Stadiums not an economic boon for taxpayers

Discussion about new sports facilities in Kansas City
lock+load
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 4198
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 11:25 am
Location: brookside

Re: Stadiums not an economic boon for taxpayers

Postby lock+load » Tue Mar 21, 2006 7:25 pm

timberwolfrider wrote:Actually, both spellings are accepted. And in the other thread, I was speaking to those who dislike certain posters. I can see you are popular here.

You are just pissed off because the stadium thing is probably going to pass in 2 weeks. Get over it lock&load, it will pass, and we will still have our teams.



Sight refers to vision.  May I direct your attention to dictionary.com.

Thank you for your insight.  I disagree, but we'll leave it at that.

User avatar
timberwolfrider
Pad site
Pad site
Posts: 52
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 5:06 pm
Location: Kansas City, MO
Contact:

Re: Stadiums not an economic boon for taxpayers

Postby timberwolfrider » Tue Mar 21, 2006 7:51 pm

If you google web sight, and web site, you will find that people commonly use both, not sure what any of this has to do with stadiums though.

Did anyone catch that piece on 810 today? KK really gets heated when callers call in with an opposing point of view, hehe.

lock+load
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 4198
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 11:25 am
Location: brookside

Re: Stadiums not an economic boon for taxpayers

Postby lock+load » Tue Mar 21, 2006 8:02 pm

timberwolfrider wrote:If you google web sight, and web site, you will find that people commonly use both, not sure what any of this has to do with stadiums though.



So you're not the only one in this world with a sixth grade education.  A cookie for you.

User avatar
kcdcchef
The Quiet Chair
The Quiet Chair
Posts: 8804
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 10:48 pm
Location: pittsburgh, pennsylvania

Re: Stadiums not an economic boon for taxpayers

Postby kcdcchef » Tue Mar 21, 2006 8:07 pm

lock&load wrote:So you're not the only one in this world with a sixth grade education.  A cookie for you.



i see you found someone else to fight with. good for you.

timberwolfrider wrote:If you google web sight, and web site, you will find that people commonly use both, not sure what any of this has to do with stadiums though.

Did anyone catch that piece on 810 today? KK really gets heated when callers call in with an opposing point of view, hehe.


for the record, dude, you will not win a fight, EVER, with lock or lenexa. they are way too smart.
MU FINISHED THE YEAR RANKED HIGHER IN HOOPS AND FOOTBALL THAN THE KAY U JAYDORKS. UP YOURS KAY U JAYDORK FANS!!!! :D :D :D :D :D

aknowledgeableperson
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12185
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm

Re: Stadiums not an economic boon for taxpayers

Postby aknowledgeableperson » Tue Mar 21, 2006 11:06 pm

kcdcchef wrote:

either way, the royals are not stopping any vendors from setting up shop on sidewalks at the truman sports complex. and i disagree with this assertion, they lease the property, but where does their property end and begin, that they lease? 


Anything inside the parking gates the teams control on their game days.  Vendors could set up with the permission of the teams.  Would imagine that the fees the teams would impose on the vendors would be high.  The teams do not want to lose concession sales, where they get their income.
I may be right.  I may be wrong.  But there is a lot of gray area in-between.

aknowledgeableperson
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12185
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm

Re: Stadiums not an economic boon for taxpayers

Postby aknowledgeableperson » Tue Mar 21, 2006 11:15 pm

lock&load wrote:I will not always live downtown, and would still be an ardent DT ballpark supporter.  I haven't always been a DT resident but have been a DT ballpark proponent for a long time.  Thanks, try again.


If stadiums are not an economic boom for taxpayers then why should a stadium be built downtown?  Wouldn't it make more economic sense to put it its place a development that would be MORE on an economic boom for the downtown area?
If a stadium is not an economic boom wouldn't it make more sense to put it at a location that would result in less or minimal harm? 
I may be right.  I may be wrong.  But there is a lot of gray area in-between.

LenexatoKCMO
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 14667
Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 3:34 pm
Location: Valentine

Re: Stadiums not an economic boon for taxpayers

Postby LenexatoKCMO » Tue Mar 21, 2006 11:22 pm

49r wrote:The straw man fallacy is a rhetorical technique (also classified as a logical fallacy) based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position; deriving from the use of straw men in combat training.
[edit]
In logic and rhetoric

A straw-man argument is the practice of refuting a weaker argument than an opponent actually offers. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to your opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is also a logical fallacy, since the argument actually presented by your opponent has not been refuted, only a weaker argument.
One can set up a straw man in the following ways:
Present the opponent's argument in weakened form, refute it, and pretend that the original has been refuted.
Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.
Present someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute that person's arguments, and pretend that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated.
Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, and pretend that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
Some logic textbooks define the straw-man fallacy only as a misrepresented argument. It is now common, however, to use the term to refer to all of these tactics. The straw-man technique is also used as a form of media manipulation.
An example of the Straw Man technique would be:
Debater A: "I don't think that children should play out in the busy streets."
Debater B: "I think it's very cruel to deny children their freedom to play out of doors, or to go wherever they please. Children should not be kept locked-up in their own homes as my opponent suggests."
However, carefully presenting and refuting a weakened form of an opponent's argument is not always itself a fallacy. Instead, it restricts the scope of the opponent's argument, either to where the argument is no longer relevant or as a step of a proof by exhaustion.
As a rhetorical term, "straw man" describes a point of view that was created in order to be easily defeated in argument; the creator of a "straw man" argument does not accurately reflect the best arguments of his or her opponents, but instead sidesteps or mischaracterizes them so as to make the opposing view appear weak or ridiculous.
The name 'straw man' comes from a physical analogy which highlights the fallacious nature of the a straw man argument. Imagine two men in a fight. The first person throws a punch at the second, and the second person, in defence, builds a man from straw, starts throwing punches at it, and later claims victory for winning the fight against the other person.


Thanks for the effort 49r; I am afraid it went right over the head in question though. 

User avatar
KCMax
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 24051
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 3:31 pm
Location: The basement of a Ross Dress for Less
Contact:

Re: Stadiums not an economic boon for taxpayers

Postby KCMax » Tue Mar 21, 2006 11:35 pm

If stadiums are not an economic boom for taxpayers then why should a stadium be built downtown?  Wouldn't it make more economic sense to put it its place a development that would be MORE on an economic boom for the downtown area?
If a stadium is not an economic boom wouldn't it make more sense to put it at a location that would result in less or minimal harm? 


Stadiums are not economic booms, they do not create much in the terms of new economic development. However, they can redirect existing economic activity and pinpoint in certain areas. For example, dollars currently spent by Royals fans on bars and restaurants in Olathe could be instead spent downtown because of a stadium.
SAVE THE PLAZA - FROM ZOMBIES! Find out how at:

http://twitter.com/TheKCRag

aknowledgeableperson
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12185
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm

Re: Stadiums not an economic boon for taxpayers

Postby aknowledgeableperson » Wed Mar 22, 2006 2:43 am

^^^
You still did not adequately answer my questions.  Yes, I understand that economic activity can be redirected but given KC's situation why spend the extra money on a new stadium when rehabbing the existing one would surfice?  By taking the 4, 6, or 8 blocks that would be dedicated to a stadium and putting offices and/or residences and/or retail in that area may/should have a greater affect on redirecting existing economic activity than a stadium.  Not only that but offices/residences/retail would have a greater effect on downtown only an almost daily basis instead of only 80 or 81 days/nights a year.
I may be right.  I may be wrong.  But there is a lot of gray area in-between.

User avatar
kcdcchef
The Quiet Chair
The Quiet Chair
Posts: 8804
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 10:48 pm
Location: pittsburgh, pennsylvania

Re: Stadiums not an economic boon for taxpayers

Postby kcdcchef » Wed Mar 22, 2006 7:55 am

aknowledgeableperson wrote:If stadiums are not an economic boom for taxpayers then why should a stadium be built downtown?  Wouldn't it make more economic sense to put it its place a development that would be MORE on an economic boom for the downtown area?
If a stadium is not an economic boom wouldn't it make more sense to put it at a location that would result in less or minimal harm? 


i do not buy this akp. there is no way that the kansas city royals have the absolute say on what happens on the whole tsc on game day, let alone on their own site. they do not own either, they are renters.
MU FINISHED THE YEAR RANKED HIGHER IN HOOPS AND FOOTBALL THAN THE KAY U JAYDORKS. UP YOURS KAY U JAYDORK FANS!!!! :D :D :D :D :D

lock+load
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 4198
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 11:25 am
Location: brookside

Re: Stadiums not an economic boon for taxpayers

Postby lock+load » Wed Mar 22, 2006 5:28 pm

Chef, you always call us fools for advertising this as a potential $1 billion deal:  from the Business Journal

Question 1 seeks a three-eighths-cent sales tax that would raise an estimated $850 million to pay off at least $425 million in construction bonds as part of a $575 million stadium redevelopment plan at the sports complex.

Question 2 calls for raising $170 million through a tax on goods used inside Jackson County but bought outside Missouri.

Add it up and that is $1.02 billion.

Source:  Kansas City Business Journal

User avatar
timberwolfrider
Pad site
Pad site
Posts: 52
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 5:06 pm
Location: Kansas City, MO
Contact:

Re: Stadiums not an economic boon for taxpayers

Postby timberwolfrider » Wed Mar 22, 2006 5:34 pm

That is the dumbest shit I have ever heard. It will cost X amount of dollars, that is the same shit as sitting there and saying your 12,000 car is really a 15,000 car, or a 250,000 home is really a 320,000 home, that is dumb as a mother fucker.

You will sit there in the same breath and say that other stadiums are cheaper, and then sit back like an uneducated fool and say how much this really costs.

The shit costs 450 million and 170 million. Argue until you blow your ears off, that is how much it costs you are adding in the total over a quarter of a century and I listen to other towns like Baltimore and Cincinatti and they never do this dumbass crap about how much it really costs.

lock+load
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 4198
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 11:25 am
Location: brookside

Re: Stadiums not an economic boon for taxpayers

Postby lock+load » Wed Mar 22, 2006 5:38 pm

I didn't say anything, just posted quotes from the BizJournal story. Are you saying the BizJournal is disseminating the "dumbest shit I have ever heard" and "is dumb as a mother fucker?"

You get my vote for worst new forumer in a long time.

User avatar
timberwolfrider
Pad site
Pad site
Posts: 52
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 5:06 pm
Location: Kansas City, MO
Contact:

Re: Stadiums not an economic boon for taxpayers

Postby timberwolfrider » Wed Mar 22, 2006 5:41 pm

Funny lock&load, you had my vote a long time ago.

lock+load
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 4198
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 11:25 am
Location: brookside

Re: Stadiums not an economic boon for taxpayers

Postby lock+load » Wed Mar 22, 2006 5:43 pm

timberwolfrider wrote:Funny lock&load, you had my vote a long time ago.


Way to address the question.

User avatar
kcdcchef
The Quiet Chair
The Quiet Chair
Posts: 8804
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 10:48 pm
Location: pittsburgh, pennsylvania

Re: Stadiums not an economic boon for taxpayers

Postby kcdcchef » Wed Mar 22, 2006 5:45 pm

lock&load wrote:Way to address the question.


why are you trashing another good stadium thread lockandload?
MU FINISHED THE YEAR RANKED HIGHER IN HOOPS AND FOOTBALL THAN THE KAY U JAYDORKS. UP YOURS KAY U JAYDORK FANS!!!! :D :D :D :D :D

User avatar
KCMax
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 24051
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 3:31 pm
Location: The basement of a Ross Dress for Less
Contact:

Re: Stadiums not an economic boon for taxpayers

Postby KCMax » Wed Mar 22, 2006 5:46 pm

They both spell Cincinnati incorrectly the exact same way.
SAVE THE PLAZA - FROM ZOMBIES! Find out how at:

http://twitter.com/TheKCRag

User avatar
kcdcchef
The Quiet Chair
The Quiet Chair
Posts: 8804
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 10:48 pm
Location: pittsburgh, pennsylvania

Re: Stadiums not an economic boon for taxpayers

Postby kcdcchef » Wed Mar 22, 2006 5:48 pm

KCMax wrote:They both spell Cincinnati incorrectly the exact same way.


oh god here we go with spelling again. good god.
MU FINISHED THE YEAR RANKED HIGHER IN HOOPS AND FOOTBALL THAN THE KAY U JAYDORKS. UP YOURS KAY U JAYDORK FANS!!!! :D :D :D :D :D

lock+load
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 4198
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 11:25 am
Location: brookside

Re: Stadiums not an economic boon for taxpayers

Postby lock+load » Wed Mar 22, 2006 5:49 pm

kcdcchef wrote:why are you trashing another good stadium thread lockandload?


I'm trashing?  I posted valid information from a legitimate news source.  Address that.  $1.02 billion total tax to be collected for both ballot questions.

As for this thread, I think we trashed it already a couple days ago. :)

User avatar
kcdcchef
The Quiet Chair
The Quiet Chair
Posts: 8804
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 10:48 pm
Location: pittsburgh, pennsylvania

Re: Stadiums not an economic boon for taxpayers

Postby kcdcchef » Wed Mar 22, 2006 5:52 pm

ok fine, then quit saying other stadiums only cost X amount of dollars. busch is a 25 year loan, then it costs over 500m.

and the new arizona stadium is really a 600m stadium

pnc and heinz, are really 1.4b
MU FINISHED THE YEAR RANKED HIGHER IN HOOPS AND FOOTBALL THAN THE KAY U JAYDORKS. UP YOURS KAY U JAYDORK FANS!!!! :D :D :D :D :D


Return to “New Stadiums Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest