KCRag Forum

eliphar17 wrote: There is no intent to get a public vote on a tax for the stadium. OP intends to build it with STAR bonds, which don't require a public vote - they only require the application of the city.

Not quite--I think the retail is what they want to do with the Star bonds.  I read in the Biz Journal that they couldn't use Star bonds on the stadium because it's not a "regional draw," or something like that.

KCMax wrote: Because I find it to be a highly inconvenient location for much of Kansas City, and I'm not entirely convinced a south JoCo location will help the attendance of the Wizards all that much. I also think a Riverside soccer stadium, if implemented correctly with the integration of some sort of other entertainment (outdoor ampitheater?), retail, or sports and recreation can be great for Kansas City. I don't think the proposed development in south JoCo would have quite the same impact - although that would also benefit KC, but much less so.

Because of the highway access I don't think that the proposed location is as inconvenient as some think...but I understand why that would be a concern.  I don't think a location in Riverside is going to help attendance as much as a Joco location would...once again because of the perception of the area.

My one concern with the Riverside location that I've heard being discussed is the potential for flooding.  I remember going through the area on I-635 (yes I grew up in the Northland) on my way to KU for freshman orientation in 1993 as seeing the entire area under water.  I'm sure improvements have been made to the levees but that would still be a major concern.

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascit ... 897019.htm

The “Yes on Soccerâ€

is it still grassroots if a company gives you half a million for your campaign?

^^ I don't know, but getting $16.8 million for $500,000, plus whatever they paid for the land, is a solid ROI.

Heard that on the radio this morning. The developers are claiming they would make more money if the land was developed for housing. Anyone know if there's any truth to that statement? Just curious.

^^ I don't know, but it's safe to assume that it's a surer bet for them to sell to OP rather than to develop it for housing and then hope that there's a lucrative enough market for it.

Mike Hendricks is hearing the soccer fields initiative will not pass.

Prognosticators who are smarter than I am say the Johnson County soccer park will crash and burn Tuesday.

If so, it wouldn’t be the first time JoCo voters rejected a parks project that, to me, seemed like a good idea.

“Only three (defeats) in 50 years,â€

$75 million for 24 soccer fields is over $3 million per field. That seems very high. The high cost per field seems to be what most people don't like.

knucklehead wrote: $75 million for 24 soccer fields is over $3 million per field. That seems very high. The high cost per field seems to be what most people don't like.

But it's much cheaper if you go by blade of grass.

knucklehead wrote: $75 million for 24 soccer fields is over $3 million per field. That seems very high. The high cost per field seems to be what most people don't like.

But doesn't that number include park ammenties, trails, concession services and the like?  I thought I heard Kevin Gray (or someone) mention that the park plan of this included a community center building as well.

I'm still leaning towards voting for it tomorrow.  The people I talk to who are on the "no" side seem to be most concerned about how fast this came up and whether or not the numbers are solid and believeable.

jimb wrote: I'm still leaning towards voting for it tomorrow.  The people I talk to who are on the "no" side seem to be most concerned about how fast this came up and whether or not the numbers are solid and believeable.

Solid and believable numbers are a good thing.

Kard wrote: Solid and believable numbers are a good thing.

I wish Clay Chastain understood that.

knucklehead wrote: $75 million for 24 soccer fields is over $3 million per field. That seems very high. The high cost per field seems to be what most people don't like.

In addition to the fields there is also going to be community center.

Actually, there won't be anything.

This measure is going to fail miserably based on the early returns coming in tonight.

Way to step up to the plate, Johnson County!!!!!!!!!!

What a freakin' joke.

MidtownCat wrote: Actually, there won't be anything.

This measure is going to fail miserably based on the early returns coming in tonight.

Way to step up to the plate, Johnson County!!!!!!!!!!

What a freakin' joke.

37 years of free stadiums and never paying a dime. why stop now!!!!

kcdcchef wrote: 37 years of free stadiums and never paying a dime. why stop now!!!!

And if JoCo voted for the stadiums you'd be crying that JoCo is stealing a team from KC. You're becoming too predictable.

They should put the soccer stadium in WyCo.

KCMax wrote: And if JoCo voted for the stadiums you'd be crying that JoCo is stealing a team from KC. You're becoming too predictable.

actually, no, i would not. unless they changed the name.

But the vote wasn't for the stadiums - it was for the complex.  There was nothing to guarantee that the Wizards were going to build there (although it was probable).  And there's nothing to gurantee that they won't anyhow - although less likely now.

I was hoping that the complex and stadium would get built.  If only so I could complain about all the teams from the Northland and East Jack that came to tournaments and the MO-side Wizards fans that came to games without contributing to the property taxes that helped build it.