Official arena opposition: Coalition Against Arena Taxes

scooterj · Post by **scooterj** » Wed Jul 21, 2004 2:12 pm

Perhaps it's time to start deluging Enterprise with physical letters and clogging their phone lines by calling to complain.

KCPowercat · Post by **KCPowercat** » Wed Jul 21, 2004 2:27 pm

they never even responded to me

jsduhs · Post by **jsduhs** » Wed Jul 21, 2004 2:45 pm

Is a KC-wide BOYCOTT of enterprise in order? I think so! The people in this city should go out of their way to rent from another rental car comp. F@#king Bulls#$%

aknowledgeableperson · Wed Jul 21, 2004 3:55 pm

KCPowercat wrote:akp....what do you say to the national organizer that the city has hired to lead their side of the negotions that states they have never seen a proposal THIS FAR in ANY city before a public vote?

Much has been posted since you asked for my comments and here goes.

It doesn't matter to me what has happened in other cities with regards to progress. Each city and its arena is different from every other. In other words, each arena situation is unique. What this person has said is typical campaign BS and both sides are dishing it out. My opposition is quite simple - no contracts means a no vote. If the financing is in place, and all of it, then the vote is yes.

There is truth and lies being put out by both sides, or should one say degrees of truth and lies.

And which emply arena are you referring to? Only one arena will be full if the downtown arena is built. The Globetrotters, Disney on Ice, Ringling Circus and other annual events will only play in one arena. So if they all go to the downtown arena there are not enough horse shows in the country to make Kemper a break even proposition, let alone cover debt service so there is a drain on the city's general fund. So yes, the city is left with one almost empty arena. And will AEG let the city compete with them with regards to booking events at Kemper and Municipal Arena? If AEG gets first choice of the events then the city will suffer even more.

Since we do not have a final contract with AEG who knows what it will contain with regards to the protections given to the City.

KCPowercat · Post by **KCPowercat** » Wed Jul 21, 2004 4:09 pm

well you want the impossible.....contracts are never signed at this point. Luckily for the way enterprise is acting, the yes vote is booming right now.

aknowledgeableperson · Wed Jul 21, 2004 4:40 pm

KCPowercat wrote:well you want the impossible.....contracts are never signed at this point. Luckily for the way enterprise is acting, the yes vote is booming right now.

I don't think that having the contracts signed before the vote is impossible. If Barnes would have had the council schedule the vote for November instead of rushing it through for a vote in August then the contracts could have been in place.
And do you have some recent polls showing that "the yes vote is booming right now"? Personally, I do not know how it is tracking. But it was a cute editorial cartoon in the Star the other day about Barnes non-binding restaints on the roller coaster.

KCDevin · Post by **KCDevin** » Wed Jul 21, 2004 4:46 pm

so AKP, are you on the side of the Enterprise bastards and CAAT idiots?

kcteen · Post by **kcteen** » Wed Jul 21, 2004 4:52 pm

screw you AKP. go elsewhere. If you're gonna say something, say something we havent heard. Yeah, the editorial was cute. By cute i mean a cheap stab by the star. Its shitty to put such an editorial, out of context, so the average reader doesnt understand the whole situation. I think it laugable that AEG would sign a binding contract before the vote. come on. Go to St Louis, i mean, Hell.

Post by **chrizow** » Wed Jul 21, 2004 4:54 pm

the prospect of mega-million dollar contracts being binding BEFORE a necessary vote is pretty friggin' slim. it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

macnw · Post by **macnw** » Wed Jul 21, 2004 5:03 pm

I don't think it's impossible to have two venues in a city the size of KC. Here in Portland, they have the Rose Garden(current B-ball arena) right next to the Memorial Coliseum(former home to the b-ball team). By no means is Portland any bigger than KC. Portland does not have a football, hockey or baseball team. How can those venues coexist? Surely a use for Kemper can be found. Kemper does not have to be in use every single day. This can be looked at as a half full or half empty glass situation.

aknowledgeableperson · Wed Jul 21, 2004 5:36 pm

kcteen wrote:screw you AKP. go elsewhere. If you're gonna say something, say something we havent heard. Yeah, the editorial was cute. By cute i mean a cheap stab by the star. Its shitty to put such an editorial, out of context, so the average reader doesnt understand the whole situation. I think it laugable that AEG would sign a binding contract before the vote. come on. Go to St Louis, i mean, Hell.

Are you not able to have a decent conversation without using some so-called gutter language. I haven't told people who disagree with me where to go, or to have sex with themselves. Hopefully you are smarter than you are showing by your submittal.
Besides, the cartoon was by the editorial cartoonist. The Star has come out in favor of a yes vote. The Star at least allows its eimployees to express an opinion that is different than the position of the paper.
So your position is people are free to express their opinion as long as you agree with it?

aknowledgeableperson · Wed Jul 21, 2004 5:38 pm

chrizow wrote:the prospect of mega-million dollar contracts being binding BEFORE a necessary vote is pretty friggin' slim. it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

As stated before there can be a contract contingent upon the approval of the fees. Contracts are like this all of the time. Real estate can be purchase subject to financing, passing inspection, and so on. Cars are purchased that way also.

aknowledgeableperson · Wed Jul 21, 2004 5:41 pm

macnw wrote:I don't think it's impossible to have two venues in a city the size of KC. Here in Portland, they have the Rose Garden(current B-ball arena) right next to the Memorial Coliseum(former home to the b-ball team). By no means is Portland any bigger than KC. Portland does not have a football, hockey or baseball team. How can those venues coexist? Surely a use for Kemper can be found. Kemper does not have to be in use every single day. This can be looked at as a half full or half empty glass situation.

Does the Memorial Coliseum still have debt service to retire? If so, how is it retired?
Kemper and its garage still has quite a bit of debt service the city has to pay from its general fund.

aknowledgeableperson · Wed Jul 21, 2004 5:44 pm

KCDevin wrote:so AKP, are you on the side of the Enterprise bastards and CAAT idiots?

So people who don't agree with you are "bastards" and "idiots"?

As stated before I would vote yes if the financing was finalized. So I am on the side of myself.

KCDevin · Post by **KCDevin** » Wed Jul 21, 2004 5:45 pm

yes they are. They have NO right whatsoever. and the CAAT are just a bunch of corrupt idiots who should all be exiled from the metro. Especially McFadden Weaver

KCPowercat · Post by **KCPowercat** » Wed Jul 21, 2004 5:48 pm

fine, Kemper & the garage have debt to retire. When the new arena brings in more conventions, events and concerts more money will flow into the general fund. Cities improve or decline everyday. Sitting pat because we have some debt to retire on a mistake is putting the city in decline.

Municipal Auditorium does not have any debt that I know of but would be irrelevant either way. Money will still be spent at Muncipal to get it up to date for future events.

AKP...you are obviously free to vote any way for any reason you want but to demand a signed contract when that doesn't happen in any of these types of situations is a bit demanding. I trust Harrow Sports Ventures when they say this deal is further along than other deals they have been involved with when they went to a public vote.

Post by **staubio** » Wed Jul 21, 2004 5:48 pm

Economics 101 for AKP.

Sunk cost
In economics and in business decision-making, sunk costs are costs that have already been incurred and which cannot be recovered to any significant degree. Sunk costs are sometimes contrasted with incremental costs, which are the costs that will change due to the proposed course of action. In microeconomic theory, only incremental cost are relevant to a decision. If we let sunk costs influence our decisions, we will not be assessing a proposal exclusively on its own merits.

For example, when you pre-order a movie ticket, the price of the ticket becomes a sunk cost. Even if you decide that you'd rather not go to the movie, there is no way to get back the money you originally paid and you have a sunk cost on your hands. This assumes, of course, that you can't simply return the movie ticket for a refund, and that the odds that you are able to resell the ticket are essentially zero.

Sometimes only part of the price of a purchase ends up being a sunk cost. For example, when you purchase a car, you will be able to resell it later, though you will almost certainly not fetch the original price for it. In this case, your sunk cost with respect to the car at any given time is the difference between how much you originally paid and how much you could sell it for now.

Economists argue that, if you are rational, you will not take sunk costs into account when making decisions. In the case of the movie ticket, there are two possible end results. You will either have:

1. Paid the price of the ticket and suffered watching a movie that you do not want to see

or

2. Paid the price of the ticket and used the time to do something more fun.

In either case, you have "paid the price of the ticket" so that part of the decision should cancel itself out. If you regret buying the ticket because you do not think the movie is worth the money then your current decision should be based on whether you want to see the movie at all, regardless of what you have paid for it - just like deciding whether you want to go to a free movie. The economist will suggest that since the latter option only involves you suffering in one way (spent money), while the former involves you suffering in two (spent money plus wasted time), the latter is obviously preferable.

Many people have strong misgivings about "wasting" resources. Many people, for example, would feel obligated to go to the movie despite not really wanting to, because doing otherwise would be wasting the ticket price; they feel they passed the point of no return. This is sometimes called the Sunk Cost Fallacy. Economists would label this behavior "irrational": It is inefficient because it misallocates resources by depending on information that is irrelevant to the business decision being made.

tat2kc · Post by **tat2kc** » Wed Jul 21, 2004 6:08 pm

well now. I think that pretty much sums it up, right?

Maybe i had one too many martinis at happy hour, but I think I'm gonna have to re-read that post in an hour or so.

aknowledgeableperson · Wed Jul 21, 2004 7:02 pm

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.

And Municipal Arena does have current debt service costs.
With regards to additional revenue flowing to the general fund from increased events, concerts, conventions, and so on there would be very little. Is not the Arena and KC Live part of a TIF project? If so, the general fund will receive little if any additional revenue in the near future. Basically there would be E-tax, and part of the city's sales tax, and some utility taxes. AEG gets to keep most if not all operating revenues of the arena and the Convention Complex will receive very little benefit from the arena and besides that operation is not part of the general fund.

QueSi2Opie · Post by **QueSi2Opie** » Wed Jul 21, 2004 10:32 pm

KCP, can you give me the email of Enterprise? Thanks!

Anyhow, hopefully the 90,000 Union Workers in KC go out and vote "Yes" on August 3rd.

KCRag Forum