The answer is actually to build the streetcar out even more. Streetcars are awesome, but they need to be more than a novelty, they need to serve wide areas of a city. I know KC is working on another expansion, but they should be planning 5x as many expansions longterm. The other thing the city could do is lend the money for the projects themselves. Do it at a rate lower than what's possible with banks given the fed rate. And with that, you can ask for specific things on new projects (10% of all units be made for low income rentals, 20% be sold to first time home buyers with a restricted HOA amount, etc). And the great thing is that the city ends up getting all this money back over time, so it costs them nothing in the end.
@@highway2heaven91 Honestly, having the last mile solution solved for both the major employment centers (Downtown and the Plaza) with the Streetcar makes a true regional system that much easier of a sell. having lines terminate at Union Station that could then feed out to the rest of the corridor is a great way to dispel any concern of "how will we get to our final destination if it only takes us to Union Station?"
We hate to see public transit pitted against housing affordability. New housing construction shouldn't be blocked (see what happens in San Francisco) but we need a major overhaul of how we develop in this country. Coastal cities with housing crises often provide incentives to developers in exchange for them building affordable units, such as increasing allowable density, lowering parking requirements, and bypassing some red tape. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
$500 a month with utilities what a dream. $500 to $750 seems like a huge jump in rent but how long had it been since rent had been changed? Wages have not kept up that is the huge issue!
This is not solvable by just increasing everyone's wages until they can afford outrageous rents. If the things that caused the rise in rents aren't dealt with then any increase in wages will just be devoured by rents yet again.
Except all the research shows that this is exactly true. Building more luxury housing does not address housing prices for the largest segment of the housing market.
@@cameronbateman3664 If you prevent new housing (which, yes, will be more expensive as is anything new) from being built to serve the higher ends of the market those higher ends will not simply disappear. They CAN and WILL offer to pay more than poorer renters in the housing that presently exists.
Yes it bloody does. In the short-run it takes people who were living in former housing out of those units, and same for those moving into those units that the ones moving to the new luxury units left behind, and on and on down the line. Then in the long run, the new luxury units today will be much more modestly placed within the hierarchy of available housing. There is no substitute to "build, baby, build", that is plain and simply what has to be done.@@cameronbateman3664
One would think it is that simple, but that’s not really how the data works out. To the contrary, new market rate developments often raise prices, the theory being that the amenities they bring with them makes the area more desirable and begets more expensive building in neighborhoods that are more affordable (see: old and run down) than average. The latter is important to the equation - targeting pretty good neighborhoods is simply not as profitable bc the purchase price of the property is so much more. It’s fine to build market rate housing; it’s just not enough by itself and doesn’t address affordability for the people who need it most.
Perfect is the enemy of good, we can’t sacrifice expanding an important public service that is shown to bridge the poverty gap because it brings in gentrification. If folks can be so easily pushed out by prices despite the new job opportunities and higher wages that come with new developments, maybe they don’t deserve to stay?
None of what you talking about is an equal guarantee to the people that already own their homes. Furthermore no one deserves to be pushed out of their homes due to beauracracy. Are you even from Kansas city Missouri? You all are speaking from perspective of already knowing people's situation....or you just see this city for yourselves. The people on the other side of troost have heard all the lies and promises....it's all bullshit.
The answer is actually to build the streetcar out even more. Streetcars are awesome, but they need to be more than a novelty, they need to serve wide areas of a city. I know KC is working on another expansion, but they should be planning 5x as many expansions longterm. The other thing the city could do is lend the money for the projects themselves. Do it at a rate lower than what's possible with banks given the fed rate. And with that, you can ask for specific things on new projects (10% of all units be made for low income rentals, 20% be sold to first time home buyers with a restricted HOA amount, etc). And the great thing is that the city ends up getting all this money back over time, so it costs them nothing in the end.
KC has to get a proper Light Rail system. Streetcars and buses and (God forbid) BRT need to be built too.
@@highway2heaven91 Honestly, having the last mile solution solved for both the major employment centers (Downtown and the Plaza) with the Streetcar makes a true regional system that much easier of a sell. having lines terminate at Union Station that could then feed out to the rest of the corridor is a great way to dispel any concern of "how will we get to our final destination if it only takes us to Union Station?"
We hate to see public transit pitted against housing affordability. New housing construction shouldn't be blocked (see what happens in San Francisco) but we need a major overhaul of how we develop in this country. Coastal cities with housing crises often provide incentives to developers in exchange for them building affordable units, such as increasing allowable density, lowering parking requirements, and bypassing some red tape. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
$500 a month with utilities what a dream. $500 to $750 seems like a huge jump in rent but how long had it been since rent had been changed? Wages have not kept up that is the huge issue!
This is not solvable by just increasing everyone's wages until they can afford outrageous rents. If the things that caused the rise in rents aren't dealt with then any increase in wages will just be devoured by rents yet again.
@@BIoknight000 so we simply need to add more housing units.
It freakin' better increase, I just poured tens of thousands of dollars into a house on the streetcar line for that reason 🤣
You have to build more. It's the only way to have affordable housing
The argument that no luxury housing will help make housing affordable is a dumb argument considering supply and demand.
Except all the research shows that this is exactly true. Building more luxury housing does not address housing prices for the largest segment of the housing market.
@@cameronbateman3664 If you prevent new housing (which, yes, will be more expensive as is anything new) from being built to serve the higher ends of the market those higher ends will not simply disappear. They CAN and WILL offer to pay more than poorer renters in the housing that presently exists.
Yes it bloody does. In the short-run it takes people who were living in former housing out of those units, and same for those moving into those units that the ones moving to the new luxury units left behind, and on and on down the line. Then in the long run, the new luxury units today will be much more modestly placed within the hierarchy of available housing. There is no substitute to "build, baby, build", that is plain and simply what has to be done.@@cameronbateman3664
One would think it is that simple, but that’s not really how the data works out. To the contrary, new market rate developments often raise prices, the theory being that the amenities they bring with them makes the area more desirable and begets more expensive building in neighborhoods that are more affordable (see: old and run down) than average. The latter is important to the equation - targeting pretty good neighborhoods is simply not as profitable bc the purchase price of the property is so much more.
It’s fine to build market rate housing; it’s just not enough by itself and doesn’t address affordability for the people who need it most.
And who displaced the Whites that lived there during the 50s? You know, back when Midtown and alike were pristine, developed, clean, and safe
Maybe kc can connect back to Prescott az
Perfect is the enemy of good, we can’t sacrifice expanding an important public service that is shown to bridge the poverty gap because it brings in gentrification. If folks can be so easily pushed out by prices despite the new job opportunities and higher wages that come with new developments, maybe they don’t deserve to stay?
Yes
None of what you talking about is an equal guarantee to the people that already own their homes. Furthermore no one deserves to be pushed out of their homes due to beauracracy. Are you even from Kansas city Missouri? You all are speaking from perspective of already knowing people's situation....or you just see this city for yourselves. The people on the other side of troost have heard all the lies and promises....it's all bullshit.
I lived at 3rd & Delaware in from 97-2000 30ft ceilings for $500.00 month now I here $1600.00
That ain’t right
@gmc5127 not sure what rent is now but mine was 500 but back late 9o's cause I went to Woodstock 98 while lived there
@ nah man for sure, I just mean that ain’t right the rent’s now almost 4x what it was
The crime here is terrible I wouldn’t ever live in midtown