I do not consider Kansas City a sun belt city.
I agree 100%. No part of MO is in the Sun Belt. Here is what would be in the Sun Belt: SoCal, NV, AZ, NM, CO, UT, TX, GA, FL and NC. Technically, in a strictly geographical sense, LA, MS, AL and SC would be 'Sun Belt states', too, but let's not fool ourselves here.
South Carolina is definitely more of a Sun Belt state than New Mexico is
That's a good point. I guess these'd be the Sun Belt states then:
CA is Undecided because parts of SoCal are in the Sun Belt but much of the state (such as the Bay Area) is not.
ID is Undecided because it's geographically much further to the north than the other Sun Belt states but is similar in that it's growing very rapidly. KS is a more moderate example of this - further south, but also growing less rapidly.
Growth patterns in Nashville, Northwest Arkansas, both metro areas in Oklahoma, and Hunstville/Mobile are pretty "sunbelt."
Really though the term isn't really best used as a classification in this way--it's imprecise shorthand for "rapidly growing postwar metroes in a nice climate" which has its place but shouldn't be endlessly debated over because it's a fuzzy term, even more so than most American regional divisions.
I don't know Kansas City super well to say, but there absolutely cities which are missing the "nice climate" part of the equation but which bear a strong resemblance to typical "sunbelt" cities otherwise--I'm thinking especially of Columbus here.
Horrific city lines are also a clear indicator of being a sun belt city so Columbus is definitely one.
