KCRag Forum

I voted against this because I think it would be better to have the Wizards stadium in Riverside or WyCo.

kcdcchef wrote: i figured you would come in swift support of your beloved johnson county.

i ask the same question again. since you guys led this 3m a soccer field charge, i ask again, what does it take to clear the site that is there, flatten it out completely, install drainage in the ground, all the restrooms concessions, lighting, parking, seating, equipment buildings, the wizards stadium itself, what does it cost to build all that, since you guys are all saying, hell no, 3.5m a field is WWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYy to high.

okay, so what is reasonable to do what i just said, and tell me the contractor that will do it for the minimum price you propose.

Hey I am not leading any charge - if I were still a JoCo voter I may well have voted yes for it, overpriced or not - I tend to be a sucker for big projects.  However, there is no doubt that questions about the cost is what ultimately killed this thing.  In the week or two leading up to the vote, people were trotting out the costs for other large youth soccer complexes around the country that cost barely a fraction of this project.  It may well be that there were features of this plan which were a cut above other cities' complexes but if that was the case - the pro side did a poor job of spelling out what made these fields worth so much more money.  If you don't spell out why these fields will be so much better, all the voters hear is "city X built a youth soccer complex with 25 fields for $30 million".  If you are going to ask for $75 million you better be prepared to do a hell of a job of explaining why we need $75 million worth of fields when other cities have done it for $30 mil.  As I understand it - most of the fields at this complex were going to be expensive Field Turf, with all of the bells and whistles.  I guess the voters must not have felt that we needed all of these bells and whistles. 

Real or percieved - price is obviously what sunk it  - not some deep seeded desire to make Missourians pay for everything like some of you would like to believe.  I haven't spoken to anyone who voted no because they didn't want a soccer complex or because they didn't think JoCo should have to build one.

If the fields were $500,000 each, they would have voted no because they were going to be "cheap" and that wouldn't be good enough for Johnson County.  This is about two things, nimbys and the fact that there is even a war within JoCo between inside and outside the 435 loop on who gets what, oh and the idea they can say no to big bad billionaire sports owners and "do everything wrong KCMO" can't...

159th and 69 is not a huge chunk of flat river bottom land in the flood plains of the MO river tucked between trailer parks and factories.

This is "prime" suburban realestate along a prime suburban highway right at an exit that will be a major thoroughfare in the near future and land that is rough and has a creek running through it.

This complex would have been near excellent suburban shopping, dining and lodging and would have been instantly one of the top, if not the top soccer complex in the nation for both the locals and tourists from around the country.  A Wizards stadium would have only been icing on the cake.

JoCo blew it...because they are so smart...

From the letters I've read in the Star and Sun, it sounds as if a lot of soccer moms and dads who voted against this project did so because a) the constant emphasis on tournaments led them to believe that the fields would get used mainly by out-of-towners rather than residents or b) they wanted groupings of fields scattered around JoCo rather than all 24 consolidated in one spot. Cost wasn't the only concern that killed it.

KC0KEK wrote: From the letters I've read in the Star and Sun, it sounds as if a lot of soccer moms and dads who voted against this project did so because a) the constant emphasis on tournaments led them to believe that the fields would get used mainly by out-of-towners rather than residents or b) they wanted groupings of fields scattered around JoCo rather than all 24 consolidated in one spot. Cost wasn't the only concern that killed it.

now i get it. they had to have the fields spread out so they can all be driven to. walking from one to another is a concept joco'ers cannot handle.

now, it is clear.

GRID, it really amazes me just how much you hate Johnson County. I have a real hard time with it. Not that anyone really cares what I think, but geez.... FYI, there aren't double secret gatherings of JOCO citizens plotting how many new and exciting ways they can screw over KCMO.

Most JOCO residents are just like people everywhere, living their lives the best they can and voting on issues as they see them.

To me all this neverending JOCO hatred is insulting, especially when you consider all the contributions Johnson Countians actually make to the community and mostly because my family and I live here. If you've got a beef with the government, take it to them. If you feel there is a lack of respect for KC by JOCO citizens, or maybe a lack of understanding of the importance of the city, do what you can to educate.

Just please quit assuming EVERYONE who lives in JOCO are spoiled rotten little premadonna assholes who can't wait to f**k over KC.

Back to soccer.

I was very surprised how badly the vote went because the vast majority of people I talked to that live out here were all for the fields. As noted earlier, there was so much misinformation about the costs of these fields that NO ONE really knows what they would have cost. I heard Dave Lindstrom say they were closer to 1.5 million per field. I'm guessing the rest of the $$ was for intersections and infrastructure and the rest. But who freaking knows? The problem as I saw it was that this whole project came down very quickly for the residents and instead of hard numbers about what was real they got a 5 million dollar ad campaign that focused on the kids. That wasn't enough.

^ sorry. 

kcdcchef wrote: now i get it. they had to have the fields spread out so they can all be driven to. walking from one to another is a concept joco'ers cannot handle.

now, it is clear.

No, they wanted them spread around the county so that more residents would have faster, easier access than everyone always driving way out south for games and practices. (More neighborhood fields ought to placate those who want people to drive less. At least they'd be driving shorter distances.) Walking from field to field wasn't the issue.

GRID wrote: If the fields were $500,000 each, they would have voted no because they were going to be "cheap" and that wouldn't be good enough for Johnson County. 

Is that the best "logic" you can gin up in response to my question?  Good lord man, get a grip. 

kcdcchef wrote: now i get it. they had to have the fields spread out so they can all be driven to. walking from one to another is a concept joco'ers cannot handle.

now, it is clear.

What in the hell are you on about now? - let me get this straight - you seem to be accusing JoCo residents of being anti-urban, car addicts because they wanted soccer fields close by in their neighborhoods rather than having to drive to some consolidated complex in the hinterlands?  Did that actually make sense to you when you typed it?  Dude pull your head out. 

Once again - our two primary kansas bashers display the fine rational thought behind their views of the other side of the metro. 

time for platte county to step up and build this thing off of 635 just south of park hill south high school.

have they solved the flood problems for that piece of land yet?

shaffe wrote: time for platte county to step up and build this thing off of 635 just south of park hill south high school.

have they solved the flood problems for that piece of land yet?

pretty much, it is time for missouri residents to step it up and take care of kansans needs, again.

LenexatoKCMO wrote: Is that the best "logic" you can gin up in response to my question?  Good lord man, get a grip. 

What in the hell are you on about now? - let me get this straight - you seem to be accusing JoCo residents of being anti-urban, car addicts because they wanted soccer fields close by in their neighborhoods rather than having to drive to some consolidated complex in the hinterlands?  Did that actually make sense to you when you typed it?  Dude pull your head out. 

Once again - our two primary kansas bashers display the fine rational thought behind their views of the other side of the metro.   :?

At least I'm honest and I guess that's my biggest issue.  I have never, ever seen you post anything that would be negative toward joco on the issues I bring up because you act as if they do not exist, just like most of this city (MO & KS).  JoCo is our biggest obstical to being able to compete with other larger markets, I trully believe that for many reasons so we will just have to agree to disagree.

It's just so freaking amazing to think about what this city could do and what this city would be like if JoCo were on the same page as KCMO, absolutely mind boggling.

GRID wrote: It's just so freaking amazing to think about what this city could do and what this city would be like if JoCo were on the same page as KCMO, absolutely mind boggling.

Now that I agree with. It's going to take some serious leadership from both sides of the state line to make that happen. Leadership from the business community as well as elected officials. I think the citizens of JOCO will recognize the benefits of "ONEKC" if these leaders, as well as anyone who knows better, take the time to explain and educate the population on it's importance. Most people are pretty busy living their lives and don't really think about it otherwise. Of course the elected officials and business leaders need to believe it first.

I know I didn't take the time to truly examine all these issues until I started visiting this board. I agree that the METRO can be a much better place with everyone working to make it that way, but turning the issue into a us vs them will only make things worse.

Hell, we may get light rail, why not an end to the Hatfields (KS) and the McCoys (MO)?

Soccer Alive and Kicking

See, Overland Park? You blew it.

Then again, maybe they’re fine in OP with being merely the area’s largest bedroom community.

Maybe that explains why city officials this week pulled the plug on a Wizards soccer complex that would have been much like the one in Frisco.

Hey, but it’s not the end for something like Pizza Hut Park in the KC area, fellow soccer fans.

Instead, it looks like opportunity for some other community, one that’s hungrier than Overland Park.

A town with more pluck and vision, along the lines of Frisco.

Maybe the Wizards will wind up in Lee’s Summit, Riverside, WyCo/KCK or at Bannister Mall, all of which have been mentioned.

But don’t write off JoCo just yet.

Regardless what the babblers on talk radio say, the resounding “noâ€

Does it bother anyone else when someone writes a newspaper column with a new paragraph for literally every single sentence? Who taught these people how to write?

Its probably the editor, but yea, it reeks of something a child wrote.

eliphar17 wrote: Does it bother anyone else when someone writes a newspaper column with a new paragraph for literally every single sentence? Who taught these people how to write?

It bothers me, too, and I went to journalism school. For newspaper writing, J schools tend to teach one idea per paragraph. Unfortunately too many writers and editors blindly do what they were taught.

KC0KEK wrote: For newspaper writing, J schools tend to teach one idea per paragraph.

Since when did journalists start having "ideas"?  That sounds quite a bit more intellectual than anything I have seen in mainstream news the last several years. 

Point. Idea. Whatever term you prefer.

JOCO resident here - the initiative failed for several reasons.

The first reason is that the JOCO Parks Board tried to pretend that these soccer fields had nothing to do with the Wizards stadium, even though the only reason to pay the extra $20 million (over the Olathe & DeSoto sites) was because of the pairing of the Wizards, the fields and the hotels/infrastructure of Overland Park.  They came out with a schizophrenic message, and when asked questions about how they came to their decisions, refused to answer.  If they and Overland Park had come to voters with the total package (with the total costs identified), it probably would have passed.  I believe JOCO residents do want a world class facility, but put together a logical plan with the details open to everyone.

The other thing was that they tucked things into this initiative that people did not like.  Why was the JOCO Parks Board building a $9 million community center for Overland Park?  OP, Lenexa, Olathe (where I live) and the other cities can afford our own centers - JOCO Parks shouldn't have anything to do with that. If they want to build something in the rural areas of JOCO (say Spring Hill or Gardner) - I might support that, but really think they should concentrate on parks.

One other thing, normally initiatives like this go through the county commission.  Some residents are questioning the authority of the Parks Board to put this on the ballot.  All in all, they tried to rush this through.  If they put together a comprehensive plan; strip out the extraneous stuff like a community center for the richest community in the state; and take it back through the commission so that it can be debated extensively - then I think it will pass.

One comment on bi-state initiatives.  The last bistate failed in JOCO, I believe, because it wasn't clear just who would control the money, and how it would be spent.  If the counties would get together and put an initiative on the ballot for a Bi-state arts and sports commission, with elected members from each of the counties and KCMO, then I believe future initiatives might pass easier.  We need to know who we can hold accountable for these decisions - as long I can vote for or against the Bi-state commissioner from my county, I will probably support the initiatives.  I just want accountability.