PROs and CONs of Question 1 and Question 2
Re: PROs and CONs of Question 1 and Question 2
Those anti-tax people turn people off more than they persuade them, though...
"It is not to my good friend's heresy that I impute his honesty. On the contrary, 'tis his honesty that has brought upon him the character of heretic." -- Ben Franklin
-
- The Quiet Chair
- Posts: 8804
- Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 10:48 pm
- Location: pittsburgh, pennsylvania
Re: PROs and CONs of Question 1 and Question 2
yes, they do. the ONLY people they get, are the ones on their side already. those in your face tactics, only work on them.mean wrote: Those anti-tax people turn people off more than they persuade them, though...
most people, in eastern jack, are like my parents, and kards and means. and even if they say their minds are made up one way or the other, this is about spending money on stadiums, not the presidency. there is still 3-4 weeks to earn their votes, yes or no.
MU FINISHED THE YEAR RANKED HIGHER IN HOOPS AND FOOTBALL THAN THE KAY U JAYDORKS. UP YOURS KAY U JAYDORK FANS!!!!
Re: PROs and CONs of Question 1 and Question 2
Expect things to get nasty.
- warwickland
- Oak Tower
- Posts: 4834
- Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 6:29 pm
- Location: St. Louis County, MO
Re: PROs and CONs of Question 1 and Question 2
people are getting pretty sick of seeing SAVE THE TEAMS paraphernalia trashing up every street corner and ROW.
- KCMax
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 24051
- Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 3:31 pm
- Location: The basement of a Ross Dress for Less
- Contact:
Re: PROs and CONs of Question 1 and Question 2
I just read the KC Star's Sunday piece on the renovations, and I have to admit, if they do pass, I'll support the TSC. They will make the stadiums look cool, although they will still be in the middle of nowhere with no economic activity around it and I'll still feel a downtown stadium will be needed within my lifetime. I still think however, it is an outrage that taxpayers have to pay for this. 75% of what they want done is private party suites, which 99.9% of Jackson County taxpayers will never ever get to benefit from.
But hey, I'm not a Jackson Countians, so don't take my word for it.
But hey, I'm not a Jackson Countians, so don't take my word for it.
Re: PROs and CONs of Question 1 and Question 2
A bit of a stretch to call that a "piece." Was a couple of paragraphs directing you to the renderings.KCMax wrote: I just read the KC Star's Sunday piece on the renovations
Re: PROs and CONs of Question 1 and Question 2
I don't see how even adding suites will cost anywhere close to the numbers they've said in the questions or in the propaganda. We're supposed to believe that they *need* the better part of a *billion* dollars to renovate the TSC? That's almost enough money to buy every ticket to every home game at the K, for five years.
That's enough money to pay for the college tuitions of 2500 high school graduates for 20 years.
That's enough money to buy forty thousand cars.
That's enough money to build several new bridges over the Missouri.
That's enough money to finance the construction of a comprehensive light rail system in KCMO.
That's enough money to fund the Yankees for over three years.
That's enough money that I just get ill thinking that the people in my city are willing to just *throw* it away. If it takes extortion and the collapse of basic services, at a tremendous expense to the poor and middle class, for Kansas City to need to be "World Class," then I'll pass on the world recognition, and I'll just settle for repaired streets, good police protection, and giving our floundering school district a fighting chance.
If this city cows to the idea of throwing away untold hundreds of millions of dollars for no other purpose than keeping a baseball team we can't support, then I'm not sure what I like about this town, anymore. This is probably the worst piece of potential law I have ever heard of, and the people in this county are so terrified of losing a baseball team whose games they don't even attend, that they're willing to sell our future away by passing it.
A "yes" vote is a vote for insanity, and a vote against Kansas City.
That's enough money to pay for the college tuitions of 2500 high school graduates for 20 years.
That's enough money to buy forty thousand cars.
That's enough money to build several new bridges over the Missouri.
That's enough money to finance the construction of a comprehensive light rail system in KCMO.
That's enough money to fund the Yankees for over three years.
That's enough money that I just get ill thinking that the people in my city are willing to just *throw* it away. If it takes extortion and the collapse of basic services, at a tremendous expense to the poor and middle class, for Kansas City to need to be "World Class," then I'll pass on the world recognition, and I'll just settle for repaired streets, good police protection, and giving our floundering school district a fighting chance.
If this city cows to the idea of throwing away untold hundreds of millions of dollars for no other purpose than keeping a baseball team we can't support, then I'm not sure what I like about this town, anymore. This is probably the worst piece of potential law I have ever heard of, and the people in this county are so terrified of losing a baseball team whose games they don't even attend, that they're willing to sell our future away by passing it.
A "yes" vote is a vote for insanity, and a vote against Kansas City.
Re: PROs and CONs of Question 1 and Question 2
well said bahau. that is essentially how i feel about this whole thing. it is absolutely disgusting. i hope a guy like marty wall, who crows at being from jackson county, sleeps well at night endorsing this piece of crap. it is a horrible thing for the average people of jackson county. the chiefs and royals are absolutely robbing us and lot's of kansas city folks, including those in the brookside parade, have no problem with it. it's sickening.
Re: PROs and CONs of Question 1 and Question 2
That's enough money to run the US Military for a half a day!bahua wrote: I don't see how even adding suites will cost anywhere close to the numbers they've said in the questions or in the propaganda. We're supposed to believe that they *need* the better part of a *billion* dollars to renovate the TSC? That's almost enough money to buy every ticket to every home game at the K, for five years.
That's enough money to pay for the college tuitions of 2500 high school graduates for 20 years.
That's enough money to buy forty thousand cars.
That's enough money to build several new bridges over the Missouri.
That's enough money to finance the construction of a comprehensive light rail system in KCMO.
That's enough money to fund the Yankees for over three years.
That's enough money that I just get ill thinking that the people in my city are willing to just *throw* it away. If it takes extortion and the collapse of basic services, at a tremendous expense to the poor and middle class, for Kansas City to need to be "World Class," then I'll pass on the world recognition, and I'll just settle for repaired streets, good police protection, and giving our floundering school district a fighting chance.
If this city cows to the idea of throwing away untold hundreds of millions of dollars for no other purpose than keeping a baseball team we can't support, then I'm not sure what I like about this town, anymore. This is probably the worst piece of potential law I have ever heard of, and the people in this county are so terrified of losing a baseball team whose games they don't even attend, that they're willing to sell our future away by passing it.
A "yes" vote is a vote for insanity, and a vote against Kansas City.
Re: PROs and CONs of Question 1 and Question 2
bahua wrote: A "yes" vote is a vote for insanity, and a vote against Kansas City.
If the TSC is world class, I want to embrace obscurity. Very well said.
Re: PROs and CONs of Question 1 and Question 2
bahua wrote: I don't see how even adding suites will cost anywhere close to the numbers they've said in the questions or in the propaganda. We're supposed to believe that they *need* the better part of a *billion* dollars to renovate the TSC? That's almost enough money to buy every ticket to every home game at the K, for five years.
That's enough money to pay for the college tuitions of 2500 high school graduates for 20 years.
That's enough money to buy forty thousand cars.
That's enough money to build several new bridges over the Missouri.
That's enough money to finance the construction of a comprehensive light rail system in KCMO.
That's enough money to fund the Yankees for over three years.
That's enough money that I just get ill thinking that the people in my city are willing to just *throw* it away. If it takes extortion and the collapse of basic services, at a tremendous expense to the poor and middle class, for Kansas City to need to be "World Class," then I'll pass on the world recognition, and I'll just settle for repaired streets, good police protection, and giving our floundering school district a fighting chance.
If this city cows to the idea of throwing away untold hundreds of millions of dollars for no other purpose than keeping a baseball team we can't support, then I'm not sure what I like about this town, anymore. This is probably the worst piece of potential law I have ever heard of, and the people in this county are so terrified of losing a baseball team whose games they don't even attend, that they're willing to sell our future away by passing it.
A "yes" vote is a vote for insanity, and a vote against Kansas City.
Nice post. A 2/3 empty "world class ballpark" in the middle of 19,000 parking spaces of seems a little silly.
-
- City Center Square
- Posts: 12649
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm
Re: PROs and CONs of Question 1 and Question 2
Could say the same about spending hundreds of millions for the Sprint Center, and we do not even have a NBA or NHL team. And all of those tax abatements for downtown development that forces the city to cut back on services.bahua wrote: If this city cows to the idea of throwing away untold hundreds of millions of dollars for no other purpose than keeping a baseball team we can't support, then I'm not sure what I like about this town, anymore. This is probably the worst piece of potential law I have ever heard of, and the people in this county are so terrified of losing a baseball team whose games they don't even attend, that they're willing to sell our future away by passing it.
A "yes" vote is a vote for insanity, and a vote against Kansas City.
I may be right. I may be wrong. But there is a lot of gray area in-between.
Re: PROs and CONs of Question 1 and Question 2
Sprint Center is different however. It will always be more than 2/3 occupied. Even with Brigade games. Those games pull in about 14,000-16,000 per game?
Sprint Center will be even better than that, it isn't located in the West Bottoms, where there are only a few ways in and out. In Downtown you have surrounding parking garages mixed with the highways and the street grids. There you have 3 bridges to leave Downtown from, plus multiple highways.
Yes a stadium would be great to have Downtown. But a Super Bowl would be far more beneficial than a stadium. Voting yes will give us the largest rolling roof in the world. We have 9 years to prepare for the Super Bowl, it's the year before the Super Bowl's 50th anniversary, etc...
The Super Bowl is a nationally and internationally recognized event. The rolling roof will kind of be our Arch, Needle, Statue, etc... that people can recognize us by. It will increase our hotel space, convention space, etc...
With the Super Bowl, even the vision of the Truman Boulevard project will have a likelihood of happening. For one week we will have over 80,000 people in Kansas City with millions upon millions of eyes on us.
Like they said in the meeting at the Arrowhead Pavilion, do a search on google with Detroit and Super Bowl, you get almost 15 million results...
In the long run, going for renovations is more beneficial to our metro than putting a stadium Downtown.
Voting no insures that all bets are off for any Super Bowl bid, and that comes from Pete Levi...
Sprint Center will be even better than that, it isn't located in the West Bottoms, where there are only a few ways in and out. In Downtown you have surrounding parking garages mixed with the highways and the street grids. There you have 3 bridges to leave Downtown from, plus multiple highways.
Yes a stadium would be great to have Downtown. But a Super Bowl would be far more beneficial than a stadium. Voting yes will give us the largest rolling roof in the world. We have 9 years to prepare for the Super Bowl, it's the year before the Super Bowl's 50th anniversary, etc...
The Super Bowl is a nationally and internationally recognized event. The rolling roof will kind of be our Arch, Needle, Statue, etc... that people can recognize us by. It will increase our hotel space, convention space, etc...
With the Super Bowl, even the vision of the Truman Boulevard project will have a likelihood of happening. For one week we will have over 80,000 people in Kansas City with millions upon millions of eyes on us.
Like they said in the meeting at the Arrowhead Pavilion, do a search on google with Detroit and Super Bowl, you get almost 15 million results...
In the long run, going for renovations is more beneficial to our metro than putting a stadium Downtown.
Voting no insures that all bets are off for any Super Bowl bid, and that comes from Pete Levi...
Re: PROs and CONs of Question 1 and Question 2
It's pretty funny how people on here choose to bash the TSC, even because of it's amount of parking and suburban location, etc...
However many of you don't know, Legends/Kansas Speedway is a lot larger than the TSC. In fact, it's almost 2x the size of the TSC.
However many of you don't know, Legends/Kansas Speedway is a lot larger than the TSC. In fact, it's almost 2x the size of the TSC.
Last edited by KCDevin on Tue Mar 14, 2006 8:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: PROs and CONs of Question 1 and Question 2
KCDevin, I see a lot of people that bash Village West for it's parking & suburban location.
The Kansas Speedway is a different issue though. There's really no need to bash it because of the sheer size of Nascar Speedways. There's no way you can put them into Urban Core's, so empty fields out in the burbs are ideal locations for them.
The Kansas Speedway is a different issue though. There's really no need to bash it because of the sheer size of Nascar Speedways. There's no way you can put them into Urban Core's, so empty fields out in the burbs are ideal locations for them.
Re: PROs and CONs of Question 1 and Question 2
Because those vacant downtown properties were generating a lot of tax revenue before the abated redevelopment?Âaknowledgeableperson wrote: And all of those tax abatements for downtown development that forces the city to cut back on services.
- QueSi2Opie
- Bryant Building
- Posts: 3864
- Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 2:05 pm
- Location: Hangin' with the cons, crazies, and crackheads on 11th & Grand.
Re: PROs and CONs of Question 1 and Question 2
While I would love a baseball stadium in downtown, what's the use of crying about it if only 33% of Jackson County residents support it? My biggest fear is that the state of Kansas will step up and build a stadium for the Chiefs, Royals, or both if Jackson County (Missouri) residents fail to vote for keeping their stadiums "world-class". Why stay in a city of slumlords when these team owners can move to Johnson County where their landlords take care of their shit? The worst case scenerio is that the teams leave the metro entirely which will literally kill Sunday grocery stores sales, liquor store sales, sports bar and restaurant business, and "Red Friday" celebrations in City Market, etc. Remember, it isn't David Glass and the Royals threatening to leave KC. You can guarantee sales to drop and businesses to close in the suburbs if the teams go. Yeah, we're supporting rich owners the same way JaCo and JoCo divert important money away from schools, libraries, parks, roads, etc. so big business owners will relocate to their city. If you want the teams, you pay for them. But if you don't care about the teams or the status they give your cowtown, then tell them to "fuck off!"
The Pendergast Poltergeist Project!
I finally divorced beer and proposed to whiskey, but I occassionally cheat with fine wine.
I finally divorced beer and proposed to whiskey, but I occassionally cheat with fine wine.
Re: PROs and CONs of Question 1 and Question 2
Sounds like you've been drinking the Kool-aid.QueSi2Opie wrote: While I would love a baseball stadium in downtown, what's the use of crying about it if only 33% of Jackson County residents support it? My biggest fear is that the state of Kansas will step up and build a stadium for the Chiefs, Royals, or both if Jackson County (Missouri) residents fail to vote for keeping their stadiums "world-class". Why stay in a city of slumlords when these team owners can move to Johnson County where their landlords take care of their shit? The worst case scenerio is that the teams leave the metro entirely which will literally kill Sunday grocery stores sales, liquor store sales, sports bar and restaurant business, and "Red Friday" celebrations in City Market, etc. Remember, it isn't David Glass and the Royals threatening to leave KC. You can guarantee sales to drop and businesses to close in the suburbs if the teams go. Yeah, we're supporting rich owners the same way JaCo and JoCo divert important money away from schools, libraries, parks, roads, etc. so big business owners will relocate to their city. If you want the teams, you pay for them. But if you don't care about the teams or the status they give your cowtown, then tell them to "fuck off!"
- tat2kc
- Bryant Building
- Posts: 4196
- Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 6:32 pm
- Location: freighthouse district
- Contact:
Re: PROs and CONs of Question 1 and Question 2
Pro: the stadiums will be upgraded.
con: The county will be in default on the current leases, which are very old, at the end of this year. By failing to provide the maintenance and upgrades in a timely manner, the county has placed itself in jeopardy of allowing the teams out of the lease. The leases aren't new, they knew full well we were about to default on the leases and waited till the last moment to try and get funds for a project that should have been handled years ago. I feel that this borders on blackmail by the county. The cost of providing the improvements we are committed to providing is less than $100 million. Rather than provide what is already called for, they county and the owners are demanding much much more, and then telling us that we have no choice if we want to keep the teams.
If the team or teams do leave, it won't be due to the failure of the two proposals. It will be due to the fact that the county failed to live up to their obligations in maintenance. Defferred maintenence is causing the KCMO and Jackson county citizens in excess of a billion dollars, and its pissing me off.
con: The county will be in default on the current leases, which are very old, at the end of this year. By failing to provide the maintenance and upgrades in a timely manner, the county has placed itself in jeopardy of allowing the teams out of the lease. The leases aren't new, they knew full well we were about to default on the leases and waited till the last moment to try and get funds for a project that should have been handled years ago. I feel that this borders on blackmail by the county. The cost of providing the improvements we are committed to providing is less than $100 million. Rather than provide what is already called for, they county and the owners are demanding much much more, and then telling us that we have no choice if we want to keep the teams.
If the team or teams do leave, it won't be due to the failure of the two proposals. It will be due to the fact that the county failed to live up to their obligations in maintenance. Defferred maintenence is causing the KCMO and Jackson county citizens in excess of a billion dollars, and its pissing me off.
Are you sure we're talking about the same God here, because yours sounds kind of like a dick.
-
- The Quiet Chair
- Posts: 8804
- Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 10:48 pm
- Location: pittsburgh, pennsylvania
Re: PROs and CONs of Question 1 and Question 2
well the thing is this................glass is not saying he will leave. hunt is. here is what is real scary.........QueSi2Opie wrote: While I would love a baseball stadium in downtown, what's the use of crying about it if only 33% of Jackson County residents support it? My biggest fear is that the state of Kansas will step up and build a stadium for the Chiefs, Royals, or both if Jackson County (Missouri) residents fail to vote for keeping their stadiums "world-class". Why stay in a city of slumlords when these team owners can move to Johnson County where their landlords take care of their shit? The worst case scenerio is that the teams leave the metro entirely which will literally kill Sunday grocery stores sales, liquor store sales, sports bar and restaurant business, and "Red Friday" celebrations in City Market, etc. Remember, it isn't David Glass and the Royals threatening to leave KC. You can guarantee sales to drop and businesses to close in the suburbs if the teams go. Yeah, we're supporting rich owners the same way JaCo and JoCo divert important money away from schools, libraries, parks, roads, etc. so big business owners will relocate to their city. If you want the teams, you pay for them. But if you don't care about the teams or the status they give your cowtown, then tell them to "fuck off!"
if we lost the chiefs to kck or anywhere else, glass would have a HUGE bargaining position at that point.
MU FINISHED THE YEAR RANKED HIGHER IN HOOPS AND FOOTBALL THAN THE KAY U JAYDORKS. UP YOURS KAY U JAYDORK FANS!!!!