MCI is self funded.trailerkid wrote: I see what you're saying, but baby steps. Because Jack Co and KCMo have exclusively paid for metro attractions for soooo long, 99.9% of the attractions are located in those districts. It would be political suicide the force the issue without at least one prominant tax burden having its home on the other side of the state line. IMO, Chiefs were a good opportunity to do something like this. MCI would've also been another good opportunity to shift a big tax burden to the KS side.
It is killing this metro having so many people, and so many townships and having so few people responsible for paying the bills on our biggest attractions and assets.
One really good reason voters should've rejected the stadium tax
Re: One really good reason voters should've rejected the stadium tax
-
- 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
Paying for a stadium for a team that hasn't won a playoff game since I was in puberty is NOT A PRIZE to spark some sort of bidding war.GRID wrote: If the fucking stadiums were at I-35 and 75th Street and it was a JoCo vote and you had Jackson County looking at the Chiefs. How would JoCo vote?
I bet it would be more like 75% yes.
- Highlander
- City Center Square
- Posts: 10209
- Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 1:40 pm
- Location: Houston
Re: One really good reason voters should've rejected the stadium tax
There are a lot of reasons that people move to Johnson County but getting a free ride in the metro is not one of them. If I would move back to KC tomorrow, I could see myself moving to JoCo but it's the schools and investment in a house (and family ties) that would draw me. Getting a free ride on things like the stadium would not even enter into the equation. I just cannot see that ever being a factor for anybody in choosing a place to live. If you can afford to live in JoCo, then I do not think the amount you'd be out of pocket for TSC, Sprint Arena (funded by hotel/rental car tax) or the zoo is hardly going to matter to you. In any event, I suspect JoCo has some pretty hefty property taxes so going there is actually anything but accepting a free ride.Kard wrote: Agreed, and when people realize the inequality, and see which side is getting a better deal, guess where they're going to go? This isn't an instant movement, but it occurs over time. It does happen. It's among one of the reasons JoCo grows faster then the rest of the metro.
Nonetheless, I do think the burden of asset building in a metro should fall upon all the citizens, not just those of a particular county, city etc.... KC really sells itself short by this practice as it results in less than state of the art venues etc.... A city of 2 million should have nothing but world class facilities.
Re: One really good reason voters should've rejected the stadium tax
trailerkid wrote: Paying for a stadium for a team that hasn't won a playoff game since I was in puberty is NOT A PRIZE to spark some sort of bidding war.
^ Whatever. I'm getting sick of hearing the undertone that JoCo is so damn smart and they know how to vote and would have voted for a downtown ballpark and will vote the the "good" projects etc.
It's total bullshit.
JoCo did not pass BSII because they wanted a downtown stadium they failed it because the money was going to MO. They want a stadium and half the arts money or they will vote no. Period.
Kind of defeats the whole idea of the bistate tax.
I can't even stand KK anymore and I am for a downtown park, the guy is CLUELESS about anything outside of JoCo and the damn speedway area.
Lets just move on and please for the love of god and for the future of this metropolitan area, forget about bistate issues, it only slows us down and makes things worse.
Re: One really good reason voters should've rejected the stadium tax
I guess there is not 5-6 HUNDRED THOUSAND PEOPLE in the MO side suburbs that have good schools and housing appreciation while at the same time contributing to regional needs more? I must be in a dream world then.Highlander wrote: I could see myself moving to JoCo but it's the schools and investment in a house (and family ties) that would draw me.
OK, I'm stepping out of this thread now before I go off and regret it.
-
- 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
dude, i do not know why you get so worked up over it. joco and opks was a fad, one that is still in it's prime to an extent, but it will become what it despises the most someday, dated, blighted, and useless.GRID wrote: I guess there is not 5-6 HUNDRED THOUSAND PEOPLE in the MO side suburbs that have good schools and housing appreciation while at the same time contributing to regional needs more? I must be in a dream world then.
OK, I'm stepping out of this thread now before I go off and regret it. :x
MU FINISHED THE YEAR RANKED HIGHER IN HOOPS AND FOOTBALL THAN THE KAY U JAYDORKS. UP YOURS KAY U JAYDORK FANS!!!!
-
- 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
The aviation department is a city of KCMo department.shinatoo wrote: MCI is self funded.
http://www.kcmo.org/cco.nsf/web/news?opendocument
The city has been deeply involved in improving its own airport-related infrastructure. On the more visible level, the city is on the verge of completing its extensive rehab of existing facilities, specifically the terminal improvement program. "The fact of the matter," said Cauthen, "is that we are going to have a new looking airport."
http://www.ingramsonline.com/dplatte/ecdev3.php
I'm really starting to understand how people get caught up in this stupidity...
-
- 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
No one ever said one mention of Johnson County this or that. You did. Johnson County people are stupider than Jackson County people, but at least they're not choosing to pay for infrastructure which will end up biting them in the ass down the road. Jackson County is going to continue juggling every single major attraction in the metro even though its share of the metro population is shrinking more and more every year to Cass, JoCo, Platte and Clay. This is not a long term solution. It is another patented band-aid project because people aren't intelligent enough to see the bigger picture.GRID wrote:
^ Whatever. I'm getting sick of hearing the undertone that JoCo is so damn smart and they know how to vote and would have voted for a downtown ballpark and will vote the the "good" projects etc.
It's total bullshit.
As highlander said, we have many mid-sized attractions in a large metro because the Jack Co side is unwilling to swallow their pride and push some of the debt and tax burden to KS. You're on crack if you don't think the state of KS and the 'burbs wouldn't gladly accept the burden if they got a big attraction on their side of the state line. How many people in Missouri are going to vote for a new Chiefs stadium in Wy Co? Get real and get off your soap box.
This was a bad decision for Jackson County, but they're the ones who will end up paying for it. Nice to live in Platte, Cass, JoCo, WyCo, and Clay when somebody else pays for everything the metro needs. Maybe in 10-15 years the rest of us will begin paying for major metro services and attractions when Jackson County taps out.
-
- 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
good to know. i mentioned taxpayer support over the airport in another thread, and the blowhards hear were convinced it had nothing to do with kci. cool.trailerkid wrote: The aviation department is a city of KCMo department.
http://www.kcmo.org/cco.nsf/web/news?opendocument
The city has been deeply involved in improving its own airport-related infrastructure. On the more visible level, the city is on the verge of completing its extensive rehab of existing facilities, specifically the terminal improvement program. "The fact of the matter," said Cauthen, "is that we are going to have a new looking airport."
http://www.ingramsonline.com/dplatte/ecdev3.php
I'm really starting to understand how people get caught up in this stupidity...
MU FINISHED THE YEAR RANKED HIGHER IN HOOPS AND FOOTBALL THAN THE KAY U JAYDORKS. UP YOURS KAY U JAYDORK FANS!!!!
- TheNorthlander
- New York Life
- Posts: 326
- Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 3:34 pm
Re: One really good reason voters should've rejected the stadium tax
Aviation is funded as an enterprise division of the city. Every dime that goes into it, is generated by its own special taxes on aviation fuel, airline tickets and lease income from the private enterprises on aviation property. Every building at the airport is eventually owned by the city, even the Marriott.trailerkid wrote: The aviation department is a city of KCMo department.
The Water Department is funded the same way....water and sewer bills.
"Keep the Status-Quo! Yes on 1, No on 2!" - Jackson County Voters
- ComandanteCero
- One Park Place
- Posts: 6222
- Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2004 2:40 am
- Location: OP
Re: One really good reason voters should've rejected the stadium tax
I think more institutional steps had to be done to make a bi-state funding mechanism for the stadiums feasible. For example, creating a metro wide sports authority that directly controlled the management and care of the stadiums, and directly oversaw how funds would be used for renovations. Then again, i don't remember what the situation was in the last bi-state tax (i.e if they were going to do just that or not).
um, either way, I don't go to any sporting events. I'd rather push for regional funding of mass transit
um, either way, I don't go to any sporting events. I'd rather push for regional funding of mass transit
KC Region is all part of the same animal regardless of state and county lines.
Think on the Regional scale.
Think on the Regional scale.
-
- Parking Garage
- Posts: 17
- Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 12:05 pm
Re: One really good reason voters should've rejected the stadium tax
It is astounding that perfectly rational Kansas Citians were duped into sending hundreds of millions into Kauffman stadium when there are so many more pertinent needs. I am glad the rolling roof was defeated too. Talk about a waste of money - Super Bowl or no Super Bowl!
Re: One really good reason voters should've rejected the stadium tax
What makes you think the people would vote different in JoCo. I'm not supporting the decision to remodel the TSC, but I can see a lot of reasons for Jackson County to pass it too, most of which Johnson County could care less about.trailerkid wrote: No one ever said one mention of Johnson County this or that. You did. Johnson County people are stupider than Jackson County people, but at least they're not choosing to pay for infrastructure which will end up biting them in the ass down the road. Jackson County is going to continue juggling every single major attraction in the metro even though its share of the metro population is shrinking more and more every year to Cass, JoCo, Platte and Clay. This is not a long term solution. It is another patented band-aid project because people aren't intelligent enough to see the bigger picture.
Why in the world would we vacate the TSC to build new in KS? That's all the city does, of course people don't want to do that. It's a good thing all towns don't think like that or the Rams would play in Chesterfield and the Rockies would play in Littleton.trailerkid wrote: As highlander said, we have many mid-sized attractions in a large metro because the Jack Co side is unwilling to swallow their pride and push some of the debt and tax burden to KS. You're on crack if you don't think the state of KS and the 'burbs wouldn't gladly accept the burden if they got a big attraction on their side of the state line. How many people in Missouri are going to vote for a new Chiefs stadium in Wy Co? Get real and get off your soap box.
Now this is funny as hell, grouping Clay and Platte with JoCo as freeloaders, You have got to be kidding me. Clay and Platte get it just as hard. For every time Jackson County does something they do it even more since much of Clay and Platte is in KCMO and of course MO.trailerkid wrote: This was a bad decision for Jackson County, but they're the ones who will end up paying for it. Nice to live in Platte, Cass, JoCo, WyCo, and Clay when somebody else pays for everything the metro needs. Maybe in 10-15 years the rest of us will begin paying for major metro services and attractions when Jackson County taps out.
JoCo is not going to pass a transit tax that will primarily benifit MO. PERIOD. And they will take the whole plan down with them. I don't care what the polling says.ComandanteCero wrote: I think more institutional steps had to be done to make a bi-state funding mechanism for the stadiums feasible. For example, creating a metro wide sports authority that directly controlled the management and care of the stadiums, and directly oversaw how funds would be used for renovations. Then again, i don't remember what the situation was in the last bi-state tax (i.e if they were going to do just that or not).
um, either way, I don't go to any sporting events. I'd rather push for regional funding of mass transit
Re: One really good reason voters should've rejected the stadium tax
I would. I actually proposed the idea to get Kansas (the whole state, not just Johnson/Wyandotte) to help pay for a downtown baseball stadium as well as the remaining funds necessary for the Performing Arts Center about a year ago now. I don't think what you said was inappropriate, but give the voters a little slack. Most people who vote are older people who don't give a damn about stadium issues. They ran a big campaign that said "vote for this or the teams go away", and it didn't affect their lives enough that they looked too closely into it, but they believed it. I agree we should hold people accountable to know what they're voting for, but let's not totally shift the blame from the liars to the lied to.trailerkid wrote:
How many people in Missouri are going to vote for a new Chiefs stadium in Wy Co? Get real and get off your soap box.
- KCPowercat
- Ambassador
- Posts: 34027
- 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'm glad JaxCo took this on themselves....get all these counties involved and everybody wants to have their own way.....
let's not forget when we tried that with multiple leaders from the bi-state at Union Station, it was considered a failure.
I see no reason for this thread to stay open....the vote is done, this self-promoting is useless.
let's not forget when we tried that with multiple leaders from the bi-state at Union Station, it was considered a failure.
I see no reason for this thread to stay open....the vote is done, this self-promoting is useless.
-
- 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 build "a new one" so there isn't one county paying for the whole thing alone.GRID wrote: Why in the world would we vacate the TSC to build new in KS? That's all the city does, of course people don't want to do that. It's a good thing all towns don't think like that or the Rams would play in Chesterfield and the Rockies would play in Littleton.
Yeah...StL and Denver were smart. They built their attractions in the center. Chesterfield or Littleton would be dream locations compared to next to a Taco Bell and Clarion.
Time to put more money into the Camaro...don't forget your Ray-Bans!
- KCPowercat
- Ambassador
- Posts: 34027
- Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 12:49 pm
- Location: Quality Hill
- Contact:
Re: One really good reason voters should've rejected the stadium tax
tk...your argument doesn't make sense. It's over, this is a pointless conversation.
-
- 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
Yeah...it's poinless to argue for a fair deal for Jackson County taxpayers so they won't default on the leases (again). What really doesn't make sense is a county that doesn't even represent half the population of the metro funding the most expensive, taxpayer-subsidized regional project in years. This isn't the 70s...KCPowercat wrote: tk...your argument doesn't make sense. It's over, this is a pointless conversation.
- KCPowercat
- Ambassador
- Posts: 34027
- Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 12:49 pm
- Location: Quality Hill
- Contact:
Re: One really good reason voters should've rejected the stadium tax
JaxCo is the leader....I have no problem paying for it. All I've ever heard is chatter about somebody else taking the lead....it's never done.
Jax gets alot of the tax benefits of the stadiums so I have no problem with the costs.....so we'll bring this topic up again in 25 years or earlier when the predicted defaulting begins....
Let's just hope we don't let Clay,Platte,Jo leaders in ala Union Station....which only started turning around when leadership was changed away from that setup.
Jax gets alot of the tax benefits of the stadiums so I have no problem with the costs.....so we'll bring this topic up again in 25 years or earlier when the predicted defaulting begins....
Let's just hope we don't let Clay,Platte,Jo leaders in ala Union Station....which only started turning around when leadership was changed away from that setup.
-
- 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
Hmmm...this is an interesting point. Remember the votes for light rail and the arena? Your perception and reality don't always align.GRID wrote:Now this is funny as hell, grouping Clay and Platte with JoCo as freeloaders, You have got to be kidding me. Clay and Platte get it just as hard. For every time Jackson County does something they do it even more since much of Clay and Platte is in KCMO and of course MO.