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 » Wed Mar 22, 2006 5:54 pm

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


Links to back up your information please.

I am not saying the stadiums will cost this much, I am saying this is what the taxpayer liability will be.  It is a valid statistic.

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 5:56 pm

ballparks.com shows all the costs. almost every new stadium in mlb and the nfl are relying upon 25 year loans and bonds. kc is not alone.

but if you look at other cities, were the ONLY ones doing this it will "really" cost this over 25 years.

www.ballparks.com
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
49r
Colonnade
Colonnade
Posts: 835
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 11:08 am
Location: Kansas City, MO

Re: Stadiums not an economic boon for taxpayers

Postby 49r » Wed Mar 22, 2006 5:58 pm

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


HA!

I was thinking the exact same thing.


(s'pose we could get them to spell Minnesota?)

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 6:00 pm

49r wrote:HA!

I was thinking the exact same thing.


(s'pose we could get them to spell Minnesota?)


is all you guys ever do is worry about spelling and grammar? wow that is lame.
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 6:07 pm

kcdcchef wrote:ballparks.com shows all the costs. almost every new stadium in mlb and the nfl are relying upon 25 year loans and bonds. kc is not alone.

but if you look at other cities, were the ONLY ones doing this it will "really" cost this over 25 years.


I am not trying to compare KC to anyone, that is you (straw man??).

Yes OR no, do you agree that this will cost $1.02 billion in taxpayer dollars, if both question pass?

User avatar
GRID
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 14056
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 12:20 pm
Contact:

Re: Stadiums not an economic boon for taxpayers

Postby GRID » Wed Mar 22, 2006 6:10 pm

Whatcha guys talking about?  Anything interesting?

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 6:15 pm

lock&load wrote:I am not trying to compare KC to anyone, that is you (straw man??).

Yes OR no, do you agree that this will cost $1.02 billion in taxpayer dollars, if both question pass?


no
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 6:16 pm

kcdcchef wrote:no


So the BizJournal story is incorrect? 

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 6:17 pm

lock&load wrote:So the BizJournal story is incorrect? 


it is a smokescreen to make narrowminded opposition think that is what they are voting yes on.

it is dumb and you know it.
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 6:20 pm

kcdcchef wrote:it is a smokescreen to make narrowminded opposition think that is what they are voting yes on.

it is dumb and you know it.


Explain to me how it is dumb please.  No comparisions to other cities.  Tell me why the $850 million figure is incorrect.

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 6:21 pm

lock&load wrote:Explain to me how it is dumb please.  No comparisions to other cities.  Tell me why the $850 million figure is incorrect.


because it is 450 m and 170m. how much it swells to over 25 years is not of relevance. it is the same on any construction project.
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 6:24 pm

kcdcchef wrote:because it is 450 m and 170m. how much it swells to over 25 years is not of relevance. it is the same on any construction project.


The total cost to taxpayers over 25 years will be $850 million for renovations.  Are you disagreeing with this number?  If so, please explain how it is incorrect.  Saying it is not of relevance is NOT an explanation.

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 6:29 pm

lock&load wrote:The total cost to taxpayers over 25 years will be $850 million for renovations.  Are you disagreeing with this number?  If so, please explain how it is incorrect.  Saying it is not of relevance is NOT an explanation.


no construction project or purchase ever looks at anything beyond the principle. the principle, is 450m and 170m
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 6:32 pm

kcdcchef wrote:no construction project or purchase ever looks at anything beyond the principle. the principle, is 450m and 170m


This is why a discussion with you is worthless.  You refuse to address the relevant points.  You try to create your own reality.  The fact is, the renovation plan will cost $850 million over 25 years.  You have yet to refute that fact (even though I myself could make arguments against that statement, apparently you cannot). 

Save all of us the trouble, and stop interjecting your make believe reality.  Only jump into a discussion when you are either armed with facts or genuine opinions.  But spare us the "fake facts."

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 6:33 pm

lock&load wrote:This is why a discussion with you is worthless.  You refuse to address the relevant points.  You try to create your own reality.  The fact is, the renovation plan will cost $850 million over 25 years.  You have yet to refute that fact (even though I myself could make arguments against that statement, apparently you cannot). 

Save all of us the trouble, and stop interjecting your make believe reality.  Only jump into a discussion when you are either armed with facts or legitimate opinions.  But spare us the "fake facts."


construction projects never look beyond the principle. you want to bitch about facts, show me ANY construction project where they look at anything beyond the principle
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 6:34 pm

kcdcchef wrote:construction projects never look beyond the principle. you want to bitch about facts, show me ANY construction project where they look at anything beyond the principle


The fact that this is a construction project is irrelevant.  It is a tax, levied on the citizens of Jackson County, that will collect $850 million over 25 years.  You have yet to refute that point.

User avatar
49r
Colonnade
Colonnade
Posts: 835
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 11:08 am
Location: Kansas City, MO

Re: Stadiums not an economic boon for taxpayers

Postby 49r » Fri Jun 23, 2006 9:48 am

When does construction begin?


Return to “New Stadiums Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest