Showing posts with label construction. Show all posts
Showing posts with label construction. Show all posts
Saturday, May 15, 2021
We Need the American Jobs Plan
Hoping everyone is on board with President Biden's American Jobs Plan. Americans need it, America needs. Heck, look at Missouri alone. This is from USA Today, June 29, 2013. Missouri was ranked 10th worst, overall, in list of states with bad bridges.
Since 2011, Missouri may have made more strides fixing its bridges than almost any other state in the nation. Although 3,502 of its 24,072 bridges are structurally deficient, this is actually 640 fewer than in 2011. In St. Louis County, just 3.9% of the 865 bridges received a subpar grade. Those 58 bridges in need of repair carry an average of 789,000 vehicles per day. However, the bridges in many other parts of Missouri remain in a serious state of disrepair. In five counties, more than 30% of the bridges are structurally deficient. Phone your Senators, folks. Sure, they're Republicans and it likely won't matter but hey, we have to try.
Sunday, July 26, 2020
The Star Isn't as Bleak on Mission Gateway
Out local Star paper ran the following article today.
Future of Johnson County’s Mission Gateway
in question
On their website, it had this headline:
‘We’ve waited so long’: Future of Johnson County project in question, funds in limbo
A bit from the article:The property has the hallmarks of an active construction project: a yellow crane, orange cones and temporary chain link fencing. But there are no sounds of dirt moving or concrete being poured. And no workers in sight.
After 15 years of delays and tempered expectations, work has once again halted at the ill-fated $225 million Mission Gateway development in Johnson County. And it’s unclear if or when it might start back up.
And check out this ugliness.
Workers left the site after two major funding sources were put on hold during the coronavirus pandemic. Since then, at least a dozen liens have been filed on the property, claiming invoices have gone unpaid to contractors and suppliers.
“We have not been paid,” said Jerry Messick, one of the contractors and owner of Metro Interiors in Lee’s Summit. “I can tell you that without any guilt because it really pisses me off.”
Keeping in mind, as the article states, too, this has been going on for 15 years. Wow.
So true. So very true. I wrote and posted this July 16, last week.
To say, however, that the project is "in question" when you have a huge slump in retail shopping anyway and then now, this pandemic which makes even construction difficult, let alone, again, weakens that same retail shopping and, for the foreseeable future, dining out, restaurant business and then movie-going, too. Yes, it makes the funding of this project highly suspect, if not out and out deeply in doubt to very unlikely. Funding is drying up all over but especially here, on this nightmare.
I say again, what should happen is the developer finally, finally faces the ugly reality, declares bankruptcy on the entire project then donates the land, the entire site, to the city of Mission for a park.
It won't but that's what should happen.
At one point in the article, the Star asks if it wasn't "The right idea at the wrong time."
To which I'd answer no. It was never the right idea. The former site worked and was good-looking and well-placed. It should have been updated, at most. And all this was, of course, at the worst possible time, for all the reasons I mention in my post above--the 2008 financial collapse, the collapse of retail and now this pandemic and all it brings down on everything here.
Good luck, Mission.
You're gonna' need it.
Thursday, July 16, 2020
Mission Gateway: The Construction Project From Hell
What is Mission's "Gateway" construction project for a mall but "The Construction Project From Hell"?
There was a beautiful mall, facility already there, perfectly fit into its space but hey, some multi-millionaire thought he knew better--and could make yet more money!--so he tore it down.
Only to be hit by the 2008 economic collapse.
So it sat.
And sat and sat.
Vacant.
An empty lot.
And in a fantastic location, at least for the city of Mission, so the lack of its being developed--then all the way through today--has been obvious, painfully obvious to the point of being a downright eyesore.
So it slowly, ever so slowly came along.
First Walmart was supposed to come down the hill and that certainly got a lot of people concerned. Too many didn't want that clientele in their coy little environs.
It was also supposed to have an upscale movie theater and, yes, bowling alley/entertainment center and nice apartments and on and on.
But then retail collapsed, what with everyone buying online.
And Walmart backed out.
And more.
Then, of course, the worst, most killing international and then, now, national pandemic in the last more than 100 years came along.
So this is where we are today.
From the story:
It's been nearly 15 years since the Mission Center Mall closed at Roe and Johnson Drive. Construction on the long-awaited mixed-use project on the site has been halted as a result of financing issues caused by the pandemic.
The city of Mission will likely consider pushing back the December 2021 construction completion deadline in its development agreement on the Mission Gateway project to accommodate construction delays.
GFI Development and the Cameron Group, the project’s developers, announced one month ago that construction had to pause indefinitely after two funding sources were put on hold due to the coronavirus pandemic.
The development agreement sets a construction completion deadline and the terms of the city’s tax incentives for the Gateway project, which include the Gateway development’s access to revenues from a tax-increment financing (TIF) district and a community improvement district (CID). If the project does not meet the December 2021 deadline, the developer could be in default of the agreement, putting the tax incentives in jeopardy, said City Administrator Laura Smith.
They tore down a reusable, attractive building, hoping to make yet more, bigger money and then put up what is unequivocally one of the ugliest buildings, so far, I've seen or even imagined in a long, long time. Go by the site. It is one ugly, ugly building.
It is now going to sit there, basically, until at least this winter and then it will wait yet more, until good weather, until Spring, 2021, at least, before it will be restarted.
Then, again, check out this 2 beauty from the Shawnee Mission Post link, above, on that one partner, GFI.
A recent article also noted that GFI was put on credit watch with a negative outlook by S&P Global Ratings. The company owns many hotels, which have struggled to profit throughout the pandemic.
Finally, there is this on their tenants.
FUTURE OF GATEWAY’S TENANTS
The entertainment and hospitality industries have been hard-hit by the coronavirus pandemic, with each industry losing billions of dollars since mid-March. But Smith said that the anchor tenants of the Gateway development, which are part of these two industries, are still in place. This includes Cinergy Entertainment, a food hall by Tom Colicchio’s Crafted Hospitality and a Marriott hotel.
“We know the developer is in conversations with their tenants regarding impacts to operations in light of COVID-19,” Smith said.
This past May, Andy Ashwal, vice president and senior asset manager of GFI Development Company, said that the Tom Colicchio food hall was being designed to easily shift to take-out services when necessary, in light of the pandemic.
A spokesperson for Cinergy declined to comment. Crafted Hospitality and a Marriott spokesperson did not respond to emails asking for comment. Marriott International Inc. saw a 92% decrease in their first-quarter profit of 2020 as most traveling came to a stand-still amidst stay-at-home orders.
Does that sound good or hopeful or promising to you?
So don't get impatient, Mission. Get used to seeing yet more of this ugly, ugly eyesore. Get used to it sitting there, vacant.
Good things come to those who wait?
You know what should happen?
The developer finally, finally faces the ugly reality, declares bankruptcy on the entire project then donates the land, the entire site, to the city of Mission for a park.
It won't but that's what should happen.
And hey, he'd get tax write-offs.
The developer finally, finally faces the ugly reality, declares bankruptcy on the entire project then donates the land, the entire site, to the city of Mission for a park.
It won't but that's what should happen.
And hey, he'd get tax write-offs.
Good luck, Missionians!
You're gonna' need it.
Link:
And with the Kansas City Star at least in financial straits, if not, as I wrote here earlier, going to one day soon close, you might want to subscribe to this.
And with the Kansas City Star at least in financial straits, if not, as I wrote here earlier, going to one day soon close, you might want to subscribe to this.
Shawnee Mission Post -
Community news and events
Saturday, June 21, 2014
Sunday, May 12, 2013
Unemployment statistics in America and why we need a jobs bill from Congress
Youth Unemployment in the United States
The unemployment rate for those between the ages of 16-24 was 16.2% in April, more than double the national unemployment rate.
The unemployment rate for those between the ages of 16-19 was 24.2% in April.
More than 13 percent of borrowers have defaulted on their student loans, and another 26 percent are delinquent.
More than half of Americans ages 25–34 have saved less than $10,000 for retirement.
According to the White House Council on Community Solutions, the fiscal cost of the 6.7 million Americans ages 16–24 who are neither working nor attending school is $1.6 trillion over their lifetimes.
Congress has cut $1 billion from youth jobs programs over the past decade.
According to the Center for American Progress, nearly 1 million young Americans who have experienced long-term unemployment will lose a staggering $20 billion in earnings over the next decade.
Research shows that workers who are unemployed as young adults earn lower wages for many years following their period of unemployment due to forgone work experience and missed opportunities to develop skills.
Today the unemployment rate among teens is 24.2 percent, higher than it ever was prior to the Great Recession of 2007–2009.
The trends in unemployment indicate that young job seekers have suffered disproportionately in the recession compared to adult workers.
Over the past several decades, employment and labor-force participation among Americans ages 16–24 have declined, while the unemployment rate for this group has risen.
The biggest drop in labor-force participation has been for teenagers, who saw their numbers decline from a high of nearly 60 percent in 1978 to an all-time low of 33.5 percent in 2012.
Since the 1980s the employment-to-population ratio for teenagers and young adults has declined, with the steepest drops occurring in the past decade.
During that time employment among teenagers has dropped the most, falling from 50 percent in 1978 to just 25.8 percent today.
Employment among young adults peaked at 72.9 percent in 2000, falling to 60.8 percent today.
By contrast, employment among Americans of prime working age currently stands at 75.9 percent, about the same as it was in the mid-1980s.
While the overall unemployment rate for teenagers is 25.1 percent, the unemployment rate for black teens is 43.1 percent. And fully half of black males ages 16–19 are looking for work but unable to find a job.
Today Americans under the age of 40 have accumulated less wealth than their parents did at that age more than 25 years ago.
Source: Center for American Progress So how about it, Congress? Senators? Representatives? Could we have a jobs bill? Please?
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
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. 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
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
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.
Friday, May 4, 2012
Inaction from Jeff City
Missouri Senate chooses I-70 highway study over toll roads
It's disgusting.
Instead of actually doing something about I-70 and the dangerous, far-too-small nightmare it is, our Jefferson City legislature has set something up to "study" it.
Yeehaw.
That'll help.
Not.
I say here again, surely there can be no bigger or more important issue for our State and even Federal legislatures than to widen and make more safe this freeway.
It would make all who use it safer, it could help facilitate more and better business in the state, it effects virtually every Missourian in the state--and many people in the nation each year--and finally, it could help create some jobs in the state, if even temporary.
Instead, we get inaction from Jefferson City and our legislatures.
Instead, we get a "study."
Thanks, Missouri Legislators.
For nothing.
Link: http://www.kansascity.com/2012/05/03/3592312/missouri-senate-chooses-i-70-highway.html
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Monday, November 28, 2011
Friday, November 4, 2011
Poor in US hits all-time high---and low
New data out today show the the "Poorest poor" in the US hi an all-time new high, in numbers, recently. Yeehaw, huh? Check the data: WASHINGTON (AP) — "The ranks of America's poorest poor have climbed to a record high — 1 in 15 people — spread widely across metropolitan areas as the housing bust pushed many inner-city poor into suburbs and other outlying places and shriveled jobs and income.
New census data paint a stark portrait of the nation's haves and have-nots at a time when unemployment remains persistently high. It comes a week before the government releases first-ever economic data that will show more Hispanics, elderly and working-age poor have fallen into poverty." Isn't that just terrific? And still, the Republican leaders in Washington want to keep the government from creating any new jobs or work, through infrastructure construction jobs or anything and everything else. Heaven forbid the country actually succeeds while there is a Democratic president in the White House, eh? This is really sick. Link: http://news.yahoo.com/poorest-poor-us-hits-record-1-15-people-040233161.html
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Quote of the day
"With our economy in worse shape than at any time since the Great Depression, it is literally beyond comprehension how we could not get a single Republican to vote for a bill to put people to work rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges. In Vermont, almost one-third of our bridges are considered structurally deficient or functionally obsolete and 36 percent of our federal-aid roads are rated ‘not acceptable' and need of major repairs. We need to invest in our infrastructure almost as badly as we need to provide jobs," --Senator Bernie Sanders (Indep., VT) Link: http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=d13af6bf-b93e-4161-b10b-c82651539bd3
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Thank you, Polsinelli, Shughart! (Now let's hear it for JJ's!)
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Okay, the Troost bridge over Brush Creek is open
And that's good news. We can have that traffic going through again, great. Now, I wonder if the city is going to dredge Brush Creek, further to the East, since not-so-small islands have cropped up because of the slower flow of the creek due to that construction. It will be interesting to see if it's cleared.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Polsinelli Shughart and the West Edge: PLEASE???
From what Kevin Collison at the Star says in the paper today, the Polsinelli Shughart law firm is still considering different locations for its new headquarters in the area. Some of those are a spot still with Highwoods, North of Valencia Place, a downtown block near the Sprint Center, "the proposed Mission Gateway across the State Line" and, finally, thank goodness, "the unfinished West Edge Project." Please, please, for all that's good in this city, let it be the West Edge. It would, hopefully, be a match made in heaven. Someone needs to take over and complete that eyesore, it would keep them on the Plaza and hopefully fill their needs for space. That big hunk of construction needs an occupant and badly. It would be terrific for the Plaza, great for the city and, finally, maybe buy back some goodwill for Polsinelli to the people of the city. Here's hoping. Link: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/08/15/3078367/lessons-from-the-balcony-building.html
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
The President is right
Yesterday, President Obama went on an attack of the Republicans, what with it being campaign season now and all, saying no matter what he says, the Republicans are against it: "If I said fish live in the sea, they'd say no," Obama said.
He also proposed a jobs bill. Now, the Republicans have been saying that this President isn't doing anything for jobs. So what did their first reaction to this all amount to? You guessed it--the Republicans are agin' it: MILWAUKEE – A combative President Barack Obama rolled out a long-term jobs program Monday that would exceed $50 billion to rebuild roads, railways and runways, and coupled it with a blunt campaign-season assault on Republicans for causing Americans' hard economic times.
GOP leaders instantly assailed Obama's proposal as an ineffective one that would simply raise already excessive federal spending. More: Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said the plan "should be met with justifiable skepticism." He said it would raise taxes while Americans are "still looking for the 'shovel-ready' jobs they were promised more than a year ago" in the $814 billion economic stimulus measure. So Mitch McConnell seems to be saying "Since you didn't deliver on the increase in jobs a year ago, we aren't going to help you create jobs in America now", or some such. Then listen to this beauty from Rep John Boehner: The House Republican leader, John Boehner of Ohio, added "We don't need more government 'stimulus' spending. We need to end Washington Democrats' out-of-control spending spree, stop their tax hikes, and create jobs by eliminating the job-killing uncertainty that is hampering our small businesses." Right. Let me get this straight. We're supposed to create jobs by just cutting spending. Uh-huh. Right. And how, exactly, is that going to work, Rep Boehner?
The fact is, later this week: An administration official said Obama will propose on Wednesday in Cleveland that businesses be allowed to write off all their new investments in plant and equipment through 2011. You watch--when this gets announced, the Republicans will be against it. I don't know how, since it's a TAX BREAK FOR BUSINESSES TO INVEST IN R & D but they'll be against it somehow. Either that or they'll just belittle it as "too late". Regardless, they'll be negative toward it.
Americans need to wake up to the fact that the "Party of 'no'" is not helping. Or doing anything.
Link to original post: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100906/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_economy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
