Downtown Baseball Stadium

[Anthony_Hugo98]

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.

(X) Doubt

[DMNBT_RCJH]

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.

Can’t wait to blast you later tonight after the vote!

I hope you get to! I voted yes. I think the coalition of no voters is much broader than people realize.

[DColeKC]

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?

[DColeKC]

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.

Can’t wait to blast you later tonight after the vote!

I hope you get to! I voted yes. I think the coalition of no voters is much broader than people realize.

I can’t decide if that haters online are just the loudest or what. Internal polling has it very close with a slight win.

[beautyfromashes]

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.

[AllThingsKC]

Voter turnout appears to be normal to light for an April election so far.

[chrizow]

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.

[GRID]

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.

[TheUrbanRoo]

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.

[mourban]

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.

There’s no way they close the 670 lid to the public.

[DColeKC]

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.

There’s no way they close the 670 lid to the public.

I agree, outside of perhaps the occasional event that may require a ticket and security perimeter.

[Highlander]

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.

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.

[Chris Stritzel]

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’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.

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]

I agree, outside of perhaps the occasional event that may require a ticket and security perimeter.

This 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.

[beautyfromashes]

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.

I disagree. East Village would look something like East Crossroads if not landbanked.

[chrizow]

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.

interesting, in BKS i feel like the yard signs I have seen have been 75% yes and 25% no

[KCPowercat]

I saw KCTenants were up to their lies last night. They were sharing a fake document as if it was an official joint statement as well as continuing to push the idea that this is a new tax.

I got that same document in an email from the chiefs. Are you saying they changed the words?

[DColeKC]

I saw KCTenants were up to their lies last night. They were sharing a fake document as if it was an official joint statement as well as continuing to push the idea that this is a new tax.

I got that same document in an email from the chiefs. Are you saying they changed the words?

Did the document you received talk about how there is no plan b?

[Highlander]

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.

I disagree. East Village would look something like East Crossroads if not landbanked.

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).

[DColeKC]

I agree, outside of perhaps the occasional event that may require a ticket and security perimeter.

This 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.

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.

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.