliers who go through Kansas City International Airport talk about how easy and great it is, yet city officials feel the need to destroy that.

You are now talking about building the new terminal on the site of Terminal A, destroying Terminal B and using Terminal C as rental for business offices. Here’s a great idea.

Why not leave Terminals A and B as is and rent out terminal C? Part of the reason we don’t have enough equipment for security scanning now is that the use of the airport has decreased.

This should be put to a vote of the citizens of Kansas City and not left to the few men and women on the City Council.

KCI is a great airport. Leave it that way. Just because you have a brand new sparkling terminal doesn’t mean more passengers are going to use it.

Harry Oliver
Kansas City  Exhibit B: KCI Traveler's dream
I travel about 50 percent of the time in my work and see a lot of airports. Kansas City International Airport is one of the most efficient airports in the country. To think of changing to be like other airports such as Atlanta, Detroit and Charlotte is a poorly thought-out concept and a huge waste of money. You have quick access and a great shuttle system to parking lots, compared with the nightmares of airports like those in New Jersey, Atlanta and California.

Why change something that works great only to waste so much money? This is probably being done by people who do not have to travel in their jobs.

Wake up and take a few sample trips. You will understand what I am saying.

Roger Justice
Olathe  Thank you, gentlemen. You're both so right. We couldn't agree with you more. 

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2013/04/09/4170530/kci-heartland-theatre-lobbyists.html#storylink=cpy

 Links: http://www.kansascity.com/2013/04/09/4170541/brain-drain-afghanistan-abortion.html http://www.kansascity.com/2013/04/09/4170530/kci-heartland-theatre-lobbyists.html

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2013/04/09/4170541/brain-drain-afghanistan-I travel about 50 percent of the time in my work and see a lot of airports. Kansas City International Airport is one of the most efficient airports in the country.To think of changing to be like other airports such as Atlanta, Detroit and Charlotte is a poorly thought-out concept and a huge waste of money. You have quick access and a great shuttle system to parking lots, compared with the nightmares of airports like those in New Jersey, Atlanta and California.
Why change something that works great only to waste so much money? This is probably being done by people who do not have to travel in their jobs.
Wake up and take a few sample trips. You will understand what I am saying.
Roger Justice
Olathe

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2013/04/09/4170530/kci-heartland-theatre-lobbyists.html#storylink=cpy

abortion.html#storylink=cpy

Things that shouldn't be thrown away

Things that should be recycled, not thrown away--

Plastic bottles

 

Glass bottles

 

 

Cardboard boxes

 

 

Paper

 



Already-built international airports that are well-liked, functional and convenient

 

The Aiport people go to the Star

According to Yael T. Abouhalkah at the Kansas City Star, Mayor James and other proponents of a new, single building airport went to the Star's editorial board this last week and came up with 3 main reasons we should buy off on their very expensive boondoggle. They were/are:

• The new terminal would improve the image of Kansas City.
• It would help attract more businesses to the region.
• It would provide a better experience for airline passengers

Let's address each. (As in, apply logic and tear these things apart).

First, a new terminal would "improve the image of Kansas City."

Really?

And why would that be?

Because we built one? Because we built another one? Seriously?

Heads up, guys, we have one. We have an international airport. And you know what? We like it. It works.  It's handsome. It's attractive. It's convenient. You can get in and get to your plane quickly, easily and conveniently. Why would we want to throw it away, walk away from it and only to--expensively--buy another new one?

Second argument:  A new, single building facility would "help attract more businesses to the region."

Again, seriously?  They're claiming that?

How is it more businesses would come to the region?

Again, WE HAVE AN AIRPORT. How is paying for and building a new one going to bring more businesses to the region? What company or companies is going to say or think "Gosh, Kansas City has a new, expensive airport. That's going to be good for us so we should take our business and company there"?

Here's the thinking, folks:  "Kansas City has had an international airport for, what? Decades. A new airport, single-building or no, changes nothing. It doesn't change our business or markets in any way. We don't need to move there, suddenly."

Third and final point of theirs: "It would provide a better experience for airline passengers."

Again, how is that?

Maybe, maybe, just because it's a "shiny new building"? That's about the most you can say for this idea.

But again, here's a thought, the thought that makes far more sense--instead of walking away from the existing facility that a) works very well, thanks very much and that b) the people like very much, again, thanks, WHY NOT UPDATE THE EXISTING FACILITY IN ALL ASPECTS? That could include lighting (LED to cut costs), heating, cooling, even energy-generating with solar photovoltaic energy cells, all of it, and make the most of all that updating and innovation. It would still be FAR less expensive than building new, some miles away, and starting all over again.

Then, you're just as likely, if not far more so, to provide that better experience for airline passengers. It only makes sense.

You'd have this cool, retro-fitted facility YOU DIDN'T WALK AWAY FROM AND THROW AWAY, it would have all the latest, modern amenities, including, possibly and even likely, new restaurants and shopping options.

It would be a total win for all--the airline passengers, the airlines themselves, the city and region, all of us.

We have to stop throwing away whole buildings. In this case, it would not just be a few buildings we threw away, either. It would be many.

A Star article this past week stated that the Airport Authority is going to close Terminal A later this year. This fits in with just what I've proposed. Instead of closing terminal A, close terminal B. Then revamp it and make it the facility for security and check-in. Then, add ramps out to Terminals A and C for going to the gates and our waiting planes.  All problems solved. It totally works, all the way around.  We save the existing airport, we save money, we get the improvements and updates and changes we need, everything.

This is very much like our Interstate 70 issue.

It needs updating and modernizing and widening, all of it.

At one point, the Missouri Department of Transportation floated the idea of abandoning it and building a new I-70, in effect, a few miles north of the existing. 

It was roundly criticized and shown to be the absurd, wasteful idea it was.

Same here.

We cannot walk away from and throw away our existing airport, just so we can be seduced by the "sexy and new."

That works for shirts and pants but not airports and buildings.

It's stupid. It's irresponsible. It's wasteful.  No, strike that, it's horribly wasteful.

And it's obscenely expensive and in a lot of ways, money and sheer cost being the biggest one.

Original article:  New KCI terminal’s biggest challenge: Will it be convenient?

Read more here: http://voices.kansascity.com/yael-abouhalkah/#storylink=cpy

A new Kansas City International Airport?

A funny thing happened yesterday.

I've been posting on this blog and on Facebook--both at "Things
and places we loved in great KC when we were younger" and "The Kansas City International Airport" page--that I'm squarely against the plans to vacate the existing KCI/MCI airport, only to build an entirely new facility.

Because of that, Mr. Joe McBride, Senior Manager in Marketing and Communications for the Kansas City Aviation Department wrote me. He sent me a note, asking me to read through it and then this information on the airport:

A new, single terminal for KCI Airport customers

Kansas City International Airport reached its 40th birthday in 2012. In the last 20 years KCI has undergone two Master Plan Update Studies. Both studies called for investigating building a new, single terminal to address aging infrastructure, outdated features and inefficient design from the 1960s. The Kansas City Aviation Department was given Federal Aviation Administration and City Council approval to commission a study to investigate the feasibility of building a new terminal.

Now underway is an 18-month study by Landrum & Brown. Funded by a Federal Aviation Administration grant, the study's Scope of Services includes: Airport planning services to identify passenger terminal operational requirements; a survey and inventory of environmental conditions; a plan to implement a program for the design and construction of a new terminal; and a financial planning document to provide funding alternatives. A critical step in the refinement of the terminal complex facility requirements is the need to better understand and respond to the needs of passengers arriving and departing the Airport. This will be accomplished through user intercept surveys in the terminals.

After the study is complete, the Aviation Department will evaluate and determine if it is feasible to go to the next steps, which include financing and terminal and roadway design. The total project cost estimate is $1.2 billion. Funding may include federal, existing Passenger Facility Charges, Aviation Department funds or other mechanisms.

To put the study into perspective, KCI's passenger terminals were designed in the late 1960s, prior to airline hubbing, terrorism and security checkpoints. The layout is very inefficient for passenger flow, security screening, baggage handling, concession variety and the taxi and bus operation. While the terminals were renovated nearly 10 years ago, the infrastructure is aging and there is little room for growth. City officials at that time decided to extend the useful life of the passenger terminals at the lowest possible cost. Shortcomings still exist.

Most issues are rooted in the narrow structure and not enough room. Lanes cannot be added to alleviate long security lines at peak times or to incorporate lanes for TSA trusted traveler programs. Adequate seating and amenities cannot be added inside security. Mergers create issues like United operating out of two terminals, closure of concessions after an airline moves, empty gate areas, and Terminal B garage filling up three days each week. The latter is not as simple as moving Delta or Southwest since no other existing areas have the capacity and infrastructure to accommodate them.

Features of a new terminal would include: just 30 gates needed - smaller overall footprint than the other three terminals combined, making it more efficient and cost-effective to operate; more room for a variety of concessions and amenities; more room for security checkpoints, cueing and less intrusive security screening technology; easy walks due to efficient layout and people movers; reduced ticket lobby size; self bag check; common-use gates for airline flexibility; separated arrival and departure areas for less traffic congestion and safer pedestrian routes; green LEED building design standards; lower operating costs; and others.

The new terminal can be the next big project for Kansas City, creating many construction jobs. A more efficient layout might make Kansas City more attractive to airlines. The new terminal would be a facility Kansas Citians can now be proud of and help Kansas City attract new businesses and jobs. After the new facility is constructed the Aviation Department will explore ways to make good use of the old terminals still standing.

If it is feasible to build a new terminal we will task planners to produce efficient concepts that best achieve the level the customer convenience of KCI's current terminals that Kansas Citians appreciate. As is in the case of the Master Plan process, terminal design will be developed with public input. The prospect of starting from scratch and to incorporate the strengths of KCI's terminals in a sparkling new facility is an exciting opportunity!

Here, then, are reasons I wrote back to him of why I am, to date, strongly against the plan to build a new airport:

It's my contention that the conclusion to tear down or walk away from the current KCI/MCI was made long ago. The Airport Authority only seems to be searching now for a way to make it happen, without the input or agreement of Kansas Citians as to what should happen. It's not enough to want to make the airlines happy alone. Kansas Citians and all the people from the region need to be behind these ideas, too, and that hasn't happened, to date.

I'm absolutely no fan of replacing our terminals at KCI, certainly.

Part of the reason is that it is a good, workable layout and the other
part is that it makes no sense to "throw buildings away" and start all
over.

Yet another reason, however, is because I've seen in the Star reports for months on months that the Airport Authority decided they should do this--throw the old terminals away and start all over yet the plans have continued to change, over these same months. It seems clear there is not now nor has there ever really been a clear plan for KCI. Now, you show here that there is a study, going on at this very moment, on what we should do at, about and with our airport.

So if change needs to come to KCI/MCI, cannot the center, existing terminal be turned over to security, with the other two are then used as the connections to our planes? That seems far more workable and less wasteful. It seems it would be a way to accomplish the goals for reducing security costs while not, again,"throwing away" the entire airport. I'd love to see if that's an option. It seems far more responsible, less wasteful and less expensive, too.

It also seems that the conclusion to get rid of the airport was clearly made prior to any study, let alone this one that is now ongoing.

Another note on the evolving, elusive "plan" of a new terminal at KCI, deals with the part about "The new terminal can be the next big project for Kansas City, creating many construction jobs."

This is a weak argument, at best, as the jobs would be extremely temporary. Would local construction companies want the work? Sure. Would there be benefits of the work for these people? Again, yes, but it would be just months of work, at longest. This is a fairly weak argument for tearing down an entire airport only to build another.

As for the claim about "green LEED building design standards" in the new facility--this is laughable since about the least "green" thing you can do is walk away from or tear down an older, existing, working facility. It would be very "un-green" to plow up the new ground and build this new facility, too, on top of this, so please, forget the "green" claim. It insults our intelligence.

The next comment, that "A more efficient layout might make Kansas City more
attractive to airlines," while true is not something anyone can possibly promise and we all know that. It's possible but no guarantee.

Then there is the statement that "The new terminal would be a facility Kansas Citians can now be proud of..."

The fact is, Kansas Citians are already proud of our airport, at least some, even lots of us. We needn't tear down the old airport to make us somehow yet more proud.

The next claim that a new airport would "help Kansas City attract new businesses and jobs"?

Regarding jobs, no one can really promise new jobs as the result of a new airport. Could it happen? Yes, sure. Can it be promised? No, certainly not. The arts in town seem to be doing far more for growing any attraction for our metropolitan area than any development like this.

Finally, the claim that "After the new facility is constructed the Aviation Department will explore to make good use of the old terminals still standing."

We understand they'll do their best to make the most of that old airport--if left standing--but even in a good, strong economy, no one can promise anything to come of the old location. In the worst economy in the last 80 years--since the Great Depression--no one can really make any promises along those lines.

I have to say, I will continue to fight this any and every way I can, on the KCI Facebook page, here on my blog and everywhere else I can unless or until I'm shown why this needs to happen for the people of the area and not for the airline companies.

I'm all about change in my life and city and nation and world but I'm for smart change and change that is well thought-out and planned.

The plan to tear down and replace our airport has been anything but.

What Kansas City needs to do with Google fiber (if we can)

This occurred to me some time ago, when there was only still just talk of Google Fiber coming to town. I mentioned it to a Google employee earlier today at the Plaza branch of the Kansas City Public Library.

Wouldn't it be great if the area cities in our Kansas City metropolitan area could use this technology to reduce their costs mightily and coordinate the traffic lights across the city from Blue Springs to at least Olathe and from Platte City to Harrisonville?

Wow.

We could do so much for the city:

--increase productivity;

--reduce traffic jams and congestion;

--cut down on pollution;

--reduce the amount of gasoline we waste;

--possibly cut down or "road rage"

That's a lot, right there.

The city's always looking for ways to cut down on the amount of pollution and ozone we collectively put into the air as it is and we all look for ways to cut time out of our commutes.

Hopeully Google Fiber could reduce greatly the expense and complications of making this happen.

Here's hoping. Think happy thoughts.

And have a great weekend, ya'll.

Is Roy Blunt not Senator for Kansas City?

Senator Blunt has done it again.

He's having what he calls "Listening Posts" so his constituents can come by and tell him, through his staff, I believe, what's on their minds.

The only problem with this seems to be that this is the second time I'm aware of that he does them all AROUND the Kansas City area but not--never?--IN our city.

Proof? I received an email today that linked to this page, showing where these "Listening Posts" of his will be. Here's his list:

So I ask you, is the very Republican Senator Roy Blunt NOT our senator or does he just not like us or not care what we think or doesn't want to hear from us or what? Do we intimidate him? Does he not like us? Does he just assume he doesn't have enough people here he cares to listen to?

Are we the wrong color?

What is it?

Senator?

An answer?

Please?

Link: http://www.blunt.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/constituent-services?p=listening-posts-kansas-city-region

Note to KCI Airport Authority: WE DON'T WANT A DIFFERENT, NEW AIRPORT!!!

I'll say this until I'm blue in the face:

KANSAS CITIANS--AND PEOPLE FROM THIS REGION--DON'T WANT OR NEED A NEW, DIFFERENT, AIRPORT

The latest on our airport (from The Star):

New plan calls for different site for new terminal at KCI

How did this happen, anyway?

The people of Kansas City were never--never--asked if we wanted a new, different airport for any reason, yet the powers that be in town have already decided it's happening and taking place.

You know why this is happening, too, right?

The airlines are paying what they see as too much for airport security so they want a new, more traditional airport where we'll all go through the same security checkpoint.

That's the real issue here, folks, don't kid yourselves.

It isn't as they have claimed that the old building needs replacing and that it's too expensive to redo.

That's nonsense.

It's a bold-faced lie.

It's about the airlines and their costs, period.

We need to raise heck about this. We want our airport left alone.

Let's start now.

Write to your city councilman now and tell them---

WE DON' NEED NO STEENKENG NEW AIRPORT.

We don't want it.

Heck, the way this city has spent money, we likely can't even afford it.

Link to original post: http://www.kansascity.com/2012/06/14/3658322/a-different-site-for-new-airport.html

I'm so old...

I remember when the Broadway bridge had toll booths on it.

What I DIDN'T know, however, is that it was dedicated the same year I was born.

Who knew?

Have a great weekend, y'all.

I'm so old...

...I remember eating at Nickerson Farms. And I remember where they were in the area.

A load of propaganda--and crap--from the airport authority today

I can hardly believe what I see in the Star this morning. It's an article about the pollution in the KCI airport's pond due to runoff of the deicers used on the jets. That, by itself, would be fine but the article goes on to say that the "New terminal would provide a solution to the pollution." This is so clearly an attempt by the airport authority to propagandize the people of the city into buying into this whole "we need to build a new airport" nonsense. I call it that, too--nonsense and hogwash. As my grandfather used to say, "In a pig's eye." You don't tear down 3 buildings to fix the water clarity of a pond, for pity's sake. I say again, you can't tell me that tearing down and throwing away 3 entire already-existing buildings and then building a new one (or new ones) is more economically-feasible than working with what's already there. There is no way that makes economic sense. Then, added to it that we--the people of the city--like our airport and its current, convenient, sensible, logical design, it's beyond question. The city and airport authority need to drop the idea of tearing down that airport and we need to get them to drop it. Link to original story: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/12/25/3339013/new-terminal-would-fix-kcis-polluted.html

The Don Harman Memorial Fund

Don’s family has set up a fund in lieu of flowers. If you’d like to donate: The Don Harman Memorial Fund Benefiting local Kansas City Charities, c/o Tightwad Bank, 1160 SE Highway 7, Tightwad, Missouri 64735. ""I never ran into anyone around town who didn't smile when they heard his name..." --Mike Thompson, Chief Meteorologist at Fox 4 TV Station. Links: http://fox4kc.com/2011/11/30/fox-4-statement-on-the-passing-of-don-harman/; http://www.nbcactionnews.com/dpp/news/local_news/wdaf-fox-4-news-meteorologist-don-harman-passes-away#ixzz1fEnkgbls

You found what? Where?

Yes, really--they found a wallaby (not a kangaroo?) in Platte County. Go figure. Naturally, for now, it's at the zoo. Link: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/11/24/3284328/platte-county-wallaby-found.html

Okay, somebody better check on Tony

I'm just saying. He hasn't written all weekend. I'm thinking he either went on a short vacation or "met somebody", if you know what I mean. Run over to his Mom's basement, will you, and let me know here if he's okay?

Just who is Bob Shaw?

I mean, besides being, apparently, an attorney. And why are all those signs about him along Barry Road? And for so long. And who, exactly, has the jones to be so angry about him? Go figure. Enjoy your Sunday, y'all.

Trains in Kansas City

One of the many things I love about this city is that, when you're in most of the center of it, from downtown to the Plaza, out Ward Parkway and all over lots of it, you can nearly always hear the train whistles blowing. Just one more great thing. I love hearing them as I go to sleep. Nice.