Wednesday, June 28, 2017

TKC QUESTION: IS KANSAS CITY DUMB ENOUGH TO HAND OVER AIRPORT REVENUE TO LOCAL CORPORATE RULERS?!?!



The ruling elite are attempting to legally hijack Kansas City's airport and garner all the revenue for themselves.

Meanwhile, most Kansas City news outlets are too scared to challenge Mayor Sly and local CEOs on the question to turn the airport into a corporate welfare operation.

And so, some dramatic rhetorical talking points have already been put forward but now are thankfully confronting a challenge . . .

Money quote from 4th District At-Large Council Lady Katy Shields: "I don't want us caught up in a false premise that we have to go private because our citizens are so lacking in their understanding of civics that they don't understand airport revenue bonds . . ."

Here's what that really means . . .

NO, KANSAS CITY IS NOT GETTING A "FREE" AIRPORT . . . CORPORATIONS JUST WANT TO STEAL REVENUE AND LEAVE TAXPAYERS WITH THE BILL!!!

Of course there's more to it than that but a healthy distrust of biz people asking for handouts is always a good thing.

Check the round-up:

KC BIZ JOURNAL: KCI terminal financing debate's latest focus: voter intellect

NEWSPAPER: Public vs. private financing for KCI? Officials say the details will count

NORTHEAST NEWS: Joint Council committee convenes for airport conversation

You decide . . .

23 Comments:

Anonymous said...

Sly and his buddies need another paycheck. What's so hard to understand?

Anonymous said...

I think the public knows that anything Sylvester wants is bad for Kansas City.

Retro ROCKER said...

I will use the airport A, vary little I will take the ROCK AND ROLL TOUR BUS OR AMTRAK. OR THE CONTINENTAL.

Anonymous said...

removal the airport. anything else is graft and stupid.

Anonymous said...

Legal fees set to double as KC Council debates KCI Airport modernization.

Council committee supports increased legal fees for ongoing KCI review. The Star


Woo hoo local favorite lawyers just got a raise!

Anonymous said...

Yes.

Anonymous said...

There'll be so many tourists flying into KCI to enjoy the new "airport experience" that there'll be so much money pouring into the city it won't be possible to count it all.
Sort of like electricity from nuclear power plants being too cheap to monitor.
This charade has been one game of "what shell is the pea under today" from the start.
Looks like the plan now is to make the process so convoluted that the poor confused council won't be able to figure out what they're even voting on.
But you can be sure that if this proposal could have stood on its merits, this would not have been all this difficult.

Anonymous said...

Sylvester is Nothing more than a yard ape for Burns & McDouche

Anonymous said...

That's not really what she's saying but as someone said here a few days ago I don't have the time or the crayons to explain it to you.

And yes this is a racial issue. Of course it is. I

Anonymous said...

John Murphy, Shook Hardy lawyer, is an idiot! Didn't he hire Jolie Justus?? Idiot!!!!

Anonymous said...

is it possible to survey flyers in principal cities such as chicago and new york and see how many will fly to kansas city to have dinner at the new kci food court or shop for unique regional products?

Anonymous said...

shields is right.

an independent financial expert is needed to advise the city council and validate the financing strategy.

Jonsie said...

+1 ^^^^^

Time to really explain this mess beyond the hype.

Anonymous said...

Jolie is a lesbian muffdiver

Anonymous said...

The public or private debt debate is a red herring. The relevant question is whether airport usage will increase to the point that enplanement fees generate enough revenue to pay the debt, along with all the other day-to-day obligations. If it's private debt the lenders will presumably require the terminal as collateral and/or require the city provide a general fund guaranty. Banks and investors don't send money out their doors without a back-up plan for getting repaid. If it's public debt, the market will presumably also demand a general fund guaranty. Either way, it all works as planned only if the airport grows as expected. I keep hearing that the airlines will pay for everything. The airlines are businesses, not the public's friends. They're not going to cover any shortfall. They wouldn't do that even if they had a contract that required it. They know that if push comes to shove and they threaten to cut back or leave altogether the city will come to their rescue. It always comes back to the same place. At the end of the day kansas city residents will be guaranteeing this debt, one way or another. Pray the airport thrives.

Crazy Clown said...

Fraud & Corruption to the Core, followed up with lies & Rhetoric and a ton of utter bullshit from the KCMO Naïve city hall idiots !

The local YOUNG Clueless Naïve Liberal news media reporters & Anchors are too naïve, inept & incompetent to tackle any real serious questioning of these idiots !

Liberals, the Cockroaches & Termites to Society !!!

Anonymous said...

Why don't you say Something about corporate power for a change. We know partizan please Politics is a scam. Taking Byron's bait for the past three years has accomplished nothing but looting of the city Treasury.

Anonymous said...

Whether a new airport terminal is publicly financed, privately financed, or never built, the airport revenue doesn't go anywhere but the airport. Even though the City 'owns' the airport it is basically a completely separate business that really has nothing to do with the City. In addition, the way the leases for the airlines work is airport revenue is a zero sum game, the airport can't magically generate an extra $100 million in revenue over their expenses that could then be used to pay for police, streets, sewers or schools, the amount the airlines pay for rent and landing fees is set based on what the airport costs.

Anonymous said...

Buy your new car from Ernie Frye Ford...buy your new car from Ernie Frye Ford...buy your new car from Ernie Frye Ford...

Anonymous said...

8:49 The city has "borrowed" from the airport fund. In addition while funds may stay with the airport what happens if airport revenue doesn't cover bond payments? If they raise fees too high on airlines some may exit MCI. At that point the city would be forced to use general fund revenue to pay off the bonds even if not legally required to. Would they let bondholders foreclose on the airport?

Hyperblogal said...

I understand revenue bonds. I also understand huge amounts of debt which the city seems determined to incur. We're into billions already.

Anonymous said...

9:34 - Kansas City is the 27th largest metropolitan area in the country with no nearby alternative airport, the passengers are there and the airlines will continue to be there. The top 4 airlines carry 91% of the passengers at KCI, none of the top 4 airlines are exiting the 27th largest metropolitan area. To claim building a new terminal that the airlines are asking for is somehow going to cost so much it will result in the airlines leaving is nonsense.

9:41 - You don't seem to understand that the billions for sewers, streets, and sidewalks have nothing to do with the airport because you brought it up again.

Anonymous said...

6/28/17, 9:37 PM
shields is right.

an independent financial expert is needed to advise the city council and validate the financing strategy.

Agree. This is above Randy Landis' paygrade. If he and Troy had those skills they'd be making 3X their current salaries.