WoodDraw wrote: ↑Sat Jan 27, 2024 7:17 pm
Everything is a game of telephone depending on who you talk to. I said earlier I don't know anything. I can't bitch at other people for saying what I think is wrong and come out with my own bs.
I keep saying I'll leave this thread alone but it's so important I can't help myself.
I'm happy we can both agree the royals fucked it though. Let's take our wins.
Definitely agree with you on that.
This specific topic of how it went down isn’t speculation on my end. This is exactly what happened and I can’t prove this to anyone without revealing my identity, so it’s one of those things where I understand any hesitation to believe it. I was personally involved in that process and my input is first hand. If we get further along in this process I’ll be involved again but probably won’t be able to offer much input after a certain point.
It’s much of the reason I’m so passionate about the EC location.
DaveKCMO wrote: ↑Sat Jan 27, 2024 10:28 am
To be clear, the team cannot condemn. That would either be the city, the county, MoDOT, PortKC, KCATA or something like that… and they need a sound justification for it to avoid legal threats.
Not specifically speaking about this project, but there’s clear legal precedent on this. Sound justification can be as simple as the future planned use would be better for the greater good than current use. This has been settled at the highest levels. Granted the court of public opinion is a different beast.
Can't eminent domain a factory in Missouri. It's against the law. The only way you get the Star building is paying their number.
DaveKCMO wrote: ↑Sat Jan 27, 2024 10:28 am
To be clear, the team cannot condemn. That would either be the city, the county, MoDOT, PortKC, KCATA or something like that… and they need a sound justification for it to avoid legal threats.
Not specifically speaking about this project, but there’s clear legal precedent on this. Sound justification can be as simple as the future planned use would be better for the greater good than current use. This has been settled at the highest levels. Granted the court of public opinion is a different beast.
Can't eminent domain a factory in Missouri. It's against the law. The only way you get the Star building is paying their number.
I can’t find any documentation on this. Can you point me to something?
I don’t think it will be required but I also can’t imagine it applies to a closed factory.
Missouri eminent domain law is weird and I don't know it well. There are lots of weird rules for electricity lines because of a project awhile back that pissed people off.
You also can't condemn land for purely economic reasons. The way around this is to say it's blighted. Every property owner is supposed to have their own blighty hearing, but if a preponderance of the development area is declared blighted, it doesn't matter if you're the Ritz Carlton. I think mo supreme court has pushed back on this recently though.
Also because this is Missouri farm land can't be declared blighted. Don't think growing weeds counts as farming, but ya know, Missouri. (They don't count)
That's just what I remeber. If it gets to that point maybe someone that knows more can say more. It's a process for sure.
WoodDraw wrote: ↑Sun Jan 28, 2024 11:02 am
Missouri eminent domain law is weird and I don't know it well. There are lots of weird rules for electricity lines because of a project awhile back that pissed people off.
You also can't condemn land for purely economic reasons. The way around this is to say it's blighted. Every property owner is supposed to have their own blighty hearing, but if a preponderance of the development area is declared blighted, it doesn't matter if you're the Ritz Carlton. I think mo supreme court has pushed back on this recently though.
Also because this is Missouri farm land can't be declared blighted. Don't think growing weeds counts as farming, but ya know, Missouri. (They don't count)
That's just what I remeber. If it gets to that point maybe someone that knows more can say more. It's a process for sure.
Further enabling abuse, provisions in the Missouri Constitution authorize eminent domain for blight clearance and redevelopment. The General Assembly had the opportunity to dramatically improve its eminent domain laws, but let its citizens down by failing to adopt real, substantial reforms.
The state government did adopt House Bill 1944 (2006), which changes the law in several ways. The new law does specify that property cannot be condemned “solely” for economic development and it ends the prior practice of letting private developers initiate condemnations on their own behalf, but it continues to allow government agencies to take private property for the use of other private parties for any other justification, no matter how small or irrelevant. Conveniently for tax-hungry local governments and land-hungry developers, the law continues to let cities condemn whole neighborhoods as “blighted” based on vague, subjective factors such as “inadequate street layout,” “unsafe conditions,” and “obsolete platting.”
Yeah I said it's super weak standard earlier. I think there was a mo supreme court case recently on blight but I'm on vacation so not going to research
It's not a super hard standard but l think a colorful case if anyone wants to argue it.
And yeah as Dave alluded to earlier, only an elected official or someone appointed by an elected official can be a condemnation authority. Still super weak.
Anyway, all hypothetical. I hope they'll do the right thing and do ev.
If you really think success has anything to do with the stadium vote, then the Chiefs could have gotten a new stadium years ago. Few cities EVER experience what KC is right now with the Chiefs.
And the Royals might be horrible the last few years, but they have also had some recent success. 90% of the teams in MLB have not had two world series appearances in the past ten years. Many teams have never won a WS or even gone to a WS. I just think people using the teams records as a reason to not pass the stadium tax is really silly.
What has Buffalo or Nashville or Raiders done lately?
I think parking is a MUCH bigger deal for voters than if they are winning or not.
GRID wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2024 2:36 am
If you really think success has anything to do with the stadium vote, then the Chiefs could have gotten a new stadium years ago. Few cities EVER experience what KC is right now with the Chiefs.
And the Royals might be horrible the last few years, but they have also had some recent success. 90% of the teams in MLB have not had two world series appearances in the past ten years. Many teams have never won a WS or even gone to a WS. I just think people using the teams records as a reason to not pass the stadium tax is really silly.
What has Buffalo or Nashville or Raiders done lately?
I think parking is a MUCH bigger deal for voters than if they are winning or not.
I think he meant that the Chiefs having become inextricably involved in the TSC deal bodes well for the stadium vote. It's no secret the Chiefs no longer want to share TSC with the Royals.
And I agree, stadiums are built for the next 40-50 years. How the Royals are playing at this moment is irrelevant.
GRID wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2024 2:36 am
If you really think success has anything to do with the stadium vote, then the Chiefs could have gotten a new stadium years ago. Few cities EVER experience what KC is right now with the Chiefs.
And the Royals might be horrible the last few years, but they have also had some recent success. 90% of the teams in MLB have not had two world series appearances in the past ten years. Many teams have never won a WS or even gone to a WS. I just think people using the teams records as a reason to not pass the stadium tax is really silly.
What has Buffalo or Nashville or Raiders done lately?
I think parking is a MUCH bigger deal for voters than if they are winning or not.
I think he meant that the Chiefs having become inextricably involved in the TSC deal bodes well for the stadium vote. It's no secret the Chiefs no longer want to share TSC with the Royals.
And I agree, stadiums are built for the next 40-50 years. How the Royals are playing at this moment is irrelevant.
I agree, the Royals seem to be dropping the ball. But the Chiefs have been nearly mute on their plans. Nobody seems to have a clue what they are doing. Most people I talk to think they are going to build an entertainment district out there and that's not happening.
I think the Royals tried to be transparent and it backfired on them because it's hard to be transparent and also still bein the preliminary planning stages because thing are going to change drastically throughout the process.
It's weird that if the Royals are planning on using the star site then 1)why does the Star site owners keep releasing the most awful 3D renders that look like they were made by a high schooler in Google Sketchup 15 years ago. and 2) why is the church is moving forward with a building addition if it's going to be demolished.
The Royals are not doing a good job of communicating with anybody and their lack of transparency is going to kill the vote. The Chiefs not having released any of their plans also is troubling. It feels like Stan Kronke level of sabotage at this point with how poorly he worked with STL on their stadium plan, like are the Royals trying to have the vote fail so they can move to Nashville? Nothing is passing the smell test right now.
Not a single team is moving to Nashville at all. How many times must it be said that they want the expansion money that Nashville will bring & not a single other MLB team would approve a move that would lose them that huge payday.
If the Royals go to EV, Is there any chance the Star Press building could become an urban indoor market subsidized by the city? Something like that could open up along side the opening of the stadium and 670 cap.
GRID wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 10:54 am
If the Royals go to EV, Is there any chance the Star Press building could become an urban indoor market subsidized by the city? Something like that could open up along side the opening of the stadium and 670 cap.
The best chance for redeveloping this building is as a new home for Mark One Electric.
GRID wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 10:54 am
If the Royals go to EV, Is there any chance the Star Press building could become an urban indoor market subsidized by the city? Something like that could open up along side the opening of the stadium and 670 cap.
Any indoor market subsidized by the city should be in the city market
dnweava wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 12:12 pm
It's weird that if the Royals are planning on using the star site then 1)why does the Star site owners keep releasing the most awful 3D renders that look like they were made by a high schooler in Google Sketchup 15 years ago. and 2) why is the church is moving forward with a building addition if it's going to be demolished.
The Royals are not doing a good job of communicating with anybody and their lack of transparency is going to kill the vote. The Chiefs not having released any of their plans also is troubling. It feels like Stan Kronke level of sabotage at this point with how poorly he worked with STL on their stadium plan, like are the Royals trying to have the vote fail so they can move to Nashville? Nothing is passing the smell test right now.
2) why is the church is moving forward with a building addition if it's going to be demolished.- Is it possible that the Western Boundary for the stadium site would we McGee? With Northern boundary Truman Rd and Southern boundary 17th St, Then you just use that square and march it East to Cherry St? Not sure if that is the plan or not
dnweava wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 12:12 pm
It's weird that if the Royals are planning on using the star site then 1)why does the Star site owners keep releasing the most awful 3D renders that look like they were made by a high schooler in Google Sketchup 15 years ago. and 2) why is the church is moving forward with a building addition if it's going to be demolished.
The Royals are not doing a good job of communicating with anybody and their lack of transparency is going to kill the vote. The Chiefs not having released any of their plans also is troubling. It feels like Stan Kronke level of sabotage at this point with how poorly he worked with STL on their stadium plan, like are the Royals trying to have the vote fail so they can move to Nashville? Nothing is passing the smell test right now.
2) why is the church is moving forward with a building addition if it's going to be demolished.- Is it possible that the Western Boundary for the stadium site would we McGee? With Northern boundary Truman Rd and Southern boundary 17th St, Then you just use that square and march it East to Cherry St? Not sure if that is the plan or not
To make their argument for more money to vacate and sell better.
dnweava wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 12:12 pm
It's weird that if the Royals are planning on using the star site then 1)why does the Star site owners keep releasing the most awful 3D renders that look like they were made by a high schooler in Google Sketchup 15 years ago. and 2) why is the church is moving forward with a building addition if it's going to be demolished.
The Royals are not doing a good job of communicating with anybody and their lack of transparency is going to kill the vote. The Chiefs not having released any of their plans also is troubling. It feels like Stan Kronke level of sabotage at this point with how poorly he worked with STL on their stadium plan, like are the Royals trying to have the vote fail so they can move to Nashville? Nothing is passing the smell test right now.
2) why is the church is moving forward with a building addition if it's going to be demolished.- Is it possible that the Western Boundary for the stadium site would we McGee? With Northern boundary Truman Rd and Southern boundary 17th St, Then you just use that square and march it East to Cherry St? Not sure if that is the plan or not
To make their argument for more money to vacate and sell better.
Or they simply believe it's unlikely that the Royal's move to an EC location and if they do, they will be adequately compensated for their investment.
