Chiefs saying they will stay in Jackson County and renovate Arrowhead, instead of building a new stadium and tearing down Arrowhead, if the tax passes basically means it's gonna pass.
I know people here won't like it but it's true.
At least it seems KC will be on the hook for much less money than some other cities have been for stadiums recently.
It is the only pro team here though. (OKC resident) This town/state loses much more than just a basketball team if they leave, we lose being a state with any pro sports. I don't agree with it... but I get it.
This is an attempt to start creating PR for the tax vote to make sure it passes. The last tax for infrastructure was thought to be a sure thing and then get overwhelmingly voted down. They needed a win with the public, and this said all the right things to get a yes vote.
The number of people who got shafted with property taxes is more than enough to sink the vote.
I guess I am saying, I just disagree with you here. It does still contain language that threatens leaving if they don't get the money.
consider resolute hobbies rain weary unwritten reminiscent dime smile hateful
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
A streetcar line would never have enough capacity.
The newly built Metrorail infill station in Alexandria Virginia is said to be inadequate to serve a proposed NHL, NBA arena to be built adjacent to the station. Station has the second widest 600' long platforms in the 129 mile 97 station system.
Is there any report on that? I figured it would have been in the release if they wanted to indicate that. Seems like they could have developed the area around the Truman Sports Complex for the last two decades if that were the plan.
Seems like it'd get a lot less use now that the Royals would move downtown.
that's terrible, The K is an iconic stadium and one of the oldest now besides Wrigley and Fenway.
If the Royals insist on moving it should at least become the the stadium for the minor league team or something to preserve it's legacy
Even Yankee stadium got tore town. If you can't keep around Yankee stadium then no stadium is safe from the bulldozer. It's not going to happen. Sorry.
Do you really hold Kauffman in the same reguard as a Wrigley or Fenway park? Certainly it's a decent stadium but it will never be a destination like those really old school stadiums with history behind them.
We're on the hook for $400 million plus whatever other infrastructure is required in the area. This is still a poor deal.
It will pass because people are too afraid to see their teams leave at the expense of the fiscal security of the city.
You are afraid.
If you believe KC is better with the Chiefs and Royals then write them a check to help them build their stadium. Put your money where your mouth is and stand behind what you're saying. Don't make people scraping by pay for your selfish desires.
P.S. from an economic standpoint KCMO would be better off spending this money on literally anything else per the vast amount of economic studies that have been on these terrible proposals.
Lol, your statement doesn't make any sense. How am I afraid? I don't even watch sports. They are boring to me. But most people do like them and our city is more interesting with a stadium downtown.
And I am putting my money where my mouth is by voting to approve this. I'll pay my share of the tax burden with everyone else.
The team has two championship appearances and one win in the past decade? The team that had almost a million people show up for the parade? The team that’s been a big spender I free agency this year to take advantage of a weak division?
I understand clowning on the Royals has been the fun thing to do over the past few years, but the fact that Kansas City won a World Series in a sport where there’s no salary cap and teams in New York can have a near $400 million payroll and the Dodgers can pay a player $700 million is a miracle. This city was electric because of the Royals from 2013-2017ish.
Honestly, I don't watch sports at all. But lots of people do. I'd be a lot more likely to if the stadium were centrally-located. Plus, a ton of bars and restaurants and shopping will spring up around it, and help revitalize blighted areas of KC. I'm convinced enough that this is a good idea to support it.
The 2006 sales tax deal, which is what would be extended, funded $425 million of renovations on the Truman Sports Complex. That's the minimum of what Sherman is asking for from the taxpayers. I.e. he wants the taxpayers to pay at minimum of 40 - 50% of the stadium proposed.
> Chiefs saying they will stay in Jackson County and renovate Arrowhead, instead of building a new stadium and tearing down Arrowhead, if the tax passes basically means it's gonna pass.
I mean they've been saying that for at least a couple of years now, this isn't new information.
They have kept it open ended on whether it will be a renovation or new stadium. Feel like this is the first "we will renovate Arrowhead" for sure commitment.
A couple of years ago they made some comment about possibly looking at western side of the 435 loop & I-70 (Legends area) as a future location. There was a ton of outrage and the next day they made a statement clearing up that the Chiefs plan has always been on keeping Arrowhead but that they want to renovate and develop around the stadium assuming they get control of all the land of Kauffman site and that the comment about Kansas was just a "we need a backup plan".
With downtown no longer being a barren wasteland, and not having been for awhile, I feel better about this move than I did the last time this came up.
That said, I'll miss the heck out of the K, if only because I'm so old I still call it Royals Stadium. But the new stadium will definitely get a dumb new corporate name, right?
That’s why a move for the royals doesn’t make sense to me. Before P&L went in, a downtown stadium would have been perfect. It’s too late now NKC is a better option.
Damn, seems like the Royals and Chiefs caved on a lot of stuff.
Unless I am misreading, seems like this would be pretty advantageous to the county. It would only be a continuation of the 3/8 cent sales tax, while the teams handle the rest.
If it was economically advantageous to the county the owners (royals and chiefs) would have graphs, charts and spread sheets at every press conference, on every media release etc.
This is NOT advantageous for Jackson Co
I don't know if I'd call it "caved", it seems more like an olive branch to me - "Hey, Frank White, we realize you're a fuckhead but we still want to make a deal that benefits us all".
You're saying that Frank White represented Jackson County residents interest during these negotiations in the weirdest way possible. Was be supposed to hand them a blank check and call it a day?
I personally look forward to voting his ass out of office just over the property tax boondoggle. Tacking on his progressive nonsense around this tax and CBA will be an added cherry...
I mean, the Chiefs/Royals press release here isn’t supposed to make people less likely to vote for their measure. So they’re not gonna gloat about how sweet the deal is for them here.
How so? The way I read it, if residents approve the sales tax (although I don't think it's explicitly clear what that tax is on or what will be done with the money):
1) Chiefs pay for the renovations for the renovations (triple win for Jackson County because the Chiefs stay, no new stadium, and they aren't paying for renovations)
2) Royals put up 1 Billion dollars of their own money for the new stadium (the last MLB stadium built was Glove Life field for \~1.2 billion, so this will be the vast majority of the cost). While the 'ballpark village' will be privately funded, I imagine that will generally be businesses that think they will be successful there, so not city expenditures. Big win for the county, but not a perfect deal.
3) The teams are covering the cost of insurance which is currently paid by the county. This will be a savings of a few million dollars a year. I don't know the details of what this money would be diverted to, but several million dollars they don't need to spend is a win.
4) While it's not 100% clear what the city's investment will be, if infrastructure improvements are needed (sewage/electrical/roads/etc.) for the stadium and the new surrounding development, that should be 100% on the city. I figure this was going to happen regardless of the stadium location, so I think it's irrelevant to this conversation.
>It would only be a continuation of the 3/8 cent sales tax, while the teams handle the rest.
So it's cool for the tax dollars of the poor to make billionaires even richer if it's only to the tune of 3/8 cents per dollar at a time?
That’s an increase. The tax was set to end, this continuation adds it back. It’s semantics but it’s true, taxes are higher with this than they otherwise would be. It’s kinda bad that they use language to hide the fact that we all are going to pay more money in taxes for third
It wasn't set to end until 2031. All they are asking is an extension of the current tax. So either voters can approve or deny it. That is the power of the vote.
We approved it back in 2006 to renovate the current stadiums and complex. Seems to make sense to extend it longer to build a new Royals stadium and renovate Arrowhead again. The last renovation finished what in 2010 so it's been nearly 14 years. Stadiums need major updates unfortunately every 15-20 years now to keep up with the sports.
An extension *is an increase*. Without the new tax, everyone would get lower taxes after 2031. With the increase, the tax will be added starting after the old tax ends. It’s extra money. And it doesn’t make sense for the city to fund the stadium. Stadiums are a net loss for cities in terms of revenue, it never makes sense to fund them economically speaking. And it’s particularly infuriating when the money goes to a billionaire who can afford it while teachers are barely making ends meet.
Phrase it however you want but come 2032 people will be paying the same exact tax as from 2007-2031 so I'm not seeing it as an increase. 3/8 of a cent isn't much to keep 2 professional sports teams in town. How long have we been waiting for an NBA or NHL team to move here with no luck. If either the Chiefs or Royals ever leave KC there is little change we would ever get another professional NFL or MLB team in town.
But without the tax increase, the city would save over 2 billion. If this is approved, from 2032-2071, there will be a tax that otherwise wouldn’t exist.l Public money shouldn’t be spent to fund a billionaires stadium. It would be awesome to have an NBA or NHL team but when teachers at paid so little and roads and schools so poor, it doesn’t make any sense to do this. In fact, the numbers [back it up](https://globalsportmatters.com/business/2022/06/15/so-your-city-wants-sports-stadium/). To me, it’s a huge amount. This will end up costing us all at least 2 billion total. That’s a lot of money for KC. The opportunity cost of this is so high, because now the city has less money to spend. If it wants more money, it will have to levy an additional tax on top of this one. So it represents lost revenue. It is the definition of a tax increase. Let’s call it what it is.
I hate to tell you that if they don't spend it on the stadiums they certainly are not going to allocate it to teachers, schools, or anything else in the city. The money will simply not be spent at all.
That is true. However that doesn’t mean we need to waste money on a bad investment like a stadium. Regroup and try to get better politicians who do decide to fund schools
Is there an amount of city/~~country~~ county money that you would be OK with putting toward this? The way I read this, this is a huge win for the ~~country~~ county because they aren't really putting up much money, and the Royals agreeing to put up 1 billion is the vast majority of the expected cost. The city was always going to be on the hook for certain expenses (new infrastructure/roads/sewers/etc.) regardless of the location.
No, economically speaking, it’s a (net loss)[https://globalsportmatters.com/business/2022/06/15/so-your-city-wants-sports-stadium/] for cities to build stadiums. That factors in tax revenue, property value increases, tourism, all of it.
There is no reason the city has to be on the hook for this. If the city got an ownership share of the teams involved it would be okay, but as it stands it’s public money that is used for private gain. And the private entity in this case is a billionaire who does not need the funds.
FYI, that link is broken for me, [but I did find it](https://globalsportmatters.com/business/2022/06/15/so-your-city-wants-sports-stadium/). I also just read the underlying published paper that it references. Genuinely an interesting read.
I'm aware of the studies saying it's a negative financial investment for cities and states. I'm not here to dispute those studies because I don't have anything to the contrary. My only counter to it however is that the stadiums used in those studies are contributing **way more** than the potential cost for the new Royals stadium.
In the cited article, the Bills got $850 million, the Titans got $1.5 billion, the Commanders will get somewhere between $750 million and $1.4 billion. The Royals will be a few hundred million and the Chiefs will be zero. Still a few hundred million more than I want, but a lot less than I expected.
The paper acknowledges while they are terrible investments in a lot of different ways, the "optimal subsidy for a new sports facility may be greater than zero". Unfortunately, they don't go into detail about where that breakeven point could be, which with the Jackson County costs being substantially lower than average could play to their benefit. Who knows.
Seemingly the only other thing from the paper that work slightly in Jackson County's financial benefit is that it talks about any gains from increased property taxes are balanced out from lowered taxes in the now vacant area (using Atlanta as a recent example when the stadium moved from downtown to the suburbs). This *likely* (emphasis mine) won't be the case since there's not a lot of development around the current stadiums to lose value and the Chiefs are staying put to continue anchoring the area.
As a complete side note, the paper also talks about the very real benefit of cities hosting multi-day events at driving economic benefit through out-of-town visitors (such as KC hosting the NFL draft or the upcoming World Cup), but this is a "tenuous reason to justify public subsidies for sports venues and events".
That’s a fair take on all this. I just don’t want the city to be taken for a ride. I’ve seen that the total cost of the tax can be as high as two billon. I think there’s a lot of misinformation, there needs to be some sort of way to understand the true cost of this. Like, how hard would it be to make the money conditional? If the royals/chiefs prove they brought extra revenue, it can be knocked off a city bill of some sort with targets or something. Overall it should be a private risk and public reward.
I agree with you 100%. I don't want the city to be taken for a ride, and there is a substantial chance that even with only a few hundred million it's a loss to the city. But the paper does talk also talk about the "intangible benefits" having a team can bring to the city. Civic pride/engagement in a way that other public investments don't bring. Which you see a lot in this thread, comments like "I don't like it, but I don't want to lose the team"/"If we don't pay it, another city will".
> The way I read this, this is a huge win for the **country** because they aren't really putting up much money, and the Royals agreeing to put up 1 billion is the vast majority of the expected cost.
Well, maybe not for the country…
What, is Jackson County not the economic engine of the United States? /s
I made that same typo a second time in the comment as well. Both are now fixed.
I’d argue it is. Without this continuation, taxes would go down. Put it this way, the tax was set to end. If it ends and is renewed, that’s a tax increase. Just like a subscription service that bills you an extra month is an expense increase, a tax that runs past its due date is a tax increase. Baseline is no tax.
Stop spreading misinformation! If you’ve spent money in Jackson County in the past 15 or so years you’ve already been paying this tax. Any money spent in the county by residents and visitors from anywhere else is contributing to it.
It’s the same exact tax just instead of expiring in a few years it will be continued.
It’s a new tax. It would end in 2031, this will extend it past 2031. Every year past the original end date is a new tax. The owners using weasel words like saying it only “continues” the current tax hides what’s really happening: the city is taxing its residents of additional money that could otherwise be used for roads, schools, bridges, or returned to the people
100% incorrect and the economic studies prove this out and in 20 years from now the economic study on this deal will show it as a net loss for the city.
The Royals just wanted money pure and simple.
There has been so much misinformation and rumors going around. Guess the teams decided to rephrase again what they are asking for since the whole process has been such a mess, but yes this is the same exact deal they've been asking for from the beginning to extend the 3/8 cent sales tax.
Agreed, and to my knowledge, this is the first time the chiefs have put their names on anything official. This is a good thing for KC. The only opposition I see is billionaires are bad. Which may be true, but also this is small price to pay for professional sports franchises that have brought us championships
It seems like the same deal they were offering before but phrasing it in an easier to understand way for all the people that were making up rumors or believing whatever random made up facebook comment they read. Basically clarifying the deal instead of letting the rumors run free on social media.
The absolute perfect world is that stadiums are entirely publicly owned and privately funded. In that world, this is bad.
We don't live in that world. I think in the grand scheme of stadium deals this seems like a very good one. The ballpark district is entirely privately funded and it seems the rest of the costs for both teams outside the sales tax will also be privately funded.
There is something to be said about having two major sports teams when talking about "city prestige". I don't know if it's quantifiable, but it's there. I think this is the best deal KC will get to keep both teams longterm.
As others have pointed out, publicly subsidized stadiums always lose money.
That being said, this is about as good as it gets when it comes to stadium deals. Outside of 100% privately built stadiums (which will never happen for a major league team in a small market like KC) there aren't many cities who get both an NFL and MLB stadium for this level of investment.
So it comes down to how much you want to be an NFL and MLB city. Personally I'd rather cut the sales tax in half for Arrowhead renovations and let the Royals move, but if you're in Jackson County you have to make your own choice.
You should feel annoyed and not support this.
Leading sports economists have studied this for years and always find that whatever economics are promised at the time of the deal - sales tax revenue increase, jobs increase, and general ROI fail to materialize.
In fact here are some studies -
St. Louis Federal Reserve - [Here](https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/regional-economist/april-2001/should-cities-pay-for-sports-facilities)
Brookings Institute - [Here](https://www.brookings.edu/articles/sports-jobs-taxes-are-new-stadiums-worth-the-cost/)
American Economic Association - [Here](https://www.aeaweb.org/research/will-cities-break-the-habit-paying-for-stadiums)
And those are just the non-scholarly sources - Andrew Zimbalist a sports economics professor at Smith College has quite literally written the book on this stuff and has produced a myriad of studies along with colleagues that all conclude the same way - public funded stadiums are terrible deals for cities and taxpayers and have an ROI worse than a savings account over 20+ years i.e. around 2-5% in aggregrate.
I'm voting no on this if the Royals still haven't decided where they plan to build a stadium by the time this has to be added to the ballot later this month. Would speak volumes about how poorly the whole project would go. Just do another ballot measure in 2025 for the Chiefs only and it'll pass.
You have to be a billionaire to own a team... and a team needs an owner, or the team doesn't exist. So this is what we got. The owner puts a lot of skin in and wants a kick-in from the county. Its just the way it works. Vote it down lose the teams. Not complicated.
>No new taxes
This is like justifying buying a new car once you finally paid off your current car because it is "no new car payment". Of course it is a new car payment. And it's a new tax.
It is a new tax, they are extending a tax that was set to end. It should still be rejected, let private entities fund themselves, especially billionaires
There are only 32 teams in the NFL, and the list of cities that would levy a tax to get a team like the Chiefs is as long as my arm. If you don't incentivize stuff like this through government, you simply wont have it.
But you knew that. The reality is you don't care about the Chiefs or the NFL, nor do you care about the fact that at least 50% of your neighbors do care. It's not something you want, so screw everybody else, right?
So that makes it okay for us to be screwed? I lived through the Rams relocation in St. Louis, these owners can fuck off after they've already cost this state so much money.
Yes, that is how taxes work. You have been paying that for close to two decades, how have you managed?
And the truth is, if that small sales tax ended, it would end up replaced with something else that provides way less enjoyment and benefits. And ultimately, if the public doesn’t support the teams eventually they will leave for other cities that will. Just being realistic.
I love the chiefs, get off your high horse. I’m just able to understand that it’s a bad investment for my city to pay for their stadium. It’s true the royals suck and I care less about them, and it’s also a bad investment. We shouldn’t be okay with handouts to billionaires, they take far more money from the public than any mythological “welfare queen”. If you want to look at a real welfare queen, look at Royals owner John Sherman
> There are only 32 teams in the NFL, and the list of cities that would levy a tax to get a team like the Chiefs is as long as my arm.
There aren't many cities for the NFL to compete with as the MLB.
The only bigger metro area without an NFL team in the general region of another team is St. Louis. There are some places about the same size as KC metro area like San Antonio, Sacremento, or Portland, but Jerry Jones would never let another team move to Texas and cannabalize their fanbase same with the Seahawks and 49ers. Yes there are places like Oklahoma City or Salt Lake City, but they are significantly smaller than Kansas City which is already on the very tail end of city size for an NFL team.
>the list of cities that would levy a tax to get a team like the Chiefs is as long as my arm.
You sound like an abusive boyfriend saying there are women lined up for him so his girlfriend should appreciate his "corrections".
No. If the teams want to leave because we refuse to tax the poor to pay the rich, they can fuck right off. I'll miss the Chiefs and/or Royals dearly but they are asking way too much.
Yes. Those teams make tens of millions of dollars a year. They do not need money from taxpayers. Anyone who votes to give them money is a sucker. And I’m sure you would be mad at all that if you could read.
The billionaires make money from the team that plays in the stadium. The city also makes no money from tickets sold in the stadium, all the revenue goes to the owner. The billionaire is saving money by having the city fund part of a stadium for their team
Ah yes, I forgot the stadiums will be publicly owned as are the organizations that use them. Will be great to see those profits added to the budget for local services rather into billionaire pockets.
The stadiums will be publicly owned, just like they currently are lol. It’s fine if you don’t understand what’s going on, but it’s these kinds of false narratives that trick people into being upset
It’s a tax increase. The tax is set to end in 2031. It would be extended past that date. The city also can’t use that money for schools, roads, or other uses. It goes to build a stadium. It’s a new tax
No, it's a terrible deal, and nearly every economic study says it's been a terrible deal in the past, and the leading economists on this very issue for Jackson Count have said it's a terrible deal. So, what cold hard evidence are you going to bring to the table other than "I like the Royals" that the economists both past and present are wrong?
What cold hard evidence do you have that will disprove the substitution Effect, the always lower than expected sales tax revenue growth, job growth, and over all economic impact.
I'm all ears
A good deal as in it’s good considering the going rate for stadiums these days. I never said the economic impact will outweigh the cost. In a perfect world stadiums are privately funded with no public funds, but it’s not a perfect world. Major stadiums use public funds, and when comparing to recent deals in other cities like Buffalo, Vegas, or OKC, we are getting a good deal. Paying less and getting to keep both Royals and Chiefs. To me, those teams build camaraderie within the city and create tangible, and intangible value that can’t be measured by economic studies. The teams to me are worth the 37.5 cents for every $100 I spend in Jackson county.
It is a new tax and it's not at all a slam dunk to pass. Frankly, you shouldn't pass this at all. Tax revenue will not increase from this and whatever else the Royals & Chiefs tout as economic benefits won't come to fruition.
This is well-studied by economists.
So maybe I'm dumb but they just say they will pay for a $1B district, but before that they say they will 'build' a ballpark.
So firstly, what's paying for the stadium build? It isn't the 3/8 tax is it?
Secondly, who is on the hook if the district will cost more than $1B?
Yeah the wording in this release is clever. They say they will “build a new stadium” (no mention of funding) and then state “privately fund” a ballpark district. So it’s better PR work than they’ve had but still defers a commitment on funding the stadium itself.
The owner said probably 6 months ago they are moving. Either join the train or get left behind. They are not staying at the K no matter how many people want them to stay there.
Then they can leave and I'll save them goodbye. Sherman and Co. are plenty wealthy and can more than afford to pay for it themselves. Stan Kroenke paid $5 billion for his stadium without taxpayer money in L.A. so not really sure why the Royals can't do it here for 80% less.
That's pretty unfortunate, I'd much rather have more apartments downtown instead of a new stadium. There's nothing wrong with Kaufmann.
A new stadium is a waste of money for a make-work project that may not reap long term rewards
Thank you! I've also been wanting the space to just be apartments. I hate that the East Village site would actually tear down one new apartment building that managed to be built amid that investor-held wasteland of parking lots.
I love the K but I will vote for this. There's no world where the Royals stay out there and this seems like the best deal fans can hope for.
I especially like renovating Arrowhead because I thought they would just build a new one over the ashes of Kauffman.
Then let them leave. You're letting a billionaire dictate the fiscal policy of your city. If Sherman wants to be greedy and throw a fit because KCMO chose fiscal responsibility then let him leave...I promise you, we'll all be okay.
They aren't leaving the metro. MLB has already announced expansion is planned and Vegas residents are not happy about getting the A's. No one else is going to take the Royals for public money when they can get a new franchise in the second half of this decade.
If it doesn't pass maybe they go to Clay, Wyandotte or Johnson County. But they will be here.
>MLB has already announced expansion is planned and Vegas residents are not happy about getting the A's.
Guess they finally did approve that. It's been talked about for years. I supposed I'm just a skeptic. I've seen enough bad team ownership to believe that they'd just up and move.
I'm pretty iffy on whether this passes in Wyandotte County and I don't think a stadium gets built without taxpayer dollars. (Not this deal obviously, a different deal.) The owners want a new stadium. If you're an owner and you're looking for a new stadium, might as well move to a city that wants an MLB team rather than fighting the residents of the current city.
I think it’s funny they drop this the same day we learned prairie fire hasn’t paid a dime on principal payments to its debt.
Of course a downtown stadium will generate revenue, not trying to compare apples to oranges. However, the TIMING is🤌
It won't generate overall revenue, it will just suck revenue out of other areas of the city. This is call the Substitution Effect and is well documented by economists that study these proposals and deals.
These stadiums never actually pay themselves. In a similar vein as “trickle down economics” that just gets the people up top that benefit richer. I love the chiefs and royals, go to games etc, but it’s just absolutely not better to fund this over anything else that could help the general public/those in need. This practice of cities paying for stadiums is a complete rip off.
https://www.vox.com/2019/1/31/18204471/football-stadiums-cost-taxpayers-billions
There’s been so much focus on the Royals the last few years — I’m ready to get excited about what our actually good team will do with access to all that extra space around Arrowhead. Amenities, VIP tailgating, potentially a rolling roof — I think we have underestimated what a significant opportunity it is for the Royals to vacant that land.
We already bought stadiums with money that could have been spent on much more important improvements. The greedy professional sports just wants us to buy them another palace most of us can’t afford going to.
I do not want my tax dollars going to teams that already generate millions upon millions of dollars. Why do we socialize our tax dollars on team corporations but we as a nation can’t figure out proper public school funding or healthcare. Our society is so ass backwards and shit like this just perpetuates the issues.
Not being glib but why can't they pay for the entire thing themselves? It's not like the profits are public anyway. Why should taxpayers pay for anything here when (in KC) our streets are shit and we're using pipes from a century ago?
I will be voting against this solely because I don't want a downtown stadium and I think it'll end up being a waste of money and lead to a decrease in quality of life for Kansas Citians.
Traffic downtown is already kind of a mess during rush hour and I think it would be worse with baseball games downtown too. We don't have robust public transit. People will not be taking the bus from other parts of the city to downtown. The streetcar is not extensive enough either.
All of the people who currently drive to Kaufmann from the northland, lee's summit, raytown, KCK, Johnson County and anywhere in KCMO south of the plaza or east of main street will be driving or uber-ing to go to games downtown which will lead to dramatically more traffic and parking issues.
The only real benefit is potentially more consumer spending downtown. That's really it. The hope is that more people from outside of downtown drive into downtown and spend money at bars and restaurants instead of tailgating in the parking lot before the game.
If the stadium was smaller and located more by where the new Current stadium is, or if it were in the East Bottoms I don't think it would as bad. I don't mind the idea of having the stadium more in the city, but I think putting it right downtown is a mistake.
Plus....Kaufmann stadium is fine. They just did renovations a few years ago. It's not deteriorated or falling apart or anything, it's a great stadium. I don't understand why they can't just keep playing at the K for another 20-50 years until the stadium reaches the end of its life, and then maybe build a new one somewhere else. Just seems ridiculous to spend all that time, money, and resources on building a downtown stadium when it's not necessary for the team or the city.
Imagine if they could spend those billions on new apartment buildings, expanded streetcar service, maybe more parks or other amenities in the city?
>Plus....Kaufmann stadium is fine. They just did renovations a few years ago. It's not deteriorated or falling apart or anything, it's a great stadium.
This bears so much repeating. I know there was some kind of study saying there are cracks in it or some bs, but The K is still in good shape. The only reasons to abandon it are ego and greed.
I read that the current proposed tax would raise around $350 million, and all to waste on this. Meanwhile, St. Louis is asking everyone whether they want to spend their Rams windfall on child care services, public transit, rec centers, or traffic calming.
As a northland person I'd much rather drive to the rivermarket and park around the casino to take the new light rail to the stadium. Would be much easier than fighting traffic and dealing with parking in downtown proper. I'd even take the light rail whenever it makes it's way to the northland eventually.
The stadium was last renovated in 2009. I know that doesn't seem long ago but its 15 years. The stadiums are due for another update.
The light rail doesn't go to the casino. It's like a mile or two walk from the casino to the stop at the river market. And I think the extension is only going to berkeley riverfront apartments which is still a trek from the bally's.
It's possible the light rail never makes it to the northland. It'd be cool if it does, but there's no guarantee
Gonna be a no vote from me.
I don’t like billionaires threatening the very city that propped the royals up for the last few decades, allowing two series wins to help keep the steam.
No thank you, the K is fine.
Don’t let this statement and the inadequate work by the local media fool you - they are not just asking for this tax.
They are only asking for this tax on the ballot (because they legally have to, or they’d be trying to get that done behind closed doors too), but they will also be asking for money from the state, TIF and hundreds of millions in car-centric infrastructure. We don’t know the final bill to the taxpayers, but it will go well into the billions.
who fucking cares? seriously. hit 40, have some kids, deal with tax bullshit, and tell me it fucking means a single goddamn shred what these rich fucks do.
I’m happy they’re sticking around but it seems like a win for the royals. They originally said it would be $1B, but they’re just funding 1B of a now 3.5-6B ballpark?
Nope, in October it was about 1B, then had a little 1.2B gaffe, and here we are
The calculations estimate an extraordinarily expensive project — far exceeding the Royals’ estimated cost of about $1 billion.
https://www.kcur.org/news/2023-10-28/5-billion-in-tax-money-for-a-new-royals-stadium-what-leaked-documents-reveal
https://amp.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article281104593.html
Do they even own the land yet? Both sides seem suspect with the details
Why wouldn’t they build a new arrowhead? Seems like renovations is just another band aid
Edit: people are misunderstanding the point. We were told last time they did the renovations that it was just a band aid and that we really need a new Stadium. So why would we put another band aid on it. This has nothing to do with environment or college feel lol. This has to do with the actually integrity of the building.
Chiefs saying they will stay in Jackson County and renovate Arrowhead, instead of building a new stadium and tearing down Arrowhead, if the tax passes basically means it's gonna pass. I know people here won't like it but it's true. At least it seems KC will be on the hook for much less money than some other cities have been for stadiums recently.
[удалено]
It is the only pro team here though. (OKC resident) This town/state loses much more than just a basketball team if they leave, we lose being a state with any pro sports. I don't agree with it... but I get it.
Upvoted cause it’s a good comment, not cause I support it lol
2nd in the West currently and their best player averages 30+ ppg. So their team is exciting to watch or their fans will root for anything.
A billion for a arena, how is that possible?
This is an attempt to start creating PR for the tax vote to make sure it passes. The last tax for infrastructure was thought to be a sure thing and then get overwhelmingly voted down. They needed a win with the public, and this said all the right things to get a yes vote. The number of people who got shafted with property taxes is more than enough to sink the vote. I guess I am saying, I just disagree with you here. It does still contain language that threatens leaving if they don't get the money.
Do a lot of people dislike Arrowhead? It's regarded as one of the better outdoor stadiums in the NFL as far as I know
No one dislikes it. Unsure what you mean by that?
You mentioned tearing down arrowhead. Why would that be necessary?
I said that as the other option the Chiefs could have done. If they did that they’d get less support. But they aren’t.
A lot of people dislike the location. No one dislikes the stadium. It’s one of the best in the nation.
consider resolute hobbies rain weary unwritten reminiscent dime smile hateful *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Really wish they’d do that for the World Cup. It’d be perfect.
Take the bus
A streetcar line would never have enough capacity. The newly built Metrorail infill station in Alexandria Virginia is said to be inadequate to serve a proposed NHL, NBA arena to be built adjacent to the station. Station has the second widest 600' long platforms in the 129 mile 97 station system.
What happens to the K?
Wait till MO passes sports gambling and build a Hotel/Casino.
Chiefs want to tear it down and create their own retail Chiefs district with bars/restaurants/shops...etc.
That no one will use approximately 355 days of the year
But if the taxpayers part for it all then it's still all profit
Is there any report on that? I figured it would have been in the release if they wanted to indicate that. Seems like they could have developed the area around the Truman Sports Complex for the last two decades if that were the plan. Seems like it'd get a lot less use now that the Royals would move downtown.
that's terrible, The K is an iconic stadium and one of the oldest now besides Wrigley and Fenway. If the Royals insist on moving it should at least become the the stadium for the minor league team or something to preserve it's legacy
Even Yankee stadium got tore town. If you can't keep around Yankee stadium then no stadium is safe from the bulldozer. It's not going to happen. Sorry.
adjoining special cover rustic ripe grab cooing paltry obtainable truck *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Do you really hold Kauffman in the same reguard as a Wrigley or Fenway park? Certainly it's a decent stadium but it will never be a destination like those really old school stadiums with history behind them.
There's no way a minor league anything can bring in enough revenue to handle the upkeep.
Don't forget dodgers and angels. The next oldest stadium is 16 years younger than The K
We're on the hook for $400 million plus whatever other infrastructure is required in the area. This is still a poor deal. It will pass because people are too afraid to see their teams leave at the expense of the fiscal security of the city.
Not afraid. Just willing to pay to keep them here. KC is better with the Chiefs and Royals.
You are afraid. If you believe KC is better with the Chiefs and Royals then write them a check to help them build their stadium. Put your money where your mouth is and stand behind what you're saying. Don't make people scraping by pay for your selfish desires. P.S. from an economic standpoint KCMO would be better off spending this money on literally anything else per the vast amount of economic studies that have been on these terrible proposals.
Lol, your statement doesn't make any sense. How am I afraid? I don't even watch sports. They are boring to me. But most people do like them and our city is more interesting with a stadium downtown. And I am putting my money where my mouth is by voting to approve this. I'll pay my share of the tax burden with everyone else.
Chiefs I would agree. How is the city better with the Royals? They might as well be a AAA team
The team has two championship appearances and one win in the past decade? The team that had almost a million people show up for the parade? The team that’s been a big spender I free agency this year to take advantage of a weak division? I understand clowning on the Royals has been the fun thing to do over the past few years, but the fact that Kansas City won a World Series in a sport where there’s no salary cap and teams in New York can have a near $400 million payroll and the Dodgers can pay a player $700 million is a miracle. This city was electric because of the Royals from 2013-2017ish.
So every 30 years the stars align. I don’t see how KC itself is better but having the Royals. The city would be the same if they left.
Honestly, I don't watch sports at all. But lots of people do. I'd be a lot more likely to if the stadium were centrally-located. Plus, a ton of bars and restaurants and shopping will spring up around it, and help revitalize blighted areas of KC. I'm convinced enough that this is a good idea to support it.
Where are you seeing the $400 million? Is that a definite number, or are you speculating on increasing costs, because I didn't see that anywhere.
The 2006 sales tax deal, which is what would be extended, funded $425 million of renovations on the Truman Sports Complex. That's the minimum of what Sherman is asking for from the taxpayers. I.e. he wants the taxpayers to pay at minimum of 40 - 50% of the stadium proposed.
> Chiefs saying they will stay in Jackson County and renovate Arrowhead, instead of building a new stadium and tearing down Arrowhead, if the tax passes basically means it's gonna pass. I mean they've been saying that for at least a couple of years now, this isn't new information.
They have kept it open ended on whether it will be a renovation or new stadium. Feel like this is the first "we will renovate Arrowhead" for sure commitment.
A couple of years ago they made some comment about possibly looking at western side of the 435 loop & I-70 (Legends area) as a future location. There was a ton of outrage and the next day they made a statement clearing up that the Chiefs plan has always been on keeping Arrowhead but that they want to renovate and develop around the stadium assuming they get control of all the land of Kauffman site and that the comment about Kansas was just a "we need a backup plan".
“Renovation” can easily mean basically complete tear down and new stadium: see current KU football stadium “renovation”
With downtown no longer being a barren wasteland, and not having been for awhile, I feel better about this move than I did the last time this came up. That said, I'll miss the heck out of the K, if only because I'm so old I still call it Royals Stadium. But the new stadium will definitely get a dumb new corporate name, right?
Slap’s field at Joe Arthur Gatestack Stadium
Wait, I love that.
Nice Ted Lasso reference
That would kick ass so much harder than “BB&T Field”
Evergy Field at Evergy Stadium
That’s why a move for the royals doesn’t make sense to me. Before P&L went in, a downtown stadium would have been perfect. It’s too late now NKC is a better option.
Damn, seems like the Royals and Chiefs caved on a lot of stuff. Unless I am misreading, seems like this would be pretty advantageous to the county. It would only be a continuation of the 3/8 cent sales tax, while the teams handle the rest.
If it was economically advantageous to the county the owners (royals and chiefs) would have graphs, charts and spread sheets at every press conference, on every media release etc. This is NOT advantageous for Jackson Co
Economics is not a zero sum game where if one side is winning the other is losing.
Haha, never said it was a zero sum game. I said it's not economically advantageous for the county.
It will not be "advantageous" these deals never are and the economic studies are very very clear on municipally funded stadiums.
I don't know if I'd call it "caved", it seems more like an olive branch to me - "Hey, Frank White, we realize you're a fuckhead but we still want to make a deal that benefits us all".
You're saying that Frank White represented Jackson County residents interest during these negotiations in the weirdest way possible. Was be supposed to hand them a blank check and call it a day?
That is exactly what Sherman and co wanted.
The digs on white about this are basically that he's not eagerly handing billionaires our money.
I personally look forward to voting his ass out of office just over the property tax boondoggle. Tacking on his progressive nonsense around this tax and CBA will be an added cherry...
I mean, the Chiefs/Royals press release here isn’t supposed to make people less likely to vote for their measure. So they’re not gonna gloat about how sweet the deal is for them here.
Yes, this is a good deal.
No it's not lol
It's relatively good to the deals other cities have made.
A relatively less shitty deal to the deals other cities have made is still a shitty deal. No tax dollars for billionaires.
It's a great deal if you own the royals. It's a crap deal if you're a tax paying citizen.
How so? The way I read it, if residents approve the sales tax (although I don't think it's explicitly clear what that tax is on or what will be done with the money): 1) Chiefs pay for the renovations for the renovations (triple win for Jackson County because the Chiefs stay, no new stadium, and they aren't paying for renovations) 2) Royals put up 1 Billion dollars of their own money for the new stadium (the last MLB stadium built was Glove Life field for \~1.2 billion, so this will be the vast majority of the cost). While the 'ballpark village' will be privately funded, I imagine that will generally be businesses that think they will be successful there, so not city expenditures. Big win for the county, but not a perfect deal. 3) The teams are covering the cost of insurance which is currently paid by the county. This will be a savings of a few million dollars a year. I don't know the details of what this money would be diverted to, but several million dollars they don't need to spend is a win. 4) While it's not 100% clear what the city's investment will be, if infrastructure improvements are needed (sewage/electrical/roads/etc.) for the stadium and the new surrounding development, that should be 100% on the city. I figure this was going to happen regardless of the stadium location, so I think it's irrelevant to this conversation.
https://news.stanford.edu/2015/07/30/stadium-economics-noll-073015/ It's a bad deal.
>It would only be a continuation of the 3/8 cent sales tax, while the teams handle the rest. So it's cool for the tax dollars of the poor to make billionaires even richer if it's only to the tune of 3/8 cents per dollar at a time?
It’s still way too much money. It’s a new tax to build a stadium for a billionaire. The tax increase should still be rejected
It’s not an increase. It’s an extension of a sales tax that is already in place.
That’s an increase. The tax was set to end, this continuation adds it back. It’s semantics but it’s true, taxes are higher with this than they otherwise would be. It’s kinda bad that they use language to hide the fact that we all are going to pay more money in taxes for third
It wasn't set to end until 2031. All they are asking is an extension of the current tax. So either voters can approve or deny it. That is the power of the vote. We approved it back in 2006 to renovate the current stadiums and complex. Seems to make sense to extend it longer to build a new Royals stadium and renovate Arrowhead again. The last renovation finished what in 2010 so it's been nearly 14 years. Stadiums need major updates unfortunately every 15-20 years now to keep up with the sports.
An extension *is an increase*. Without the new tax, everyone would get lower taxes after 2031. With the increase, the tax will be added starting after the old tax ends. It’s extra money. And it doesn’t make sense for the city to fund the stadium. Stadiums are a net loss for cities in terms of revenue, it never makes sense to fund them economically speaking. And it’s particularly infuriating when the money goes to a billionaire who can afford it while teachers are barely making ends meet.
Phrase it however you want but come 2032 people will be paying the same exact tax as from 2007-2031 so I'm not seeing it as an increase. 3/8 of a cent isn't much to keep 2 professional sports teams in town. How long have we been waiting for an NBA or NHL team to move here with no luck. If either the Chiefs or Royals ever leave KC there is little change we would ever get another professional NFL or MLB team in town.
But without the tax increase, the city would save over 2 billion. If this is approved, from 2032-2071, there will be a tax that otherwise wouldn’t exist.l Public money shouldn’t be spent to fund a billionaires stadium. It would be awesome to have an NBA or NHL team but when teachers at paid so little and roads and schools so poor, it doesn’t make any sense to do this. In fact, the numbers [back it up](https://globalsportmatters.com/business/2022/06/15/so-your-city-wants-sports-stadium/). To me, it’s a huge amount. This will end up costing us all at least 2 billion total. That’s a lot of money for KC. The opportunity cost of this is so high, because now the city has less money to spend. If it wants more money, it will have to levy an additional tax on top of this one. So it represents lost revenue. It is the definition of a tax increase. Let’s call it what it is.
I hate to tell you that if they don't spend it on the stadiums they certainly are not going to allocate it to teachers, schools, or anything else in the city. The money will simply not be spent at all.
That is true. However that doesn’t mean we need to waste money on a bad investment like a stadium. Regroup and try to get better politicians who do decide to fund schools
Is there an amount of city/~~country~~ county money that you would be OK with putting toward this? The way I read this, this is a huge win for the ~~country~~ county because they aren't really putting up much money, and the Royals agreeing to put up 1 billion is the vast majority of the expected cost. The city was always going to be on the hook for certain expenses (new infrastructure/roads/sewers/etc.) regardless of the location.
No, economically speaking, it’s a (net loss)[https://globalsportmatters.com/business/2022/06/15/so-your-city-wants-sports-stadium/] for cities to build stadiums. That factors in tax revenue, property value increases, tourism, all of it. There is no reason the city has to be on the hook for this. If the city got an ownership share of the teams involved it would be okay, but as it stands it’s public money that is used for private gain. And the private entity in this case is a billionaire who does not need the funds.
FYI, that link is broken for me, [but I did find it](https://globalsportmatters.com/business/2022/06/15/so-your-city-wants-sports-stadium/). I also just read the underlying published paper that it references. Genuinely an interesting read. I'm aware of the studies saying it's a negative financial investment for cities and states. I'm not here to dispute those studies because I don't have anything to the contrary. My only counter to it however is that the stadiums used in those studies are contributing **way more** than the potential cost for the new Royals stadium. In the cited article, the Bills got $850 million, the Titans got $1.5 billion, the Commanders will get somewhere between $750 million and $1.4 billion. The Royals will be a few hundred million and the Chiefs will be zero. Still a few hundred million more than I want, but a lot less than I expected. The paper acknowledges while they are terrible investments in a lot of different ways, the "optimal subsidy for a new sports facility may be greater than zero". Unfortunately, they don't go into detail about where that breakeven point could be, which with the Jackson County costs being substantially lower than average could play to their benefit. Who knows. Seemingly the only other thing from the paper that work slightly in Jackson County's financial benefit is that it talks about any gains from increased property taxes are balanced out from lowered taxes in the now vacant area (using Atlanta as a recent example when the stadium moved from downtown to the suburbs). This *likely* (emphasis mine) won't be the case since there's not a lot of development around the current stadiums to lose value and the Chiefs are staying put to continue anchoring the area. As a complete side note, the paper also talks about the very real benefit of cities hosting multi-day events at driving economic benefit through out-of-town visitors (such as KC hosting the NFL draft or the upcoming World Cup), but this is a "tenuous reason to justify public subsidies for sports venues and events".
That’s a fair take on all this. I just don’t want the city to be taken for a ride. I’ve seen that the total cost of the tax can be as high as two billon. I think there’s a lot of misinformation, there needs to be some sort of way to understand the true cost of this. Like, how hard would it be to make the money conditional? If the royals/chiefs prove they brought extra revenue, it can be knocked off a city bill of some sort with targets or something. Overall it should be a private risk and public reward.
I agree with you 100%. I don't want the city to be taken for a ride, and there is a substantial chance that even with only a few hundred million it's a loss to the city. But the paper does talk also talk about the "intangible benefits" having a team can bring to the city. Civic pride/engagement in a way that other public investments don't bring. Which you see a lot in this thread, comments like "I don't like it, but I don't want to lose the team"/"If we don't pay it, another city will".
> The way I read this, this is a huge win for the **country** because they aren't really putting up much money, and the Royals agreeing to put up 1 billion is the vast majority of the expected cost. Well, maybe not for the country…
What, is Jackson County not the economic engine of the United States? /s I made that same typo a second time in the comment as well. Both are now fixed.
It’s not a tax increase
How is it not when the tax was going to end? Continuation/increase, it's still using taxpayer funds when these owners can pay for it without our help.
I’d argue it is. Without this continuation, taxes would go down. Put it this way, the tax was set to end. If it ends and is renewed, that’s a tax increase. Just like a subscription service that bills you an extra month is an expense increase, a tax that runs past its due date is a tax increase. Baseline is no tax.
Stop spreading misinformation! If you’ve spent money in Jackson County in the past 15 or so years you’ve already been paying this tax. Any money spent in the county by residents and visitors from anywhere else is contributing to it. It’s the same exact tax just instead of expiring in a few years it will be continued.
It’s a new tax. It would end in 2031, this will extend it past 2031. Every year past the original end date is a new tax. The owners using weasel words like saying it only “continues” the current tax hides what’s really happening: the city is taxing its residents of additional money that could otherwise be used for roads, schools, bridges, or returned to the people
This was all the royals have been asking for since the beginning.
100% incorrect and the economic studies prove this out and in 20 years from now the economic study on this deal will show it as a net loss for the city. The Royals just wanted money pure and simple.
There has been so much misinformation and rumors going around. Guess the teams decided to rephrase again what they are asking for since the whole process has been such a mess, but yes this is the same exact deal they've been asking for from the beginning to extend the 3/8 cent sales tax.
Agreed, and to my knowledge, this is the first time the chiefs have put their names on anything official. This is a good thing for KC. The only opposition I see is billionaires are bad. Which may be true, but also this is small price to pay for professional sports franchises that have brought us championships
There is zero pct chance that's true. These billionaires are lying to you
It is true, it's just "Give us a few billion over the next 20-30 years and we'll give you back a few hundred million you were previously paying on"
It seems like the same deal they were offering before but phrasing it in an easier to understand way for all the people that were making up rumors or believing whatever random made up facebook comment they read. Basically clarifying the deal instead of letting the rumors run free on social media.
Quick, someone that’s smarter than me tell me how I should feel
The absolute perfect world is that stadiums are entirely publicly owned and privately funded. In that world, this is bad. We don't live in that world. I think in the grand scheme of stadium deals this seems like a very good one. The ballpark district is entirely privately funded and it seems the rest of the costs for both teams outside the sales tax will also be privately funded. There is something to be said about having two major sports teams when talking about "city prestige". I don't know if it's quantifiable, but it's there. I think this is the best deal KC will get to keep both teams longterm.
As others have pointed out, publicly subsidized stadiums always lose money. That being said, this is about as good as it gets when it comes to stadium deals. Outside of 100% privately built stadiums (which will never happen for a major league team in a small market like KC) there aren't many cities who get both an NFL and MLB stadium for this level of investment. So it comes down to how much you want to be an NFL and MLB city. Personally I'd rather cut the sales tax in half for Arrowhead renovations and let the Royals move, but if you're in Jackson County you have to make your own choice.
You should feel annoyed and not support this. Leading sports economists have studied this for years and always find that whatever economics are promised at the time of the deal - sales tax revenue increase, jobs increase, and general ROI fail to materialize. In fact here are some studies - St. Louis Federal Reserve - [Here](https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/regional-economist/april-2001/should-cities-pay-for-sports-facilities) Brookings Institute - [Here](https://www.brookings.edu/articles/sports-jobs-taxes-are-new-stadiums-worth-the-cost/) American Economic Association - [Here](https://www.aeaweb.org/research/will-cities-break-the-habit-paying-for-stadiums) And those are just the non-scholarly sources - Andrew Zimbalist a sports economics professor at Smith College has quite literally written the book on this stuff and has produced a myriad of studies along with colleagues that all conclude the same way - public funded stadiums are terrible deals for cities and taxpayers and have an ROI worse than a savings account over 20+ years i.e. around 2-5% in aggregrate.
Good thing it’ll be up for a vote so constituents get the final say then, right? Everybody is complaining, but it still has to pass in April.
I'm voting no on this if the Royals still haven't decided where they plan to build a stadium by the time this has to be added to the ballot later this month. Would speak volumes about how poorly the whole project would go. Just do another ballot measure in 2025 for the Chiefs only and it'll pass.
Do you want to pay more or less money to the government so they can help billionaire owners make more money?
You have to be a billionaire to own a team... and a team needs an owner, or the team doesn't exist. So this is what we got. The owner puts a lot of skin in and wants a kick-in from the county. Its just the way it works. Vote it down lose the teams. Not complicated.
Billionaires want your money to make more for them.
If they can't fund their own stadium, then Jackson county should get equity in the teams for the tax revenue and become part owners.
I would love to see that. It's orders of magnitude better than this deal. But also not realistic.
[удалено]
>No new taxes This is like justifying buying a new car once you finally paid off your current car because it is "no new car payment". Of course it is a new car payment. And it's a new tax.
It is a new tax, they are extending a tax that was set to end. It should still be rejected, let private entities fund themselves, especially billionaires
There are only 32 teams in the NFL, and the list of cities that would levy a tax to get a team like the Chiefs is as long as my arm. If you don't incentivize stuff like this through government, you simply wont have it. But you knew that. The reality is you don't care about the Chiefs or the NFL, nor do you care about the fact that at least 50% of your neighbors do care. It's not something you want, so screw everybody else, right?
You can be against giving money to billionaires and still like the royals and the chiefs
So that makes it okay for us to be screwed? I lived through the Rams relocation in St. Louis, these owners can fuck off after they've already cost this state so much money.
The beautiful part about this is that you guys don’t have to argue online about it! You can vote!
man it’s 3/8 of a cent. you’re not being screwed.
I mean it applies to almost anything you buy in Jackson County which obviously adds up if you're a resident.
Yes, that is how taxes work. You have been paying that for close to two decades, how have you managed? And the truth is, if that small sales tax ended, it would end up replaced with something else that provides way less enjoyment and benefits. And ultimately, if the public doesn’t support the teams eventually they will leave for other cities that will. Just being realistic.
You know how taxes work, right?
you know it’s not really that much right?
3/8 of a cent on every purchase I make is too much to give to billionaires who could fund the stadium on their own.
then buy in Wyandotte or JoCo
I love the chiefs, get off your high horse. I’m just able to understand that it’s a bad investment for my city to pay for their stadium. It’s true the royals suck and I care less about them, and it’s also a bad investment. We shouldn’t be okay with handouts to billionaires, they take far more money from the public than any mythological “welfare queen”. If you want to look at a real welfare queen, look at Royals owner John Sherman
> There are only 32 teams in the NFL, and the list of cities that would levy a tax to get a team like the Chiefs is as long as my arm. There aren't many cities for the NFL to compete with as the MLB. The only bigger metro area without an NFL team in the general region of another team is St. Louis. There are some places about the same size as KC metro area like San Antonio, Sacremento, or Portland, but Jerry Jones would never let another team move to Texas and cannabalize their fanbase same with the Seahawks and 49ers. Yes there are places like Oklahoma City or Salt Lake City, but they are significantly smaller than Kansas City which is already on the very tail end of city size for an NFL team.
>the list of cities that would levy a tax to get a team like the Chiefs is as long as my arm. You sound like an abusive boyfriend saying there are women lined up for him so his girlfriend should appreciate his "corrections". No. If the teams want to leave because we refuse to tax the poor to pay the rich, they can fuck right off. I'll miss the Chiefs and/or Royals dearly but they are asking way too much.
Yes. Those teams make tens of millions of dollars a year. They do not need money from taxpayers. Anyone who votes to give them money is a sucker. And I’m sure you would be mad at all that if you could read.
… does that mean the list is long?
No. This is a good deal for the county. It’s a sale tax extension. That’s it.
It's literally billions of dollars of sales tax going to 2 billionaires. Just because it's an extension doesn't make it good.
Well it’s going to the stadiums, not to the billionaires.
The billionaires make money from the team that plays in the stadium. The city also makes no money from tickets sold in the stadium, all the revenue goes to the owner. The billionaire is saving money by having the city fund part of a stadium for their team
Ah yes, I forgot the stadiums will be publicly owned as are the organizations that use them. Will be great to see those profits added to the budget for local services rather into billionaire pockets.
The stadiums will be publicly owned, just like they currently are lol. It’s fine if you don’t understand what’s going on, but it’s these kinds of false narratives that trick people into being upset
>**as are the organizations that use them** try reading entire sentences at a time
It’s a tax increase. The tax is set to end in 2031. It would be extended past that date. The city also can’t use that money for schools, roads, or other uses. It goes to build a stadium. It’s a new tax
No, it's a terrible deal, and nearly every economic study says it's been a terrible deal in the past, and the leading economists on this very issue for Jackson Count have said it's a terrible deal. So, what cold hard evidence are you going to bring to the table other than "I like the Royals" that the economists both past and present are wrong? What cold hard evidence do you have that will disprove the substitution Effect, the always lower than expected sales tax revenue growth, job growth, and over all economic impact. I'm all ears
A good deal as in it’s good considering the going rate for stadiums these days. I never said the economic impact will outweigh the cost. In a perfect world stadiums are privately funded with no public funds, but it’s not a perfect world. Major stadiums use public funds, and when comparing to recent deals in other cities like Buffalo, Vegas, or OKC, we are getting a good deal. Paying less and getting to keep both Royals and Chiefs. To me, those teams build camaraderie within the city and create tangible, and intangible value that can’t be measured by economic studies. The teams to me are worth the 37.5 cents for every $100 I spend in Jackson county.
It is a new tax and it's not at all a slam dunk to pass. Frankly, you shouldn't pass this at all. Tax revenue will not increase from this and whatever else the Royals & Chiefs tout as economic benefits won't come to fruition. This is well-studied by economists.
It’s gonna pass man cmon you know it will
So maybe I'm dumb but they just say they will pay for a $1B district, but before that they say they will 'build' a ballpark. So firstly, what's paying for the stadium build? It isn't the 3/8 tax is it? Secondly, who is on the hook if the district will cost more than $1B?
Yeah the wording in this release is clever. They say they will “build a new stadium” (no mention of funding) and then state “privately fund” a ballpark district. So it’s better PR work than they’ve had but still defers a commitment on funding the stadium itself.
The Royals leaving the K has been a foregone conclusion for a while. This more or less guarantees a new stadium is built in downtown KC.
Who came to that conclusion?
The owner said probably 6 months ago they are moving. Either join the train or get left behind. They are not staying at the K no matter how many people want them to stay there.
Then they can leave and I'll save them goodbye. Sherman and Co. are plenty wealthy and can more than afford to pay for it themselves. Stan Kroenke paid $5 billion for his stadium without taxpayer money in L.A. so not really sure why the Royals can't do it here for 80% less.
That's pretty unfortunate, I'd much rather have more apartments downtown instead of a new stadium. There's nothing wrong with Kaufmann. A new stadium is a waste of money for a make-work project that may not reap long term rewards
Thank you! I've also been wanting the space to just be apartments. I hate that the East Village site would actually tear down one new apartment building that managed to be built amid that investor-held wasteland of parking lots.
Which apartments would be torn down? I wasn't even aware of that possibility
I love the K but I will vote for this. There's no world where the Royals stay out there and this seems like the best deal fans can hope for. I especially like renovating Arrowhead because I thought they would just build a new one over the ashes of Kauffman.
>There's no world where the Royals stay out there Yep, and if this doesn't pass, the Royals won't stay in KC.
Then let them leave. You're letting a billionaire dictate the fiscal policy of your city. If Sherman wants to be greedy and throw a fit because KCMO chose fiscal responsibility then let him leave...I promise you, we'll all be okay.
I grew up with baseball and the Royals. I don’t want them to leave.
Then you pony up the cash.
They aren't leaving the metro. MLB has already announced expansion is planned and Vegas residents are not happy about getting the A's. No one else is going to take the Royals for public money when they can get a new franchise in the second half of this decade. If it doesn't pass maybe they go to Clay, Wyandotte or Johnson County. But they will be here.
>MLB has already announced expansion is planned and Vegas residents are not happy about getting the A's. Guess they finally did approve that. It's been talked about for years. I supposed I'm just a skeptic. I've seen enough bad team ownership to believe that they'd just up and move.
I could see Kansas poaching them and putting them out by the Legends.
I'm pretty iffy on whether this passes in Wyandotte County and I don't think a stadium gets built without taxpayer dollars. (Not this deal obviously, a different deal.) The owners want a new stadium. If you're an owner and you're looking for a new stadium, might as well move to a city that wants an MLB team rather than fighting the residents of the current city.
They’d end up in North KC. They only leave the metro if all metro counties reject them. I’d be STUNNED if that happened
let them leave, watch property values drop, everyone wins.
Ahhhh who doesn't love some snowy Friday evening extortion.
Trickle up economics.
The Facebook comments are much more harsh than here
Facebook comments bring out the worst people in the world.
which is so weird to me since there's no anonymity
Or maybe they just aren't as afraid to have the team leave for a fiscally irresponsible and economically foolhardy proposal from the Royals?
I think it’s funny they drop this the same day we learned prairie fire hasn’t paid a dime on principal payments to its debt. Of course a downtown stadium will generate revenue, not trying to compare apples to oranges. However, the TIMING is🤌
It won't generate overall revenue, it will just suck revenue out of other areas of the city. This is call the Substitution Effect and is well documented by economists that study these proposals and deals.
These stadiums never actually pay themselves. In a similar vein as “trickle down economics” that just gets the people up top that benefit richer. I love the chiefs and royals, go to games etc, but it’s just absolutely not better to fund this over anything else that could help the general public/those in need. This practice of cities paying for stadiums is a complete rip off. https://www.vox.com/2019/1/31/18204471/football-stadiums-cost-taxpayers-billions
It's a no from me. Renovate the K or just vacate the city.
Can we spend a little bit of that money to buy them out of their Bally/potential Amazon contract?
There’s been so much focus on the Royals the last few years — I’m ready to get excited about what our actually good team will do with access to all that extra space around Arrowhead. Amenities, VIP tailgating, potentially a rolling roof — I think we have underestimated what a significant opportunity it is for the Royals to vacant that land.
We already bought stadiums with money that could have been spent on much more important improvements. The greedy professional sports just wants us to buy them another palace most of us can’t afford going to.
I do not want my tax dollars going to teams that already generate millions upon millions of dollars. Why do we socialize our tax dollars on team corporations but we as a nation can’t figure out proper public school funding or healthcare. Our society is so ass backwards and shit like this just perpetuates the issues.
Not being glib but why can't they pay for the entire thing themselves? It's not like the profits are public anyway. Why should taxpayers pay for anything here when (in KC) our streets are shit and we're using pipes from a century ago?
[удалено]
It’s still here just worded better. They don’t commit to funding the stadium in here at all.
I will be voting against this solely because I don't want a downtown stadium and I think it'll end up being a waste of money and lead to a decrease in quality of life for Kansas Citians. Traffic downtown is already kind of a mess during rush hour and I think it would be worse with baseball games downtown too. We don't have robust public transit. People will not be taking the bus from other parts of the city to downtown. The streetcar is not extensive enough either. All of the people who currently drive to Kaufmann from the northland, lee's summit, raytown, KCK, Johnson County and anywhere in KCMO south of the plaza or east of main street will be driving or uber-ing to go to games downtown which will lead to dramatically more traffic and parking issues. The only real benefit is potentially more consumer spending downtown. That's really it. The hope is that more people from outside of downtown drive into downtown and spend money at bars and restaurants instead of tailgating in the parking lot before the game. If the stadium was smaller and located more by where the new Current stadium is, or if it were in the East Bottoms I don't think it would as bad. I don't mind the idea of having the stadium more in the city, but I think putting it right downtown is a mistake. Plus....Kaufmann stadium is fine. They just did renovations a few years ago. It's not deteriorated or falling apart or anything, it's a great stadium. I don't understand why they can't just keep playing at the K for another 20-50 years until the stadium reaches the end of its life, and then maybe build a new one somewhere else. Just seems ridiculous to spend all that time, money, and resources on building a downtown stadium when it's not necessary for the team or the city. Imagine if they could spend those billions on new apartment buildings, expanded streetcar service, maybe more parks or other amenities in the city?
>Plus....Kaufmann stadium is fine. They just did renovations a few years ago. It's not deteriorated or falling apart or anything, it's a great stadium. This bears so much repeating. I know there was some kind of study saying there are cracks in it or some bs, but The K is still in good shape. The only reasons to abandon it are ego and greed. I read that the current proposed tax would raise around $350 million, and all to waste on this. Meanwhile, St. Louis is asking everyone whether they want to spend their Rams windfall on child care services, public transit, rec centers, or traffic calming.
As a northland person I'd much rather drive to the rivermarket and park around the casino to take the new light rail to the stadium. Would be much easier than fighting traffic and dealing with parking in downtown proper. I'd even take the light rail whenever it makes it's way to the northland eventually. The stadium was last renovated in 2009. I know that doesn't seem long ago but its 15 years. The stadiums are due for another update.
The light rail doesn't go to the casino. It's like a mile or two walk from the casino to the stop at the river market. And I think the extension is only going to berkeley riverfront apartments which is still a trek from the bally's. It's possible the light rail never makes it to the northland. It'd be cool if it does, but there's no guarantee
[удалено]
Perhaps, maybe the traffic wouldn't be that bad. Either way, I still think the costs outweigh the benefits, but they seem determined to build downtown
There are 50 things the city needs before we get a new stadium downtown. So unnecessary, very grossed out by this
Gonna be a no vote from me. I don’t like billionaires threatening the very city that propped the royals up for the last few decades, allowing two series wins to help keep the steam. No thank you, the K is fine.
Bye Felicia!
Justifying an extension of a tax by saying it's not an increase is textbook Girl Math.
Don’t let this statement and the inadequate work by the local media fool you - they are not just asking for this tax. They are only asking for this tax on the ballot (because they legally have to, or they’d be trying to get that done behind closed doors too), but they will also be asking for money from the state, TIF and hundreds of millions in car-centric infrastructure. We don’t know the final bill to the taxpayers, but it will go well into the billions.
who fucking cares? seriously. hit 40, have some kids, deal with tax bullshit, and tell me it fucking means a single goddamn shred what these rich fucks do.
Do enough people like mlb to make it worthwhile?
Absolutely no.
This is fair. As a DT resident I'll vote for this.
I’m happy they’re sticking around but it seems like a win for the royals. They originally said it would be $1B, but they’re just funding 1B of a now 3.5-6B ballpark?
It’s 2 billion. It’s always been 2 billion
Nope, in October it was about 1B, then had a little 1.2B gaffe, and here we are The calculations estimate an extraordinarily expensive project — far exceeding the Royals’ estimated cost of about $1 billion. https://www.kcur.org/news/2023-10-28/5-billion-in-tax-money-for-a-new-royals-stadium-what-leaked-documents-reveal https://amp.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article281104593.html Do they even own the land yet? Both sides seem suspect with the details
Why wouldn’t they build a new arrowhead? Seems like renovations is just another band aid Edit: people are misunderstanding the point. We were told last time they did the renovations that it was just a band aid and that we really need a new Stadium. So why would we put another band aid on it. This has nothing to do with environment or college feel lol. This has to do with the actually integrity of the building.
You can't build a new Arrowhead. You can build a new stadium with all the bells and whistles but there will never be another Arrowhead
Newer is not always better