Wednesday, March 01, 2017

TKC EXCLUSIVE AND BREAKING NEWS!!! KANSAS CITY QUESTION 3 SUPPORTER: DON'T LET INNER CITY GO TO THE DOGS!!!



Check this response to recent criticism of Kansas City Question 3 amid overall GO Bond frustration throughout many local neighborhoods and a MASSIVE surrender of local critters to a local animal shelter today . . .

"I don't understand people criticizing Question 3 because they think the facilities will be "too nice" for the animals. First of all, we should always strive to behave and act humanely toward our pets. Secondly, the critics don't seem to realize that the shelter will benefit the community overall. Dogs are often illegally dumped in our 3rd District and this shelter will help address that problem. More than any of the other issues on the ballot, Question 3 helps establish a real resource for our community and will improve blight and one of many dangerous circumstances on our streets. I have my problems with the other 2 questions but building a facility to help deal with all of these stray dogs running around is in the best interest of the 3rd District."

Real talk, while we appreciate the note one campaign strategy imperative is clear to other otherwise insulated echo chamber of Kansas City doggie advocates . . .

QUESTION 3 ANIMAL LOVERS MUST GET OUT OF THEIR COMFORT ZONE & CONVINCE THE URBAN CORE ABOUT COMMUNITY BENEFITS OF A NEW ANIMAL SHELTER IF THEY WANT VOTES!!!

This April 4th ballot issue is the ONLY item that has real grass roots support and it's not impossible to make a worthwhile argument int it's favor to inner city residents . . . But it will require a real conversation betwixt animal lovers and urban core denizens in order to sell the idea that helps both people and pets.

Developing . . .

17 Comments:

Anonymous said...

The shelter does have a lot of support. I'm just afraid it will get lost in the mix of all these projects.

Hyperblogal said...

I will not vote for a blank check for 20 years. The resolution that governs this and mentions the animal shelter is NON-BINDING. Don't be fooled.

Anonymous said...

This is not for suffering KC dogs. This is for corrupt and overfed KC hogs.

Anonymous said...

The problem is a modest one would cost $14 million but no we have to have a Taj Mahal at $24 million. The average value of a house in the 3rd district is $35,000. So the outside contribution of $10 million should be used for the basic model. Not Taj Mahal model. The poor people understand they aren't going to pay better living conditions than they have. Vote NO on 3 questions. Because Burns & McDonnell, J.E. Dunn, Cerner, Cordish, H&R Block are not paying.

Anonymous said...

Kansas City Pet Project is PRIVATELY owned, not city funded. Why should the taxpayers agree to pay for a new building inside of Swope Park for a privately owned business?

The Pat Project does do good things for lost, dumped and mistreated animals.

Why is Slie giving away more and more of Swope Park? He gave away the land for the Soccer Village at 63rd and Lewis Drive. Kansas City pays workers to mow that area, not Sporting KC who owns the Soccer Village. Why is so much PUBLIC park land being given away? What's Slie James up to, besides no good?

Anonymous said...

I like animals. Chicken is especially tasty!

Anonymous said...

"Kansas City Pet Project is PRIVATELY owned, not city funded."

This is incorrect. Kansas City Pet Project is a non profit entity that has contracted WITH your city to handle the pet homelessness it's tax payers are responsible for. A large percentage of the organizational operating budget is provided for as a city function.

Anonymous said...

^^^^ Yes. And it's important to note that the new shelter building will always be owned by the city of Kansas City. KC Pet Project will then continue to operate it.

As for the Taj Mahal comments, no one who lives in a $35,000 home in KC takes 10,000 animals a year into their home on behalf of the city. The shelter project is in-line with what other similarly sized communities have need to service the animals in their community.

And Hyperglobal, as long as the animal shelter is specifically mentioned in the ballot language the money MUST go to that cause. So the shelter will be funded....but if something is promised and not in the ballot language there are no guarantees.

Retro ROCKER said...

Citizens are fed up with rising taxes they will try every trick in the book if you add up all the money you paid in taxes over the past 25 to 30 year and saved half you may not need to wine about the paltry social security check or you could be living in the Million Dollar condominium at the BMA,building or a summer home in the Rockies

Retro ROCKER said...

Every time you increase taxes you take money out of the economy much of the tax money is going into the insolvent pension fund you are paying for a government worker's retirement

Anonymous said...

KC Pet Project is a not for profit IT IS NOT CITY OWNED. We are being asked to pay tax money to be GIVEN to a not for profit corporation. That means that it can give anyone who donates a TAX DEDUCTION. Give them a tax deduction not a TAX.

Anonymous said...

The tax money will build a Kansas City owned building that Kansas City Pet Project will continue to operate for them as the third largest no kill animal shelter in the entire US. Your tax dollars will build a homeless animal shelter that your city will own.
I would respond to the rest of your comments but they don't even make sense.

Anonymous said...

The dreamers and schemers for the animal shelter are tugging at our heartstrings, hoping to pull us into their net. KCMO is the Switch & Bait capitol of the area. Nothing the planners promise will actually happen.

Anonymous said...

If they gave a shit about those dogs they would not be locking them up in that shot hole KC.

Anonymous said...

I'd much rather my tax dollars go to support innocent animals than the majority of humans on the public dole. At least the animals are spayed/neutered. The same should be done to the people that crank out kids and can't afford them.

Anonymous said...

Yes and let's be honest. Question 3 can pass on its own if you vote no on everything else

Anonymous said...

Don't let inner city go to the dogs? Why not?

It's already gone to the nogs!!!