Official arena opposition: Coalition Against Arena Taxes

KCPowercat · Post by **KCPowercat** » Thu Jul 22, 2004 7:58 am

Little PDF file I was sent. Print it out, send the link to anybody that will print it out. Not sure who's really behind this but here it is.

http://www.kcskyscrapers.com/images/kcarena.pdf

Post by **staubio** » Thu Jul 22, 2004 8:33 am

aknowledgeableperson wrote:With regards to "sunk costs" Kemper does not apply in this argument. There is the future cost of paying off the debt that was incurred for the "sunk costs". Paying off these bonds with the general fund will cost the City in the future in that the funds used to pay off the debt cannot be used for something else, such as fixing potholes. If Kemper's debt was retired then it is a non-issue.
Say you want a home loan of $100,000. Without any other debt you would qualify. But you have a $20,000 remaining on an auto loan (oh, and by the way the car is only worth $15,000 now), $25,000 in credit card debt, and a $5,000 remaining on personal loan for you last vacation to wherever. The loan officer will tell you that with you income level where it is you may only qualify for a $40,000 home loan. But you argue, but those debts are "sunk costs", I have already paid for them. They shouldn't be part of your analysis of the loan.

It absolutely applies.

The key is to judge this proposal exclusively on its own merits. The money for Kemper has been spent and cannot be recovered. The fact that we still owe for it doesn't make it a current relevant factor in our decision making. The debt service is already a city expense. Whether or not the new arena is a valid investment has nothing to do with how much the old one cost us or how much we owe on it.

KCN · Post by **KCN** » Thu Jul 22, 2004 9:15 am

Ha, yes put that flier all over town.

Even if all this speculation is bunk, it will get people out to vote. KC citizens HATE the idea of STL money blocking our progress. The opposition knows how to strike a nerve with KC voters (Union Station), so lets strike an even bigger one.

Bwahaha

Post by **dangerboy** » Thu Jul 22, 2004 10:10 am

Good joke from the Tigerboard

"Did Bill Laurie pay for this billboard?"

http://tigerboard.com/userimages/narena.jpg

aknowledgeableperson · Thu Jul 22, 2004 11:04 am

[quote=""staubio"]
It absolutely applies.

The key is to judge this proposal exclusively on its own merits. The money for Kemper has been spent and cannot be recovered. The fact that we still owe for it doesn't make it a current relevant factor in our decision making. The debt service is already a city expense. Whether or not the new arena is a valid investment has nothing to do with how much the old one cost us or how much we owe on it.[/quote]

Are you of the school that economics is a science? Or an art? It looks like we will have to agree to disagree.

The significiant point is was trying to make is that to move Kemper to second status would compound a financial problem the City has with Kemper. Much of the debt service is paid from User Fees collected from Kemper plus other revenues. To deprive Kemper of the events it normally would have deprives it of revenue streams to pay off the debt, and then it becomes a bigger burden to the city's general fund. Therefore, an additional cost to the city. A cost to the city that it would not have if it were not for a new arena. And a cost that should not be ignored.

KCPowercat · Post by **KCPowercat** » Thu Jul 22, 2004 11:07 am

akp....there will always be little reasons anybody could pick at for any issue.....you are trying to find all of them. This is a chance for Kansas City to improve itself greatly.

You obviously want to vote no and will find whatever reason to do so.....hopefully others will look at it with a more open mind and see the big picture.

troostwood · Post by **troostwood** » Thu Jul 22, 2004 8:13 pm

I don't think opposition coming from this group will be too effective no matter what they do for these reasons.

#1 The sports page of the K.C. Star. Joe Poe and the others will write in support of this arena until the ink wells in India run dry. Their remarks carry weight with newspaper readers and newspaper readers are also voters.

#2 Sports fans in Kansas City. They are numerous. They will vote for the arena.

#3 The St. Louis rumor. It's ciruclating quickly, and such things raise the hackles.

#4 No one sympathizes with the plight of rental car companies and despite they're makeshift coalition building, no one (who reads the paper) perceives this opposition as anything other than obscene special interest desperation.

#5 The sports radio stations. Same thing as Number One, and they might be able to convince their radio fans to get off their couches and vote.

I'm not saying that opposition to the opposition isn't needed -- it's definitely needed. Anything to bury the chance this vote might fail. But I truly believe they don't have a prayer. The Kansas City area should welcome the advertising dollars and then boot these losers back to Chicago Junior.

scooterj · Post by **scooterj** » Fri Jul 23, 2004 3:43 pm

I just read the CAAT's legal analysis of the AEG agreement. Good to see they spent some of their campaign money paying a lawyer to point out things anyone reading it can easily spot.

Their three biggest "problems" that they repeatedly point out are: (1) that the details aren't 100% specific, which they can't possibly be at this stage because the arena has to be designed and you can't design without a budget and you can't have a budget until all revenue sources are secured; (2) AEG gets to operate a 500 space parking lot or facility near the arena (so what?), and (3) It has escape clauses in it. ALL agreements, and even all final contracts, have escape clauses. Lawyers (like the one who did this analysis) write them in to protect both sides. Only an idiot would sign an agreement that didn't have escape clauses!

I really hate these guys. I have never been so fired up over local politics before.

Post by **dangerboy** » Fri Jul 23, 2004 10:21 pm

KCTV-5 is reporting that today Kay Barnes sent a personal letter to Enterprise, informing them they owe over $15,000 in parking fines - more than any other business or individual in the city. In the interview, Barnes was actually fired up.

Also, former City Councilman Paul Danaher was interviewed on behalf of the CAAT, which is disappointing because I generally respect Danaher. He was a constant thorn in Barnes' side, pushing for fiscal responsibility and accountability much like Becky Nace.

KCPowercat · Post by **KCPowercat** » Mon Jul 26, 2004 7:38 am

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/9242116.htm

OK, detractors, now the fees won't be collected until we have a binding agreement with AEG.

Post by **dangerboy** » Mon Jul 26, 2004 8:29 am

Mayor Barnes was scheduled to be a delegate at the Democratic National Commission, but cancelled the trip to Boston at the last minute to stay and work on the arena vote coming up next week.

ignatius · Post by **ignatius** » Mon Jul 26, 2004 8:45 am

If this were a metro vote, I wouldn't be concerned about it passing. But if there is any part of the metro that has no interest in sports or pro-development, it would be residents of KCMO. Probably not enough to stop it but there are a lot of reasons why this might not pass.

BTW, Hendricks is downplaying the StL connection...
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascit ... 242777.htm

I wish the Star would investigate exactly how many dollars are in both campaigns and who are contributing to them. Would also like to know how much Enterprise has spent on anti-tax campaigns in other cities.

KCPowercat · Post by **KCPowercat** » Mon Jul 26, 2004 8:53 am

isn't political spending a matter of public record...or is that more just state/federal numbers that are reported?

KCPowercat · Post by **KCPowercat** » Mon Jul 26, 2004 9:01 am

A few more holes in their website now:

Front page
"KC's agreement with AEG is full of escape clauses that could allow AEG to pull out of the arena deal."

This is irrelevant now that the taxes will not be collected until a binding contract is signed....even less risk to the citizens.

Beltonhawk · Post by **Beltonhawk** » Mon Jul 26, 2004 9:03 am

I just wish the city would get some ads on radio and TV that pick apart the CAAT arguments....

All the advertising I see/hear is purely promotional, and doesn't address any of the issues that CAAT has raised...

scooterj · Post by **scooterj** » Mon Jul 26, 2004 9:05 am

KCPowercat wrote:A few more holes in their website now:

Front page
"KC's agreement with AEG is full of escape clauses that could allow AEG to pull out of the arena deal."

This is irrelevant now that the taxes will not be collected until a binding contract is signed....even less risk to the citizens.

Not to mention the fact in the first place that all contracts have escape clauses.

KCPowercat · Post by **KCPowercat** » Mon Jul 26, 2004 9:09 am

no scooter, once there is a contract, nobody breaks out

scooterj · Post by **scooterj** » Mon Jul 26, 2004 9:11 am

KCPowercat wrote:no scooter, once there is a contract, nobody breaks out

I've never seen a contract that didn't have an escape clause in it. Granted, I'm not an attorney, but I've seen lots of contracts. There's always wording that allows the parties to choose to disband the relationship.

The ability to quit a job, or be fired from a job, despite having an employment contract is due to escape clauses in the contract.

Post by **chrizow** » Mon Jul 26, 2004 9:15 am

yes, contracts nearly ALWAYS have an escape clause - usually for the party with the most bargaining leverage. it's never exactly an "Escape" clause per se, where the party can just break the deal for any reason, but it's usually broad enough where any misstep by the opposing party might constitute "grounds" for breaking the deal by the party with the escape clause.

contracts are little more than some sort of manifestation of the parties' intent to enter a bargain. as such, each side usually has some worries about x, y, or z contingencies, and will incorporate language into the contract to the effect of "if x happens, then we can get out of the deal."

i really hope the city wouldn't be stupid enough to sign a contract where AEG could just arbitrarily breach and get out scot-free. AEG would likewise be stupid to sign such a deal. with all the money and planning involved here, i think we can pretty much rest assured that none of the parties involved here will just pull out for no reason. take it from a guy who got a 100% on his Contracts final exam.

Post by **dangerboy** » Mon Jul 26, 2004 9:23 am

ignatius wrote:If this were a metro vote, I wouldn't be concerned about it passing. But if there is any part of the metro that has no interest in sports or pro-development, it would be residents of KCMO. Probably not enough to stop it but there are a lot of reasons why this might not pass.

WHAT??? Time and time again KCMO voters have taken on the responsibilty of paying for regional sports and other facilities and developments without any help from the rest of the metro.