(X) DoubtDMNBT_RCJH wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 7:16 am This is going to be a snoozer. Biggest question will be whether the “Yes’s” can get to 35%. It won’t be close, unfortunately.
Downtown Baseball Stadium
- Anthony_Hugo98
- Penntower
- Posts: 2000
- Joined: Fri Mar 22, 2019 10:50 pm
- Location: Overland Park, KS
Re: Downtown Baseball Stadium
-
- Pad site
- Posts: 98
- Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2023 10:28 am
Re: Downtown Baseball Stadium
I hope you get to! I voted yes. I think the coalition of no voters is much broader than people realize.TheUrbanRoo wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 8:50 amCan’t wait to blast you later tonight after the vote!DMNBT_RCJH wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 7:16 am This is going to be a snoozer. Biggest question will be whether the “Yes’s” can get to 35%. It won’t be close, unfortunately.
- DColeKC
- Ambassador
- Posts: 3930
- Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am
Re: Downtown Baseball Stadium
I’m a little nervous today. Wish we had live coverage and exit polling!
I saw KCTenants were up to their lies last night. They were continuing to push the idea that this is a new tax.
Need all the yes votes and pains me to think someone can be manipulated by this stuff.
Someone should have pushed the idea of: What will the city and county do if both leave for NKC or Kansas? What programs will need to be cut due to the massive dip in tax revenues?
I saw KCTenants were up to their lies last night. They were continuing to push the idea that this is a new tax.
Need all the yes votes and pains me to think someone can be manipulated by this stuff.
Someone should have pushed the idea of: What will the city and county do if both leave for NKC or Kansas? What programs will need to be cut due to the massive dip in tax revenues?
Last edited by DColeKC on Tue Apr 02, 2024 12:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- DColeKC
- Ambassador
- Posts: 3930
- Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am
Re: Downtown Baseball Stadium
I can’t decide if that haters online are just the loudest or what. Internal polling has it very close with a slight win.DMNBT_RCJH wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 9:15 amI hope you get to! I voted yes. I think the coalition of no voters is much broader than people realize.TheUrbanRoo wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 8:50 amCan’t wait to blast you later tonight after the vote!DMNBT_RCJH wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 7:16 am This is going to be a snoozer. Biggest question will be whether the “Yes’s” can get to 35%. It won’t be close, unfortunately.
- beautyfromashes
- One Park Place
- Posts: 7290
- Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:04 am
Re: Downtown Baseball Stadium
Here was the criteria I needed to vote yes and how I see it played out:
What I need:
- Messaging from the Royals showing care for displaced businesses, sufficient purchase price for buildings and attempts to relocate in surrounding areas.
Yes, it seems that the Royals are attempting to work with business owners and have taken a better tone concerning joining the Crossroads vs "transforming".
- Plan to keep Oak open in some form.
Yes, I believe the commitment from the Royals to keep Oak open.
- Commitment to keep the 670 park public and always open to citizens.
Still a concern for me and there has been no real progress on the park during this process.
- While not a deal killer, I’d prefer removal of the pedestrian bridge in order to keep people walking on the street or use of Buck Bridge truces to show history of the city. Would also like orientation facing DT proper.
I think the commitment to keep Oak open and changes to the east Oak business plan will change this design feature though no true signal.
- Financial plans showing where funds will be spent before the election with legal commitment from the Royals to spend funds in a timely number of years. No “2nd phase”, “3rd Phase” that never happens.
No, I'm disappointed in the lack of transparency and work towards financial commitment.
- commitment from the city to immediately sell off EV property that they own in small chunks and push for development of that area. Push should be for buildings with height.
No, there has been zero discussion from the city about what happens to East Village after this vote.
- all parking structures are beneath other buildings and have streetfront activation.
Yes, while the Royals have said there will be one parking garage built for the development, they seem committed to limiting garages and keep them from disrupting walkability.
What I need:
- Messaging from the Royals showing care for displaced businesses, sufficient purchase price for buildings and attempts to relocate in surrounding areas.
Yes, it seems that the Royals are attempting to work with business owners and have taken a better tone concerning joining the Crossroads vs "transforming".
- Plan to keep Oak open in some form.
Yes, I believe the commitment from the Royals to keep Oak open.
- Commitment to keep the 670 park public and always open to citizens.
Still a concern for me and there has been no real progress on the park during this process.
- While not a deal killer, I’d prefer removal of the pedestrian bridge in order to keep people walking on the street or use of Buck Bridge truces to show history of the city. Would also like orientation facing DT proper.
I think the commitment to keep Oak open and changes to the east Oak business plan will change this design feature though no true signal.
- Financial plans showing where funds will be spent before the election with legal commitment from the Royals to spend funds in a timely number of years. No “2nd phase”, “3rd Phase” that never happens.
No, I'm disappointed in the lack of transparency and work towards financial commitment.
- commitment from the city to immediately sell off EV property that they own in small chunks and push for development of that area. Push should be for buildings with height.
No, there has been zero discussion from the city about what happens to East Village after this vote.
- all parking structures are beneath other buildings and have streetfront activation.
Yes, while the Royals have said there will be one parking garage built for the development, they seem committed to limiting garages and keep them from disrupting walkability.
Last edited by beautyfromashes on Tue Apr 02, 2024 9:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
- AllThingsKC
- Mark Twain Tower
- Posts: 9370
- Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2004 10:57 am
- Location: Kansas City, Missouri (Downtown)
- Contact:
Re: Downtown Baseball Stadium
Voter turnout appears to be normal to light for an April election so far.
KC is the way to be!
- chrizow
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 17161
- Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2003 8:43 am
Re: Downtown Baseball Stadium
anecdotally, turnout at the 59th and rockhill polling location seemed pretty robust to me for a one-issue April election. I would guess I voted along with around 20 folks coming and going, at 8am. I overheard 2 people (ostensibly a married couple) talking on the way out that they voted YES.
not sure how much it matters, but I was handed a flyer which urged Yes on 1 along with various democrat candidates for south KC school board elections (which weren't on my ballot at all). there were probably 10 Yes signs and 1 No sign at the polling location, not that anyone is persuaded by those.
not sure how much it matters, but I was handed a flyer which urged Yes on 1 along with various democrat candidates for south KC school board elections (which weren't on my ballot at all). there were probably 10 Yes signs and 1 No sign at the polling location, not that anyone is persuaded by those.
- GRID
- City Hall
- Posts: 17231
- Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 12:20 pm
- Contact:
Re: Downtown Baseball Stadium
Most people I know voted no. That includes people in the city literally within the streetcar taxing district and people in the county suburbs.
I will be extremely surprised if it passes.
I will be extremely surprised if it passes.
-
- Alameda Tower
- Posts: 1361
- Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2022 8:39 pm
Re: Downtown Baseball Stadium
You people think too much about online comment sections and less about the actual data & history of these votes which is that pass literally 98% of the time anywhere in the country. That's a much much better indicator. So yeah, it'll prob pass, and yes I will be dunking all over Grid and co. tonight after it.
-
- Parking Garage
- Posts: 46
- Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 7:00 pm
Re: Downtown Baseball Stadium
There’s no way they close the 670 lid to the public.beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 9:35 am Here was the criteria I needed to vote yes and how I see it played out:
What I need:
- Messaging from the Royals showing care for displaced businesses, sufficient purchase price for buildings and attempts to relocate in surrounding areas.
Yes, it seems that the Royals are attempting to work with business owners and have taken a better tone concerning joining the Crossroads vs "transforming".
- Plan to keep Oak open in some form.
Yes, I believe the commitment from the Royals to keep Oak open.
- Commitment to keep the 670 park public and always open to citizens.
Still a concern for me and there has been no real progress on the park during this process.
- While not a deal killer, I’d prefer removal of the pedestrian bridge in order to keep people walking on the street or use of Buck Bridge truces to show history of the city. Would also like orientation facing DT proper.
I think the commitment to keep Oak open and changes to the east Oak business plan will change this design feature though no true signal.
- Financial plans showing where funds will be spent before the election with legal commitment from the Royals to spend funds in a timely number of years. No “2nd phase”, “3rd Phase” that never happens.
No, I'm disappointed in the lack of transparency and work towards financial commitment.
- commitment from the city to immediately sell off EV property that they own in small chunks and push for development of that area. Push should be for buildings with height.
No, there has been zero discussion from the city about what happens to East Village after this vote.
- all parking structures are beneath other buildings and have streetfront activation.
Yes, while the Royals have said there will be one parking garage built for the development, they seem committed to limiting garages and keep them from disrupting walkability.
- DColeKC
- Ambassador
- Posts: 3930
- Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am
Re: Downtown Baseball Stadium
I agree, outside of perhaps the occasional event that may require a ticket and security perimeter.mourban wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 10:36 amThere’s no way they close the 670 lid to the public.beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 9:35 am Here was the criteria I needed to vote yes and how I see it played out:
What I need:
- Messaging from the Royals showing care for displaced businesses, sufficient purchase price for buildings and attempts to relocate in surrounding areas.
Yes, it seems that the Royals are attempting to work with business owners and have taken a better tone concerning joining the Crossroads vs "transforming".
- Plan to keep Oak open in some form.
Yes, I believe the commitment from the Royals to keep Oak open.
- Commitment to keep the 670 park public and always open to citizens.
Still a concern for me and there has been no real progress on the park during this process.
- While not a deal killer, I’d prefer removal of the pedestrian bridge in order to keep people walking on the street or use of Buck Bridge truces to show history of the city. Would also like orientation facing DT proper.
I think the commitment to keep Oak open and changes to the east Oak business plan will change this design feature though no true signal.
- Financial plans showing where funds will be spent before the election with legal commitment from the Royals to spend funds in a timely number of years. No “2nd phase”, “3rd Phase” that never happens.
No, I'm disappointed in the lack of transparency and work towards financial commitment.
- commitment from the city to immediately sell off EV property that they own in small chunks and push for development of that area. Push should be for buildings with height.
No, there has been zero discussion from the city about what happens to East Village after this vote.
- all parking structures are beneath other buildings and have streetfront activation.
Yes, while the Royals have said there will be one parking garage built for the development, they seem committed to limiting garages and keep them from disrupting walkability.
- Highlander
- City Center Square
- Posts: 10225
- Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 1:40 pm
- Location: Houston
Re: Downtown Baseball Stadium
I would not conflate EV with the stadium vote. It's a separate matter that has nothing to do with merits of the EV location. Even if the land had not been banked, I suspect EV would look pretty similar to what it does today.beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 9:35 am Here was the criteria I needed to vote yes and how I see it played out:
What I need:
- Messaging from the Royals showing care for displaced businesses, sufficient purchase price for buildings and attempts to relocate in surrounding areas.
Yes, it seems that the Royals are attempting to work with business owners and have taken a better tone concerning joining the Crossroads vs "transforming".
- Plan to keep Oak open in some form.
Yes, I believe the commitment from the Royals to keep Oak open.
- Commitment to keep the 670 park public and always open to citizens.
Still a concern for me and there has been no real progress on the park during this process.
- While not a deal killer, I’d prefer removal of the pedestrian bridge in order to keep people walking on the street or use of Buck Bridge truces to show history of the city. Would also like orientation facing DT proper.
I think the commitment to keep Oak open and changes to the east Oak business plan will change this design feature though no true signal.
- Financial plans showing where funds will be spent before the election with legal commitment from the Royals to spend funds in a timely number of years. No “2nd phase”, “3rd Phase” that never happens.
No, I'm disappointed in the lack of transparency and work towards financial commitment.
- commitment from the city to immediately sell off EV property that they own in small chunks and push for development of that area. Push should be for buildings with height.
No, there has been zero discussion from the city about what happens to East Village after this vote.
- all parking structures are beneath other buildings and have streetfront activation.
Yes, while the Royals have said there will be one parking garage built for the development, they seem committed to limiting garages and keep them from disrupting walkability.
- Chris Stritzel
- Penntower
- Posts: 2397
- Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2017 9:27 pm
Re: Downtown Baseball Stadium
I’ve noticed most voices against this have been the same on social media. There are few new faces when I check through comment sections. But I won’t write off social media as a tool to gauge how well, or bad, something’s going. Even if some people don’t live in KCMO, or Jackson County, they might have friends who do who they can then encourage to vote. We’ll see how the results go tonight.TheUrbanRoo wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 10:27 am You people think too much about online comment sections and less about the actual data & history of these votes which is that pass literally 98% of the time anywhere in the country. That's a much much better indicator. So yeah, it'll prob pass, and yes I will be dunking all over Grid and co. tonight after it.
I will say that the “yard sign wars” have been pretty even on this matter. I swear I have seen an equal number of yes signs to no signs.
- beautyfromashes
- One Park Place
- Posts: 7290
- Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:04 am
- beautyfromashes
- One Park Place
- Posts: 7290
- Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:04 am
Re: Downtown Baseball Stadium
I disagree. East Village would look something like East Crossroads if not landbanked.Highlander wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 10:46 am I would not conflate EV with the stadium vote. It's a separate matter that has nothing to do with merits of the EV location. Even if the land had not been banked, I suspect EV would look pretty similar to what it does today.
- chrizow
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 17161
- Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2003 8:43 am
Re: Downtown Baseball Stadium
interesting, in BKS i feel like the yard signs I have seen have been 75% yes and 25% noChris Stritzel wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 10:53 am
I will say that the “yard sign wars” have been pretty even on this matter. I swear I have seen an equal number of yes signs to no signs.
- KCPowercat
- Ambassador
- Posts: 34066
- Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 12:49 pm
- Location: Quality Hill
- Contact:
Re: Downtown Baseball Stadium
I got that same document in an email from the chiefs. Are you saying they changed the words?
- DColeKC
- Ambassador
- Posts: 3930
- Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am
Re: Downtown Baseball Stadium
Did the document you received talk about how there is no plan b?KCPowercat wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 11:12 amI got that same document in an email from the chiefs. Are you saying they changed the words?
- Highlander
- City Center Square
- Posts: 10225
- Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 1:40 pm
- Location: Houston
Re: Downtown Baseball Stadium
Maybe north of 17th but definitely not south of 17th. But I even doubt that. It's the most isolated corner of downtown on the other side of the government district. Any development there has to form as its own node as there is not bleed over from adjacent development like there is in East Crossroads. My guess is it will take another 30-40 years for that area to infill without some kind of massive societal step change prior to that (e.g., reversal of suburban trends, scarcity of gasoline).beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 10:59 amI disagree. East Village would look something like East Crossroads if not landbanked.Highlander wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 10:46 am I would not conflate EV with the stadium vote. It's a separate matter that has nothing to do with merits of the EV location. Even if the land had not been banked, I suspect EV would look pretty similar to what it does today.
- DColeKC
- Ambassador
- Posts: 3930
- Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am
Re: Downtown Baseball Stadium
It wouldn't be the entire park and I'm guessing only a few times a year. For example, maybe a Beer Fest or a fundraiser using the pavilion area. I'm not saying every weekend and multiple downtown organizations would have this ability to apply for a permit to use it.beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 10:58 amThis is what I'm talking about. It should be open 100% of the time. I don't want any entity being able to close it like a road whenever they want.
Kylde Warren Park is used a few times each year for ticketed type events, including a fundraiser that supports the operations and upkeep of the park.