KCRag Forum

Pastense wrote: I'd rather spend money on a public asset than hand them cash, which (like a downtown stadium) they've never asked for.
I don't need to be opposed to your "plan". It's not on the ballot.
For all those like you who have a better idea, do a ballot initiative.
Remember Clay Chastain.

I don't know that we can do that.  I'll try to get some face time with my buddies Lamar and Dave and see if they'll go for my ballot initiative and sign a lease over it. 

Seriously, if it were on the ballot, I think it would pass.  I would like to know why it isn't on there.  I really think this fact is what's on most people's mind when I talk with them about the stadium tax issue.

really?  3/8 of cent is going to kill them?

Go to any business in Lee's Summit, out by the Indep Center and ask them what will do more harm.  The teams moving to KS or another metro or a 3/8 of a cent tax in a county that has a relatively low tax rate?

And the JoCo crowd telling MO how screwd up they are and how to spend their money to make the freeloading JoCoers happy?

It gets old.

pittsburghparoyal wrote:

Meant to say, non-expansion team.  So.....you can compare the Royals to expansion teams if you like.  Fine by me.  35 years into it, and we've sunk so low we're compared to historically bad EXPANSION teams.

you meant to say it. but you didn't. and the royals are nowhere near being in the top 5 all time of worst 3,4,5,6,7,8,9, or 10 year periods. hey, we were a winning team in kc within a couple of years. we did not experience being the worst of the worst. so, you know what, fine by me. we are just paying our dues, late.

and detroit, the tigers, 119 and 106 losses, back to back, they are 100 years old, not expansion. they did not do 3 out of 4, however, their record over their 4 seasons that included those 2 was worse then us the last 4 years, yes??

pittsburghparoyal wrote: No team since the Toronto Blue Jays of the late 1970s has lost 100 games three times in four years, a feat the Royals most likely will 

WHatever helps you sleep at nite, Cook.

i sleep well at night, knowing someone like you, just like me, will not vote on the matter at hand. you will stay in joco, wishing you guys had amenties like pro sports teams.

GRID wrote: Pitts, Move to Jackson County then people "might" listen to what you have to say.  Till then, go protest the color of a target or something.

Can we apply this to chef as well? 

Who says these "repairs" aren't necessary?

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/13737890.htm

The Royals would pay for improvements to the outfield plaza, which would include a play area for children and additional fountains that may be like ones that children can jump in at Disney World.

"What is this Negro Leagues thing you speak of?"
-Kansas City Citizens

Slappy the Wang wrote: -Kansas City Citizens

Even that sounds better than, "Kansas Citians."

I don't get why people would want to make minimum repairs when then wait 9 years to worry about this all over again.  Then what happens?  Both teams want 2 brand new stadiums that will cost far more than 425 million.  Hmmm pay 425 million now and keep our teams for at least another 25 years or no lets put this off for another 9 years and pay out the ass for new stadiums.  Even if we do renovations in 9 years it will still be way more than the 425 million it would cost today.  Come on people its not rocket science.   

People want to do the minimum repairs now because it takes away the only leverage the cities presently have. If we do the minimum repairs, they are locked into their leases until 2016. They cannot threaten to move. So the legislature can sit down with them and say, "hey, we want to figure out a long term solution to our situation, but we need you to foot more of the bill." The teams only recourse at that point would be, to wait until 2016, or to work in earnest with the county to work on a solution.

Now, maybe the teams would wait until 2016 to get anything done, knowing that would be the only way they get get back their leverage - then you would be correct, we're just kicking the can down the road. BUT, think about the millions of potential dollars from new revenue streams a new facility or renovated facility could bring that they are turning down by waiting another decade. Can both teams sustain their current financial situation for another decade?

Doing the minimum repairs gives the government the upper hand. Right now the teams have the Legislature bent over a chair.

As far as the costs, yes costs will be inflated in the future, but people act like taxes are raised in a bubble. If there is inflation, taxes will increase as well as they are pegged to costs. Additionally, as others have pointed out, construction costs may very well be inflated right now because of Hurricane Katrina and the housing bubble. Finally, Jackson County will have a much wider tax base to draw from when you think about all the sales tax we are about to gather from the P&L and other developments.

cpt4599 wrote: I don't get why people would want to make minimum repairs when then wait 9 years to worry about this all over again.  Then what happens?  Both teams want 2 brand new stadiums that will cost far more than 425 million.  Hmmm pay 425 million now and keep our teams for at least another 25 years or no lets put this off for another 9 years and pay out the ass for new stadiums.  Even if we do renovations in 9 years it will still be way more than the 425 million it would cost today.  Come on people its not rocket science.   

Some people would prefer NEW stadiums (see:  downtown ballpark).  Why lock ourselves in for 25 years when we could revisit it in nine?  You're right, it's not rocket science.

cpt4599 wrote: I don't get why people would want to make minimum repairs when then wait 9 years to worry about this all over again.  Then what happens?  Both teams want 2 brand new stadiums that will cost far more than 425 million.  Hmmm pay 425 million now and keep our teams for at least another 25 years or no lets put this off for another 9 years and pay out the ass for new stadiums.  Even if we do renovations in 9 years it will still be way more than the 425 million it would cost today.  Come on people its not rocket science.   

How so?  I don't follow you at all.

If we make 100M of total repairs, the stadiums are in good condition.  And if we want to expand them in 2015 when the leases are officially up, we can make that decision at THAT time.  And that's the whole point: we're NOT in crisis mode here, no matter what Joe Posnanski or Kevin Gray or David Glass say.

lock&load wrote:
Some people would prefer NEW stadiums (see:  downtown ballpark).  .

while others do not ( see: the majority of eastern jackson county, where, the votes will come from in favor of tsc, the joco based media, and 40-50 forumers )

lock&load wrote:
Some people would prefer NEW stadiums (see:  downtown ballpark).  Why lock ourselves in for 25 years when we could revisit it in nine?  You're right, it's not rocket science.

New stadiums that neither team wants.  Great idea.

cpt4599 wrote: New stadiums that neither team wants.  Great idea.

i like you. great post. forum rookie of the month.

Oh fuck.  Presented with a $500 million bill or death, I choose the $500.  Presented with $100 million and...well, the same, I choose that.

Let us revisit it in a decade when the stadiums finally start to show their age.  We've lived with the current situation for how long?  It's fine with new scoreboards at Arrowhead!!

But that's not an option.  Why the hell not?!  I want a real answer--not just that we have bad leadership.

Another thing that pisses me off.  The bill is more then it was two years ago.  WHY?  Construction costs?  Sure.  Ok.  They've gone up.  I buy it.  But they've added a lot on to the plans (Fountains, like at Disney!  Yay!).  Blah!  The tax-payer base has also SHRUNK to only one county.  ADJUST ACCORDINGLY.

Either our leadership sucks (yes), the team owners suck (yes), and/or we're just dumb (proven in the past, but ready to be proven/disproven).

Grr.

Kard wrote: Oh fuck.  Presented with a $500 million bill or death, I choose the $500.  Presented with $100 million and...well, the same, I choose that.

Let us revisit it in a decade when the stadiums finally start to show their age.  We've lived with the current situation for how long?  It's fine with new scoreboards at Arrowhead!!

But that's not an option.  Why the hell not?!  I want a real answer--not just that we have bad leadership.

Another thing that pisses me off.  The bill is more then it was two years ago.  WHY?  Construction costs?  Sure.  Ok.  They've gone up.  I buy it.  But they've added a lot on to the plans (Fountains, like at Disney!  Yay!).  Blah!  The tax-payer base has also SHRUNK to only one county.  ADJUST ACCORDINGLY.

Either our leadership sucks (yes), the team owners suck (yes), and/or we're just dumb (proven in the past, but ready to be proven/disproven).

Grr.

You don't want to hear bad leadership, but thats the answer.  If the 1990 had capped county contributions and the words "State of the Art" weren't in the lease we wouldn't even be in this situation.  So yes I blame leadership.  The new leases put a cap on spending so I think it is a good deal for tax payers.
How soon we forget that the teams are putting in more money.  That might have something to do with the fact that the bill it higer.

cpt4599 wrote:
How soon we forget that the teams are putting in more money.  That might have something to do with the fact that the bill it higer.

WRONG.

The Royals measly contribution went from 15M to 25M.  Whoop-tee-doo!  The Chiefs went up from 50M to 75M.  These higher amounts ($35M for those bad at math) don't approach the $115M in total other increases.

cpt4599 wrote: You don't want to hear bad leadership, but that's the answer.  If the 1990 had capped county contributions and the words "State of the Art" weren't in the lease we wouldn't even be in this situation.  So yes I blame leadership.  The new leases put a cap on spending so I think it is a good deal for tax payers.
How soon we forget that the teams are putting in more money.  That might have something to do with the fact that the bill it higher.

They are putting in more money, true, but that's not the extent of it.  I'm doing limited math after 5 pints of Irish tonight, but the Star says the price "soared $125 million just 14 months" (their adjectives, not mine).  The teams' increase was just $35 million more ($10 mil more from Royals, $25 mil more from Chefs).

They saw who voted for it last time, and they're trying to get the best deal they can now.  I can't blame them at all.  After all, so are we.

I DO NOT want these teams going anywhere.  But I also don't want us getting screwed in the process.  This deal sucks for us.  It's not quite highway robbery but it's not a good deal.

pittsburghparoyal wrote: WRONG.

The Royals measly contribution went from 15M to 25M.  Whoop-tee-doo!  The Chiefs went up from 50M to 75M.  These higher amounts ($35M for those bad at math) don't approach the $115M in total other increases.

Did I say it accounted for all increases? I don't recall I said that.  I'm not going to get in a pissing match with you.  All I'm saying is that I think that some people are trying to find anything they can hold onto to drag this thing through the dirt just so they can keep thier precious hopes for a downtown stadium alive.  When they have no credible financing plan and no backers from team or government.  I think a downtown stadium would be awesome, but no leadership is stepping up and calling for a realistic plan.  All I can do is look at the plan before me and say that I'm not the only person going to be paying for this thing(ticket surcharges)  and it protects me(a jackson county voter) with a cap on the amount we have to spend on this thing.  Why are you so worried about something you have no say in and can completely avoid paying a dime on?