Downtown Baseball Stadium

LyRiCaL GanGsTa · Post by **LyRiCaL GanGsTa** » Mon Apr 12, 2004 12:48 pm

Stay the course..... Rome wasn't built in a day and there are decades of suburban-centric mentalities that have to be overcome. A good thing is to talk about the main point... Critical Mass of all of the best of KC within walking distance... Union Station, Crown Center, Crosstown/Freighthouse District, KCLive!, PAC, new arena, 18th & Vine and KC's eclectic architecture. A year from now things may be different. When I first heard about a downtown baseball stadium, I didn't take much notice either. Then when I found this website and saw that there was a grass-roots effort that was involved because they cared... not because they had land in an obscure area that they wanted to dump, or money to be made from a ballpark built near thier business, I started learning and now I'm down. Up with hope, down with dope, an get out an vote!

aknowledgeableperson · Mon Apr 12, 2004 1:25 pm

KC wrote:I still think a small renovation to Kauffman and get Glass pushing on a new stadium....do not put $150M into Kauffman....if that means me voting against Bi-State, then so be it.

So for you it is all or nothing. You would vote against Bistate II just bacause you don't get your downtown stadium. What about the other projects in Bistate that need support? Life is full of compromises. That does not mean you have sacrificed your principles but have come to the realization that sometimes a piece of a pie is better than no pie at all. Kaufman is still one of the premier stadiums in the county for baseball and is still in good shape. I would not be for renovation if it wasn't for these two reasons. I would support a downtown stadium if the cost to the taxpayers is the same as the cost of renovations at Kaufman and all of the main people are behind it.

NDgravy · Post by **NDgravy** » Mon Apr 12, 2004 2:56 pm

LG, I actually go to Notre Dame... Sorry to throw you off there. I am from Montana ariginally and have a really good friend from Fargo, but I have no connection to North Dakota myself.

trailerkid · Post by **trailerkid** » Mon Apr 12, 2004 3:09 pm

aknowledgeableperson wrote: So for you it is all or nothing. You would vote against Bistate II just bacause you don't get your downtown stadium. What about the other projects in Bistate that need support?

In one word: YES!!!!!!!!!

Bistate SUCKS anyway. For $1 billion, we get renovations to the stadiums, arts money (including for the new PAC), and a JoCo "cultural center." Why on the face of Earth would you vote for this clunker?

I have a feeling the Washinton Square site wouldn't happen even if the current 19% chance of a stadium moving forward picks up steam. You would have to demolish the current building there and approval would have to be given to change from park to stadium. We have R. Crosby Kemper minimally behind this, but we need a bigger development player ready to step up to the bat. If DST or Crown Center got behind it...it would happen....no questions asked. I don't understand why Crown Center isn't actively pursuing a stadium (or arena for that matter) as it would greatly enhance and add value to their property.

LyRiCaL GanGsTa · Post by **LyRiCaL GanGsTa** » Mon Apr 12, 2004 6:54 pm

Bistate SUCKS anyway. For $1 billion, we get renovations to the stadiums, arts money (including for the new PAC), and a JoCo "cultural center." Why on the face of Earth would you vote for this clunker?

typical KC mediocraty..... I agree tk.

GO IRISH!

QueSi2Opie · Post by **QueSi2Opie** » Mon Apr 12, 2004 8:23 pm

I'll vote for BiState II because of the Arts! I'd hate to see Kauffman Stadium be demolished...it's a wonderful site to see on I-70 goin' to KC. Then again, KC is the ONLY major Midwest city without some kind of professional sports team stadium/arena in the downtown core. Minneapolis, Milwaukee, Chicago, St. Louis, Detroit, Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, and Indianapolis all have some sorta pro franchise that calls downtown home. If I knew for a fact that KC would get an NBA or NHL team in downtown, I'd say leave Kauffman Stadium where it is and jus' fix up the area around the Sports Complex.

KCPowercat · Post by **KCPowercat** » Mon Apr 12, 2004 8:26 pm

Que...and that's why they put arts and sports together. I'm not a big fan of the bi-State sports portion now that there is downtown stadium momentum....I'd be more willing for small upgrade to Kauffman, big upgrade to arrowhead and the normal arts portion and get the foundation going for a new baseball stadium.

But I do want to see the arts go through, especially the PAC, so I'll probably vote for it....best case scenerio is they rework the proposal before it goes to the voters.

(BTW, I think the PAC will get done w/o Bi-State)

QueSi2Opie · Post by **QueSi2Opie** » Mon Apr 12, 2004 9:28 pm

KCPowercat wrote:(BTW, I think the PAC will get done w/o Bi-State)

So do I. Especially since they're suppose to break ground on the new Ballet School this year. Correct? I'm assuming that they still want the PAC to be complete by late '06/early '07.

paisstat · Post by **paisstat** » Tue Apr 13, 2004 1:12 pm

I don't think we should worry about parking, although I know the owners of the Royals will. If people want to go to the game bad enough, they will learn to car pool or park a ways and walk. There is plenty of parking on the street and a new garage or two, with street level retail of course, could be built to help accomidate more parking. For night games, there would be lots of parking at Crown Center and the new IRS center. I am convinced that a ball park here would really help turn things around and if it all happens together, with the IRS etc... then I believe a lot of people might consider relocating to downtown. The things that are happening in this city right now are amazing and we must take full advantage of them.

LyRiCaL GanGsTa · Post by **LyRiCaL GanGsTa** » Tue Apr 13, 2004 1:18 pm

great points, with IRS and Fed.Reserve Bank, there will be another 4000 plus spaces added within 6 blocks.

JerseyGuy · Post by **JerseyGuy** » Wed Apr 14, 2004 10:23 pm

City Councilor Suggests Putting New Ballpark Downtown
Fairfield Says Parking Won't Be An Issue

POSTED: 8:32 pm CDT April 14, 2004
UPDATED: 9:47 pm CDT April 14, 2004

KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- One city councilor said Wednesday he wants to build a baseball stadium downtown, KMBC's Micheal Mahoney reported.

Councilor John Fairfield said a downtown stadium would be a way to improve the finances of the Royals baseball team and revive downtown at the same time. But he doesn't know where the stadium would go, or how much it would cost.

"We made a mistake 30 years ago by putting the ballpark out there. And is it my job to sit idly by and say that we'll let the mistake continue?" Fairfield said.

At the Downtowner Club meeting at the Hereford House on Wednesday, members looked at photos of downtown while Fairfield pitched the idea of a new ballpark somewhere between the south freeway loop and Crown Center. Fairfield conceded that the plan lacks details and would probably require a tax increase.

"I would say there would have to be some sort of tax increase. I don't know where. There's not enough money certainly in the city or county budget to just do it," he said.

Fairfield maintains the baseball stadium -- along with a new downtown arena -- would trigger a downtown revival. He thinks parking wouldn't be a major problem because 90,000 people and 50,000 cars are downtown every day.

Other city and county leaders are hoping baseball fans and other voters will support a bi-state tax that would be used to renovate the stadiums at the sports complex. But Fairfield wants to use some of the money for a stadium downtown.

"Maybe we ought to be more open about building downtown and taking part of that money and say that it could be available if we identify the rest of the funding source," he said.

But Mayor Kay Barnes doesn't seem to think the idea will get far enough along quickly enough to worry about it.

"Those things happen any time you're dealing with a big question or a big issue, so, I don't spend a lot of my time focussing on that," Barnes said.

The supporters of the bi-state tax want to put the issue on the ballot in the next few weeks, Mahoney reported. Fairfield said he hopes the tax doesn't fail, but if it does, he thinks his plan should be seriously considered.

GRID · Post by **GRID** » Wed Apr 14, 2004 10:57 pm

Great rendering LG, I will post mine soon.

Thanks for posting that Jersey. Did anyone read Ingram's? Sounds like there are a lot of big wigs quietly pushing the Downtown Stadium idea and by some of the quotes in the mag, either they are very smart or they have been reading our forums

.

GRID · Post by **GRID** » Thu Apr 15, 2004 6:56 pm

I have not put a lot of effort into this yet, but here is one of my first attempts:

rxlexi · Post by **rxlexi** » Thu Apr 15, 2004 8:31 pm

excellent work Grid! Now why can't we have it?

aknowledgeableperson · Thu Apr 15, 2004 10:04 pm

Given all of the discussion about downtown and possibly adding a baseball stadium, an arena, and expansion to Bartle Hall how on earth can all of this be financed? My guess is $250,000,000 for an arena, $350,000,000 for a stadium, and $200,000,000 for Bartle expansion. That is $800,000,000. Assuming bonds can be had at a 5% rate, payments for principle and interest would probably run over $60,000,000 a year.
So which one is more important? Do all three? Or what?
Now to use a Hotel/Motel tax, the current collections are around $13,000,000 I believe. Now 10% of that goes to the Neighborhood Tourism Fund (Council slush fund), 40% goes to the Convention and Visitors Bureau, and 50% goes to Bartle operations and debt service. This is by state law. So to use an increase for anything else will require state action to change the current law as well as allow the City to vote on the tax increase.
The restaurant tax currently goes to Bartle debt service and I am not sure what the current collection amount is. It may be around $8,000,000 a year.
Not sure what a proposed car rental tax would be and how much it would collect.
As you can see the above tax rates would have to be increased quite a bit to make a dent in the $60,000,000 amount. Any other tax sources will need to be identified. Anybody have suggestions?

KCN · Post by **KCN** » Thu Apr 15, 2004 10:08 pm

OK I couldn't help myself. Seeing so many awesome images of a downtown stadium...I had to give a shot at combining 2 of my own photos.

The sizing is way off and other stuff but you can get an idea of the view.

The background photo was taken from Washington Park

GRID · Post by **GRID** » Thu Apr 15, 2004 10:18 pm

Holly shit, we are on a roll!

revolver8080 · Post by **revolver8080** » Thu Apr 15, 2004 10:44 pm

AKP-

I think it's clear, at least in the case of a possible downtown baseball stadium, that the project could not be financed entirely on the backs of the taxpayer. Glass should and would be required to cough up a significant chunk of the tab.

I think your estimate of 350 mill for a new stadium is probably a bit inflated, assuming the land can be had for a reasonable sum. I have read of some of the new ballparks that have run in the 350-400 million dollar range, but all of those had retractable roofs- an unnecessary perk that can add as much as 100 million to the pricetag.

In terms of raising new revenues, the only realistic solution I see is a bistate tax initiative that is hammered out in good faith between city leaders from all corners of the metro. Let's face it- we need Johnson County money to make this happen, and it's not unreasonable to expect their financial contributions if they plan to utilize the facilities. A downtown location would be much more convenient for those groups as well.

-Mark

LyRiCaL GanGsTa · Post by **LyRiCaL GanGsTa** » Thu Apr 15, 2004 10:55 pm

Also, some of the funding can come from naming rights... like "Hallmark Park."

JBinKC · Post by **JBinKC** » Fri Apr 16, 2004 12:05 am

Maybe this has been covered already on one of the 14 pages of posts, but is it not possible to include as part of the bistate II wording that the money being spent for the Royals can be used for Kauffman upgrades or towards the funding of a new downtown stadium. Is this too cumbersome? Is it too late? Is there an accountability issue here? What is preventing this?