Stadiums not an economic boon for taxpayers

Discussion about new sports facilities in Kansas City
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

Post by kcdcchef » Tue Mar 21, 2006 12:16 pm

LenexatoKCMO wrote:I already told you, he isn't "asking" for a new stadium because he knows there isn't any money left in Oakland to build an outhouse, let alone a new stadium.   . 


your side of the story is great and all lenexa, however, we were speaking about the renovated stadiums of anaheim and oakland, and YOU stated that not only did oakland want a new stadium, that you had the proof they did.

you failed to provide it. just your opinions is all you provided, which, is fine, this IS a forum, you can feel free to do that here.

however, you proved NOTHING about oakland wanting a new stadium. NOTHING.
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 » Tue Mar 21, 2006 12:28 pm

kcdcchef wrote:your side of the story is great and all lenexa, however, we were speaking about the renovated stadiums of anaheim and oakland, and YOU stated that not only did oakland want a new stadium, that you had the proof they did.


Where?  Show me the qoute.  I never said that anyone had demanded a new stadium from Oakland.  Only that he had tried to get out of that stadium since the get go and that the renovation has been completely unsatisfactory on almost every level.  I have supported that throughout.  You just haven't wanted to deal with the reality of my point.  There is nothing positive to point to about the Oakland Alameda Renovation: it made the place less enjoyable for baseball, it didn't improve the fan experience, it didn't lead to a dime of ancillary development or revitalization; it didn't do enough to make the place profitable for football; and it didn't satisfy the ownership or ensure the long-term viability of the teams in that market.  What positive can really be identified about that renovation investment beyond the fact that the teams haven't left, yet? 

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

Post by kcdcchef » Tue Mar 21, 2006 12:30 pm

LenexatoKCMO wrote:
And in Oakland - They spent a fortune on enhancements that did nothing to make it better for baseball (and arguably worse) and weren't nearly good enough to make it serviceable for football.  It didn't take Al Davis a whole season to start whining that the renovation was inadequate and start threatening to move the team again. 



there you go. davis does not mention renovations. he mentions the lack of sell outs he was promised. you mentioned renovations, not davis.
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: 4199
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 11:25 am
Location: brookside

Re: Stadiums not an economic boon for taxpayers

Post by lock+load » Tue Mar 21, 2006 12:32 pm

kcdcchef wrote:
not that this has anything to do with this thread, but, what do you do for a living?


I'm not giving you any more ammunition.

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 » Tue Mar 21, 2006 12:46 pm

Whoa Whoa Whoa, I see you trying to climb out of the whole you dug.  Back it up.


You accused me of this:
kcdcchef wrote:your side of the story is great and all lenexa, however, we were speaking about the renovated stadiums of anaheim and oakland, and YOU stated that not only did oakland want a new stadium, that you had the proof they did.
 Putting words in my mouth and suggesting i posted somewhere that Oakland had demanded a new stadium.  Now you can't find that qoute because it never existed.  And now you want to change the subject:

kcdcchef wrote:there you go. davis does not mention renovations. he mentions the lack of sell outs he was promised. you mentioned renovations, not davis.


So you can get out of the central focus of my point - that the renovations in Oakland were a poor idea that hasn't gotten them anywhere, including owner satisfaction.  I see how you roll.  You still haven't answered my question where I asked you what was positive about the colliseum renovations.  Of course I understand why you don't want to answer that and would prefer to argue about things I never said. 

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

Post by kcdcchef » Tue Mar 21, 2006 1:04 pm

Quote from: LenexatoKCMO on Yesterday at 05:07:50 PM

And in Oakland - They spent a fortune on enhancements that did nothing to make it better for baseball (and arguably worse) and weren't nearly good enough to make it serviceable for football.  It didn't take Al Davis a whole season to start whining that the renovation was inadequate and start threatening to move the team again


noone is putting words in your mouth. you are not being a man, and standing by your own words. you said davis was bitching about the renovation being inadequate, and there is no proof of that. only your opinion.


LenexatoKCMO wrote:

So you can get out of the central focus of my point - that the renovations in Oakland were a poor idea that hasn't gotten them anywhere, including owner satisfaction.   



the renovations in oakland were part of the lease davis signed with them, it stipulated if he moved his team, they had to renovate the colliseium completely, to his standards. he signed off on them before they started.

and, you have yet to find proof he is unhappy with them. they told davis, according to him, that there would be sell outs if he moved from los angeles to oakland. there have not been. he has YET to mention renovations, in 12 years. you, keep mentioning it.

LenexatoKCMO wrote:Whoa Whoa Whoa, I see you trying to climb out of the whole you dug.  Back it up.




hole? what hole? the huge one under your nose? you are the one who said that the owner of the raiders was bitching about renovations, and has yet to be able to back it up.

funny.
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 » Tue Mar 21, 2006 1:21 pm

Chef, using large, bold font does not change the meaning of the words no matter how much you might like.  Try as you might, you still can't find anywhere where I said that Al demanded a new stadium from Oakland (like you accused me of).  

Yes I did say the renovations did not satisfy Al.  Suing the county for 1.1 billion dollars in a desperate attempt to get out of your lease and get the hell out of town shortly after completion, is pretty good evidence that the renovations didn't cut the mustard for him.  As was mentioned in the article, Als motive wasn't getting the money (Alameda County couldn't have afforded to pay him twenty dollars, let alone 1.1 billion) his motive was to void the lease.  

And for what? the fourth or fifth time - you still can't tell me what was so great about that renovation.  Why? Because the finished product just plain sucks.  I know it is inconvenient for you that many of the large scale stadium renovations have been disappointments (Oakland, Montreal, etc.) but your dodgy debate tactics do nothing but reek of denial.  

User avatar
GRID
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 14273
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 12:20 pm
Contact:

Re: Stadiums not an economic boon for taxpayers

Post by GRID » Tue Mar 21, 2006 1:34 pm

beautyfromashes wrote:Grid--
Read the paper this morning about our need to upgrade the sewer system.  If this is funding by a sales tax increase and the TSC tax passes we will have the largest sales taxes in the area.  And look at your property tax for last year.  Those are skyrocketing too.  If you really want to continue the expansion of the city and promote business you can't have runaway taxes.  These owners need to pay for their own building upkeep.



"All that work could cost anywhere from more than $2 billion to more than $3 billion, the city said.
City staff is discussing an election date, possibly in two years, so voters can approve one or more funding options. Options include:
■ A 1-cent sales tax. If it passes, and if voters also pass the sales tax for major renovations at the sports stadiums next month, Kansas City residents could face the highest sales tax in the region and possibly one of the highest in the nation.
■ Higher property taxes.
■ A variety of bonds. But voters just passed one of the largest bond proposals in the city’s history last August. That $500 million proposal, while dealing with water and sewers, allots only a small portion for the combined sewer project."



I knew about this two months ago.

Doesn't change anything for me.  KC can have modern sewers and modern stadiums...

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

Post by kcdcchef » Tue Mar 21, 2006 1:36 pm

LenexatoKCMO wrote:Chef, using large, bold font does not change the meaning of the words no matter how much you might like.  Try as you might, you still can't find anywhere where I said that Al demanded a new stadium from Oakland (like you accused me of).  



Quote from: LenexatoKCMO on Yesterday at 05:07:50 PM

And in Oakland - They spent a fortune on enhancements that did nothing to make it better for baseball (and arguably worse) and weren't nearly good enough to make it serviceable for football.  It didn't take Al Davis a whole season to start whining that the renovation was inadequate and start threatening to move the team again



there, it is, again. you said al davis is not happy with the renovations.  you continue to say it. yet, al davis, has yet to say he is not happy with the stadium. that is only YOU.

LenexatoKCMO wrote:

And for what? the fourth or fifth time - you still can't tell me what was so great about that renovation.  Why? Because the finished product just plain sucks.  I know it is inconvenient for you that many of the large scale stadium renovations have been disappointments (Oakland, Montreal, etc.) but your dodgy debate tactics do nothing but reek of denial.  


i really do not care about their renovation, one goddamn bit. but, the bottom line, here, is a stadium, that, 10 years ago, got renovated for 200m, and it was a 30 year old stadium. and, oh yeah, it has kept the owner of the team from seeking a new stadium, for 10 years too. even if al davis got a new stadium, it would be 2010, or well beyond. i would guess well beyond, being is that this is 2006 and a new one is not being discussed, at all.

you were the one who said this. It didn't take Al Davis a whole season to start whining that the renovation was inadequate, yet have STILL failed to find it in writing.
Last edited by kcdcchef on Tue Mar 21, 2006 1:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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
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 » Tue Mar 21, 2006 1:46 pm

you know, i am really amazed that kcmax did not post this kcstar story. oh wait, it does not support his argument. why would he?


How stadiums, sports can affect life for us
By JEFFREY SPIVAKThe Kansas City Star

Bet you didn’t know having the Royals and Chiefs in fixed-up stadiums may put extra money in your pockets.
Or that the stadiums’ operations may actually sap jobs out of the local economy.
That may not make sense, but those are some of the ways Kansas City’s major-league sports and their stadiums affect your life, whether you are a sports fan or not. At least that is what the experts say.
Economic impacts of pro sports are a highly controversial subject. All across the country, city consulting studies claim that teams and their newer stadiums generate lots of income and jobs. Yet most economists who have studied the issue are just as adamant that they don’t — and may not even outweigh the costs to taxpayers.
Next month, Jackson County residents will get to decide, in two ballot measures, whether a total of $777 million should be invested in the Truman Sports Complex. One measure calls for renovating Kauffman and Arrowhead stadiums to make them state of the art. The other measure proposes adding a rolling roof over those stadiums to help attract big-time events like a Super Bowl.
Is that investment worth the economic returns to the community?
Stadium work poses risks for rewards
Do votes for stadium renovations and a rolling roof on April 4 make sense economically for the metropolitan area? The Kansas City Star breaks down that question into four pieces.
■ Do the stadiums and the teams playing there make you richer?
Maybe, but it might be hard to notice.
A new study done for the Greater Kansas City Chamber of Commerce predicts the stadium renovations, once completed, will trigger $412 million in economic activity for Jackson County every year. That is not all new activity, because the teams are already there, but it represents the loss if the teams leave, which would concern the chamber if voters don’t approve the stadium renovations.
So the economic figure adds up everything from team payrolls to team memorabilia sales, from business at sports bars to business at grocery stores related to game-watching parties.
As part of that impact, the study by consulting firm Development Strategies Inc. of St. Louis suggests total personal income of county residents would be $73 million higher because of the stadiums’ operations and fans’ spending. That figure means having the teams play in fixed-up stadiums would put, on average, $111 in the pocket of every county resident.
To better understand how this would happen, consider Chiefs season ticket-holder Phil Pulley.
He is from Arkansas, and so for every Chiefs home game, he and his family and friends fly to Kansas City in a private jet, rent a car, stay at a hotel, go out to eat, buy groceries for tailgating and, of course, go to the game. All told, Pulley estimates he spends more than $3,700 every Chiefs weekend.
That helps pay the salaries at those businesses, then those workers have money to buy things, and there is a continued trickle-down through the economy.
“If you live in Jackson County, it’s hard to see this, but on the outside looking in, it’s easy to see,â€
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 » Tue Mar 21, 2006 2:04 pm

kcdcchef wrote:[b]
there, it is, again. you said al davis is not happy with the renovations.  you continue to say it. yet, al davis, has yet to say he is not happy with the stadium. that is only YOU.


Once again.  Suing the county in an attempt to get out of the lease and move the team someplace better says all that needs to be said. 

kcdcchef wrote:
i really do not care about their renovation, one goddamn bit.


Of course you wouldn't.  Examples of situations remarkably similar to ours that don't support your opinion aren't going to be of much interest to you.  The only important difference between the A's and the Royal's is that we wont have a talented GM able to perform miracles and repeatedly get us to the playoffs, masking the problem of the uninspiring renovation. 

kcdcchef wrote: being is that this is 2006 and a new one is not being discussed, at all.


Apparently you didn't read the article BFA posted where it is already starting to rumble that the team may bolt if the county doesn't do something by 2010. 

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

Post by kcdcchef » Tue Mar 21, 2006 2:19 pm

LenexatoKCMO wrote: . 

Apparently you didn't read the article BFA posted where it is already starting to rumble that the team may bolt if the county doesn't do something by 2010. 


the owner of the team is al davis. he is the managing general partner of the oakland raiders. HE HAS NOT SAID HE WILL MOVE, OR THAT HE WANTS A NEW STADIUM. al davis does not give two shits about your opinion of the oakland collesium. neither do i.

LenexatoKCMO wrote:Once again. Suing the county in an attempt to get out of the lease and move the team someplace better says all that needs to be said.



maybe if you understood pro sports and stadiums, which, you do not, you would understand what the man is after here, he says the city of oakland promised him sell outs, and after close to 2 decades AND a promised, agreed upon renovation, they have yet to materialize. so, that is great and all, however, he wants those sell outs. new orleans owner tom benson had a similar promise, and gets a 10m payout annually from the state of louisiana. maybe davis wants the money he is short.

one thing for sure, HE HAS NOT BITCHED ABOUT THE RENOVATIONS. and you fail to admit you were wrong about that.

LenexatoKCMO wrote:
. The only important difference between the A's and the Royal's is that we wont have a talented GM able to perform miracles and repeatedly get us to the playoffs, masking the problem of the uninspiring renovation.



perhaps if the royals young talent comes through this year, bautista, wood, teahen, buck, hernandez, perhaps, you will eat shit on that one. either way, they are yet to win in october, so, yeah, they win the smallest division in the american league, repeatedly, and get the wild card, that is great and all, but, either way, have not done shit in october, have they??

bottom line, still, no matter how much you wish to hide it, you said that that al davis was bitching about the renovations. and have yet to prove that. just immuendos.
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 » Tue Mar 21, 2006 2:35 pm

kcdcchef wrote:maybe if you understood pro sports and stadiums, which, you do not, you would understand what the man is after here, he says the city of oakland promised him sell outs, and after close to 2 decades AND a promised, agreed upon renovation, they have yet to materialize. so, that is great and all, however, he wants those sell outs. new orleans owner tom benson had a similar promise, and gets a 10m payout annually from the state of louisiana. maybe davis wants the money he is short.


You are missing an important piece of the puzzle - Alameda County didn't have two dimes to rub together when he sued them for 1.1 billion.  They were on the verge of bankruptcy.  There was never any chance of Al getting his money from the county because they didn't have any.  As Ray Ratto (a respected SF Chronicle writer by the way) mentioned in that article you keep ignoring, the motive was to produce a judgement that would leverage a voiding of the lease. 

kcdcchef wrote: just immuendos.


If I knew what the hell an immuendos was maybe I could help you out.  Is that Espanol? 

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 » Tue Mar 21, 2006 2:36 pm

double post.

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

Post by kcdcchef » Tue Mar 21, 2006 2:38 pm

LenexatoKCMO wrote:
If I new what the hell an immuendos was maybe I could help you out.  Is that Espanol? 


typical. cannot win an argument, go after spelling and grammar.

LenexatoKCMO wrote:You are missing an improtant piece of the puzzle - Alameda County didn't have two dimes to rub together when he sued them for 1.1 billion. They were on the verge of bankruptcy. There was never any chance of Al getting his money from the county because they didn't have any. As Ray Ratto (a respected SF Chronicle writer by the way) mentioned in that article you keep ignoring, the motive was to produce a judgement that would leverage a voiding of the lease.



either way, you have yet to answer the fundemantal thing hanging out there......you said he was unhappy with the stadium and renovations, and have yet to produce a documnet saying he was unhappy with the stadium and its renovations. still waiting. since he never said that, i have a hunch i will be waiting a while.

this is what happens when you rely upon 810 people to make up your mind for you.
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 » Tue Mar 21, 2006 2:59 pm

kcdcchef wrote:either way, you have yet to answer the fundemantal thing hanging out there......you said he was unhappy with the stadium and renovations, and have yet to produce a documnet saying he was unhappy with the stadium and its renovations. still waiting. since he never said that, i have a hunch i will be waiting a while.


I have too, you have just chosen to ignore it.  I realize that it takes a logical progression to understand that an owner suing in an attempt to get out of his lease means he isn't happy with his stadium.  I think you have the logical skills to understand this, so I have to assume you are just willfully ignoring it in order to avoid the ultimate point - renovating a thirty+ year old stadium produced a sucky result. 

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

Post by kcdcchef » Tue Mar 21, 2006 3:03 pm

LenexatoKCMO wrote:I have too, you have just chosen to ignore it.  I realize that it takes a logical progression to understand that an owner suing in an attempt to get out of his lease means he isn't happy with his stadium.  I think you have the logical skills to understand this, so I have to assume you are just willfully ignoring it in order to avoid the ultimate point - renovating a thirty+ year old stadium produced a sucky result. 


yet, there is still no proof he has said one word about the stadium. he got an older stadium renovated, and he signed a lease knowing it would get renovated, NOT a new one.

either way, you have yet to produce one thing in writing, that shows al davis, or the oakland a's, or the angels are bitching about their stadium. not one authorotative piece of writing. all you can do is show off YOUR opinion, and that of 810 probably, but, you can not show where the ownership of the 2 clubs that utilize that stadium are asking for a new stadium, or, are bitching about the renovations.

man, just admit you were wrong, that al davis is not bitching about the renovations, or 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

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 » Tue Mar 21, 2006 3:06 pm

kcdcchef wrote:either way, you have yet to produce one thing in writing, that shows al davis, or the oakland a's, or the angels are bitching about their stadium. not one authorotative piece of writing. all you can do is show off YOUR opinion, and that of 810 probably, but, you can not show where the ownership of the 2 clubs that utilize that stadium are asking for a new stadium, or, are bitching about the renovations. 


What, you want a copy of lawsuit filings?  I have given you very tangible proof.  You just don't like the implications. 

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

Post by kcdcchef » Tue Mar 21, 2006 3:11 pm

LenexatoKCMO wrote:What, you want a copy of lawsuit filings?  I have given you very tangible proof.  You just don't like the implications. 


there is not ONE piece of writing, anywhere, where al davis, says, i am not happy with the stadium, or the renovations. NONE.

you choose to base your argument on implications, which, are your opinions. al davis or the oakland athletics, are not bitching about the collesium.
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

Post Reply