PROs and CONs of Question 1 and Question 2

[MidWestSider]

I know I know..  not another stadium topic!!

but.. I'm hoping this topic will serve more as a guide for the Jackson County voter that is still undecied on Q1 and Q2. (ie. ME)

So i'm asking everyone to simply list ONE pro or ONE con.  DO NOT reply to anyones answer and ONLY POST ONCE!!!  PLEASE  PLEASE PLEASE

[MidWestSider]

CON - I personlly feel the owners should be responsible for a larger percentage than what is currently being offered.

[mean]

CON - The net economic impact of a Kansas City Super Bowl, after considering all the costs incurred to ready the stadium and the city, would be zero at best.

[kcdcchef]

PRO- It will help continue to make kansas city, missouiri,  a major league city, and renovating kauffman and arrowhead stadiums, at a cost much smaller then building new stadiums, also preserves two not only historical stadiums, but stadiums that are both considered among the best in their respective sports.

[kucer]

CON - We need baseball downtown. Downtown needs baseball downtown. That's what major league cities do. Big time cities and their inhabitants don't cry about parking and lack of ease getting to a game.  They freaking persevere and stand up to billionaires who want to rob us.

[lock+load]

CON- It will continue the status quo for another 25 years.  We've seen what has happened around the stadiums for the last 33 years, exactly nothing.  Voting no provides us with flexibility to consider other options that may arise over the next ten years that will be unavailable if locked in to the TSC.

[Wallace T Hardcopy]

PRO - Our beloved billionaires will profit immensely!

[bahua]

CON - A message will be sent that says that the people of Kansas City will vote for anything, under the threat(with basis or not) of our teams leaving town.

[kard]

PRO and CON:

  PRO:  Superbowl attention is awesome.  New "toys" and infrastructure would be, too.

  CON:  Having to pay for all that infrastructure--after the stadium tax passes--will stretch Jackson County's taxing ability quite a bit.  Oie!

[LenexatoKCMO]

Con - the teams are contributing only a tiny fraction of the overall costs.  One of the worst stadium contribution ratios ever. 

[bahua]

CON - The people are falling for the FUD campaign, too.

[kman]

CON - We need baseball downtown. Downtown needs baseball downtown. That's what major league cities do. Big time cities and their inhabitants don't cry about parking and lack of ease getting to a game.  They freaking persevere and stand up to billionaires who want to rob us.

^ yeah, what he said.

[SouthKC1985]

Dang, everyone has cons and no pros except for about 2 people. Anyway, I guess I have a little bit of both.

Pro- The first ever sports complex will be preserved for some more years, Super Bowl, and maybe a future Final Four or 2 will come to Kansas City

Cons- With the Super Bowl possibly coming to Kansas City in 2015, a lot more needs to be done as far as transportation needs and anyone shopping in Jackson County will have to noticeable pay more for very expensive things for 25 years. I may not be living in Jackson County or anywhere in KC in 2 years or less so I may not see the finished product or construction (assuming it happens)... got to continue my education elsewhere

[Tosspot]

Premise: It's been widey flouted that the cost of a rolling roof could better be diverted towards a starter rail line.
           
                                                                However:

Could the need to update infraststucture in the event of a 2015 superbowl actually necessitate better transit options such as rail? If I could be convinced of this then maybe I'd actually vote yes.

[LenexatoKCMO]

Could the need to update infraststucture in the event of a 2015 superbowl actually necessitate better transit options such as rail? If I could be convinced of this then maybe I'd actually vote yes.

If by transit you mean rented motor coaches running between the additional hotels built out in the middle of nowhere East Jack rather than downtown - yes. 

[shinatoo]

PRO - it will perserve a two magnificent, historically significant, perfectly serviceable structures that were designed for a 100 year lifecycle, that already have a huge amount of money invested in them. Also it would send a message that we are not a throw away society.

CON - What I said above could be done with 80 million insted of 750 million. It would send a message that we could spend 680 mil on light rail, sewers, traffic improvements etc.

[aknowledgeableperson]

PRO
Best use of taxpayer money given the alternatives.  Taxpayer cost to rehab is quite less than building one and probably two new stadiums.  The taxpayer might have gotten a better deal but we cannot change the past.  To vote against it in order to get a better deal does not mean the taxpayer will receive a better deal.  In all likelihood the taxpayer will receive a worse deal.  We have what we have.

With a rolling roof the area gets a facility that is unique in the nation.  We get a Super Bowl, probably a MLB All-star game, go after the NCAA Final Four, get an event area that makes TSC usable for many more events

[kucer]

We have what we have.

[aknowledgeableperson]

Or in other words, the deal with the teams we have in front of us is what we have.  We can't change them at this time.  And in the future, if given a chance, it may not be any better.

So we have what we have.

[lock+load]

it may not be any better.

But it may be a lot better.  You'll never know without giving it a shot