I never had a problem with Enterprise. I will be happy to use them, if my preferred agencies aren't available. They simply reacted as anyone would when they get the shaft.Slappy the Wang wrote: Why do I get the feeling that several of the sore losers have gotten over their previous voting quams and routinely use Enterprise Rentals? The same folks who are seemingly pissed today will be talking about how wonderful the improvements are in 08.
One really good reason voters should've rejected the stadium tax
Re: One really good reason voters should've rejected the stadium tax
-
- The Quiet Chair
- Posts: 8804
- Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 10:48 pm
- Location: pittsburgh, pennsylvania
Re: One really good reason voters should've rejected the stadium tax
the same people here who pissed and moaned for the last 3 months and 3 days, will go back to the westport flea, a supporter of the stadium deal, they will go back to kauffman and arrowhead, they will patronize all businesses that said vote yes, it is just how it is.Slappy the Wang wrote: Why do I get the feeling that several of the sore losers have gotten over their previous voting quams and routinely use Enterprise Rentals? The same folks who are seemingly pissed today will be talking about how wonderful the improvements are in 08.
and yes, in 2008, they will be saying how great the stadiums look.
MU FINISHED THE YEAR RANKED HIGHER IN HOOPS AND FOOTBALL THAN THE KAY U JAYDORKS. UP YOURS KAY U JAYDORK FANS!!!!
- KCMax
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 24051
- Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 3:31 pm
- Location: The basement of a Ross Dress for Less
- Contact:
Re: One really good reason voters should've rejected the stadium tax
It won't be done til 2010.
-
- Strip mall
- Posts: 105
- Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 6:59 pm
- Location: Old Hyde Park
Re: One really good reason voters should've rejected the stadium tax
Anyone have any numbers on how the Chiefs being in KC actually benefits the city? When I was living in Dallas, I noticed the mavericks did a ton of stuff in the community, everything from joining with the dallas PD to have basketball camps for underprivelaged youths (to lower juvenile crime), to building houses, etc.. They actually contributed to the community. Because they were supportive of the community, they saw increased ticket sales, which increased tax revenue. They are also positively seen by the community as bringing something good. They also happened to pay a significantly higher portion for their new arena than the Cheifs are willing to pay.
So, besides some token limelight pictures with the kids right before the season starts, what do the Chiefs do for the community - other than whine like babies and ask for more?
So, besides some token limelight pictures with the kids right before the season starts, what do the Chiefs do for the community - other than whine like babies and ask for more?
- KCPowercat
- Ambassador
- Posts: 33839
- Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 12:49 pm
- Location: Quality Hill
- Contact:
Re: One really good reason voters should've rejected the stadium tax
I say let them laugh...JaxCo keeps the teams and the revenue (tax) from that....kucer wrote: i believe he started this thread and his one good reason for rejecting this ballot was the burden wasn't shared. that's the theme of this thread. i for one totally agree. it's bs. the joco/ks guys i work with aren't worried about it. they are laughing their collective asses off at me and other jaco residents that have to pay for a stadium that they all go to. we are seen as fools.
Re: One really good reason voters should've rejected the stadium tax
I never have understood the "revenue" piece that people keep talking about. What revenue? Sales tax on the tickets is all I can think of.
Haikus are easy
But sometimes they don't make sense
Refrigerator
But sometimes they don't make sense
Refrigerator
Re: One really good reason voters should've rejected the stadium tax
The income tax that the city squeezes out of every single player that ever plays in KC is often included.
- KCPowercat
- Ambassador
- Posts: 33839
- Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 12:49 pm
- Location: Quality Hill
- Contact:
Re: One really good reason voters should've rejected the stadium tax
income tax on athletes playing in the stadiums as well.
I don't want to get into the economic benefit of stadiums....I'm just sick of this "X county should pay for X"....their leadership doesn't get off their asses.....so as a resident I'm glad we can stand up and do the right thing and get it done.
I don't want to get into the economic benefit of stadiums....I'm just sick of this "X county should pay for X"....their leadership doesn't get off their asses.....so as a resident I'm glad we can stand up and do the right thing and get it done.
Re: One really good reason voters should've rejected the stadium tax
Do the right thing? It may be the "necessary" thing, but I do not know how anyone can say capitulating to the owners demands is the "right" thing to do.KCPowercat wrote: so as a resident I'm glad we can stand up and do the right thing and get it done.
- Slappy the Wang
- Valencia Place
- Posts: 1735
- Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2004 5:30 pm
Re: One really good reason voters should've rejected the stadium tax
Red Dye makers!!!!!Kard wrote: I never have understood the "revenue" piece that people keep talking about. What revenue? Sales tax on the tickets is all I can think of.
Be green or go Broke Tryin'
-
- Alameda Tower
- Posts: 1031
- Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 9:52 pm
Re: One really good reason voters should've rejected the stadium tax
I'm glad question 1 passed, because a downtown ballpark in KC.... You'd have to be pretty optimistic to think something like that would pass. But in a perfect world this is what I would love to see happen:
-Build a downtown ballpark
-Tear down the K
-Build a new Football stadium where Kauffman was, while games could be played in Arrowhead
-Bulldoze Arrowhead and make it a parking lot
-Build a downtown ballpark
-Tear down the K
-Build a new Football stadium where Kauffman was, while games could be played in Arrowhead
-Bulldoze Arrowhead and make it a parking lot
Kansas City, Bleeding red since 1963.
- Tosspot
- Mark Twain Tower
- Posts: 8041
- Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2004 10:00 pm
- Location: live: West Plaza; work: South Plaza
- Contact:
Re: One really good reason voters should've rejected the stadium tax
I never understood the point in tearing down Kauffman - even with a downtown ballpark. Or getting rid of Arrowhead for that matter. Where is the logic in this? I am of the belief that sports stadia should be preserved for historic preservation purposes. In 100 or 200 years, an old baseball stadium would be the preeminent gesture to antiquity- making it a destination in itself.
And why would we demolish Arrowhead to make a parking lagoon? The whole area is already a vast decrepit parking lot, so why add to that?
And why would we demolish Arrowhead to make a parking lagoon? The whole area is already a vast decrepit parking lot, so why add to that?
photoblog.
until further notice i will routinely point out spelling errors committed by any here whom i frequently do battle wit
-
- Alameda Tower
- Posts: 1031
- Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 9:52 pm
Re: One really good reason voters should've rejected the stadium tax
Who would maintain the stadiums? Why would you keep them? It just doesn't pay off in my opinion.Tosspot wrote: I never understood the point in tearing down Kauffman - even with a downtown ballpark. Or getting rid of Arrowhead for that matter. Where is the logic in this? I am of the belief that sports stadia should be preserved for historic preservation purposes. In 100 or 200 years, an old baseball stadium would be the preeminent gesture to antiquity- making it a destination in itself.
And why would we demolish Arrowhead to make a parking lagoon? The whole area is already a vast decrepit parking lot, so why add to that?
Kansas City, Bleeding red since 1963.
-
- Alameda Tower
- Posts: 1109
- Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 6:02 am
- Location: East Loop
- Contact:
Re: One really good reason voters should've rejected the stadium tax
well, according to chef that area is prime for development.. so you level the stadiums and the let the developing begin.
- Tosspot
- Mark Twain Tower
- Posts: 8041
- Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2004 10:00 pm
- Location: live: West Plaza; work: South Plaza
- Contact:
Re: One really good reason voters should've rejected the stadium tax
Let Jackson County maintain the stadiums. Of course it's all moot since both stadiums won't be vacated for a long while as things have turned out. But if hypothetically we were to get a new downtown baseball stadium, Kauffman should be preserved for historic preservation purposes. As I said, it would be a monument to antiquity over the course of time.KansasCityChiefs wrote: Who would maintain the stadiums? Why would you keep them? It just doesn't pay off in my opinion.
photoblog.
until further notice i will routinely point out spelling errors committed by any here whom i frequently do battle wit
Re: One really good reason voters should've rejected the stadium tax
I heard they were going to go Condo with the K if a DT park had been built.
Haikus are easy
But sometimes they don't make sense
Refrigerator
But sometimes they don't make sense
Refrigerator
- Tosspot
- Mark Twain Tower
- Posts: 8041
- Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2004 10:00 pm
- Location: live: West Plaza; work: South Plaza
- Contact:
Re: One really good reason voters should've rejected the stadium tax
They'd better TIF that beeotch. It's blighted.Kard wrote: I heard they were going to go Condo with the K if a DT park had been built.
photoblog.
until further notice i will routinely point out spelling errors committed by any here whom i frequently do battle wit
Re: One really good reason voters should've rejected the stadium tax
Just let the empty stadiums decay. They we would be one step closer to being the Rome of the new world, fountains AND our own version of the Coliseum.
-
- City Center Square
- Posts: 11284
- Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 4:49 pm
Re: One really good reason voters should've rejected the stadium tax
That's a funny spin to put on it-- the stadiums are great at generating revenue and economic benefit to Jackson County. Where is the dollar for dollar exchange on the investment?KCPowercat wrote: I say let them laugh...JaxCo keeps the teams and the revenue (tax) from that....
-
- City Center Square
- Posts: 11284
- Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 4:49 pm
Re: One really good reason voters should've rejected the stadium tax
You're right...I don't believe the city ever did any public-funded art projects there or hired any of its staff. It is an independent money machine.shinatoo wrote: Hey Black Knight,
Do I need to spell it out? Your original argument was that moving MCI to KS would shift the tax burden to Kansas. We proved that their was no tax burden on the city from MCI. So now, insted of admitting that you were wrong, or at least shouting up about it, you are trying to change the argument about who manages the airport. Yes, KCMO manages the airport, under strict guidance from the federal government. But that has nothing to do the the big "tax burden" you are trying to shift to KS.
You were wrong, admit it or drop it.
I do think the rest of your last post is valid.