DColeKC wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 11:07 am
I do think there's time to get the word out. If for some reason this vote fails, I think we can expect another try in the fall and if that fails, we have lost our one chance at downtown baseball. They will not be renovating Kauffman and they just need to say that, amongst other things. They need to come out and say, tax dollars, no tax dollars, nothing will "save the K"... NOTHING. Put that group to bed.
Maybe it will take a failed vote to convince people that saving Kauffman is not an option and they will be more supportive the second time around after six months of stories about ten other cities licking their chops to try and lure the Royals to their city.
I've seen a couple of Nashville news stories about our upcoming vote - it's captured the attention of wanna be baseball towns. I'm not optimistic about downtown. Everyone I know in Jackson County that can vote, in the burbs and in Brookside, Waldo and even a surprising number of people here on the forum will vote no. The social media I see is overwhelmingly NO. There are at least two organized efforts to kill the vote. Frankly, and I know you will hate this, I think the Royals most likely move will be to Kansas. I'd like to know why many here remain optimistic?
If the Royals move to KS, I'm officially done with the Royals and will go all in with the DC Nationals and will no longer give a rats ass about the Royals. I will also have a LOT less interest in KC in general. I think I might be done with my lifelong support of the city and will finally move on.
I really hope it does not come to that, but I do think that is more likely than them leaving KC. It's extremely difficult to move a MLB team to a different market. But it's not impossible and I have never seen so many cities so desperate for a MLB team as there is right now.
TheUrbanRoo wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 11:42 am
The Chiefs just won back to back Super Bowls. That will carry this over the line once the campaign is made to be just as much about the Chiefs than it is the Royals.
I can't see a universe where the piece of shit 2006 Chiefs/Royals could pass a vote but the Mahomes Chiefs/Royals cannot.
I don't think you realize how anti downtown so many people and one of the reasons that vote passed was because of talk about a downtown stadium.
This tax would pass easily if they were just going to renovate Kauffman again. Moving the Royals downtown is a totally different animal. I just hope the Chiefs plans are enticing enough to sway 50.01% of the voters.
If this vote fails and the teams just stay, wouldn’t the teams need a new tax regardless for renovations at some point? So is the question do we want to keep paying for something new, or keep paying for the same thing we’ve had at TSC?
TheUrbanRoo wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 11:42 am
The Chiefs just won back to back Super Bowls. That will carry this over the line once the campaign is made to be just as much about the Chiefs than it is the Royals.
I can't see a universe where the piece of shit 2006 Chiefs/Royals could pass a vote but the Mahomes Chiefs/Royals cannot.
I don't think you realize how anti downtown so many people and one of the reasons that vote passed was because of talk about a downtown stadium.
This tax would pass easily if they were just going to renovate Kauffman again. Moving the Royals downtown is a totally different animal. I just hope the Chiefs plans are enticing enough to sway 50.01% of the voters.
You're way too caught in social media and the online world
Maybe the anti downtown sentiment prevails on facebook but the bigger issue I see people have is giving tax money to a private business. It seems like public subsidies to sports teams have really taken a lot more scrutiny since 2006 and not just in KC.
Chris Stritzel wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 11:22 am
Correct. The second Busch Stadium was there before Eagleton was built. Security requirements were different back then than they are now. Such a project likely wouldn’t occur today (example: Feds have played with demoing some buildings in Chicago that are too close to one of their buildings. I can’t remember which one though).
New Busch built in 2006 after 9/11. So, what changed? They let the stadium go up next to Eagleton. Why wouldn’t they let a new K go up on EV?
TheUrbanRoo wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 11:42 am
The Chiefs just won back to back Super Bowls. That will carry this over the line once the campaign is made to be just as much about the Chiefs than it is the Royals.
I can't see a universe where the piece of shit 2006 Chiefs/Royals could pass a vote but the Mahomes Chiefs/Royals cannot.
I don't think you realize how anti downtown so many people and one of the reasons that vote passed was because of talk about a downtown stadium.
This tax would pass easily if they were just going to renovate Kauffman again. Moving the Royals downtown is a totally different animal. I just hope the Chiefs plans are enticing enough to sway 50.01% of the voters.
FlippantCitizen wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 12:14 pm
Maybe the anti downtown sentiment prevails on facebook but the bigger issue I see people have is giving tax money to a private business. It seems like public subsidies to sports teams have really taken a lot more scrutiny since 2006 and not just in KC.
Unfortunately, that is the necessity for most franchises in a small markets unless you have owners with extremely deep pockets and KC does not have that. The alternative is just to let the free market take its course and have baseball only in the largest markets in the US. There are several cities that have baseball teams that are essentially demographic anachronisms and we unfortunately happen to be one of them.
Chris Stritzel wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 11:22 am
Correct. The second Busch Stadium was there before Eagleton was built. Security requirements were different back then than they are now. Such a project likely wouldn’t occur today (example: Feds have played with demoing some buildings in Chicago that are too close to one of their buildings. I can’t remember which one though).
New Busch built in 2006 after 9/11. So, what changed? They let the stadium go up next to Eagleton. Why wouldn’t they let a new K go up on EV?
Simple answer: the precedent was already set.
As for EV and the Royals: there is no stadium over there to have a defined precedent. The Feds also use the garage at 10th and Cherry. Removing that garage and building a stadium over there, while it seems obvious to us, is a concern to the Feds on the security front.
If the vote fails, the Royals and Chiefs should ONLY be blaming themselves. No matter what, there was going to be opposition to a downtown stadium from Eastern Jack, save the K types and anti-tax types (both libertarians and KC Tenants, who would be against renovating the K, too). That's a given no matter the details. The Royals then decided to alienate River-Waldo voters by picking a site out of the blue (for those not paying attention) after years of narrowing it down to different sites, in an area that requires closing businesses and tearing down buildings and closing a major downtown thoroughfare which threatens streetcar operations (while midtown is torn up to expand that streetcar line). On top of that, neither the Royals nor the Chiefs have released any details for basically anything beyond renderings for the Royals Stadium so supporters don't have any ammo to use against misinformation by the detractors. At this point, they have less than two months to turn it around because they took so long to make a decision. It has been a trainwreck.
The teams should absolutely not take a loss here as anything more than they need to get their shit together and go back to voters with the information voters need to vote yes and figure out a way to keep Oak open and get the Crossroads community to endorse it (or take another look at North Loop or WSP).
^ I’m worried too that this doesn’t pass but the Royals double down on the site, tear down the Star and businesses and create another dead zone like EV in the Crossroads. I posted my requirements to vote yes and few pages ago. Simple stuff. Just hit singles and this is a win. Take care of displaced businesses, maintain the street grid and make minor urban changes. And communicate.
Chris Stritzel wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 11:22 am
Correct. The second Busch Stadium was there before Eagleton was built. Security requirements were different back then than they are now. Such a project likely wouldn’t occur today (example: Feds have played with demoing some buildings in Chicago that are too close to one of their buildings. I can’t remember which one though).
New Busch built in 2006 after 9/11. So, what changed? They let the stadium go up next to Eagleton. Why wouldn’t they let a new K go up on EV?
Chris Stritzel wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 11:22 am
Correct. The second Busch Stadium was there before Eagleton was built. Security requirements were different back then than they are now. Such a project likely wouldn’t occur today (example: Feds have played with demoing some buildings in Chicago that are too close to one of their buildings. I can’t remember which one though).
New Busch built in 2006 after 9/11. So, what changed? They let the stadium go up next to Eagleton. Why wouldn’t they let a new K go up on EV?
Two blocks isn't across the street ?
Precisely, when there is standoff from crowds it becomes less of a concern. When crowds are directly adjacent it’s more of a concern
I wonder if the plan is a week before vote the Chiefs release their plans and the marketing campaign makes the vote all about the Chiefs and keeping them in Jackson County. I feel like that would sway more people than the Royals stadium.
TheUrbanRoo wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 11:42 am
The Chiefs just won back to back Super Bowls. That will carry this over the line once the campaign is made to be just as much about the Chiefs than it is the Royals.
I can't see a universe where the piece of shit 2006 Chiefs/Royals could pass a vote but the Mahomes Chiefs/Royals cannot.
I don't think you realize how anti downtown so many people and one of the reasons that vote passed was because of talk about a downtown stadium.
This tax would pass easily if they were just going to renovate Kauffman again. Moving the Royals downtown is a totally different animal. I just hope the Chiefs plans are enticing enough to sway 50.01% of the voters.
You're way too caught in social media and the online world
I have friends and family in Hyde Park, Valentine, Brookside, SKC, Raytown, Independence, Blue Springs, Lee's Summit, Grain Valley, Oak Grove etc. Most people I know that live in the county are currently a no vote.
Why does it have to be a vote anyway? I mean there was not vote to build nationals park. The city just did it. There was no vote to allocate 600 million dollars to the upcoming renovation of Camden yards, the state of Maryland it just doing it.
Maybe if the vote fails the state of Missouri will step up for KC for once. I mean Missouri was basically about to give the Rams whatever they wanted, but the Rams were not interested in staying in StL.
I don't think you realize how anti downtown so many people and one of the reasons that vote passed was because of talk about a downtown stadium.
This tax would pass easily if they were just going to renovate Kauffman again. Moving the Royals downtown is a totally different animal. I just hope the Chiefs plans are enticing enough to sway 50.01% of the voters.
You're way too caught in social media and the online world
I have friends and family in Hyde Park, Valentine, Brookside, SKC, Raytown, Independence, Blue Springs, Lee's Summit, Grain Valley, Oak Grove etc. Most people I know that live in the county are currently a no vote.
It's really a perfect storm against the downtown stadium. KC Tenants is galvanizing the usual democratic vote in the city against the stadium on perceived social justice grounds, the MAGA vote in Lees Summit, Raymore, Blue Springs will vote against it due to their general disdain for investment in democratically controlled cities, the Libertarian leaning people will never vote for public-private cooperation as such (hell, they'd rip out the streetcar if they could) and many downtown residents cannot live with some aspect of the proposal (street closures, displacement of business and general NIMBYism).
An EV location would have 3 of those 4 components against it, plus an apparent federal government security hurdle - and all for a pretty marginal location.
