KCRag Forum

.

Yes taxes. Those residents would be paying taxes for two baseball stadiums.

So how would you sell the idea to them to overcome this issue?

.

aknowledgeableperson wrote:Yes taxes. Those residents would be paying taxes for two baseball stadiums.

So how would you sell the idea to them to overcome this issue?

Same way we got to pay for two arenas. Fear, disinformation, empty promises.

where's enterprise rent-a-car when you need them?

but, seriously, this will always be a topic as long as the sports complex is surrounded by nothing. the emotional connection to partying in a parking lot escapes me.

the reality is that jackson county and team ownership don't want to move, so unless that changes the conversation is just click bait for the biz journal (and now, the star) and a circlejerk for some downtown interests (who have proposed putting the stadium where there is no transit... wut?).

someone pointed out the other day that if the royals did move to a new stadium downtown that kauffman would almost certainly be demolished. this made me reconsider the "pros" of the team playing downtown because i could not think of a reuse for an old baseball stadium (turns out there are some, but i doubt they'd do well in that horrid location).

DaveKCMO wrote:where's enterprise rent-a-car when you need them?

but, seriously, this will always be a topic as long as the sports complex is surrounded by nothing. the emotional connection to partying in a parking lot escapes me.

the reality is that jackson county and team ownership don't want to move, so unless that changes the conversation is just click bait for the biz journal (and now, the star) and a circlejerk for some downtown interests (who have proposed putting the stadium where there is no transit... wut?).

someone pointed out the other day that if the royals did move to a new stadium downtown that kauffman would almost certainly be demolished. this made me reconsider the "pros" of the team playing downtown because i could not think of a reuse for an old baseball stadium (turns out there are some, but i doubt they'd do well in that horrid location).

What is of interest to me is that the downtown location won the poll. I guess Kansas Citians (including myself) were a bit alarmed regarding the endless camera shots of I-70 and into the nothingness beyond during the world series.

Won one poll and lost another. Of course both are meaningless since they were so scientific.

aknowledgeableperson wrote:Won one poll and lost another. Of course both are meaningless since they were so scientific.

Accurate no. Meaningless? I would not say so. It shows at the very least there is still a fair amount of interest in a downtown stadium. Even in the comments section of the article, a lot of those indicating they voted no said they did so only because of the money spent to renovate Royal's Stadium.

Yes it is meaningless. On any issue there will always be two sides or some level of proponents. Now if there were 50,000 responses from 50,000 individuals who responded in favor then there would be some meaning.

DaveKCMO wrote:where's enterprise rent-a-car when you need them?


someone pointed out the other day that if the royals did move to a new stadium downtown that kauffman would almost certainly be demolished. this made me reconsider the "pros" of the team playing downtown because i could not think of a reuse for an old baseball stadium (turns out there are some, but i doubt they'd do well in that horrid location).

The Hunger Games.

I don't see that the location is the problem

there's nothing wrong with helping a big project for the spin-off effect if you have the numbers down. like the savoy hotel project should increase tax dollars in property taxes and that's good. imagine if the city took it a step further. they could have had contingencies you could have requirements for X dollars in room night taxes and restaurant taxes while the property taxes are lower. if the hotel does it they keep their tax incentives and the benefit from filling rooms. they have it in their interests to make the area around them be active. not just directly but this company doubtless knows people with money. it would be a way to bring people who develop parcels into buildings and grow the neighborhood so people want to go to the Savoy.

so I would like to see future public funding for a ballpark tied to tax dollars produced around the stadium. they could argue over the distance. you want to make it be about increased existing area development. it's not like sports teams don't know people with tons of money. development could bring people to the area for whatever reason that could then buy a ticket to a game that's not sold out. could even build in profit sharing past some threshold of these taxes. the team agrees to this idea and some percentage of overages goes to the team. give them 5 years to produce some results or city incentives start to fall off. each 5 years they have to meet another stage of development.

Would be in the team's interests to help move downtown or push development around the stadium. both areas could use the help and would be respectful results.

the new mayor of independence is now very angry, although she makes an excellent point about what would happen to the existing stadium if a new one were built downtown (likely demolished, although there are reuse possibilities).

DaveKCMO wrote:the new mayor of independence is now very angry, although she makes an excellent point about what would happen to the existing stadium if a new one were built downtown (likely demolished, although there are reuse possibilities).

It is a point, but I don't really understand why people should care. First of all, I don't see how "decimating" the economy of that area would really impact anything. That area is a black hole other than the baseball stadium, so any economic benefit to crappy bars, strip clubs, and the Taco Bell are not really improving the quality of life. The stadium is in Kansas City, MO, so I don't believe stadium money is going to Independence. The entire point of the downtown argument is that you put the stadium in a place where they are likely to do more than just drive and park. That is what happens today from all parts of the city.

People shopping in Independence during the World Series would still do the exact same amount of shopping (or negligible difference) there if the stadium were downtown (and there was a World Series). Nobody who lives in town is driving to Independence for Royals stuff prior to a game other than people who already live in Independence. They are shopping in their own neighborhoods (because there is nothing to do near the stadium), driving to the game, and parking in an ocean of asphalt. At the end of the game, they drive home drunk because there are no entertainment-related reasons to stay around or to get a hotel room.

I guess she may have a faint point if folks are staying at the crappy hotels around the stadiums, they MIGHT venture to Independence/Truman Library/Home or other areas east than if they are staying downtown.

One has to remember that the Truman Sports Center stadiums are funded by Jackson County voters and taxpayers, and not just those living in Kansas City, Missouri. So mayors of Independence, Blue Springs, and Raytown might argue that moving the stadiums affects them, since their citizenry help fund the stadiums. They might argue that their municipalities benefit from having the stadiums where they are (from hotels, motels, restaurants, bars, gas stations, convenience stores), and some businesses benefit from having sales from sports event attendees.

If I recall the history of the stadium placement, the location choice had to do with politics of getting voters in Eastern Jackson County on board to build and fund the stadiums.

If you remove Jackson County voters as the primary taxpayers involved in funding, and switch it over to just those living in Kansas City, Missouri, then you might be able to move the stadiums downtown. That is assuming KCMO voters in Platte and Clay counties go along with it.

Stadium location will always depend on the funding mechanism and politics of that.

The only thing I worry about moving the stadiums downtown is site choice, and how one will deal with parking. I don't want to see a stadium surrounded by a sea of surface parking lots. I don't want to see a site that would involved demolition of any remaining historic building stock. I wouldn't oppose it if the buildings being demolished were simply concrete block type warehouses, or nondescript structures that are easily replaced somewhere else.

In the past, locations in the North Loop were proposed, I worried that this might involved demolition of the apartment building on Central between W. 6th and 7th streets. Another suggestion involved the general area of the Crossroads from Central east to Grand south of Truman Road. There are several historic buildings that might require demolition for that plan: Hanna Rubber Co. building, Lane Printing Building; the building where Anton's is; the Nara Restaurant building; and the buildings along the west side of Walnut between Truman Road and W. 17th Street.

In many ways, it would all come down to location, and minimizing the effect on downtown building stock that already exists.

If you remove Jackson County voters as the primary taxpayers involved in funding, and switch it over to just those living in Kansas City, Missouri, then you might be able to move the stadiums downtown. That is assuming KCMO voters in Platte and Clay counties go along with it.

Just think of what a cost of a new stadium would be. Now, just the stadium then throw in the land cost which would be variable depending on where it was located. My SWAG would put the cost somewhere between $600M and $700M (not current costs but future costs on when built). One can expect the Royals to kick in some but I wouldn't expect much, probably in the neighborhood of $150M. So most favorable amount the City would have to raise in taxes would be $450M. The question is what taxes would you raise and how much? Property taxes? Sales taxes? What priority would you put on this compared to other needs of the city? Streetcar tax or stadium tax?

.

So if you have the state line as the third base line, would the home team insist on using the third base dugout so they could say they are working in KS and avoid city income taxes?

Go big. Site it so the left half of the field is in Kansas. Besides being a fun metaphor for Kansas politics, we could truthfully say that Lorenzo Cain is fast enough to cover two states.

Our baseball stadium should be near 18th and Paseo. I don't see how this is even a debate.