TKC EXCLUSIVE!!! POWER AND LIGHT DISTRICT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR NICK BENJAMIN DISCUSSES THE COST OF THE DOWNTOWN RENAISSANCE!!!

Thanks to some friends of TKC and the power of the TKC READERS to bring a new level of stupid to the local discourse . . . This blog was afforded a rather gully opportunity to have a brief chat with P&L District Executive Director Nick Benjamin.

I'm going to break the report on the interview into two segments but I think his perspective on the financial situation of Downtown Kansas City is insightful.

And, since I bash the place consistently, this is the closest TKC gets to equal time.

So, here are the money quotes from the chat with Mr. Benjamin on P&L District finances:

Benjamin notes, "Coverage of the financial status of the Power & Light District is inaccurate. The District does not need subsidy from the city to survive. Our tenants are making money and The District has long term financial stability."

"The City issued $292 million in bonds, $210 million of which went towards Downtown infrastructure. Only $80 million actually went towards the construction of the Power & Light District and the private investment in the Power & Light District is significantly greater than that. The other $212 million of the bond issuance went towards the replacement of decaying infrastructure -- new streets, utilities, sidewalks, parking -- as well as land acquisition costs and other public works costs. These were expenses that the city had to incur if downtown was to remain viable."

This is important because this is the way Cordish sees their obligation to Kansas City. I respect Benjamin's point but I fundamentally disagree. It's the same argument that one of my lady friends makes to me when I pick up the tab for her meal at one of KC's many fast food establishments. She only counts her portion of the check as my expense. However, had it not been for her big booty, I wouldn't be going out to Burger King in the first place and instead would have been eating a "free" microwave Hungry Man dinner in my mom's basement.  So, while Cordish may be the beneficiary of so much Kansas City taxpayer money, the argument claims that they're not directly responsible for cash the city borrowed . . . Unfortunately, this bottom line perspective is usually ignored when it's time to vote on big money projects.

This answer effectively and rightfully put the responsibility of the decision to take on Downtown debt back on elected officials.

Benjamin continues: "Analysis of the debt service on the $292 million bond issuance and The Power & Light District is generally analyzed by the media from the narrow perspective of whether or not the sales tax produced covers the city's annual debt service obligations. The Power & Light district was not designed to operate in isolation -- it was mean to be a linchpin for a wholesale revitalization of Downtown."

Again, this is a matter of perspective but Benjamin's viewpoint is optimistic regarding the future of Downtown Kansas City.

Meanwhile, I think the world is changing, turning a delightful shade of brown and increasingly fighting over scarce resources. As for the business success of Downtown . . . My argument has always been that all of this local taxpayer supported development has yet to do Kansas City po'folk any good and impending E-Tax doom simply means an increased burden on the backs of brokeass people to support the lifestyles of movers and shakers.

Still, I'm extremely grateful that Benjamin offered his perspective. Mr. Benjamin is a good guy who is younger, better looking, better educated and much smarter TKC so it's worth taking note of his arguments. Undoubtedly, most people who are optimistic about Kansas City's future would agree with his view.

Nevertheless, this blog has been right all along about Kansas City losing revenue on the P&L District deal despite the optimistic explanations of the revenue shortfall that remains a fact of life in this cowtown.

Part II of the interview coming soon . . .