A $500 million plan to replace the nuclear weapons plant at the Bannister Federal Complex has thrust Kansas City into the national debate on the future of such armaments.
Development proposals were received last month by the federal agency in charge of building a new 1.4 million-square-foot facility for Honeywell Federal Manufacturing & Technologies. A decision is expected in August. The site is now a soybean field northwest of Missouri 150 and Botts Road.
For supporters, including the local congressional delegation and city officials, it would keep the plant’s benefit to the area economy flowing. The privately built facility would retain 2,100 skilled jobs and, for the first time, generate $5.2 million annually in property taxes.
It also would continue Kansas City’s role in a national nuclear weapons manufacturing network dating to the dawn of the Cold War. There had been serious discussions about closing the plant and consolidating it with another facility.
“The existing facility is now 65 years old and is becoming increasingly expensive to operate and maintain,” said Mark Holecek, deputy site manager for the National Nuclear Security Administration.
“Also, it’s about three times larger than is needed to meet current and anticipated demands of the nuclear weapons stockpile.”
That’s where the national policy debate comes into play. Just what those demands for nuclear weapons will be in the 21st century remains an open question.
In March, the House and Senate Armed Services committees established a bipartisan commission led by former secretary of defense William Perry to assess the appropriate role of nuclear weapons in the nation’s strategic military policy and report its recommendations to Congress and President Bush in December.
By then, the federal General Services Administration wants to be well under way on design and construction of the Kansas City project.
Critics say it makes no sense to build a costly new plant when the requirements of the U.S. nuclear arsenal remain unclear. They also think federal environmental laws were skirted in deciding to proceed with the Kansas City project.
“My main concern is that to start building facilities when we don’t know what the new president would want is like putting the cart before the horse,” said William Hartung of the Washington-based New America Foundation.
The policy debate is not expected to be limited to Washington, D.C.
The GSA development plan calls for using $11.8 million in local property tax abatements to help pay for new highway interchanges for Botts and Thunderbird roads to serve the increased traffic. Another $4.7 million is being sought in direct capital improvement funding from the city.
That assistance will require the approval of the Kansas City Council, and nuclear disarmament advocates say they will be there to object. The proposal is expected to reach City Hall by late June or July. The Planned Industrial Expansion Authority, a local development agency, approved a blight study and general development plan April 18, the first step toward qualifying it for tax incentives.
“We’re definitely opposed to city tax incentives,” said Donna Constantineau of PeaceWorks KC. “It’s irresponsible to build a new $500 million Kansas City plant for the procurement of 85 percent of all the components that constitute a nuclear weapon.”
Leaseback plan
The Bannister facility was built in 1943 to make warplane engines and was converted after World War II to manufacturing nuclear weapon parts. Honeywell and its predecessors, AlliedSignal Inc. and Bendix Corp., have operated the plant since 1949.
Join the discussion
Share your observations and experiences about news. Lively, open debate is the goal, but please refrain from personal attacks or comments that are racist, vulgar or otherwise inappropriate. If you see an inappropriate comment, please click the "Report as violation" link to notify a KansasCity.com editor. Thanks for your feedback.