KCRag Forum

KCPowercat wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2024 4:18 pm Already know more details about the Chicago Bears news stadium announced today and ever did about Royals plan, just for an idea of how proper new stadium plans get announced.

Also they are funding 70% of it themselves.

And Bears are getting the same pushback the Royals/Chiefs did (on social media).

What's wrong with the current stadium?
Why are taxpayers funding any of this?
What about the current land now?
Where will everyone park?

Governor J.B. Pritzker is giving some pushback of his own. From the Chicago Tribune:

Chicago Bears unveil their lakefront stadium plans as Gov. J.B. Pritzker says ‘I remain skeptical’

Pritzker said Wednesday morning at an unrelated news conference that taxpayer assistance for stadium projects is “not particularly popular around the country.”

He noted that voters in Jackson County, Missouri, recently rejected a tax proposal to help fund stadium projects for the Kansas City Royals and Chiefs on the heels of the NFL team’s latest Super Bowl victory.

As for the Bears’ plans, “I remain skeptical about this proposal, and I wonder whether it’s a good deal for the taxpayers,” Pritzker said. “There are a lot of priorities that the state has, and I’m not sure that this is among the highest priorities for taxpayers.”

Pritzker said “owners of these private businesses need to put a lot more forward in order to have their dreams fulfilled and not just rely on the taxpayers of Illinois to have that happen for them.”

Came across this little item

https://scontent-ord5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/ ... e=662FB7F7

moderne wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2024 4:41 pm A very cold weather super bowl coming. Stadium designed in KC.

it will have a moveable roof that will rarely open like most stadiums with them, they've had Super Bowls in the North with indoor stadiums

AllThingsKC wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2024 4:54 pm

KCPowercat wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2024 4:18 pm Already know more details about the Chicago Bears news stadium announced today and ever did about Royals plan, just for an idea of how proper new stadium plans get announced.

Also they are funding 70% of it themselves.

And Bears are getting the same pushback the Royals/Chiefs did (on social media).

What's wrong with the current stadium?
Why are taxpayers funding any of this?
What about the current land now?
Where will everyone park?

Where do they park/tailgate now?

ericwyner wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2024 2:18 am

moderne wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2024 4:41 pm A very cold weather super bowl coming. Stadium designed in KC.

it will have a moveable roof that will rarely open like most stadiums with them, they've had Super Bowls in the North with indoor stadiums

No the team president said specifically no moving roof

langosta wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2024 7:21 am

ericwyner wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2024 2:18 am

moderne wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2024 4:41 pm A very cold weather super bowl coming. Stadium designed in KC.

it will have a moveable roof that will rarely open like most stadiums with them, they've had Super Bowls in the North with indoor stadiums

No the team president said specifically no moving roof

Closed roof, same structural concept as SoFi and Allegiant.

Beautiful design.

KCPowercat wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2024 4:18 pm Already know more details about the Chicago Bears news stadium announced today and ever did about Royals plan, just for an idea of how proper new stadium plans get announced.

Also they are funding 70% of it themselves.

Oh no!!!

“But Friends of the Parks, a not-for-profit group that advocates for the city’s Lakefront Protection ordinance, which limits the lakefront to public use, criticized the stadium plan as rushed and not transparent, comparing it in a statement to other faltering mega-developments like The 78 and Lincoln Yards.

“Chicago has a long history of closed-door planning and rushed decision-making that does not end well for taxpayers,” the group stated.


3 years later we “already” know more about the Bears stadium. You guys are something else.

My post wasn't to get into how good/bad that plan is, it was saying how it was a better rollout of a plan than the Royals put forth. I couldn't care less about the stadium itself or it's merits so I have no desires to discuss that here or anywhere else.

aknowledgeableperson wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2024 12:55 am Came across this little item

https://scontent-ord5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/ ... e=662FB7F7

Unfortuantely for this person, the same applies whenever you watch a movie, TV show or listen to music. It applies when you go out to eat at a national chain or buy almost anything in the grocerty store (only in those instances, it's the executives who's pockets you're lining). It applies whenever you pay your utility, phone or internet bill. It applies when you buy a new phone, computer or tablet. The same can be said about elected officials and bureaucrats who spend your tax money and somehow gain a networth worth more than their salaries over the course of many years.

While a comment like that might seem like an "own" on the billionaires and millionaires, it's just pure stupid. This is how things have worked for centuries and will continue for centuries to come.

Chris Stritzel wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2024 11:48 am
Unfortuantely for this person, the same applies whenever you watch a movie, TV show or listen to music. It applies when you go out to eat at a national chain or buy almost anything in the grocerty store (only in those instances, it's the executives who's pockets you're lining). It applies whenever you pay your utility, phone or internet bill. It applies when you buy a new phone, computer or tablet. The same can be said about elected officials and bureaucrats who spend your tax money and somehow gain a networth worth more than their salaries over the course of many years.

While a comment like that might seem like an "own" on the billionaires and millionaires, it's just pure stupid. This is how things have worked for centuries and will continue for centuries to come.

The one big difference though is the taxpayer and the taxpayers money and how it is used. I have a choice to watch a movie (haven't been to a movie theater for quite some time now or bought music) or not whereas I can vote yes or no on how a taxpayer's money is used on an arena or stadium.

aknowledgeableperson wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2024 3:07 pm

Chris Stritzel wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2024 11:48 am
Unfortuantely for this person, the same applies whenever you watch a movie, TV show or listen to music. It applies when you go out to eat at a national chain or buy almost anything in the grocerty store (only in those instances, it's the executives who's pockets you're lining). It applies whenever you pay your utility, phone or internet bill. It applies when you buy a new phone, computer or tablet. The same can be said about elected officials and bureaucrats who spend your tax money and somehow gain a networth worth more than their salaries over the course of many years.

While a comment like that might seem like an "own" on the billionaires and millionaires, it's just pure stupid. This is how things have worked for centuries and will continue for centuries to come.

The one big difference though is the taxpayer and the taxpayers money and how it is used. I have a choice to watch a movie (haven't been to a movie theater for quite some time now or bought music) or not whereas I can vote yes or no on how a taxpayer's money is used on an arena or stadium.

But you will eventually have no choice on whether you can watch a professional baseball game in your city

Highlander wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2024 4:32 pm
But you will eventually have no choice on whether you can watch a professional baseball game in your city

Maybe, maybe not. But lately across the country when the voters have a choice whether or not to tax themselves they have said no. Even elected officials as in Arizona and Virginia.
However I do think Jackson County can break this trend if there is a vote for the Chiefs at Arrowhead.

aknowledgeableperson wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2024 9:32 am

Highlander wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2024 4:32 pm
But you will eventually have no choice on whether you can watch a professional baseball game in your city

Maybe, maybe not. But lately across the country when the voters have a choice whether or not to tax themselves they have said no. Even elected officials as in Arizona and Virginia.
However I do think Jackson County can break this trend if there is a vote for the Chiefs at Arrowhead.

We just don't have recent examples to point to showing how certain markets losing a major franchise can be severely detrimental to that city and region. I guess we could be one of those examples to prove that for most markets, the tax payer helping pay for these things is worth every penny.

https://www.kansascity.com/opinion/read ... 74565.html

"Of course, the answer is politics. In Kansas City, there appear only to be warring factions with narrow and short-term interests. No one is willing to compromise and lead the city to higher ground. It’s not just the City Council, but also the downtown development interests, KC Tenants, the Royals ownership group, Visit KC, Crown Center, the Country Club Plaza, the Truman Sports Complex, the Legends Outlets Kansas City and the Kansas-versus-Missouri partisans. They are all spread out and separated, physically and civically. Why can they not team together in a common cause to build a clearly defined, thriving downtown area?"

It seems harder now than ever to get big projects done for all of the reasons he cited, and yet the big projects seem increasingly more important. I think the general consensus is that we just muddle through, but in reality we begin our slow march towards irrelevancy. This applies to everything, not just baseball. Consensus is rare, someone needs to get out on a ledge and lead on big (and sometimes unpopular) initiatives.

Could this guy's opinion be colored by the Bravo failure?

moderne wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2024 4:44 pm Could this guy's opinion be colored by the Bravo failure?

No doubt, phoning in from westchester nonetheless . But I think his point remains valid.

UMKCroo wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2024 5:01 pm

moderne wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2024 4:44 pm Could this guy's opinion be colored by the Bravo failure?

No doubt, phoning in from westchester nonetheless . But I think his point remains valid.

The guy tried to put all his money on the line for a project he thought would boost KC to the next level, in the industry area he had an expertise. Project died and he gave up on KC to be with the kids

DColeKC wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2024 1:14 pm
We just don't have recent examples to point to showing how certain markets losing a major franchise can be severely detrimental to that city and region. I guess we could be one of those examples to prove that for most markets, the tax payer helping pay for these things is worth every penny.

Recent examples. How about San Diego with the Chargers? Oakland with the Raiders? And now the Phoenix area with the Cayotes?
Not saying I would want the Royals to move out of this market but if leaving it up to a taxpayer vote the team and elected officials are taking a very big risk. Both need to find a way to do it without a taxpayer vote.

BTW Kansas City has seemed to survive long term after losing NBA and NHL teams and now has a thriving arena without a major league tenant.

"Clark Hunt says Chiefs and Royals, after conversations with John Sherman, will "work independently" as they pursue their stadium futures."

-Sam McDowell