An important revelation that will resonate throughout the Northland:
Congressman Graves opposes expensive single terminal at KCI
Money quote:
"We are lucky to have such a safe and convenient airport," Graves said in a statement. "While I recognize that there are challenges to the airport's configuration and issues that need to be addressed, I feel that there are better ways to address these concerns than by constructing a new and expensive single terminal."
And in this Red State . . . This Northland pronouncement should seriously stall KCMO ambitions for a billion dollar pipe dream.
KMBC: Crowd packs forum to discuss KCI's future
Developing . . .
Another Sly boondoggle that needs to be flushed.
ReplyDeleteNever thought that I could agree with that shithead, but Graves is right.
ReplyDeletebut we can still agree Graves is a shithead
ReplyDeleteGraves has no power in KC. This aint Tarkio, Sam.
ReplyDelete6:54, you are very much mistaken.
ReplyDeleteHe's in the committee that would appropriate federal funds.
ReplyDeleteSo why is the northland chamber in favor of the airport? And why is Sam holding a meeting in riverside when we are talking about KC?
ReplyDeleteGraves is Roy's boy
ReplyDeleteThe Northland Chamber is for it because the are for anything that the EDC is for. The Platte EDC is for it because the head happens to be Mark Van Loh and his minion on Sly's airport committee isn't going to risk her job just because her boss has a stupid idea. They probably had the meeting in Riverside so the KCMO police could not hassle the petition guys.
ReplyDeleteThank you Sam Graves for standing of for the people of this town. Without you, the people wouldn't even get a second thought. Kudos for being the sole politician willing to hold a town hall meeting on the issues before us. You have our undying support. Thanks, again.
ReplyDeleteWas Sam standing or sitting? Hard to tell.
ReplyDeleteIf Sam is against it, then it must be good.
I have not reached a decision on KCI. On the other hand, I dislike politicos who simply play to the political winds, AKA Graves. I would rather disagree with a person of principal.
ReplyDelete$600 million in work is happening regardless
ReplyDeletehttp://www.kansascity.com/2013/07/06/4332801/plan-for-a-single-terminal-at.html
BEFORE we even start to talk about improvements and their cost
Seems to me like the new terminal is the better deal.
Since it will last 40-50 years and the last airport renovation was in the late 90s. Do we spend $600 million today and $1.8 billion in a decade or do we pull the trigger today?
Seems to me you are a dumb shit with numbers. What does a hamburger cost today in next Tuesday's value, Wimpy?
ReplyDeleteAnd Wagner almost went off the Res being a "speaker" at the thing and got spanked and told no no - probably by Sly.
ReplyDeleteMany fly out of KC with never a intention to return, I guess they could give 2 shits less how many terminals we have here.
ReplyDeleteSam needs 3 terminals, one where his wife can meet him. Another where his girlfriend lobbyist can land and meet him later.
ReplyDeleteThey always go for the "What will it cost later" Distraction from we should not buy it now. That's like saying a Million dollar home will cost 2 Million in 20 years so let's buy it now even though we can't afford it. Don't forget, we don't have to have a new airport. The current airport does not look run down and it seems to have everything as far as equipment /facilities etc. that every other airport has. All these people want is bragging rights for building something new on their watch. Don't spend my money stroking your ego, or in Brooks case, anything.
ReplyDelete