Page 199 of 534
Re: Downtown Baseball Stadium
Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2023 9:10 am
by WoodDraw
Cratedigger wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2023 8:45 am
There's no way Sherman is doing a capital call on the ownership group. But does organizing financing for the district really seem out of question for this group?
Financing backed against what? I don't know the free cash flow of the royals. Do we even know who is going to own the stadium yet.
I think they can finance a stadium, especially if KC renews the tax. I'm skeptical they will do anything more.
Re: Downtown Baseball Stadium
Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2023 9:46 am
by kcmiz
Now that the Chiefs are Super Bowl bound, no doubt we can expect the Chiefs in their offseason to come to the taxpayer trough with their stadium proposal. They have an easier pitch as they've been winning as of late. Not so for the Royals. But I'm skeptical of the Chiefs' economic impact to the local economy given the small number of games. Eighty-two+ games downtown could have a real impact to the downtown economy and spur further development. That said, IMO, the local contribution should be very limited.
Given the potential for development in a downtown baseball stadium and a redesigned football stadium at Truman and the potential for the owners to make a lot of money from said development, why should the taxpayer pay for either stadium? I think the local governments should limit any contribution to land if necessary (in the form of a long term lease) and infrastructure upgrades (sewer, electrical) to facilitate this development. I'm not convinced they should extend the sales tax in perpetuity. Come at me bro...
Re: Downtown Baseball Stadium
Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2023 9:59 am
by TheLastGentleman
I’m not sure where we’re supposed to be drawing the line on public involvement in development. I suppose it depends how desperate we are, but that’s subjective. We have people on here defending subsidies for everything from a five star hotel to exclusionary housing, so I guess the bar is set so low it’s in the dirt. Might as well involve the public in everything at this point. I personally don’t like developers begging the city for good deals all the time, but I think suddenly having a double standard when a project gets over a certain cost is bizarre as well.
If public economic support for private development is good, then it’s good. If it’s bad, then it’s bad. I don’t think the scale of the project changes that.
Re: Downtown Baseball Stadium
Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2023 10:46 am
by kcmiz
I agree in that when public authorities begin choosing winners and losers and entangling itself with private development it becomes an issue of fairness between new and existing development. The public should get away from TIF and sales tax funded development and limit its contributions to new and re-development to infrastructure upgrades (streetscape, pipes, wires).
For example, the East Village has likely not been developed because of the inadequacy of the public infrastructure. The water and sewer lines are probably 100+ years old, the sidewalks are crumbling, etc. Fix those basic things and I bet you'd see an uptick in development interest. Public-private partnerships are ripe for waste, fraud, and unfairness. Get back to the basics and fix the infrastructure.
The Royals ownership already wants to be downtown because they see opportunity to make money from this ballpark village and know they will likely have better attendance with a stadium that's not in the middle of nowhere. The public doesn't need to get on its knees here. Throw the the owners a bone and pay for some piping and streetscape work on a truly blighted area which will further expand downtown development. But they don't need to shell out 100 millions+ in this case.
Re: Downtown Baseball Stadium
Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2023 12:09 pm
by WoodDraw
Ftr, I would be for extensive subsidies for the east village. But my demands will be no surface parking and it's developed as a neighborhood.
Re: Downtown Baseball Stadium
Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2023 12:41 pm
by beautyfromashes
Cratedigger wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2023 8:45 am
But does organizing financing for the district really seem out of question for this group?
Not with bankers on the ownership team and half of the project being described as development besides the stadium. Basically, it seems they will have public funding for the stadium through extension of the county tax while they fund the development part themselves and receive the revenue from it (entertainment, residential, office, etc.) as a financial stream they could borrow against for initial build. They're putting it all together as "building a stadium" for the political aspect and being able to say, "we are funding more than 50% of the new stadium project". I'd say it's a pretty good deal for all involved. The citizens receive a new stadium and $1B DT development for the same tax they currently pay. Royals gets a new stadium paid for basically because they "took a risk" on a huge new development downtown that they will receive the revenue from. Seems like P&L/Sprint Center combination except they actually will bring a team.
Re: Downtown Baseball Stadium
Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2023 1:17 pm
by DaveKCMO
kcmiz wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2023 10:46 am
For example, the East Village has likely not been developed because of the inadequacy of the public infrastructure.
I disagree. EV has not been developed because the city gave an entire chunk of downtown to a single entity to develop under the assumption that it had to be completely cleared for a big master development. Who would touch anything with that looming over every parcel and public sidewalk?
Same thing happened in the South Loop... for DECADES.
Re: Downtown Baseball Stadium
Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2023 1:24 pm
by kcmiz
beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2023 12:41 pm
The citizens receive a new stadium
Citizens don’t need stadiums. Privately owned sports teams with government sanctioned monopolies do need stadiums. So they should pay for the large bulk of their own stadiums.
Re: Downtown Baseball Stadium
Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2023 1:24 pm
by normalthings
DaveKCMO wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2023 1:17 pm
kcmiz wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2023 10:46 am
For example, the East Village has likely not been developed because of the inadequacy of the public infrastructure.
I disagree. EV has not been developed because the city gave an entire chunk of downtown to a single entity to develop under the assumption that it had to be completely cleared for a big master development. Who would touch anything with that looming over every parcel and public sidewalk?
Same thing happened in the South Loop... for DECADES.
This was also the direction Port KC riverfront was going before leadership change.
Re: Downtown Baseball Stadium
Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2023 1:33 pm
by TheUrbanRoo
kcmiz wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2023 9:46 am
Now that the Chiefs are Super Bowl bound, no doubt we can expect the Chiefs in their offseason to come to the taxpayer trough with their stadium proposal.
This is actually a hot take. If the Chiefs win the Super Bowl next week, given that we’re already in 2023, this offseason might be the smartest time for them capitalize quickly and get their new stadium approved. It makes sense.
Re: Downtown Baseball Stadium
Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2023 1:42 pm
by kcmiz
hi
DaveKCMO wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2023 1:17 pm
kcmiz wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2023 10:46 am
For example, the East Village has likely not been developed because of the inadequacy of the public infrastructure.
I disagree. EV has not been developed because the city gave an entire chunk of downtown to a single entity to develop under the assumption that it had to be completely cleared for a big master development. Who would touch anything with that looming over every parcel and public sidewalk?
Same thing happened in the South Loop... for DECADES.
That probably had some effect. It’s an example of the city not staying in their lane. KC is full of mega block projects with government fingerprints on the projects that have worsened a neighborhood’s built environment (71 Highway, TSC, Convention Center, North Loop, Kaufman PAC, the list goes on). The city isn’t very good at development. They’re decent at road building. My point is they should stick to infrastructure and incentivize private development that way instead of these boondoggle PPPs.
Re: Downtown Baseball Stadium
Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2023 1:55 pm
by beautyfromashes
kcmiz wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2023 1:24 pm
beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2023 12:41 pm
The citizens receive a new stadium
Citizens don’t need stadiums. Privately owned sports teams with government sanctioned monopolies do need stadiums. So they should pay for the large bulk of their own stadiums.
If this is your view, then look at it like the $1B from the Royals will go to pay for their own stadium....100% team paid for. The city/counties money will go to revitalize the entire eastern part of the downtown with an entertainment district, large amounts of residential buildings and office space. Are you against the city spending money to rebuild a major piece of downtown?
Re: Downtown Baseball Stadium
Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2023 2:23 pm
by im2kull
UMKC Roo wrote: ↑Tue Jan 31, 2023 6:10 pm
WoodDraw wrote: ↑Tue Jan 31, 2023 5:16 pm
They already tried the roof once and it failed to pass.
Different era. Way different era. The Chiefs are prob the biggest team in American sports now, with the biggest star. They've given the city everything. People will back them.
You apparently were a toddler back then, so I can forgive your ignorant comment. The Chiefs were and have always been among the most popular teams in America. They have and had season ticket holders in all 50 states. Had sellouts for an astonishing long time. The Chiefs popularity had nothing to do with the rolling roof failing. Decoupling the rolling roof from the stadium renovations is why it failed. It was not explained what the pro's and cons were. All you heard was "If we build a roof we get a superbowl!". That line isn't enough for 90% of voters, as you have read.
Re: Downtown Baseball Stadium
Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2023 2:31 pm
by TheUrbanRoo
im2kull wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2023 2:23 pm
UMKC Roo wrote: ↑Tue Jan 31, 2023 6:10 pm
WoodDraw wrote: ↑Tue Jan 31, 2023 5:16 pm
They already tried the roof once and it failed to pass.
Different era. Way different era. The Chiefs are prob the biggest team in American sports now, with the biggest star. They've given the city everything. People will back them.
You apparently were a toddler back then, so I can forgive your ignorant comment. The Chiefs were and have always been among the most popular teams in America. They have and had season ticket holders in all 50 states. Had sellouts for an astonishing long time. The Chiefs popularity had nothing to do with the rolling roof failing. Decoupling the rolling roof from the stadium renovations is why it failed. It was not explained what the pro's and cons were. All you heard was "If we build a roof we get a superbowl!". That line isn't enough for 90% of voters, as you have read.
Man even during the Alex Smith era when they were really good..it wasn't even close to the God-tier level the Chiefs & Mahomes are on now. Come on
Re: Downtown Baseball Stadium
Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2023 2:32 pm
by im2kull
UMKC Roo wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2023 2:31 pm
im2kull wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2023 2:23 pm
UMKC Roo wrote: ↑Tue Jan 31, 2023 6:10 pm
Different era. Way different era. The Chiefs are prob the biggest team in American sports now, with the biggest star. They've given the city everything. People will back them.
You apparently were a toddler back then, so I can forgive your ignorant comment. The Chiefs were and have always been among the most popular teams in America. They have and had season ticket holders in all 50 states. Had sellouts for an astonishing long time. The Chiefs popularity had nothing to do with the rolling roof failing. Decoupling the rolling roof from the stadium renovations is why it failed. It was not explained what the pro's and cons were. All you heard was "If we build a roof we get a superbowl!". That line isn't enough for 90% of voters, as you have read.
Man even during the Alex Smith era when they were really good..it wasn't even
close to the God-tier level the Chiefs & Mahomes are on now. Come on
I'm not talking about on field performance. I'm talking about popularity.
Re: Downtown Baseball Stadium
Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2023 2:33 pm
by TheUrbanRoo
im2kull wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2023 2:32 pm
I'm not talking about on field performance. I'm talking about popularity.
As am I. Including have a certain superstar.
Re: Downtown Baseball Stadium
Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2023 2:38 pm
by im2kull
UMKC Roo wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2023 2:33 pm
im2kull wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2023 2:32 pm
I'm not talking about on field performance. I'm talking about popularity.
As am I. Including have a certain superstar.
Priest Holmes?
Tony Gonzales?
Willie Roaf?
Dick Vermeil?
Trent Green?
Johnny Morton?
Etc, Etc, Etc, Etc.
Please do not talk about an era you weren't an active Chiefs fan during.
Re: Downtown Baseball Stadium
Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2023 2:44 pm
by beautyfromashes
im2kull wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2023 2:23 pm
UMKC Roo wrote: ↑Tue Jan 31, 2023 6:10 pm
Different era. Way different era. The Chiefs are prob the biggest team in American sports now, with the biggest star. They've given the city everything. People will back them.
You apparently were a toddler back then, so I can forgive your ignorant comment. The Chiefs were and have always been among the most popular teams in America.
Have to agree with “the kid” on this one. Back at the last renovation, MLB was still probably the most popular sport in America. And, even in the NFL, the Chiefs were still second tier to the Cowboys, 49ers, Patriots, etc. Chiefs now are on level with the best known franchises in the most popular sport. Mahomes is the face of the NFL for the next decade+. George Brett is distant vapor in sports names in this town now comparatively.
Re: Downtown Baseball Stadium
Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2023 2:54 pm
by WoodDraw
The chiefs were very well supported back then. It was actually a little different because there chiefs were the ones that were pushing the renovations and hinting at moving if they didn't get them.
The royals under glass agreed to contribute far less than the chiefs did.
The roof was sperated into a separate vote because it was widely (and I think correctly) seen to doom the whole vote as a giveaway to the hunt family.
Anyway, as far as I know London, Germany, and Mexico aren't contributing to the sales tax. Doesn't really matter if we're bigger or not.
Re: Downtown Baseball Stadium
Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2023 2:56 pm
by kcmiz
UMKC Roo wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2023 2:33 pm
im2kull wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2023 2:32 pm
I'm not talking about on field performance. I'm talking about popularity.
As am I. Including have a certain superstar.
Smart on the Royals to make Mahomes an "owner". I wonder how much that cost the Royals