Re: www.saveourstadiums.com
Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 11:12 am
Just drive down the sidewalk mowing them over. They're rather difficult to pull from the ground.bahua wrote: Yeah, we need to confiscate more signs on Ward Parkway.
Just drive down the sidewalk mowing them over. They're rather difficult to pull from the ground.bahua wrote: Yeah, we need to confiscate more signs on Ward Parkway.
How would someone go about starting one?dangerboy wrote: If you are looking for an all-encompassing "no" campaign with a snazzy web site and lots of yard signs, then I'm sorry tell you that it's not going to happen.
Regsitering a politcal action committee with the state ethics board, soliciting donations, buying signs, advertising, etc. It's too late to start a new committee at this point. Six months ago would have been the time to start the paper work and stuff.beautyfromashes wrote: How would someone go about starting one?
I don't really like people telling me I can't do something. I'm sure there is someone who could spearhead this, at least enough to get yardsigns.  I will personally donate enough to buy 500 yard signs.  Who likes a challenge?dangerboy wrote: Regsitering a politcal action committee with the state ethics board, soliciting donations, buying signs, advertising, etc. It's too late to start a new committee at this point. Six months ago would have been the time to start the paper work and stuff.
Well...I don't want to get in trouble, and I think these guys running the "plaster Ward Parkway with big blue signs" campaign would definetly challenge anything that's not done "correctly".beautyfromashes wrote: I don't really like people telling me I can't do something. I'm sure there is someone who could spearhead this, at least enough to get yardsigns. I will personally donate enough to buy 500 yard signs. Who likes a challenge?
It's illegal for those signs to be there. Signs can only go up 30 days before the election and also they are on public property, not private residences.dangerboy wrote: BTW, whoever suggested removing the other side's signs... That's illegal. People have gone to jail for doing it.
i heard this replayed on between the lines yesterday afternoon, at 6. umm, kietz debated well, so did helling, but one point i liked, "this will be so and so amount of dollars over the life of the tax".............to which reeder said, when you buy a house, do you say you are buying a $185k house, or do you say over the 25 year life of the loan and principle, i am buying a $260k house. and that is accurate, kietz keeps on talking out his ass about it will be so many more dollars over 25 years................no fucking shit. called intrest, and inflation. bottom line, the MOST jackson county taxpayers are on the hook for ( question 1 ) is $450m. no more. so, to keep saying it will be over 650m over 25 years, that is great and all, however, it is not accurate. 450m from taxpayers, plus 50m from a state fund, plus 100m from the teams, and intrest and inflation, yeah, it goes way over 600m. but the taxpayers ONLY pay the 450m. bottom line.LenexatoKCMO wrote:  Shields stooped to suggesting they would be contracted. Kietz pointed out that MLB has put contraction to bed  .Â
yeah, i called the city of kcmo today, and talked to them, they have NEVER heard of this.Kard wrote: I don't know about the 30 bit... But the ones I've seen on Ward Parkway were on the house-side of the sidewalk, if that makes any difference at all. They were encroaching over the sidewalk, which I thought was a tad annoying.
if april 4th fails, the royals will NOT be contracted, and the chiefs will NOT relocate. however, the county really should step up to the mike and say their ultimate fear............we will lose one or both teams within our own metro. that is the real fear.KCMax wrote: I actually agree with Chef, Kietz is poorly informed on contraction. It is in the new CBA that the league can contract in 2007, as long as they notify the union by June 1, 2006. They don't have to say which two clubs they plan to contract.
Do I think they will contract? No way in hell. They will use it as a hammer to get new stadiums in Florida, Minnesota and Oakland, and renovations in KC.
Regardless, I think its a long way from happening. The legal ramifications of contraction will take years to entangle before any teams can be folded. Jackson County would sue, KC would sue, the state of Missouri would sue. If Jackson County rejects the April renovations vote, we still have PLENTY of time to negotiate a better deal, whether that be at the TSC, or elsewhere in the metro. The myth that renovation supporters propagate that the teams will move immediately if voters reject this boondoggle is absurd.
ooooh I am shaking in my boots. What a horrible, horrible outcome.kcdcchef wrote: ............we will lose one or both teams within our own metro. that is the real fear.
what, that the teams go and play in kansas, in free stadiums out there?LenexatoKCMO wrote: ooooh I am shaking in my boots. What a horrible, horrible outcome.Â
Free to us JaCoers. If I have to drive out to a stadium in a sea of parking, wouldn't it be in MY best interest that taxpayers in another area foot the bill? I could not care less where the location of a suburban stadium is. JaCo, JoCo, WyCo, whatever. I sure as hell don't want to pay for it though.kcdcchef wrote: what, that the teams go and play in kansas, in free stadiums out there?
you would not have to. it will be just like the tax breaks and freebies kansas gives to all of the other missouri business they steal. it would be free to you. like now.lock&load wrote: Free to us JaCoers. If I have to drive out to a stadium in a sea of parking, wouldn't it be in MY best interest that taxpayers in another area foot the bill? I could not care less where the location of a suburban stadium is. JaCo, JoCo, WyCo, whatever. I sure as hell don't want to pay for it though.