Three of the four Kansas City television stations host weather blogs. KMBC hosts separate blogs for each meteorologist, while KSHB and WDAF provide community weather blogs updated periodically by the whole weather team. Both stations promote their blogs heavily during their newscasts.
A battle seems to be in full swing between the two main blogs, although it appears to be fueled by the readers more than the stations themselves. KSHB and WDAF each have very different philosophies for their offerings, but both focus on providing background and interesting information about their forecasts and weather science in general.
The biggest difference is that KSHB updates their blog religiously, several times a day. WDAF is less diligent, often going a day or two without an update. It seems that all of the meteorologists at KSHB post regularly, while only some of the team members at WDAF post entries.
The staff at KSHB is very interactive, often commenting on nearly every single post. The forecasters at WDAF rarely provide comments other than their primary entries.
What makes for the most interesting reading are the comments. KSHB is very warm and fuzzy. It appears that readers are not allowed to make inflammatory comments, insult or even question the forecasters, so most of the posts as just feel good comments or patronizing compliments to the airstaff.
Since WDAF has no such rules of decorum, posters daily take the forecasters to task for their blown or inconsistent forecasts or for making statements that don’t turn out to be accurate. Mike Thompson has been repeatedly grilled for nearly two months for saying in early January that the ‘worst of winter is behind us’. Never mind the fact that he never actually made that statement. Many days this blog is not for the faint of heart.
All of the buzz seems to be focused on these two stations, who are routinely number 3 and 4 in the evening news ratings. Maybe it’s because Gary Lezak is a former WDAF alum, or maybe the teams just don’t like each other. Either way, they both provide some interesting reading.
-JNN
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Monday, February 25, 2008
Didn’t see this coming?
Is anyone surprised that Kansas City Mayor Mark Funkhouser and the City Council are struggling to balance the city budget for the coming fiscal year?
After reading today’s article in the Star, I was surprised by not only the amount of the deficit but by the amount of ‘fixed’ expenses that are essentially untouchable.
Out of a reported total budget of $1.3 billion, only about $950 million is supported by general tax revenues. The rest is supported by user fees earmarked for specific services.
$109 million goes toward paying for debt service, most of which is likely for retirement of bond indebtedness. A whopping $88 million goes towards TIF commitments. That leaves $753 million. The Star article claims that only about $100 million is subject to modification. By my calculation that leaves $653 million, or roughly 68% of the budget that is untouchable by virtue of being part of initiatives that were mandated by voters or state law.
Here’s the problem. As mentioned, discretionary spending is $100 million. The projected budget shortfall is around $70 million. I’d say that leaves city officials in a pickle.
City Manager Wayne Cauthen has proposed a plan which would, in essence, wipe out a one-time revenue windfall, and would still require about $34 million in departmental budget cuts.
Does it strike anyone as odd that Funkhouser appears to be surprised by the financial situation? Would one not think that the guy who sat in the city auditor’s chair for over a decade would have a handle on the books? I realize he’s not the budget guru, but you don’t become the ‘auditor of the century’ without having some idea as to the ebb and flow of finances around the shop.
Kansas City is facing a daunting task. There is no easy answer. Short of emptying the piggy-bank for a one year fix, officials are faced with either drastic expense reductions which will undoubtedly reduce city services, or will be forced to go hat in hand to the voters to ask for a tax increase. Neither will likely be well received by residents.
Today is the day elected officials must atone for past indiscretions. This budget should serve as evidence that Funkhouser was right about the need for TIF reforms. Fiscal restraint appears not to have been a high priority for the previous administration, and unfortunately the taxpayers and citizens of Kansas City will pay the price for that.
After reading today’s article in the Star, I was surprised by not only the amount of the deficit but by the amount of ‘fixed’ expenses that are essentially untouchable.
Out of a reported total budget of $1.3 billion, only about $950 million is supported by general tax revenues. The rest is supported by user fees earmarked for specific services.
$109 million goes toward paying for debt service, most of which is likely for retirement of bond indebtedness. A whopping $88 million goes towards TIF commitments. That leaves $753 million. The Star article claims that only about $100 million is subject to modification. By my calculation that leaves $653 million, or roughly 68% of the budget that is untouchable by virtue of being part of initiatives that were mandated by voters or state law.
Here’s the problem. As mentioned, discretionary spending is $100 million. The projected budget shortfall is around $70 million. I’d say that leaves city officials in a pickle.
City Manager Wayne Cauthen has proposed a plan which would, in essence, wipe out a one-time revenue windfall, and would still require about $34 million in departmental budget cuts.
Does it strike anyone as odd that Funkhouser appears to be surprised by the financial situation? Would one not think that the guy who sat in the city auditor’s chair for over a decade would have a handle on the books? I realize he’s not the budget guru, but you don’t become the ‘auditor of the century’ without having some idea as to the ebb and flow of finances around the shop.
Kansas City is facing a daunting task. There is no easy answer. Short of emptying the piggy-bank for a one year fix, officials are faced with either drastic expense reductions which will undoubtedly reduce city services, or will be forced to go hat in hand to the voters to ask for a tax increase. Neither will likely be well received by residents.
Today is the day elected officials must atone for past indiscretions. This budget should serve as evidence that Funkhouser was right about the need for TIF reforms. Fiscal restraint appears not to have been a high priority for the previous administration, and unfortunately the taxpayers and citizens of Kansas City will pay the price for that.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
What's up with Chiefs ticket prices?
News stories circulated last week about a major increase in Chiefs season ticket prices for club level seats. Ostensibly the Chiefs claim that the "New" Arrowhead will include a major upgrade to the club level. After renovation, the concourse area is supposed to be completely weather enclosed. They're providing windows to the parking lot area, I guess so you can watch all the crazy tailgaters and traffic jams after the game. The new space is supposed to contain bars, restaurants, seating areas and big screen televisions, making the whole concourse into one big Arrowhead Club.
This all sounds wonderful, and I would think it would be a well spent portion of the $400 Million plus that Jackson County taxpayers were asked to pony up for stadium renovations.
Now for the kicker. Apparently the Chiefs have started contacting club level season ticket holders, advising them that in order to keep their tickets they need to sign a long term commitment. Season pricing for one "sideline select" seat goes from $1,100 in 2008 progressively up to $2,700 in 2011!
This has got to be a slap in the face for many season ticket holders. As a former club level holder myself, I know many of those customers have had their seats for 20 or 30 years. Club level was never cheap, but it looks like it will end up beyond the reach of most Chiefs fans.
Consider it this way... assume Marvin has an annual household income of $100,000. I realize this is far above average for KC, but let's assume this is the sort of person who would buy club level seats. In 2008, two tickets and a parking pass will set Marvin back about $2,420, or roughly 2.4% of his income. A fairly high price to pay for a 4-12 football team, but probably not out of line for other NFL venues. Fast forward to the year 2011, when the same package will cost $5,620 even before any parking increases. This is 5.6% of Marvin's income. I don't know too many individuals who are willing to part with that big of a chunk of their earnings to watch a team that has been mediocre at best for the past 10 years.
By contrast, for the average Kansas Citian let's assume a blended average household income of $50,000. You can pick up two "Upper Level Red Reserve" seats plus parking for about $1,400 or 2.8% of income, roughly the same percentage that the upper crust folks in the gold seats are paying today. You just don't get to enjoy the 'lounge' atmosphere, and have to put up with raindrops on your head.
I have to wonder what the strategy play is here for the Chiefs. Are they trying to clear out the club level to sell the seats to corporate clients? Do they really think the average seat holder will pay more than double just to have a nice place to warm up? The argument that they need to recover the cost of improvements rings hollow in light of the taxpayer funded work that will create the space in the first place.
-JNN
This all sounds wonderful, and I would think it would be a well spent portion of the $400 Million plus that Jackson County taxpayers were asked to pony up for stadium renovations.
Now for the kicker. Apparently the Chiefs have started contacting club level season ticket holders, advising them that in order to keep their tickets they need to sign a long term commitment. Season pricing for one "sideline select" seat goes from $1,100 in 2008 progressively up to $2,700 in 2011!
This has got to be a slap in the face for many season ticket holders. As a former club level holder myself, I know many of those customers have had their seats for 20 or 30 years. Club level was never cheap, but it looks like it will end up beyond the reach of most Chiefs fans.
Consider it this way... assume Marvin has an annual household income of $100,000. I realize this is far above average for KC, but let's assume this is the sort of person who would buy club level seats. In 2008, two tickets and a parking pass will set Marvin back about $2,420, or roughly 2.4% of his income. A fairly high price to pay for a 4-12 football team, but probably not out of line for other NFL venues. Fast forward to the year 2011, when the same package will cost $5,620 even before any parking increases. This is 5.6% of Marvin's income. I don't know too many individuals who are willing to part with that big of a chunk of their earnings to watch a team that has been mediocre at best for the past 10 years.
By contrast, for the average Kansas Citian let's assume a blended average household income of $50,000. You can pick up two "Upper Level Red Reserve" seats plus parking for about $1,400 or 2.8% of income, roughly the same percentage that the upper crust folks in the gold seats are paying today. You just don't get to enjoy the 'lounge' atmosphere, and have to put up with raindrops on your head.
I have to wonder what the strategy play is here for the Chiefs. Are they trying to clear out the club level to sell the seats to corporate clients? Do they really think the average seat holder will pay more than double just to have a nice place to warm up? The argument that they need to recover the cost of improvements rings hollow in light of the taxpayer funded work that will create the space in the first place.
-JNN
Welcome to J. Newton Numbskull's Ramblings
J. Newton Numbskull is an average guy, born and raised in the Greater Kansas City area, now middle aged and nestled comfortably in a KC suburb.
J. Newton works in management for a national company and has past experience with local politics and government, both of which helped to develop the unique perspective he brings to local news and events.
As for politics, J. Newton doesn't lean strongly in either direction, and probably shares what would be labeled a "populist" viewpoint. From a financial perspective he abhors the misappropriation and waste of tax dollars that politicians seem to live for. Socially he believes that people should be allowed to do pretty much what they wish, at least in relation to their own bodies, relationships, hobbies and pursuits.
For those interested, "J. Newton Numbskull" was a character portrayed by Red Skelton in the 1946 film Ziegfield Follies. He just likes the name and thought it was an appropriate nom de plume for the commentary that yet another blog brings to the internet.
The daily musings and ramblings are provided for your enjoyment. Feel free to add your commentary as well. Although anonymous commentary is allowed, please instead try to use the Name function to at least provide a handle to make replying to comments easier.
J. Newton works in management for a national company and has past experience with local politics and government, both of which helped to develop the unique perspective he brings to local news and events.
As for politics, J. Newton doesn't lean strongly in either direction, and probably shares what would be labeled a "populist" viewpoint. From a financial perspective he abhors the misappropriation and waste of tax dollars that politicians seem to live for. Socially he believes that people should be allowed to do pretty much what they wish, at least in relation to their own bodies, relationships, hobbies and pursuits.
For those interested, "J. Newton Numbskull" was a character portrayed by Red Skelton in the 1946 film Ziegfield Follies. He just likes the name and thought it was an appropriate nom de plume for the commentary that yet another blog brings to the internet.
The daily musings and ramblings are provided for your enjoyment. Feel free to add your commentary as well. Although anonymous commentary is allowed, please instead try to use the Name function to at least provide a handle to make replying to comments easier.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
