KCRag Forum

kcdcchef wrote: i have yet to find endorsements that say "the kc star editiorial board endorses al gore", they all say "the kc star endorses al gore". you guys can call it whatever you wish.

Where are these endorsements you've found.  The text doesn't need to say "the editorial board supports..."  It's location on the editorial page signifies it's editorial nature.

ShowME wrote: I never remember the Star emailing me to vote for a certain candidate/issue before the stadium vote.

Booyah.  Perfect example.  Unless the email came from the editorial board of the star, which, it didn't.

aknowledgeableperson wrote: Not saying a stadium would not help (very limited) downtown, but the Star took the view of what was best for the Kansas City area as a whole, not a small section of the whole area.
There is a difference.

What is good for downtown KC is good for the KC area as a whole (metro and city).  If this is not apparent to all, it certainly will be over the next 10 years as those cities with vibrant downtowns continue to prosper while the remainder stagnate and decline both in the city and thier burbs. 

^^^
And the reverse is true also.  What is good for KC area as a whole (metro and city) is also good for downtown.  Downtown may not benefit as much but there is still a benefit to it.

Downtown does not have the dibs on anything it wants and the rest of the area has the leftovers.  Downtown needs the surrounding areas as much, or even more, than the surrounding areas need it.

If you do not think that downtown cannot be vibrant and prosper without a baseball stadium then you do not have much faith in its existance.

We are all in this together, whether you like it or not.

aknowledgeableperson wrote: ^^^
And the reverse is true also.  What is good for KC area as a whole (metro and city) is also good for downtown.  Downtown may not benefit as much but there is still a benefit to it.

Downtown does not have the dibs on anything it wants and the rest of the area has the leftovers.  Downtown needs the surrounding areas as much, or even more, than the surrounding areas need it.

If you do not think that downtown cannot be vibrant and prosper without a baseball stadium then you do not have much faith in its existance.

Well, I guess the argument about DT baseball is now pretty much passe.  However, I respectfully disagree about the former statement, "what is good for the burbs is good for the area".  That may be true to some extent but we soon get to the point where the burbs start to detract from downtown.  My whole point on the need for a vibrant downtown has always been that a single marquee attraction is better than 2-3 subpar ones.  The city will be judged by their downtown as that will generally get the most attention from visitors and if its a dormant, lifeless collection of unoccupied buildings and parking lots, good luck attracting anything worthwhile to the city.  I appreciate the need for economic development in the burbs but we do it to the point of committing urbanicide. 

Have you ever made it over to Europe AKP?  European suburbs generally offer very little in terms of large-scale entertainent and shopping but because of that, the centers really thrive in a way you just can't imagine unless you've been to NYC, Chicago or San Fran.  Cities that are relatively KC size, like Munich, have so much more of a lively feel than KC.....why?  well, for one thing, the center does not have to compete with numerous retail and entertainment districts across a huge suburban landscape.  Additionally, all roads (and trains and subways and  trams) lead to the city center.  That may not appeal to everyone but it does appeal to young people and them not us old farts (I'm in my mid 40's) are the future of KC.

Never been to Europe but we are not Europe.
The last time I looked there were more Europeans trying to immigrate into the USA instead of the other way around.  Its economy is in worse shape than the USA.  Maybe its is because of the condition of its urban areas.

Hold on, just kidding.

Face it.  Downtown KC cannot exist by itself - it needs its suburban areas to survive.  Isn't this true of most if not all of the USA urban areas?  Downtown has more commuters into it than the reverse and does not have enough of a population to fill all of the jobs there.  Its entertainment venues need the attendance of the suburbs to exist.  KC Live will need the suburbans to make a go of it.  If there is a large convention at the Convention Center it needs the non-downtown hotels to make it happen.  So on and so on.
Well, is it a shame that downtown has to compete with the suburbs?  To you it is, to me that is the way it should be. If downtown does not have to compete (much like the Plaza, Zona Rosa, Town Center, etc.) than it may become complacent and then the downward spiral begins.
The genie is already out of the bottle.  We can not go back in time to 1945 and change what has already occurred.  If you want downtown KC to be the center of the KC universe then make sure it is competitive.  Demand the downtown businesses that they be the best they can be.  Same for its residences.  Same for its retail.  Same for its offices.  The entertainment areas and so on.  Make sure the city council does not ignore downtown.

[quote]http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascit ... 272769.htm


Quote from: Yael Abouhalkah, after opening his present
Finally, for all the skeptics out there — those who haughtily proclaimed the issue was “going down in flames,â€

^^^^
I thought it was pretty good myself.

AKP = Yael? 

I'm all for StL (got a new cards jersey and hat for father's day ) but the Star was so against a downtown stadium and now they can't quit drooling over Busch III and all the new development going in around it.

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascit ... 827916.htm

Whatever.

GRID wrote: I'm all for StL (got a new cards jersey and hat for father's day ) but the Star was so against a downtown stadium and now they can't quit drooling over Busch III and all the new development going in around it.

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascit ... 827916.htm

Whatever.

If only they had let their travel writers handle the stadium commentary before our election instead of their local beat buffoons. 

LenexatoKCMO wrote: If only they had let their travel writers handle the stadium commentary before our election instead of their local beat buffoons. 

Money talks, man. On April 4th, it roared.

GRID wrote: I'm all for StL (got a new cards jersey and hat for father's day ) but the Star was so against a downtown stadium and now they can't quit drooling over Busch III and all the new development going in around it.

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascit ... 827916.htm

Whatever.

i was slackjawed.

Michael® wrote: Retract your stupid commentary.

No need to retract.  My so-called stupid commentary is by far in better shape than yours.

Well, let's see.  Just think about all of the food and drink bought in the suburbs for tailgating at the Chiefs games.  And I am sure that there are people who go out to eat and/or drink before or after a Royals game.  True, it may not be centralized around the stadiums but it still happens.

Those who would go out to eat before or after a game would do it no matter where the stadium is.  Those who leave home and return after a game will do the same no matter where the stadium is.  The stadiums are a Jackson County responsibility, not a KCMO responsibility therefore the interests of those voters are paramount.  Although it is kinda funny that the renovations had greater support in the KCMO portion of JaCo than the non KCMO portion of the county.

Besides, for many attending the games they would rather drive to TSC and park there than DT anytime.

If those who initially pushed a DT stadium had a concrete plan so that the taxpayers could compare you might have had a different outcome but probably not.  But let's face it, for many a bird in the hand was worth more than two in the bush.

Let's suppose every single fan, that goes to every single game, buys a twelve pack of budweiser before each game. 79,451 people buy an $8 package of beer. That works out to $635,608 for each game. Let's also say, for argument's sake, that every single one of those game-goers gets dinner on the plaza, after the game, in a blatant attempt to support our economy. At $25 a head, that's $1,986,275, plus the beer they all bought, that's $2,621,883 poured recklessly into our economy on every game day. In a year, that works out to $20,975,064. Over 25 years, that's $524,376,600, which still isn't as much as the tax will generate and hand over to Mister Hunt. This is entirely hypothetical, and doesn't count things like inflation, taxes, or the fact that a great number of game-goers spend almost all their money inside the stadium.

Looks like a loss, to me. Not for Mister Hunt, of course.

Of course you are ignoring all of the other economic activity that is associated with the game, or the Royals, but then you only want to use the points appropriate to support your position.

Of course you are ignoring all of the peer-reviewed and published studies by economists that refute the economic activity baloney.