KCRag Forum

You'll find a lot more downtown ballpark supporters in JoCo than in East Jack.  That should be pretty obvious.

lock&load wrote: You'll find a lot more downtown ballpark supporters in JoCo than in East Jack.  That should be pretty obvious.

I would wager though that both places contain their fair share of clueless people though.

warwickland wrote:

i think there is some sort of shift going on.

very much agree. young people tend to be very urban, very pro downtown. their partents that raised them were on the cusp of the suburban migration, and now, the national trend, is moving big time towards urban, thus, the thousands upon thousands of lofts and apartments that will come on line downtown in the next 5 years. the number of available units for sale and rent in downtown kansas city will triple by the end of this decade, and, that shows the trend of going urban.

with specific regards to the stadiums, i think, if this were a kansas city only vote, it would change it a lot, a lot of the doofuses that are on my side on this vote ( yeah, a lot of older hicks are on my end of the vote ) are against anything urban, and hate the city. the younger crowd does not.

it really is a tough call, i will not be suprised one way or another tuesday night, i am not planning on celebrating and talking a lot of shit on here if it passes, i am not planning on going into mourning or hiding if it fails. only thing on my agenda with regards to that vote, is if it passes, being happy to see this forum return to being a development forum, versus tsc vs. dt stadium pissing match it became.

Tosspot wrote: I would wager though that both places contain their fair share of clueless people though.

No doubt.  Probably more than their fair share

The biggest "complaint" I hear now from Bi State I from JoCo'ians is along the lines of "we're paying for your stuff and have no say in how it's run."  I'm not sure who ultimately runs Union Station.

But if more then one county/entity is taxed to pay for something, then who should "own" it?  MARC?

(Yes...I'm plotting...evil villain laugh)

What's also frustrating is that many JoCoers think Union Station was a mistake, and that Bi-State initiatives should not be done again for that reason.

Well, it looks like nobody can make a clear prediction of the outcome Tuesday night.  I think both sides are nervous, but will not be surprised at the outcome....no matter what it is.  

• The people who are voting yes, want to make sure the teams stay in Kansas City.  Is that such a bad thing?
• The people who are voting no, want to see a downtown ballpark, or a better plan.  Is that such a bad thing?
I am sure that both YES and No voters do not want to see the teams leave.  I am sure that both sides only want what they think is best for Kansas City.

So, to me, the bottom line is this: DO WE TRUST THE VOTERS OF JACKSON COUNTY ENOUGH TO DECIDE WHAT'S BEST FOR THEIR COUNTY?  (No matter what the outcome is)

AllThingsKC wrote: Well, it looks like nobody can make a clear prediction of the outcome Tuesday night.  I think both sides are nervous, but will not be surprised at the outcome....no matter what it is.  

• The people who are voting yes, want to make sure the teams stay in Kansas City.  Is that such a bad thing?
• The people who are voting no, want to see a downtown ballpark, or a better plan.  Is that such a bad thing?
I am sure that both YES and No voters do not want to see the teams leave.  I am sure that both sides only want what they think is best for Kansas City.

So, to me, the bottom line is this: DO WE TRUST THE VOTERS OF JACKSON COUNTY ENOUGH TO DECIDE WHAT'S BEST FOR THEIR COUNTY?  (No matter what the outcome is)

you fail to mention some of the yes voters vote yes because it is closer to their precious burbs
you fail to mention some of the yes voters vote yes because they really love those stadiums
you fail to mention some of the no voters vote no because of the owners contribution
you fail to mention some of the no voters vote no because they vote no on ANY tax

AllThingsKC wrote: Well, it looks like nobody can make a clear prediction of the outcome Tuesday night.  I think both sides are nervous, but will not be surprised at the outcome....no matter what it is.  

• The people who are voting yes, want to make sure the teams stay in Kansas City.  Is that such a bad thing?
• The people who are voting no, want to see a downtown ballpark, or a better plan.  Is that such a bad thing?
I am sure that both YES and No voters do not want to see the teams leave.  I am sure that both sides only want what they think is best for Kansas City.

So, to me, the bottom line is this: DO WE TRUST THE VOTERS OF JACKSON COUNTY ENOUGH TO DECIDE WHAT'S BEST FOR THEIR COUNTY?  (No matter what the outcome is)

How can we trust the voters when we cannot agree what is best for the county/city?  If this fails, it is guaranteed we will not be subject to the additional tax (good for taxpayers), however there will be uncertainty surrounding the teams, but it is highly unlikely either/or will leave anytime soon (neutral to slightly negative for all citizens).

If the tax passes, all will be subject to the sales tax (bad or taxpayers), however, the teams will stay in KC for the freezable future (good for all citizens).  However, we are naive to the the Royals will be around for another 25 years the way things are going now.  Something more than a remodeled stadium will have to change, or the Royals will be gone long before the new lease expires.

If you put both on a scale, I think it comes out on the Vote NO side.  The threat of the teams leaving (really the only reason to vote yes) is just not certain enough to warrant the heavy burden on taxpayers.  The opportunity costs of renovating Kauffman are also too high.

kcdcchef wrote: you fail to mention some of the yes voters vote yes because it is closer to their precious burbs
you fail to mention some of the yes voters vote yes because they really love those stadiums
you fail to mention some of the no voters vote no because of the owners contribution
you fail to mention some of the no voters vote no because they vote no on ANY tax

Well, I know people have different reasons for voting the way they are planning.  But, I trying just to get the "general" sense.

AllThingsKC wrote: So, to me, the bottom line is this: DO WE TRUST THE VOTERS OF JACKSON COUNTY ENOUGH TO DECIDE WHAT'S BEST FOR THEIR COUNTY?  (No matter what the outcome is)

Are you asking if Jackson County trusts themselves?  Why wouldn't they?  They (I) sleep in the bed they've made for themselves.

If you're asking if the METRO trusts Jackson County to decide about something that affects the entire Metro...then HELL NO!

^As a Jackson County resident, I was asking if I should trust my fellow voters on the subject.

"When will people learn? Democracy just doesn't work!"

-Homer Simpson

VOTE NO ON APRIL 4TH!!!

skim82 wrote: VOTE NO ON APRIL 4TH!!!

Here Here

skim82 wrote: VOTE NO ON APRIL 4TH!!!

How do we know that outside interests from San Antonio or Los Angeles aren't behind this post?

KCMax wrote: I was at a JoCo BBQ last night and everyone I talked to would support a Bi-State tax for a downtown stadium. Everyone there was under 30 though. They were all against the renovating the TSC. I'm pretty sure my dad and everyone in his generation would adamantly vote against a bi-state proposal, particularly one for a downtown stadium. And older people vote more than younger people, so I don't imagine JoCo will be a willing partner anytime soon.

Age demographics is going to play a HUGE role in this vote.  Much of Jackson County, especially Independence voted on the original tax to build the TSC and will vote to renovate it.

kcdcchef wrote:
very much agree. young people tend to be very urban, very pro downtown. their partents that raised them were on the cusp of the suburban migration, and now, the national trend, is moving big time towards urban, thus, the thousands upon thousands of lofts and apartments that will come on line downtown in the next 5 years. the number of available units for sale and rent in downtown kansas city will triple by the end of this decade, and, that shows the trend of going urban.

Wouldn't a "yes" vote then mean a tying of the hands of the younger generation?  I'm 18 now.  A "yes" vote would mean no possibility of an urban alternative until I'm at least 43.

I guess I feel a bit like we're getting screwed here... That the conservative, pro "live in my car like a boring wuss," middle-aged voters are shaping the city's future with their own antiquated ideals (Kind of like social security where that same generation will feast off of a now premature and antiquated retirement age.)
If this could be delayed until 2014... giving the younger generation that 5 to 10 year window they need to grow up, maybe this would look different?

In light of what I've read and being a Los Angeleno, I'm changing my opinion (of course I can't vote) to a yes on the stadium thing.  It's not what I think is the best way to get all this stadium stuff done but it's the best plan so far.  After being frustrated by several light-rail failures...it's going to be a long time before another good idea comes up.

There is incredible Los Angeles Chiefs/Colts/Saints lust out here.  Anyway, Lamar moved the Chiefs to Kansas City from Dallas in the first place just to make a profit and is getting rid of the Wizards for the same reason.  The guy still lives in Dallas so don't think he's THAT loyal.

Listen, the "no" votes are perfectly reasonable.  I'm going with yes though.  The Final Four, MLB All Star Game, Super Bowl and architecture alone are tantalizing (speaking of creating a lot of jobs).  I realize Kansas City doesn't lust for national attention, I realize this seems to be a misplacement of priorities but hey, it'll make a lot of money and give the city another something interesting and I don't think investing in a stadium goes against caring for infrastructure and schools.  In fact, it would help.  Like putting a concession stand in a movie theatre.  It does not make the movie better but it benefits the experience and makes enough profit to keep the films coming.

Will it pass?  Well, you've got to count the Dumb Redneck vote, which I think killed light rail (that and it was a retarded plan).  Anyway, Dumb Rednecks are against trains from the Chiefs fans I encountered on St. Louis' very cool semi-subway.  But, they're deffinitely for football.  Win or lose, this is going to be a 49-51 vote.  Do they need a simple majority or 2/3?