Question 1

lock+load · Post by **lock+load** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 8:31 am

KCDevin wrote: unless you want to root for the ST LOUIS Cardinals.

I'm thinking about it anyway. At least they win, and have a nice new stadium.

kcdcchef · Post by **kcdcchef** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 8:48 am

lock&load wrote: I'm thinking about it anyway. At least they win, and have a nice new stadium.

we have a nice stadium too, just not new. as a matter of fact, a lot of baseball insiders consier our stadium nicer than a LOT of newer ones.

KCDevin wrote: No one is going to come to KC with another baseball francise if the Royals ever leave... Lose two teams, plus the fact that we aren't a big baseball market. Say goodbye to MLB, unless you want to root for the ST LOUIS Cardinals.

I just hope our voters aren't so greedy they can't pass a minor tax like this. They think about themselves and their own pockets before the community at large...

Don't say your waiting for a better plan, because this is plan D! This is the last chance! If this doesn't pass, the Chiefs will either leave KC alltogether or leave Missouri. The Royals will completely leave the city and never come back. Downtown baseball just isn't going to happen unless you lure Minor League Baseball here.

i do not think either team will leave right away, however, one thing a lot of people overlook is the chiefs and royals did not have to negotiate on this, the leases are officially defaulted. the royals and chiefs both are operating under good faith and patience, and do not have to any longer negotiate with the county on anything, they are free agents RIGHT NOW, so, if this fails on april 4th like i tend to think it will, those teams not only do not have to listen if a band aid remedy is proposed, they can just ignore that, because, once you default, the lease is null and void. either team can bolt whenever they want. truth is, neither team wants to.

lock+load · Post by **lock+load** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 10:08 am

kcdcchef wrote: we have a nice stadium too, just not new. as a matter of fact, a lot of baseball insiders consier our stadium nicer than a LOT of newer ones.

You know what chef, I know this might be an amazing revelation to you, but I base my decisions on what I consider nice on what I like, not the opinions of your mysterious "baseball insiders." Of all the ballparks I have been to, taking into consideration the entire experience, the K has been close to the worst, save the new Milwaukee park.

kcdcchef · Post by **kcdcchef** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 11:05 am

lock&load wrote: You know what chef, I know this might be an amazing revelation to you, but I base my decisions on what I consider nice on what I like, not the opinions of your mysterious "baseball insiders." Of all the ballparks I have been to, taking into consideration the entire experience, the K has been close to the worst, save the new Milwaukee park.

then you have not been to that many. there are a lot of us on here who have been, and why dont you see how many think us cellular, rogers centre, tropicana, ballpark at arlington, or coamerica, are any better then kauffman??

baseball insiders=commisioner of baseball for one, other teams owners for two, and national media for three. oh wait, i forgot, you do not care about any of those!!

lock+load · Post by **lock+load** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 11:08 am

kcdcchef wrote: then you have not been to that many. there are a lot of us on here who have been, and why dont you see how many think us cellular, rogers centre, tropicana, ballpark at arlington, or coamerica, are any better then kauffman??

You pick four of 29 ballparks to make your case. Excellent.

Try again.

kcdcchef · Post by **kcdcchef** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 11:15 am

lock&load wrote: You pick four of 29 ballparks to make your case. Excellent.

Try again.

well, not all 29 are newer. only 24 are.

sure, add anaheim, oakland to the list. and going back to old posts from grid, he added coors field, and some poster from the pac northwest put safeco on there. we are fast approaching 10.

lock+load · Post by **lock+load** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 11:18 am

kcdcchef wrote: well, not all 29 are newer. only 24 are.

sure, add anaheim, oakland to the list. and going back to old posts from grid, he added coors field, and some poster from the pac northwest put safeco on there. we are fast approaching 10.

They don't have to be newer. Older parks like Fenway and Wrigley are already in urban areas and integrate well with their cities.

Post by **KCMax** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 11:21 am

We have the world's best sports architecture firm in town. Let's not be silly. Any new park in KC would be as good as or better than Kauffman. That in no way denigrates the beauty of the current Kauffman Stadium.

kcdcchef · Post by **kcdcchef** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 11:21 am

lock&load wrote: They don't have to be newer. Older parks like Fenway and Wrigley are already in urban areas and integrate well with their cities.

no, but the point was, that a lot of newer stadiums are not as nice.

lock+load · Post by **lock+load** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 11:34 am

kcdcchef wrote: no, but the point was, that a lot of newer stadiums are not as nice.

And a lot are. You always compare to the worst example of everything. Classic Kansas City attitude, we are better than the worst, instead of trying to be the best.

aknowledgeableperson · Mon Mar 27, 2006 11:42 am

As I write this the number of voters is 85. 49 for. 36 against.

Looking good.

Post by **KCMax** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 11:49 am

aknowledgeableperson wrote: As I write this the number of voters is 85. 49 for. 36 against.

Looking good.

"This is not a scientific poll and therefore not binding....unless Proposition 182 passes, and we all pray that it does."

-Kent Brockman

aknowledgeableperson · Mon Mar 27, 2006 12:07 pm

I know it isn't scientific but I was amazed that given the membership in this forum and the 'edited' "No's" on this issue the Yes vote exceeds the No vote.

Post by **bahua** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 12:13 pm

aknowledgeableperson wrote: I know it isn't scientific but I was amazed that given the membership in this forum and the 'edited' "No's" on this issue the Yes vote exceeds the No vote.

Next time someone tells a joke, maybe you should hold your hands up to try to catch it as it goes over your head.

timberwolfrider · Post by **timberwolfrider** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 12:51 pm

aknowledgeableperson wrote: As I write this the number of voters is 85. 49 for. 36 against.

Looking good.

This forum is the same as the general voting public, those who really intend to vote yes or no on questions one and two do not spend a lot of time bitching about it. They will just show up April 4th and vote.

It is astounding that so many folks on here spend so much crying about it and how it is a slam dunk for no yet every poll on here has yes winning.

kcdcchef · Post by **kcdcchef** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 1:38 pm

timberwolfrider wrote:

It is astounding that so many folks on here spend so much crying about it and how it is a slam dunk for no yet every poll on here has yes winning.

that is amusing isn't it?

lock+load · Post by **lock+load** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 2:06 pm

kcdcchef wrote: that is amusing isn't it?

Yes, considering most on this board do not live in Jackson County.

aknowledgeableperson · Mon Mar 27, 2006 5:33 pm

bahua wrote: Next time someone tells a joke, maybe you should hold your hands up to try to catch it as it goes over your head.

Maybe you should stand on a ladder in order to catch the next joke in your direction. Make sure it is a tall one with a few people holding it so you don't fall trying to catch it. Don't want you to fall on your head.

Wait a minute, the fall make help you out - make you see things more clearly.

Post by **KCMax** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 6:07 pm

Worst....smack....ever.....

Post by **bahua** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 6:26 pm

KCMax wrote: Worst....smack....ever.....

Trolling's what he's good at.

KCRag Forum

Question 1

Shall the County of Jackson impose a countywide sales tax at the rate of three-eighths of one percent (3/8%) for a period of twenty-five years from the date on which such tax is first imposed for the purpose of improving, renovating and modernizing the Ha

Re: Question 1

Re: Question 1

Re: Question 1

Re: Question 1

Re: Question 1

Re: Question 1

Re: Question 1

Re: Question 1

Re: Question 1

Re: Question 1

Re: Question 1

Re: Question 1

Re: Question 1

Re: Question 1

Re: Question 1

Re: Question 1

Re: Question 1

Re: Question 1

Re: Question 1

Re: Question 1