Stadiums not an economic boon for taxpayers

Discussion about new sports facilities in Kansas City
lock+load
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 4209
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 11:25 am
Location: brookside

Re: Stadiums not an economic boon for taxpayers

Post by lock+load »

kcdcchef wrote: i have seen them at the tsc, though not often. either way, you rarely see them in the cbd in front of office buildings, like in other cities. you see them at bartle, for big conventions. either way, i have seen barbecuing going on outside arrowhead, before, on the sidewalks, with stuff for sale. not often though, either way, it has nothing to do with the royals.
How do you know?  You're telling me someone could not make money selling $2 hot dogs right outside the stadium where they charge $3.25 for a dog?  You are so full of it.
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

Post by LenexatoKCMO »

kcdcchef wrote: show a link for that. i do not believe you.
I love it when those words come out of Chef's mouth.  

Here you go:  http://espn.go.com/nfl/columns/ratto_ray/1538849.html
That is from the year he actually followed through with filing a suit.  The threats have come virtually every season since they got back.  Bottom line the renovation was a horrible idea - it made the place too big for baseball, too small for football, and ugly/boring/unprofitable to boot.  Unfortunately it was the best lowly Oakland/Alameda could come up with.  Now the Oakland baseball fans have had to look longingly accross the bay at the most beautiful park in baseball while they sit in their "renovated" concrete, sixties-style albatross of a stadium (much the same pathetic look we will all be making as we look accross the state of missouri if this thing passes).  Fortunately for Oakland their GM has been a miracle worker and kept them in playoff contention, thereby keeping attendance decent.  If the A's had been performing like the Royals the last few years, we would long ago have been seeing 4,000 fans a game out there and lots of talk of moving on to greener pastures.  
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

Post by kcdcchef »

lock&load wrote: How do you know?  You're telling me someone could not make money selling $2 hot dogs right outside the stadium where they charge $3.25 for a dog?  You are so full of it.
sure, they can make money. i am no more full of it then you are. you have no proof that the lack of vendors has ANYTHING to do with the teams, and neither do i.
that link does not say one goddamn thing about davis wanting a new stadium. not one goddamn thing. not to mention, it is almost 5 years old now.
LenexatoKCMO wrote:   (much the same pathetic look we will all be making as we look accross the state of missouri if this thing passes). 
the new busch is shaping up to look like the new stadiums in philly, cincy, dc, chicago, pitt, they are all starting to look alike. sorry. there are others on the board that agree with this.
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
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

Post by LenexatoKCMO »

kcdcchef wrote: that link does not say one goddamn thing about davis wanting a new stadium. not one goddamn thing. not to mention, it is almost 5 years old now.
He sued the goddamn county in state court to try and force them to pay for the shortfall in revenue generated by the piss-poor renovated stadium and to try and break the lease.  How much more explicit do you want it?  He has flirted with going back to LA ever since he left.  There is a reason why they can't even sell out the tiny coliseum for playoff games; Al has pissed of the city trying to get out of there ever since he got back.
kcdcchef wrote: the new busch is shaping up to look like the new stadiums in philly, cincy, dc, chicago, pitt, they are all starting to look alike. sorry. there are others on the board that agree with this.
 

Well by golly, if you have found a couple of other people who don't like the look of the new parks they must just suck.  All of the thousands of fans who like the new parks are obviously just fools.  What was I thinking?
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

Post by kcdcchef »

LenexatoKCMO wrote:
 

Well by golly, if you have found a couple of other people who don't like the look of the new parks they must just suck.  All of the thousands of fans who like the new parks are obviously just fools.  What was I thinking?
yeah, like those thousands in detroit, pittsburgh, and cleveland, where, they have built downtown palaces, and the attendance sucks ass.
LenexatoKCMO wrote: He sued the goddamn county in state court to try and force them to pay for the shortfall in revenue generated by the piss-poor renovated stadium and to try and break the lease. How much more explicit do you want it? He has flirted with going back to LA ever since he left. There is a reason why they can't even sell out the tiny coliseum for playoff games; Al has pissed of the city trying to get out of there ever since he got back.

you posted about the stadium. he is suing over the fact that his stadium is not sold out. there is not one thing in that piece that says ANYTHING about network associates collesium. nothing. he says the oakland alameda county promised sellouts, and 11 seasons later, he is not getting them. there is nothing, NOTHING in that piece about the quality of the stadium. NOTHING. it says he was promised sell outs, and did not get them. nowhere does it say that is based on the renovations. the renovations were done beacuse they were promised in the 1995 lease, and he almost had to sue to get them to even happen. either way, this says NOTHING about the quality of it. it just says he feels he was promised sell outs, and did not get them.

EITHER WAY, THERE IS NOT ONE DAMN THING IN THAT PIECE IN REFERENCE TO THE QUALITY OF THE RENOVATION, OR AL WANTING A NEW STADIUM. IT SAYS, WHEN HE MOVED THE RAIDERS, HE WAS PROMISED SELL OUTS. WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE STADIUM?????????????
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
GRID
City Hall
City Hall
Posts: 17178
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 12:20 pm
Contact:

Re: Stadiums not an economic boon for taxpayers

Post by GRID »

Kard wrote: Jerry "Save Our Billionaires" Agar is on 980 now, playing a tape of him and Darla Jaye talking with
A Johnson County guy (or gal) in some Johnson County radio station telling Jackson County how they should spend their money.

Yea, Ok.  I couldn't care less what Jerry or Darla think.
lock+load
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 4209
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 11:25 am
Location: brookside

Re: Stadiums not an economic boon for taxpayers

Post by lock+load »

GRID wrote: A Johnson County guy (or gal) in some Johnson County radio station telling Jackson County how they should spend their money.

Yea, Ok.  I couldn't care less what Jerry or Darla think.
Sounds like my opinion of chef!!  Do you know for a fact they live in JoCo?  I know the station is in JoCo.
User avatar
GRID
City Hall
City Hall
Posts: 17178
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 12:20 pm
Contact:

Re: Stadiums not an economic boon for taxpayers

Post by GRID »

lock&load wrote: Sounds like my opinion of chef!!  Do you know for a fact they live in JoCo?  I know the station is in JoCo.
Yep, heard them confirm it.

There are only one or two local talk show hosts that live on the MO side and I know of only one that lives in Jackson County, Todd Leabo of 810.  He is very much for the TSC tax by the way as most Jackson County people are unless they either don't like sports or they don't like tax money going to stadiums.
lock+load
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 4209
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 11:25 am
Location: brookside

Re: Stadiums not an economic boon for taxpayers

Post by lock+load »

GRID wrote: as most Jackson County people are unless they either don't like sports or they don't like tax money going to stadiums.
That just proves those in JoCo are more educated than those in JaxCo. 
User avatar
GRID
City Hall
City Hall
Posts: 17178
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 12:20 pm
Contact:

Re: Stadiums not an economic boon for taxpayers

Post by GRID »

lock&load wrote: That just proves those in JoCo are more educated than those in JaxCo. 
No, it proves that they like having the stadiums in there backyard and if they are going to fund them, they may as well keep them.  Most people think that putting the baseball stadium downtown would benefit Kansans far more the the average Jackson County resident that is paying for it.

The stadiums do have an impact on eastern Jackson County, it's spread out and the area around the stadiums is not really benefiting from it, but they do fill hotels and keep some traffic (shopping/dining etc) out east.

Plus they like the convenience.  It's so easy to go to a Royals game if you live in eastern Jackson County.  Hell even the traffic to sold out Royals and Chiefs games from the east is a piece of cake compared to coming from the west along 70 or from either direction of 435

I would take a downtown park in a heartbeat, but calling Jackson County people uneducated is rather rude if you ask me.  They like the stadium and its location. Just the way it is.
lock+load
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 4209
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 11:25 am
Location: brookside

Re: Stadiums not an economic boon for taxpayers

Post by lock+load »

Right, they are making decisions on what is best for them, not what is best for the city/county as a whole.  I don't call that making an educated decision. 
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

Post by kcdcchef »

lock&load wrote: Right, they are making decisions on what is best for them, not what is best for the city/county as a whole.  I don't call that making an educated decision. 
as opposed to you.............trying to make a decision that benefits you ( moving the stadium to within a mile of your home )
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: 4209
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 11:25 am
Location: brookside

Re: Stadiums not an economic boon for taxpayers

Post by lock+load »

kcdcchef wrote: as opposed to you.............trying to make a decision that benefits you ( moving the stadium to within a mile of your home )
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.
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

Post by kcdcchef »

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.
try again............


sure. how about that cheesey ass pathetic slogan of yours..............no, i cant afford it, yet, you would not say that, if the proposal, were a more expensive proposal, to put the stadium downtown. hows about that??
GRID wrote:

I would take a downtown park in a heartbeat, but calling Jackson County people uneducated is rather rude if you ask me. 
he is just a rude person grid. he will grow out of that.
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: 4209
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 11:25 am
Location: brookside

Re: Stadiums not an economic boon for taxpayers

Post by lock+load »

kcdcchef wrote: try again............


sure. how about that cheesey ass pathetic slogan of yours..............no, i cant afford it, yet, you would not say that, if the proposal, were a more expensive proposal, to put the stadium downtown. hows about that??
We've been through it before, but afford" does not just refer to whether I actually have the cash to pay the increased tax.  It is possible I could not afford a 3/8 tax for the TSC and could afford a 1/2 cent tax for something else.  It is the return on the investment.

But aparently you don;t get that.
User avatar
GRID
City Hall
City Hall
Posts: 17178
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 12:20 pm
Contact:

Re: Stadiums not an economic boon for taxpayers

Post by GRID »

If you can't afford 20 bucks spread out over a freaking year, you have problems.

Hell, if you can't afford 500 bucks spread out over a freaking year, you have problems.

Jackson County has a low tax rate, especially for a large, urban core county.

Please tell me you are against this tax because of principle.  You can't afford it?  Yea, Ok.
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

Post by kcdcchef »

GRID wrote: If you can't afford 20 bucks spread out over a freaking year, you have problems.

Jackson County has a low tax rate, especially for a large, urban core county.

Please tell me you are against this tax because of principle.  You can't afford it?  Yea, Ok.
it is about his high principles. he feels that if the stadium is downtown, that, the new hot dog vendors and t shirt salesman will make it worth it for the city, even though almost every new downtown stadium  in america has spurred JACKSHIT in terms of development.
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: 4209
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 11:25 am
Location: brookside

Re: Stadiums not an economic boon for taxpayers

Post by lock+load »

GRID wrote: If you can't afford 20 bucks spread out over a freaking year, you have problems.

Hell, if you can't afford 500 bucks spread out over a freaking year, you have problems.

Jackson County has a low tax rate, especially for a large, urban core county.

Please tell me you are against this tax because of principle.  You can't afford it?  Yea, Ok.
I can't afford it based on principle.  Of course I can afford $20 a year, just not for the TSC.
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

Post by kcdcchef »

lock&load wrote: I can't afford it based on principle.  Of course I can afford $20 a year, just not for the TSC.
so change your signature. no, i do not wish to pay the taxes to keep major league teams in kansas city, because, i feel they should abandon two of the nicest stadiums in pro sports just because other teams who built stadiums in the 70's did, even though ours look nothing like theirs did.
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: 4209
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 11:25 am
Location: brookside

Re: Stadiums not an economic boon for taxpayers

Post by lock+load »

kcdcchef wrote: so change your signature. no, i do not wish to pay the taxes to keep major league teams in kansas city, because, i feel they should abandon two of the nicest stadiums in pro sports just because other teams who built stadiums in the 70's did, even though ours look nothing like theirs did.
done, sort of :)
Post Reply