City being asked to get the ball rolling on new 20- to 60-acre retirement village

As for the shiny-new-in-a-cornfield location vs. close to downtown, there's no clear-cut answer to that. My guess is that maybe 60 or so % of young retirees (e.g. 59 - 70) might be keen on the near downtown location. But I'd bet 80% of the older ones want to be farther from the "action". This type of facility with lots of amenities also requires a big land footprint. Not sure how one would would find that close to downtown. These type of facilities do seem to be poised for growth. People want to age in place, and the continuing care concept is popular and becomming more so.

February 10, 2013 at 9:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Kansas lawmakers asked to repeal corporate farm laws

Sounds like opinion or inference, not a conclusion based on facts. Just like those on the right can insist that any entitlement program is the Lefts way of making everyone dependent on the State. Rhetoric.

January 16, 2013 at 10:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Kansas lawmakers asked to repeal corporate farm laws

I understand skepticism, but it shouldn't blind us to the possibility of getting this right, in a way that is fair. The Right is skeptical about government largess and tax and spend entitlements and the Left is skeptical about big business. The extreme skepticism of either shouldn't rule policy decisions.

January 16, 2013 at 1:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Kansas lawmakers asked to repeal corporate farm laws

Consumers ought to have choices. Shop the Merc, shop Walmart. Some families have to pinch every penny to get enough food, or to get recommended amounts of for groups, like protein. Agree that the environment must be protected and that's why pressure should be exerted to have rules in place (and/or truly effective penalties/consequences) for any entity that does demonstrable damage. It's not fair to protect a group like existing KS farmers and not let competition flourish to produce products people want to buy at a mutually agreed upon price. Think fairness and putting the right rules and incentives in place, not a law that is hurts low income consumers.

January 16, 2013 at 1:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Kansas lawmakers asked to repeal corporate farm laws

Slavery was once settled policy too.

January 16, 2013 at 1:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Kansas lawmakers asked to repeal corporate farm laws

Another view to consider: why is It necessarily good public policy to protect certain farmers from competition? Sure, we feel sorry for good people whose businesses fail because they can't compete with more efficient big businesses. Often ignored, though, are these points: regulations CAN be in place to protect the environment, animal welfare , workers, etc. Cynics, scoff away, but is IS possible. And efficient production means lower prices to consumers. Tough times out there-- I feel happy when a struggling family can pay less for groceries. That's not evil, it's a good thing .

January 16, 2013 at 9:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Costs, scope of proposed recreation center escalate

By far, the biggest need is gyms-- 5-8 or so. Indoor track, tennis courts-- do not believe these are burning needs. If they are, prove it. Common knowledge for many years that we need gyms. Build just gyms and save taxpayers the extra money and risk.

November 7, 2012 at 9:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Opinion: America’s social contract is at stake

Whiny and ascribing opinions to Romney that he doesn't actually have. How astute. Thanks for sharing.

November 4, 2012 at 2:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Opinion: America’s social contract is at stake

Completely unsupported use of the race card. What in Armstrong's comment said or implied "evil"? Kind of pathetic and desperate. I guess haters will hate.

November 4, 2012 at 2:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Opinion: America’s social contract is at stake

Oh my goodness, Bozo and I might, sort of, agree on something.

Romney is a better choice than Obama because it **seems** he is more likely to reign in the size, spending and power of the federal government. For those who see out of control Federal spending and the debt as the #1 issue (or possibly #2, next to national defense), Romney appears to be the better choice. Don't bother throwing out examples of Repubs spending irresponsibly just like Dems, everyone knows that is true. But the question is which candidate in this election is most likely to tackle the problems?

November 4, 2012 at 10:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )