Anti-Arena Campaign

Post by **dangerboy** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 7:27 pm

KC0KEK, An arena by itself isn't going attract or retain a company or an individual. But an arena is part of a bigger picture of things make a city a good place to live or locate a company. The sports, concerts, and conventions at an arena are all part of a healthy city - just like a performing arts center, a visual arts scene, good schools, effective transportation, parks and trails, etc.

Post by **bahua** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 7:32 pm

If the Royals left KC(which I think would have been a possibility if this season had gone differently), I would still be happy to live here. Sporting events are not what makes a city a great entertainment draw. They help, certainly, but they only complement the existing entertainment infrastructure.

but make no mistake- that infrastructure must predate the construction of any new arenas or stadiums. They are symptoms of success, not reasons for it.

KCDevin · Post by **KCDevin** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 8:13 pm

the Royals will not leave KC anytime soon, and the Chiefs will NEVER leave.
And why is everyone bashing KC now??!! I get very mad whenever someone from KC insults our city and state.
The arena is a great thing, if I could, I'd do something to shut down that retarted freak website...

Post by **mean** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 8:24 pm

these events attract tons of tourist dollars for the cities hotels, restaurants, museums and public transportation system

They do produce revenue, but a good question is how much revenue? When you read in the Star that KC did $8237423 gajillion in tourist bux over last weekend, try and work out how much of that will be staying in Kansas City's economy. You will find that only a small percentage -- much less than we spend on development and redevelopment projects to get the business in the first place -- actually finds its way back into the city's pockets. Think about it: if the city really made a killing on this stuff, why would we need to continually raise taxes (or appeal to higher governments) to fund it?

In other words, we're losing money and will continue to lose money on projects like this. Which, I do realize, is a decision the city needs to make...just because something is not a sound economic investment doesn't mean it's not a sound investment in Kansas City's image. This goes for arenas, convention space, et al. Despite that they are black holes sucking money away from the city, they do indisputably provide less tangible benefits. Are these intangible benefits worth a major investment right now? Should we invest in a project which would provide more immediate tangible economic benefits instead? Maybe, maybe not. The city will have to decide. I just hope they aren't basing their decisions on the false belief that these investments will bring increased noteriety and big bucks to Kansas City. The only thing that can accomplish that is a large, hip, dense, and safe urban environment. The only way to get that is to reel people in and get them to stay.

Will it bring people downtown who wouldn't otherwise be there? Absolutely. Will these people stop by businesses before and after events and spend a few bucks? Definitely.

But where will they spend their bucks? Mostly on the game / concert / opera, which we've already determined is probably going to be a money loser for the city. So perhaps they'll have dinner at Lidia's (money goes to New York) and a night at Holiday Inn (England). Maybe they'll get gas at QuikTrip (Tulsa) and pick up a six pack of Bud (St. Louis).

A couple extra sales tax dollars is all we're really looking at. It doesn't make economic sense. Maybe in other ways, but not economically. Residents are worth a lot more money than tourists, and they're a lot more likely to keep their money in the economy to boot.

KCPowercat · Post by **KCPowercat** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 8:35 pm

actually privately run arenas routinely turn profits for cities.

Police, Fire, help for the poor, Education also lose money but I'm fairly certain we should keep those.....

Get an economist to find out how much of that money actually stays in KC.....what percent of each hotel bill goes to the staff for employees? That money obviously stays in the city. Almost every business' biggest expense is employee wages....that all stays in the city.

Actually a very profitable business will turn a net profit of 15% of sales....that would be your amount going back to the corporatation...rest would stay in the city to pay for the other side of the balance sheet.

It's very easy to be against everything....it's much more difficult to not accept the status quo and see the city continue to build up.

KCPowercat · Post by **KCPowercat** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 8:41 pm

if you think people don't decide to move or not to move to a city based on factors (such as sports teams) I think that's crazy. I've done no studies but I'm fairly certain companies and individuals wouldn't look as kindly on the KC area w/o sports teams. it's part of the quality of life everybody is looking for now since jobs aren't tied to manufacturing plants. There are obviously many other factors but things like cost of living, and cultural (including sports) amenities are huge factors in deciding where to live.

Everything has public subsidy....maybe you don't like that idea but that's the way it is. Companies, sports teams, everything gets public subsidies...if we decided not to "play the game" we would be overtaken by Dodge City, KS soon because business would bail along with residents.

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

Post by **mean** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 9:08 pm

if we decided not to "play the game" we would be overtaken by Dodge City, KS soon because business would bail along with residents.

I really don't think there's any evidence that would happen, but it's a great way to scare people into letting you have their money.

Everything has public subsidy because we're becoming something of a welfare state, and I find it funny that just moments ago you said something about bucking the status quo. To my mind, this is the status quo that needs stood up against. The poor giving welfare to the rich. What kind of craziness is this that we not only accept it, but we have convinced ourselves it's necessary? Sick, sick, sick!

I'm ALL FOR the health and prosperity of Kansas City. In fact, it is to me as I'm sure it is to many of you kind of a personal mission to see this great city fulfill its potential. But I don't see how it can happen if we keep up with the corporate welfare. I've thought about it a hell of a lot. :/

KCPowercat · Post by **KCPowercat** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 9:13 pm

Mean....sounds like you need to find some spare land somewhere and start up the United States of Mean....many people would joing U.S.M.

There is evidence it would happen....quality of life is a combination of many things including entertainment options....as you propose, we stop using public money to fund these things you are going to lose sports, museums, etc......people will move out and so will businesses w/o these amenities. Of course then you'll get to keep more of your money, just not sure what you'll do with it....he with the most cash when we die doesn't "win"

KC0KEK · Post by **KC0KEK** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 9:15 pm

KC wrote:if you think people don't decide to move or not to move to a city based on factors (such as sports teams) I think that's crazy. I've done no studies but I'm fairly certain companies and individuals wouldn't look as kindly on the KC area w/o sports teams. it's part of the quality of life everybody is looking for now since jobs aren't tied to manufacturing plants. There are obviously many other factors but things like cost of living, and cultural (including sports) amenities are huge factors in deciding where to live.

Everything has public subsidy....maybe you don't like that idea but that's the way it is. Companies, sports teams, everything gets public subsidies...if we decided not to "play the game" we would be overtaken by Dodge City, KS soon because business would bail along with residents.

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

Of coures people "decide to move or not to move to a city based on factors." But where do sports rank among those factors? Are they higher than good schools and roads that aren't crumbling?

KCPowercat · Post by **KCPowercat** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 9:18 pm

to me, yes. To others with kids, maybe yes, maybe no...I won't raise my kids where I can't take them to see major league sports. Roads? If you want great roads, central KS has some that are in perfect condition...they repair them every other year.....

The comments were leading towards not funding any of these types of projects or businesses that just ask for hand outs.....not just sports.

If that was taken literally, nobody would have to worry about living here because no company of significance would stay to employ you.

It's very noble to "take a stand" and all but we all know it's not feasable in reality.

QueSi2Opie · Post by **QueSi2Opie** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 9:45 pm

Trust me, if KC lost its professional sports, we'd probably lose a few more Fortune 500 companies as well. Nobody wants to locate or work in a city with dried up entertainment, minor league sports, half-assed theater, and so on. One of the main reason we're losing downtown companies now isn't jus' because of poor infrastructure, it's also from lack of entertainment. Sports may not be entertainment for some dried up hippy, but it's definitely entertainment for the majority of the masses...whether we like it or not!

Post by **bahua** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 10:21 pm

Subsidy is a horrible problem in this country, and it needs to stop. And you can't stop it by continuing to practice it!

But, the argument that subsidies are necessary is very flawed. Where's the subsidy for my rent? Why would I want to move downtown, unless the city will make sure my rent is cheaper? How about my electric bills and internet access? These things sound ridiculous, yet the exact same thing is being encouraged, on a much much larger scale, with corporations and sporting venues.

The trick is to make the city attractive anyway. Make Kansas City a beautiful place, where both employers and residents want to be. Leisure will follow that. No special arrangements need to be made, and no company/entity need be singled out.

This all leads back into the fact that the city isn't doing well, because the city is chasing people away with its taxation and zoning laws.

Post by **mean** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 10:31 pm

Create my own country!? All I'm doing is espousing the very values this country is supposed to be based on.

This is getting totally non-productive. If you believe that corporate welfare is the only way to have jobs, then you are believing a lie. A very expensive one, too. It is a fast and effective way, but it is NOT the only way. And it's a risky way...how many of those jobs have been made and then disappeared? How many!? You people are surely not blind.

I can't believe how much defense I'm hearing that is based in total nonfactual unresearched crap. Emotional arguments be damned. Dismiss roads and infrastructure, we don't need 'em, we just need an arena? "If you want good schools and roads, move to central Kansas"...don't you see that is EXACTLY what people are going to do!

At least we'll have an arena, right?

kcteen · Post by **kcteen** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 10:32 pm

Subsidy is a horrible problem in this country, and it needs to stop. And you can't stop it by continuing to practice it!

But, the argument that subsidies are necessary is very flawed.

Subsidies aren't inherently evil like you are ranting. Subsidies are very, very necessary in many industries or companies in that industry simply wouldn't be able to operate in our profit-driven world. Take the airlines for example, or amtrak. (if you dont think airlines are subsidized boy are you mistaken). Also, your natural gas company that supplies your home/apartment with gas is probably subsidized, not to mention things like public transportation in just about every city (and even though its subsidized doesn't mean it shouldn't exist). Not to be offensive, but it sounds like you should take at least an intro econ class.

Subsidizing a baseball team on the other hand, is debateable and a personal issue. But I would imagine (of course i have no evidence/statistics/tc) that the team brings more attention and $$ to the city indirectly than the subsidy itself.

KcTeen

Post by **mean** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 10:45 pm

Subsidies are very, very necessary in many industries or companies in that industry simply wouldn't be able to operate in our profit-driven world.

Then they should be allowed to die. This is how progress is made. The old die, the young grow, blah blah blah cycle of life. We could have replaced the entire passenger air service in the US with something cheaper, better, and safer by now if we'd have spent money on building the new instead of keeping the old alive. You will find this to be the case in virtually every industry.

Subsidies = stagnation. Your examples of the airline industry and Amtrak and public transit illustrate this point amazingly well. This is the 21st Century, why aren't we zipping around on high speed trains? Because we keep pumping money into stagnant systems like Amtrak and the airlines.

QueSi2Opie · Post by **QueSi2Opie** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 10:59 pm

mean wrote:This is the 21st Century, why aren't we zipping around on high speed trains? Because we keep pumping money into stagnant systems like Amtrak and the airlines.

I agree with you there, let Amtrak die because something better will replace it.

Now should we let the Empire Theater and President Hotel die?

Anyhow, I jus' think anything, and I mean ANYTHING proposed for downtown can only help create a vibrant city. I seriously doubt that people will abandoned their $120,000 - $300,000 lofts because downtown is jus' what a downtown should be...expensive, loud and filled with a variety of entertainment. If they wanted peace, quiet, cheaper rents, they should've moved to the burbs. It's not like we'll ever be payin' what peeps pay to live in downtown Chicago. Let's kick start downtown now, then after it becomes a hot spot for businesses, residents, and entertainment...then we can stop what we believe are poor economic decisions. If Barnes package includes Waddell & Reed, H&R Block, an Entertainment District and an Arena, I truely hope people don't stand in the way or we'll be waitin' another 10 years.

KCPowercat · Post by **KCPowercat** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 11:55 pm

I'm not getting any further into this....you rant about unresearched opinions but I have yet to see any research on either side.

Things like arenas put more money on the income side of the balance sheet which then funds things like better roads. Vibrant cities which include things like new sports facilities, new arts centers, more corporations bring in more residents, which contribute more tax money. Who said we didn't need good roads or schools?

I'm not saying I like handouts everywhere and I do thing they need to be curtailed, but I'm not living in some dream world where I'm going to talk in theories and not in reality.

I'd love to hear your option on this issue....

GRID · Post by **GRID** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 7:52 am

If the Royals left KC I would move in a heartbeat. It's about quality of life and having MLB is important to me and my family as well as the Zoo, WOF, Union Station, Nelson and so on. I am not the only one that feels this way.

If I wanted to live in Salina where taxes are low and the roads are always smooth, I would. That would kill me though.

KC0KEK · Post by **KC0KEK** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 8:00 am

KC wrote:to me, yes. To others with kids, maybe yes, maybe no...I won't raise my kids where I can't take them to see major league sports. Roads? If you want great roads, central KS has some that are in perfect condition...they repair them every other year.....

The comments were leading towards not funding any of these types of projects or businesses that just ask for hand outs.....not just sports.

If that was taken literally, nobody would have to worry about living here because no company of significance would stay to employ you.

It's very noble to "take a stand" and all but we all know it's not feasable in reality.

Why isn't it feasible? Lots of states and cities (e.g., St. Louis, SF) have taken a stand and said, "If you want a new arena/stadium, you'll have to pay for most of it yourself." Some have lost their teams, but some haven't.

KC0KEK · Post by **KC0KEK** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 8:05 am

QueSi2Opie wrote:Trust me, if KC lost its professional sports, we'd probably lose a few more Fortune 500 companies as well. Nobody wants to locate or work in a city with dried up entertainment, minor league sports, half-assed theater, and so on. One of the main reason we're losing downtown companies now isn't jus' because of poor infrastructure, it's also from lack of entertainment. Sports may not be entertainment for some dried up hippy, but it's definitely entertainment for the majority of the masses...whether we like it or not!

Huh? I'd like to see some proof that entertainment and sports are key factors that companies consider when deciding whether to leave or move to downtown. Parking, public transportation, proximity to employees' homes and the price of office space are the factors that companies generally cite when reporters ask them to explian their decision.