Phase 2 Streetcar Funding

[Pork Chop]

Dave, if you have a chance would you mind letting us know what "streetcar+" means? Although, I may have personally missed it in the forum.

- north loop redux
- katy trail connection to KCMO (rock island ROW)
- KCATA operating and capital support

ultimately, these are the reasons i was swayed on amendment 7. they do not happen with just the TDD.

Thanks, I understand what you meant now.

All good things to have, I agree.

[lock+load]

Dave, if you have a chance would you mind letting us know what "streetcar+" means? Although, I may have personally missed it in the forum.

- north loop redux
- katy trail connection to KCMO (rock island ROW)
- KCATA operating and capital support

ultimately, these are the reasons i was swayed on amendment 7. they do not happen with just the TDD.

Thanks, I understand what you meant now.

All good things to have, I agree.

Great things to have, but Amendment 7 is not the way to pay for them. Force them to come back with a better plan with a no vote.

[KCPowercat]

options and end results:

Q-A yes, A-7 no --> streetcar
Q-A yes, A-7 yes --> streetcar+
Q-A no, A-7 yes --> no streetcar
Q-A no, A-7 no --> no streetcar

This does it for me I think but I'm still on the fence....if we get Phase2 even w/o A7 (pending fed funds obviously), I'm much less likely to vote yes on A7

[mykn]

Dave, if you have a chance would you mind letting us know what "streetcar+" means? Although, I may have personally missed it in the forum.

- north loop redux
- katy trail connection to KCMO (rock island ROW)
- KCATA operating and capital support

ultimately, these are the reasons i was swayed on amendment 7. they do not happen with just the TDD.

Do you have any additional info on the north loop changes?

[TheBigChuckbowski]

options and end results:

Q-A yes, A-7 no --> streetcar
Q-A yes, A-7 yes --> streetcar+
Q-A no, A-7 yes --> no streetcar
Q-A no, A-7 no --> no streetcar

That's why I'm not voting yes. We can't let that outcome happen. Any potential benefits we might see with the streetcar don't outweigh that huge negative.

Do you have any additional info on the north loop changes?

Would love to see that is as well. It is possible to make the north loop worse and I don't really trust MODOT to not do that.

[KCPowercat]

My thought (and this is getting off topic of Phase 2 Streetcar funding) is that MoDot needs maintenance done on a large scale....the sales tax fails, maybe they come back with a plan that includes gas tax or tolls are part of the package.

[loftguy]

Just a reminder that using your vote as a manner of protest, or to maybe make 'something else happen', is exactly how we ended up with Mark Funkhouser as Mayor.

Use your vote specifically to approve or disapprove the offering.

If you want something else to happen, go to work and lobby the appropriate parties and get everyone you can to do the same.

Unintended consequences are a bitch to live with.

[DaveKCMO]

"sending a message" also left the city with a 2006 light rail plan it could not implement. i freely admit to voting yes on it for that reason, but it cost taxpayers real money to study it, dismantle it, hold elections to replace it, then several years defending those actions in court.

would we be at this point now without it? no one knows for sure, but it was an expensive lesson.

[kboish]

Just a reminder that using your vote as a manner of protest, or to maybe make 'something else happen', is exactly how we ended up with Mark Funkhouser as Mayor.

Use your vote specifically to approve or disapprove the offering.

If you want something else to happen, go to work and lobby the appropriate parties and get everyone you can to do the same.

Unintended consequences are a bitch to live with.

This is becoming my opinion. A "no" vote on Amendment 7 isn't a "yes" vote for something else...becuase nothing else is on the table. Additionally, the state of Missouri has already voted "no" on the alternative methods that people believe are "better" than what is on the table...so there really isn't an alternative that the state is holding back and will bring to the table if people vote no on this. For these reasons I think I'm voting yes for both amendment 7 and prop A

Question---Is there any time limit/restrictions on when the state can bring another transportation funding vote if this one is defeated?

[lock+load]

Why should average Missouri residents pay for an expanded I-70 every time they shop, yet the trucks that create the congestion and wear out the roads don't pay a cent? They shouldn't. You'r right a no vote isn't a yes for something else, it is a No on this bad plan.

Don't vote yes just because a better plan has not been put out there yet.

[flyingember]

Why should average Missouri residents pay for an expanded I-70 every time they shop, yet the trucks that create the congestion and wear out the roads don't pay a cent? They shouldn't. You'r right a no vote isn't a yes for something else, it is a No on this bad plan.

Don't vote yes just because a better plan has not been put out there yet.

My hunch is this is going to be a big part of the no vote

A moderate gas tax for roads, a small toll for i70 and a sales tax for everything else mix would be a super easy sell.

[KCtoBrooklyn]

A Business Journal article on the progress of the development at 1914 Main also includes an interesting tease about potential projects by the same developer along Phase 2 lines:

Richardson said his firm had already made an offer on a Midtown property that would be served by the Main Street extension. If voters within the proposed TDD vote to create it Aug. 5 and vote Nov. 4 to implement a sales tax and property assessments to support the expansion, Linden Street Partners will consider transit-oriented developments along all three new routes, Richardson said.

[DaveKCMO]

a message from the mayor about streetcars and economic development:

http://www.connect-kc.com/findingthesilverbullet

Furthermore, studies affirm that rail projects, like streetcar, positively impact property values. That is not a soundbyte and it’s not opinion - it’s fact based on research that found rail transit enhances property values by increasing connectivity and the propensity for property around rail transit investments to be developed.

[DaveKCMO]

http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/ne ... 20654.html

The phone survey of 961 people was weighted to reflect the demographic breakdown of voters in the proposed district.

The polling firm says a majority of African American voters surveyed supports the plan, while a majority of white voters it surveyed is opposed. Support for the streetcar is strongest among young voters, who are traditionally less likely to vote.

[bobbyhawks]

http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/ne ... 20654.html

The phone survey of 961 people was weighted to reflect the demographic breakdown of voters in the proposed district.

The polling firm says a majority of African American voters surveyed supports the plan, while a majority of white voters it surveyed is opposed. Support for the streetcar is strongest among young voters, who are traditionally less likely to vote.

Sorry, but "a majority of white voters it surveyed is opposed?"

Is our children learning?

[phuqueue]

The subject, "majority," is singular, not plural. The verb agrees with the subject, not with the prepositional phrase. In the previous clause the writer also (correctly) used the singular "supports" rather than the plural "support" in reference to "a majority of African American voters."

"Majority" being a collective noun, some dialects (for instance, in the UK) would conjugate in the plural in some contexts (probably in this one). In the US we virtually always conjugate for a singular collective noun in the singular.

Yay grammar.

[bobbyhawks]

The subject, "majority," is singular, not plural. The verb agrees with the subject, not with the prepositional phrase. In the previous clause the writer also (correctly) used the singular "supports" rather than the plural "support" in reference to "a majority of African American voters."

"Majority" being a collective noun, some dialects (for instance, in the UK) would conjugate in the plural in some contexts (probably in this one). In the US we virtually always conjugate for a singular collective noun in the singular.

Yay grammar.

Virtually always is not always. As with all things in the English language, people tend to disagree on where to draw the line. I found a number of sources explaining the American English use of collective nouns such as "majority," and not all of them agree! I took it to mean that the opposition is occurring based on individual positions, rather than a single united entity. Not all white voters were opposed.

Majority is or are?
"Many words that mean a group of things — total, majority, and number, for example — can be singular or plural. Sometimes they mean the group acting as a whole, sometimes the members of a group.

"As with the other two-faced words, ask yourself whether you are thinking of the whole or the parts. A little hint: The before the word (the total, the majority) is usually a tip-off that it's singular; while a (a total, a number), especially when of comes after, usually indicates a plural.

[Examples:] The majority is in charge. Still, a majority of voters are unhappy" (O'Conner, Woe Is I 26).

http://www.drgrammar.org/frequently-asked-questions#71

Also, a more in depth post about the differences: http://separatedbyacommonlanguage.blogs ... ement.html

[phuqueue]

I took it to mean that the opposition is occurring based on individual positions, rather than a single united entity. Not all white voters were opposed.

The distinction between members of a group acting collectively as a group or individually within the group is one that exists in the UK, but that is rare at best in America. It's clear that "not all white voters" were opposed. A majority was ("were") opposed. This is explicit by the words themselves, notwithstanding your choice of conjugation. "All" is not distinguished from "majority" by the use of is/are, it's distinguished by the use of "majority" rather than "all."

Your first link doesn't say anything about the UK/US distinction (and its example sentence -- "a majority of voters are unhappy" -- is somewhat unpersuasive, insofar as people frequently incorrectly make their verbs agree with the object of the preposition rather than the subject; its "are" should agree with "majority" but we can't rely on this example unless we know that the writer didn't mistakenly intend to agree with "voters" instead) and your second one says exactly that: "Thus BrE allows a distinction between (a) and (b) below, while (b) would sound more awkward in AmE ... Thus, AmE speakers tend to avoid sentences like (b) and to rephrase them..." In support of the opposing view it only cites a now non-existent page on the CUNY writing center website (a towering authority if there ever was one) that basically just prescribes the British rule (which the page acknowledges further down "would sound more awkward" to Americans).

That isn't to say that you're completely and 100% wrong, just that it's a pretty dumb thing to call out in the first place. "Virtually always is not always" is technically true but is an underwhelming argument when you're the one nitpicking the Star's grammar -- because the writer used the construction that is virtually always (seems like you are tacitly conceding this point), but not necessarily always always, used in America?

This is a pretty bad conversation to have in a streetcar thread, probably should have just kept my mouth shut.

(edited for a little further clarification)

[mean]

So at this point I think I'm going to surprise myself from last week and vote yes on both. I don't love 7 at all, but I've come around to the idea that dismissing something that should do lots of really great stuff for the metro in the hopes that some potential future proposal will be closer to my vision of perfection is ultimately not the best possible use of my vote.

[bobbyhawks]

So at this point I think I'm going to surprise myself from last week and vote yes on both. I don't love 7 at all, but I've come around to the idea that dismissing something that should do lots of really great stuff for the metro in the hopes that some potential future proposal will be closer to my vision of perfection is ultimately not the best possible use of my vote.

I think it has been mentioned before, but I'm with those who have been back and forth on this issue. I hate to vote for something because we have set the bar too low, but that may be the nautre of our current voting system. We are lead to vote most often based on what will (or won't) happen if the alternative transpires (or results in inaction). Perhaps that is really what compromise entails in democracy. Sure, we can pay for things we want, but perhaps we have to agree to raise funds in a way that isn't our first choice. It is easy to fall victim to the same all-or-nothing, our way or no way rhetoric that is pervasive in the media and in politics.