KC's bigness comes with a big cost
Mayor Sly James included lots of big numbers in last week’s budget message to Kansas Citians. The highlight was his $1 billion proposal to repair the city’s aging streets, bridges, sidewalks and neighborhoods.
But tucked inside James’ message was a much smaller number — 1,460. That’s the number of residents per square mile in Kansas City.
“We have the double whammy of having a huge amount of territory to cover in this city and low population density,” the mayor wrote.
Population density matters a great deal. It helps dictate how Kansas City will be able to attack its future infrastructure challenges.
The city must increase the number of residents who can help maintain existing streets, sewers and water lines, and help build new ones where needed. To do that, it must follow a double-pronged strategy of continuing to add homeowners and businesses in the fast-growing Northland, while pulling out all stops to halt population loss south of the Missouri River.
Kansas City’s density was one of the lowest on a list of cities prepared by the mayor. His comparisons included Cincinnati with 3,810 people per square mile; Denver with 3,923; Portland with 4,375; Minneapolis with 7,088; and Seattle with 7,251. (Closer to home, Overland Park and Olathe each have just over 2,300 people per square mile.)
The only two cities with lower densities on James’ list were Oklahoma City with 956 people per square mile, and Kansas City, Kan., 1,168.
Both Kansas City and Kansas City, Kan., in the last decade have used tax breaks to try to woo new businesses, but that ploy hasn’t attracted large numbers of new residents. Other options are limited. Neither city is going to de-annex much if any land. And neither can just close roads, shut down bridges, or stop using some sewer and water lines.
James makes the good case that Kansas City needs to maintain its public assets so the people who already live in the city will stay, and even more people will want to move here in the future.
Boosting Kansas City’s population would help pay for needed infrastructure improvements. More efficiently using current tax revenues would help, too. And, yes, spending an extra $1 billion or so also might be required in the future.
Google+
Share
Tweet
Curt A. Hodapp
3 months agoThis has always been a problem with Kansas City. Every time there is a new civic project or some type of social plan; there is jut not enough tax dollar per person to support such causes.
Kansas City needs to throttle back (a lot) on spending and also acquiring expansion of their city limits. They should only pick civic projects that have a good chance of supporting themselves over time and not pick them based on a feel good that they get.
Booker T Washington
3 months agoHave we, the Taxpayer, not seen this before? The empty promises of development at our expense. Have we not learned that these Public servants/ Officials are more than eager to spend money that is not theirs? Mayor I ask the question what is your stake in this proposal. It is easy to spend other peoples money. What can we rely upon you to ensure it was spent well. The City can not rely upon the past, to shore up an argument based upon honesty.
Kay Fox
Kansas City
3 months agoIf our elected critters had been honest about spending our money in the first place, or taken care of the business we elected them to do, we wouldn’t be in this mess. Where did our tax dollars go? The extra $500 million we spend over cities our same size?
Remember a short time ago a group from the East side wanted $4 million I think…now it’s $1 billion, nothing like thinking big, then whatever you get it’s more than you expected…or that’s what it looks like, agree?
Amazing, truly amazing. Let’s hope the voters haven’t fallen off the turnip truck…the tax burden could force some people out of their homes into homelessness for a new sidewalk and sewer system that should have been fixed already, true?