Official arena opposition: Coalition Against Arena Taxes
- KCPowercat
- Ambassador
- Posts: 34138
- Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 12:49 pm
- Location: Quality Hill
- Contact:
Official arena opposition: Coalition Against Arena Taxes
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
http://www.kcskyscrapers.com/images/kcarena.pdf
- staubio
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 6958
- Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2003 11:17 am
- Location: River Market
- Contact:
Official arena opposition: Coalition Against Arena Taxes
It absolutely applies.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.
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.
-
- Penntower
- Posts: 2004
- Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 8:03 pm
- Location: Brookside
Official arena opposition: Coalition Against Arena Taxes
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
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
- dangerboy
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 9029
- Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 8:28 am
- Location: West 39th St. - KCMO
Official arena opposition: Coalition Against Arena Taxes
Good joke from the Tigerboard
"Did Bill Laurie pay for this billboard?"
http://tigerboard.com/userimages/narena.jpg
"Did Bill Laurie pay for this billboard?"
http://tigerboard.com/userimages/narena.jpg
-
- City Center Square
- Posts: 12666
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm
Official arena opposition: Coalition Against Arena Taxes
[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.
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.
I may be right. I may be wrong. But there is a lot of gray area in-between.
- KCPowercat
- Ambassador
- Posts: 34138
- Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 12:49 pm
- Location: Quality Hill
- Contact:
Official arena opposition: Coalition Against Arena Taxes
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.
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
- Pad site
- Posts: 92
- Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 10:22 pm
opposition
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.
#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.
-
- Ambassador
- Posts: 6020
- Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2003 1:30 pm
- Location: Northmoor
- Contact:
Official arena opposition: Coalition Against Arena Taxes
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.
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.
- dangerboy
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 9029
- Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 8:28 am
- Location: West 39th St. - KCMO
Official arena opposition: Coalition Against Arena Taxes
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.
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
- Ambassador
- Posts: 34138
- Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 12:49 pm
- Location: Quality Hill
- Contact:
Official arena opposition: Coalition Against Arena Taxes
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.
OK, detractors, now the fees won't be collected until we have a binding agreement with AEG.
- dangerboy
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 9029
- Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 8:28 am
- Location: West 39th St. - KCMO
Official arena opposition: Coalition Against Arena Taxes
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.
-
- Oak Tower
- Posts: 4633
- Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 2:42 pm
- Location: Midtown/Downtown
- Contact:
Official arena opposition: Coalition Against Arena Taxes
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.
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.
___________
City guide via MAX bus
City guide via MAX bus
- KCPowercat
- Ambassador
- Posts: 34138
- Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 12:49 pm
- Location: Quality Hill
- Contact:
Official arena opposition: Coalition Against Arena Taxes
isn't political spending a matter of public record...or is that more just state/federal numbers that are reported?
- KCPowercat
- Ambassador
- Posts: 34138
- Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 12:49 pm
- Location: Quality Hill
- Contact:
Official arena opposition: Coalition Against Arena Taxes
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.
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.
-
- New York Life
- Posts: 415
- Joined: Wed May 19, 2004 4:58 pm
- Location: Belton (the non-white-trash part)
Official arena opposition: Coalition Against Arena Taxes
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...
All the advertising I see/hear is purely promotional, and doesn't address any of the issues that CAAT has raised...
-
- Ambassador
- Posts: 6020
- Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2003 1:30 pm
- Location: Northmoor
- Contact:
Official arena opposition: Coalition Against Arena Taxes
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
- Ambassador
- Posts: 34138
- Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 12:49 pm
- Location: Quality Hill
- Contact:
Official arena opposition: Coalition Against Arena Taxes
no scooter, once there is a contract, nobody breaks out
Last edited by KCPowercat on Mon Jul 26, 2004 9:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Ambassador
- Posts: 6020
- Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2003 1:30 pm
- Location: Northmoor
- Contact:
Official arena opposition: Coalition Against Arena Taxes
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.KCPowercat wrote:no scooter, once there is a contract, nobody breaks out
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.
- chrizow
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 17164
- Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2003 8:43 am
Official arena opposition: Coalition Against Arena Taxes
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.
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.
- dangerboy
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 9029
- Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 8:28 am
- Location: West 39th St. - KCMO
Official arena opposition: Coalition Against Arena Taxes
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.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.