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

Postby kcdcchef » Mon Mar 20, 2006 11:31 pm

lock&load wrote:done, sort of :)


nice. are you talking about the stadiums in montreal? cool. i like 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 » Mon Mar 20, 2006 11:34 pm

better?

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 » Mon Mar 20, 2006 11:35 pm

not sure where that stadium is.

are you referring to kauffman 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

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 » Mon Mar 20, 2006 11:36 pm

It says Kauffman Stadium.  But it's your quote...are you confusing yourself?

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 » Mon Mar 20, 2006 11:37 pm

lock&load wrote:It says Kauffman Stadium.  But it's your quote...are you confusing yourself?


no, it does not. your dumbass spelled it wrong. kaffuman. it is KAUFFMAN.

for someone who is always up on spelling, rich, you sure fucked that up.
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 » Mon Mar 20, 2006 11:40 pm

kcdcchef wrote:no, it does not. your dumbass spelled it wrong. kaffuman. it is KAUFFMAN.

for someone who is always up on spelling, rich, you sure fucked that up.


My bad, I screwed that one up.  Sorry to embarass you by bungling your quote!!

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 » Mon Mar 20, 2006 11:41 pm

lock&load wrote:My bad, I screwed that one up.  Sorry to embarass you by bungling your quote!!


you did not bungle my quote.

however, wait til you see the signatures i have planned if this passes.......................
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 » Mon Mar 20, 2006 11:42 pm

kcdcchef wrote:you did not bungle my quote.

however, wait til you see the signatures i have planned if this passes.......................


and if it loses?

Image

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 » Mon Mar 20, 2006 11:44 pm

lock&load wrote:and if it loses?




not necessary. if it fails, it will just return again, a plan regarding the truman sports complex.

that downtown stadium you are pining for will not happen in our lifetime. well, we will be OLD when it happens.
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 » Mon Mar 20, 2006 11:46 pm

kcdcchef wrote:we will be OLD when it happens.


speak for yourself...

Image

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 » Mon Mar 20, 2006 11:46 pm

lock&load wrote:speak for yourself...



its cyclops!!!!
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 » Mon Mar 20, 2006 11:49 pm

Sorry, wrong picture before...

Image

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 12:06 am

lock&load wrote:Sorry, wrong picture before...





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

Postby LenexatoKCMO » Tue Mar 21, 2006 10:42 am

Looks like I missed all sorts of highbrow conversation since yesterday.  I guess I will go ahead and respond to this. 

kcdcchef wrote: WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE STADIUM?????????????[/b]


Everything.  He wanted out of the lease.  Why, because the renovated Coliseum sucks.  The only reason he has not "demanded a new one" is that he knows that Oakland/Alameda couldn't even really afford to pay for the reno and there isn't a snowballs chance in hell of it getting done.  Make no doubt about it, if the league and the state would have let him, Al would have been back in LA 3 years after the renovation.  You can sit here and try and argue semantics all day long but it won't change the fact that the renovated Coliseum sucks and hasn't done a damn thing to help the teams that reside there.  Ever been to the place?  Its a giant sixties style stadium, remarkably similar to the K, except it now has a big ugly football suite tower slapped into the outfield.  The thing couldn't hope to remotely compete with modern stadiums; just like our half ass renovated stadiums wouldn't stack up to the real deal.

User avatar
beautyfromashes
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 4006
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:04 am

Re: Stadiums not an economic boon for taxpayers

Postby beautyfromashes » Tue Mar 21, 2006 10:45 am

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



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."

User avatar
kard
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 5627
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2006 12:37 pm
Location: Kingdom of Waldo

Re: Stadiums not an economic boon for taxpayers

Postby kard » Tue Mar 21, 2006 10:51 am

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."



Actually, I think Grid lives in eastern Jackson County.  The sewer issue is only a KC problem.

And, based on likely votor populations, even if the Jackson County portion of KC votes no on the 4th, eastern Jackson County could still carry the issue.  Neat.
Haikus are easy
But sometimes they don't make sense
Refrigerator

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 11:38 am

LenexatoKCMO wrote:Looks like I missed all sorts of highbrow conversation since yesterday.  I guess I will go ahead and respond to this. 

Everything.  He wanted out of the lease.  Why, because the renovated Coliseum sucks.  


yeah, but bottom line, he asked out of the lease, 5 years ago, because he was not getting sell outs, before, or after the renovations. he never ONCE mentioned renovations. not once. you 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

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 11:41 am

kcdcchef wrote: he never ONCE mentioned renovations. not once. you did.


Semantics.  It doesn't change the fact that one season after completion, the renovations were already showing signs of being a failure on multiple levels. 

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 11:46 am

LenexatoKCMO wrote:Semantics.  It doesn't change the fact that one season after completion, the renovations were already showing signs of being a failure on multiple levels. 


lenexa

he did not have sell outs in the los angeles collesium. he moved to the oakland collesium because the city of oakland PROMISED him the games would be sold out. 7 years after he got there, there were no sell outs still, or, not every game. they reovated. same thing, he still only had sporadic sell outs. he sued.

he did not mention renovations.

you did.

do you see the credibility problem with your story? a billionaire owner of the oakland raiders is not asking for a new stadium, but you think he is. end of the day, this news is 5 years old, you can not find ONE real article from recently showing al davis asking for a new stadium. NOT ONE.
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

Postby LenexatoKCMO » Tue Mar 21, 2006 12:13 pm

kcdcchef wrote:
do you see the credibility problem with your story? a billionaire owner of the oakland raiders is not asking for a new stadium, but you think he is. end of the day,



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.  When it became evident that the renovated stadium in Oakland wasn't going to be a good long term solution, Al's angle was to try and get out of the lease (hence the article you keep discounting); this wasn't for the purpose of getting Oakland to build a new stadium, it was so he get the hell out of town.  He didn't have much luck on getting out of the lease, and in the meantime LA cooled on the idea of handing someone a free stadium.  You think Al is happy in that undercapacity, unprofitable joke of a renovated stadium; selling 55,000 tickets to playoff games and virtually no corporate sales?  If he could find a way out of that lease and there was some other town foolish enough to give him a stadium, AL would be gone tomorrow (6 years after the renovation of his stadium).  I don't think you will find much of any raiders fans or Oakland residents who would disagree with that assessment. 


Return to “New Stadiums Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests