get over it. a downtown ballpark will NEVER happen. glass does not want it. period. neither does the county. or the city.bahua wrote: Absolutely. Glorioso's just doing his job. He's not a bad guy. He's just acting in the best interest of his employer. When this ballot question fails, he'll be hired by the downtown ballpark people.
why do we have to negotiate a better deal then baltimore, chicago, cleveland, toronto, milwaukee, pitt, etc? they voted in some cases to do 100% financing of their teams new / renovated stadiums. better deal?? here is the better deal, we lose these teams, and then some other city, will negotiate that better deal.mean wrote: Doesn't matter whether it happens or not, at least we should be able to negotiate a better deal. If that includes a downtown ballpark, awesome! If not, fine. But it better not be the same big fat joke as the one we're voting on in April.
do not worry grid, you are in the demographic that shows up for elections, the rest of these posters, twenty somethings, are in the demographic that does not show up at elections anyways.GRID wrote: Do you honestly think this town has the real leadership to get a serious and good project done? Do you honestly think the residents of this city would even support that leadership if we had it? This is not a forward thinking town, it's just not. It's not an urban thinking town either. Most of the business community of the region is the same way or our urban core would not be in the shape it got into and the flow to Kansas would have stopped by now.
I just don't see it and I'm not sure I'm ready to risk what we do have.
But if there is one more damn thing for the locals to mock and make jokes about (teams and owners) instead of having a bit of pride and passion and even some knowledge of this damn city, I'm just not sure how much longer I can handle it.
If this town was not passing taxes for locally funded projects (sprint, bartle, P&L, union station, 18th and Vine etc) and begging for federal projects (courthouse, IRS, Fed Reserve), NOTHING would be going on here outside a few renovations of buildings that have sat empty for decades by out of town developers.
I'm just not sure there are enough people in this town that want to make a difference and till KC figures out wether or not it wants to be a city or 65 small towns, I want to be able to take my kids to a Royals game on a Saturday afternoon and I want to be able to follow the Chiefs (along with all the other things there is to do here that most locals ignore AND MOCK.)
It sounds like you've bought into the fear argument AND are so invested in the Chiefs and Royals that you'd be devastated by their departure should it come to that. Yes may be for you then. We'll never be a forward thinking town when those that have the potential and knowledge to expect and demand better (you) are apathetic and just give up.GRID wrote: Do you honestly think this town has the real leadership to get a serious and good project done? Â Do you honestly think the residents of this city would even support that leadership if we had it? Â This is not a forward thinking town, it's just not. Â It's not an urban thinking town either. Â Most of the business community of the region is the same way or our urban core would not be in the shape it got into and the flow to Kansas would have stopped by now.
I just don't see it and I'm not sure I'm ready to risk what we do have.
But if there is one more damn thing for the locals to mock and make jokes about (teams and owners) instead of having a bit of pride and passion and even some knowledge of this damn city, I'm just not sure how much longer I can handle it.
If this town was not passing taxes for locally funded projects (sprint, bartle, P&L, union station, 18th and Vine etc) and begging for federal projects (courthouse, IRS, Fed Reserve), NOTHING would be going on here outside a few renovations of buildings that have sat empty for decades by out of town developers.
I'm just not sure there are enough people in this town that want to make a difference and till KC figures out wether or not it wants to be a city or 65 small towns, I want to be able to take my kids to a Royals game on a Saturday afternoon and I want to be able to follow the Chiefs (along with all the other things there is to do here that most locals ignore AND MOCK.)
Do you not see what you're saying? You just said:GRID wrote: Do you honestly think this town has the real leadership to get a serious and good project done?
But if there is one more damn thing for the locals to mock and make jokes about (teams and owners) instead of having a bit of pride and passion and even some knowledge of this damn city, I'm just not sure how much longer I can handle it.
You're pretending you can predict the future. Why bother being a chef, when you have these magical powers? Demand a better deal, or vote NO.kcdcchef wrote: why do we have to negotiate a better deal then baltimore, chicago, cleveland, toronto, milwaukee, pitt, etc? they voted in some cases to do 100% financing of their teams new / renovated stadiums. better deal?? here is the better deal, we lose these teams, and then some other city, will negotiate that better deal.
do not worry grid, you are in the demographic that shows up for elections, the rest of these posters, twenty somethings, are in the demographic that does not show up at elections anyways.
as a registered democrat, i hear this shit all of the time, but here is the reality, the demographic you are dealing with are younger singles, younger dinks. they do not show up in mass at the polls, despite efforts like rock the vote, and all the other shit the last 2 elections. and it cost us dearly with an idiot president for 2 terms. but, on this scale, it helps. thank god.mean wrote:
And yeah, I've never voted. Except in every election...
We're going to win.
amazing how bitter and angry you guys get with everyone that is not on your side. totally amazing.lock&load wrote: It sounds like you've bought into the fear argument AND are so invested in the Chiefs and Royals that you'd be devastated by their departure should it come to that. Yes may be for you then. We'll never be a forward thinking town when those that have the potential and knowledge to expect and demand better (you) are apathetic and just give up.
I'm not angry, just disappointed by someone I expected more from.kcdcchef wrote: amazing how bitter and angry you guys get with everyone that is not on your side. totally amazing.
Bingo! I am passionate about a downtown ballpark but my enthusiasim for opposition to this ballot issue would be much weaker if it was a fairer deal. If the taxpayers were putting in less, the owners more, the projected improvements were more dramatic, etc., it would be a hell of a lot harder to hate this deal. However, the deal we are getting is a double whammy - not only does it not involve downtown baseball but it is just a shitty, bloated deal to boot. That is very very easy to oppose. Especially when there is no real downside in voting no - worst case scenario, we get a better deal six months later - Oh no!mean wrote: ^ Exactly. And that is why it is so frustrating when people just act like the motives are selfish downtown baseball motives, or some other such nonsense that Glorioso would have you believe. It ain't like that. The fact is, this is a BAD deal. Voting YES on this deal, to me, speaks more negatively about KC than voting NO. Voting YES says, well, this is a terrible deal, but it's the best we can hope for because we suck so bad that nobody would want to be here without hundreds of millions in public subsidy. Now that is depressing.
The county could have negotiated for a better deal, they just went for the gusto, the big bucks, figuring that with an aggressive enough ad campaign we'd cave. I hope we don't.
you did not expect more from grid. you expected him to take your side.lock&load wrote: I'm not angry, just disappointed by someone I expected more from.
yeah, the upside of losing one or both teams is HUGELenexatoKCMO wrote:
. Especially when there is no real downside in voting no - worst case scenario, we get a better deal six months later - Oh no!
If only there were an ounce of risk of that happening in the next two years.kcdcchef wrote: yeah, the upside of losing one or both teams is HUGE
so, a county in default on their leases, and there is not one ounce of the teams leaving? once you are in default, which, they are, the teams can start looking. an emergency allocation of funds, or last minute election to satisfy the lease, is great and all, but once the county is in default, which, they are now, requires both tenants to sign off on new allocations of funds, in essence, the teams are free agents, as of now. they can leave the second they want to if this fails.LenexatoKCMO wrote: If only there were an ounce of risk of that happening in the next two years.Â
Not when the owners have no genuine interest in movingkcdcchef wrote: so, a county in default on their leases, and there is not one ounce of the teams leaving? once you are in default,
keep on telling yourself that, okay lenexa??LenexatoKCMO wrote: Not when the owners have no genuine interest in moving
I think most will look at it and laugh and realize it is not to be taken too seriously.GRID wrote: I know the idea of the site is to "demand more", but that's not the message 99% of the population will get from it.
Fair enough, but personally I don't get that message at all. I get the feeling those guys feel pretty much just like I do (and most people I talk to, fwiw) which is to say, you know, tax me...I don't really mind...I'm not ANTI TAX CRAZY MAN. But don't be greedy jerks, make sure to throw in your fair share--WHICH DOES NOT include getting "free" loans from the NFL to pay for part of your contribution(!!), don't conduct sleazy ad campaigns, don't try to get legal retaliation on private citizens who speak out against your bad campaign (that REALLY pisses me off!) and so on.GRID wrote:But, I don't see that from this saveourowners site, all I see is "the owners are wealthy pricks and need to leave town immediately. It's not the owners responsibility to fix our town and our stupidity. If this town wanted more, it would demand it, but it doesn't demand much of anything and the owners simply do what is in their best interests.
I know the idea of the site is to "demand more", but that's not the message 99% of the population will get from it.
how is them getting legal action against these private citzens inappropriate? be real, glass and hunt are not condoning websites that are trolling a bunch of lies, comments they never made, pictures of them in places they have never been. so, for glorioso to try and stop that stuff. ....good for him.mean wrote: Fair enough, but personally I don't get that message at all. I get the feeling those guys feel pretty much just like I do (and most people I talk to, fwiw) which is to say, you know, tax me...I don't really mind...I'm not ANTI TAX CRAZY MAN. But don't be greedy jerks, make sure to throw in your fair share--WHICH DOES NOT include getting "free" loans from the NFL to pay for part of your contribution(!!), don't conduct sleazy ad campaigns, don't try to get legal retaliation on private citizens who speak out against your bad campaign (that REALLY pisses me off!) and so on.
But, you know, different people will get different messages. I respect your viewpoint, I just really, really disagree.