Highlander wrote:
Nonetheless, how do you educate an incredibly intransigent public on this issue? At times, I wonder if the average Kansas Citian ever travels outside the city to see how other cities have evolved in the last 10-20 years. I am hoping that the renaissance that is going on downtown will open eyes and change attitudes but, as you say, the time to invest in a downtown stadium is now when land prices still make it attainable (having said that, in spite of all that is going on downtown, it is still losing jobs to the suburbs). As much as I would love to see a downtown stadium and see it as the only sane solution to the sports dilemma facing KC today, the momentum is clearly in the opposite direction....still toward the suburbs.
It's a tough and good question. Hopefully, IMHO, we'll have a chance to revisit it after Tuesday. Of course, if 1&2 pass, this is moot.
But, I do think generally people are smart, and will support a well-thought out initiative. Recent examples include the Sprint Center, Union Station & several infrastructure-related votes. Also understand that any sports-related tax will have probably 1/3 of the voters against it no matter what it is.
That all being said, it seems to me that a regional initiative that spreads the cost out, and limited it to 10 years or so (25 is crazy for sports facilities, since they will need major new $ in 15-20 years), with a fair contribution by the owners, would stand a good chance of passing. People do have civic pride, do generally like pro sports, and want to support something. But it needs to be intelligent and fair.
As to whether people here get out and see other cities, I think you might be surprised. All they'll really need to do starting next week is drive to STL, and see what they have done, and is in the works. If not, San Diego is a great example, as their stadium moved from the 'burbs, and so are many others DT that have had a positive impact. An awful lot of Kansas Citians go to Chicago each year to see the Cubs, for example, and understand how that works.
I'm not one who believes a DT stadium would be a "savior" or the ultimate piece. But, it's one more piece that would help balance out the DT scene, and I think it's important for a city/county/region to maximize its assets, especially those that are publicly funded. 81 games a year, with 1-3 million visitors, plus other events, should be located with some spinoff ED in mind. That's the beauty of where the Sprint Center will be, vs where Kemper was. Development is not a zero sum game, and the beauty of vibrant places is that they create more business than just stand-alone entities. Witness the DT boom in Denver, which not only hasn't slowed, but seems to be accelerating.
But in the end, if KC really wants to stay suburban, b/c of either nostalgia for Kauffman or ease of parking, then that's what we'll have to live with. It won't be the end of the world, but it would certainly be a large missed opportunity.