phuqueue wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 8:07 am
DColeKC wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2023 7:14 pm
phuqueue wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2023 5:42 pm
I'm not sure I'd say that Cordish "risked it all." The city is the one picking up the tab for P&L's revenue shortfall.
The city is the one who hired the firm who organized the tax revenue projections. I’m not sure how that is any developers fault. No other developer stepped up after a decade of efforts to find someone who could do it. And I think it’s a fair argument that the money the city has had to pay is worth the results. Without PNL, there is no big 12 basketball tournament, NFL Draft or World Cup. It’s served as an advertising piece as part of the greater downtown revitalization and our downtown has been a crucial factor of gaining new residents. This isn’t just my opinion either. It’s been echoed by the past two city managers, 3 of the last 4 mayors and dozens of other people knowledgeable about tax incentivized projects.
So if you strictly judge it’s success on if the tax revenue has hit projections, you’re not considering the whole story.
Regardless, Cordish has invested a billion dollars of their own money above and beyond the required tax incentives that are critical to these types of public/private projects. I’m not saying they are the only ones who took the risk and leap of faith either. It was a handful of people who did this together. And thanks to those people, here we are, talking about putting a park over a freeway!
I'm not talking about whether P&L has been successful or not, or whose fault it is if it hasn't been. I'm just pointing out that Cordish risked something considerably less than "it all." You treat Cordish like a white knight that rode in to downtown's rescue, but the reality is that any developer would have done it with a deal to their liking. Cordish was basically just the lowest bidder. They are a for-profit company that identified what they felt was an opportunity to make money, and their reward for their efforts is the money that they are making. You keep wanting to give them extra freebies, like when you wanted to bulldoze part of the Crossroads to put the Royals closer to P&L, or now when you argue that they should "have a say" in this park whether they contribute to it or not, but there are a lot of other stakeholders here with more immediate interests in these projects that can't just be ignored to throw unwarranted bonuses to Cordish.
Cordish was a relatively small company when this deal was struck, marking a significant milestone in their corporate history. Undoubtedly, they took substantial risks. This is evident when you consider that, for over a decade, no other developer had been willing to tackle this project, making Cordish somewhat of a white knight in this scenario. To suggest that any developer would have eagerly taken on this challenge is quite comical, given that none did. Cordish did not secure this project simply by offering the lowest bid; rather, their success stemmed from having the most comprehensive plan and the capability to execute it effectively. While their profit motive is clear, as they are not a charity, characterizing this as a low-risk, straightforward, and highly sought-after deal that any developer would have jumped at is inaccurate. The risks they took have indeed paid off, benefiting both the company and the city.
Regarding the notion of "freebies," your perspective may differ from mine, and that's perfectly valid. I believe it's sound business practice to acknowledge those who have contributed to the growth of a venture by granting them a seat at the table. While you may emphasize "what have you done for me lately," I prioritize recognizing their cumulative contributions to the city.
My support for locating the stadium in the Crossroads stems from the belief that it would have been the optimal choice for rapidly enhancing the Crossroads and Power & Light District. It would have been strategically positioned to complement our entertainment areas and generate immediate economic benefits. Admittedly, the prospect of having stadium views from my apartment might have influenced my opinion somewhat. However, my allegiance is to Kansas City and downtown development as a whole.
As for Cordish having a say in the park, I have no information regarding their future financial contributions or decision-making influence. If they seek a greater say, it's reasonable to expect increased financial investment in the project. It's overly simplistic to assume that they haven't already contributed, as this project builds upon previous downtown investments. While these prior investments may not be direct monetary contributions to this specific project, they still constitute a valuable contribution. To clarify, I never suggested that other stakeholders should be disregarded or that Cordish should have sole or predominant influence. I only argued that Cordish, as the largest known downtown stakeholder, deserves input, irrespective of additional financial contributions to the park project.
I believe that if someone else were expressing the same views, the responses, including yours, might differ. It's possible that my identity as the "constant Cordish defender" has colored the reception of my remarks, which can sometimes lead to somewhat exaggerated reactions.