Downtown Baseball Stadium

[kcmiz]

The citizens receive a new stadium

Citizens don’t need stadiums. Privately owned sports teams with government sanctioned monopolies do need stadiums. So they should pay for the large bulk of their own stadiums.

If this is your view, then look at it like the $1B from the Royals will go to pay for their own stadium....100% team paid for. The city/counties money will go to revitalize the entire eastern part of the downtown with an entertainment district, large amounts of residential buildings and office space. Are you against the city spending money to rebuild a major piece of downtown?

The stadium services the Royals organization and generates their revenue. The ballpark village piece of the project is what would actually be financially beneficial to the city. If they offer incentives, it should be on the village, IMO in the form of infrastructure not sales tax on every good purchased in the county.

[beautyfromashes]

The stadium services the Royals organization and generates their revenue. The ballpark village piece of the project is what would actually be financially beneficial to the city. If they offer incentives, it should be on the village, IMO in the form of infrastructure not sales tax on every good purchased in the county.

I really could care less who technically funds what on the village vs the stadium. I know some people want to die on the hill of no money for stadiums. If having the city/county spend the money on just the village makes you/others feel better for some reason, then go that direction. If you want the city/county to only pay $1B for infrastructure work on the ballpark and village together, fine too I guess. Sales tax seems the most equitable way to pay for it, especially since tourists would be going to the stadium and visiting downtown businesses. Personally, all the social outrage about funding seems a bit tired. Putting in $1B to get a matching $1B that will generate a significant return both financially and socially in the urban core is a no-brainer.

[normalthings]

A downtown stadium will be better for attracting tourists and for the city's events business. It will also make downtown more attractive to live or work in

[TheUrbanRoo]

John Sherman & Brian Platt...people finally hustling this city along and doing yeomen's work

[TheSmokinPun]

Know it's off topic but still hilarious to see someone mention Johnnie Morton as a superstar on the same level as Mahomes.

The Chiefs are infinitely more popular now than they were the last vote go around. Sure, Arrowhead was indeed louder back then & probably had better support, but they weren't a top tier franchise when it came to visibility. Why market respectable but milquetoast Trent Green finishing 9-7 every year?

[TheUrbanRoo]

Know it's off topic but still hilarious to see someone mention Johnnie Morton as a superstar on the same level as Mahomes.

The Chiefs are infinitely more popular now than they were the last vote go around. Sure, Arrowhead was indeed louder back then & probably had better support, but they weren't a top tier franchise when it came to visibility. Why market respectable but milquetoast Trent Green finishing 9-7 every year?

Yeah. That's why I couldn't even dignify it with a response lol.

[kcmiz]

Personally, all the social outrage about funding seems a bit tired. Putting in $1B to get a matching $1B that will generate a significant return both financially and socially in the urban core is a no-brainer.

The city isn’t in a position to pay a billion dollars for anything. The Marlins stadium in Miami is a cautionary tale for how disastrous public financing of stadiums can be. The Cardinals paid for their own stadium albeit partly with a loan from the city. St Louis should be the model. Why can’t the Royals pay for their own stadium?

[beautyfromashes]

The city isn’t in a position to pay a billion dollars for anything.

You don't listen very well. The public financing piece will come from the already existing stadium tax. I think they've said no general fund money will be spent on the stadium. There might be some city money spent on infrastructure for the area (roads, traffic signals, utility replacement, etc.) but all those need to happen anyway for anything that is built in East DT.

[normalthings]

Personally, all the social outrage about funding seems a bit tired. Putting in $1B to get a matching $1B that will generate a significant return both financially and socially in the urban core is a no-brainer.

The city isn’t in a position to pay a billion dollars for anything. The Marlins stadium in Miami is a cautionary tale for how disastrous public financing of stadiums can be. The Cardinals paid for their own stadium albeit partly with a loan from the city. St Louis should be the model. Why can’t the Royals pay for their own stadium?

Cardinals paid something like $200-300 million iirc

STL had $100 million from city state. Sales and property tax exemptions of another $400 million Public loan of $45 million face value ($100 million + over its lifetime).


Edit: Here is a run down


The Cardinals did put up much of the initial funding for the $398 million cost of the new Busch Stadium: $90 million in cash, $200 million from the sale of corporate bonds and land which they value at $20 million. Assuming finance charges for the bonds at about $110 million, their outlays will be around $420 million. However, they will be getting it all back--and a whole lot more.

The most overlooked subsidy the Cardinals are receiving for the new ballpark is the 5 percent admissions tax on tickets that the city no longer collects. The Cardinals now get to keep what they used to pay to the city. In almost every news account, this is mentioned as merely a footnote. It will actually be the largest subsidy for the ballpark.

In 2005, the Cardinals paid $5 million to the city for the admissions tax. It was the last year the team would pay it. Assuming ticket prices will increase an average 5 percent annually, the amount of this subsidy to the Cardinals will come to around $350 million over the 30 years of the redevelopment contract.

From news accounts and public records, we have estimated the main sources of revenue going to the Cardinals for the new ballpark:

* $350 million over 30 years due to the repeal of the 5 percent St. Louis admission tax.

* $20 million from property tax abatement on the new stadium over 25 years by the city of St. Louis. The Cardinals paid 8604,000 in property taxes in 2005.

* $108 million, what it will cost St. Louis County taxpayers to retire the $45 million of bonds sold for the stadium.

* $42.7 million from the state of Missouri for tax credits and highway ramp construction.

* $100 million over 30 years from the naming rights for the new stadium. It has been estimated it would be worth $3 to $5 million dollars annually. The actual amount isn't known because the Cardinals have refused to divulge the information.

* $40 million from the Ballpark Founders Program, which charged season ticket holders an additional $2,000 to $7,500 for the better seats in the new ballpark.

* $10 million from selling memorabilia from the old Busch Stadium: 11,000 to 14,000 pairs of seats at $600 a pair, signs, urinals, etc.

The cost of subsidies from taxpayers for the new ballpark comes to around $520 million. Other sources of revenue are about $150 million. This does not include the considerable amount of increased revenue the Cardinals will take in from other sources at the new ballpark--higher ticket prices, premium seats, luxury suites, increased advertising, etc.

[kcmiz]

The city isn’t in a position to pay a billion dollars for anything.

You don't listen very well. The public financing piece will come from the already existing stadium tax. I think they've said no general fund money will be spent on the stadium. There might be some city money spent on infrastructure for the area (roads, traffic signals, utility replacement, etc.) but all those need to happen anyway for anything that is built in East DT.

Right muni bonds funded by sales tax. Sales tax in KCMO is so out of step with much of the rest of the country. Makes no difference to me as I don’t live there any longer. Between personal property taxes (also a relic of Missouri) and sales tax pushing 11%, you’re giving California and New York a run for their money on tax burden.

Edit: and 1% city earnings tax

[kcmiz]

Personally, all the social outrage about funding seems a bit tired. Putting in $1B to get a matching $1B that will generate a significant return both financially and socially in the urban core is a no-brainer.

The city isn’t in a position to pay a billion dollars for anything. The Marlins stadium in Miami is a cautionary tale for how disastrous public financing of stadiums can be. The Cardinals paid for their own stadium albeit partly with a loan from the city. St Louis should be the model. Why can’t the Royals pay for their own stadium?

Cardinals paid something like $200-300 million iirc

STL had $100 million from city state. Sales and property tax exemptions of another $400 million Public loan of $45 million face value ($100 million + over its lifetime).


Edit: Here is a run down


The Cardinals did put up much of the initial funding for the $398 million cost of the new Busch Stadium: $90 million in cash, $200 million from the sale of corporate bonds and land which they value at $20 million. Assuming finance charges for the bonds at about $110 million, their outlays will be around $420 million. However, they will be getting it all back--and a whole lot more.

The most overlooked subsidy the Cardinals are receiving for the new ballpark is the 5 percent admissions tax on tickets that the city no longer collects. The Cardinals now get to keep what they used to pay to the city. In almost every news account, this is mentioned as merely a footnote. It will actually be the largest subsidy for the ballpark.

In 2005, the Cardinals paid $5 million to the city for the admissions tax. It was the last year the team would pay it. Assuming ticket prices will increase an average 5 percent annually, the amount of this subsidy to the Cardinals will come to around $350 million over the 30 years of the redevelopment contract.

From news accounts and public records, we have estimated the main sources of revenue going to the Cardinals for the new ballpark:

* $350 million over 30 years due to the repeal of the 5 percent St. Louis admission tax.

* $20 million from property tax abatement on the new stadium over 25 years by the city of St. Louis. The Cardinals paid 8604,000 in property taxes in 2005.

* $108 million, what it will cost St. Louis County taxpayers to retire the $45 million of bonds sold for the stadium.

* $42.7 million from the state of Missouri for tax credits and highway ramp construction.

* $100 million over 30 years from the naming rights for the new stadium. It has been estimated it would be worth $3 to $5 million dollars annually. The actual amount isn't known because the Cardinals have refused to divulge the information.

* $40 million from the Ballpark Founders Program, which charged season ticket holders an additional $2,000 to $7,500 for the better seats in the new ballpark.

* $10 million from selling memorabilia from the old Busch Stadium: 11,000 to 14,000 pairs of seats at $600 a pair, signs, urinals, etc.

The cost of subsidies from taxpayers for the new ballpark comes to around $520 million. Other sources of revenue are about $150 million. This does not include the considerable amount of increased revenue the Cardinals will take in from other sources at the new ballpark--higher ticket prices, premium seats, luxury suites, increased advertising, etc.

This is a lot. But two things quickly. Admissions tax going away for a stadium paid for privately makes sense. You can’t consider that a subsidy. Also why would the city of st Louis be entitled to naming rights? That’s 450 million that’s not really a subsidy.

[TheUrbanRoo]

From the Royals presentation rings music to my ears: "Only 15% of the office pipeline in Kansas City is planned to be located downtown. A ballpark-anchored district can bolster the commercial market in the urban core."

https://kcballparkdistrict.com/wp-conte ... 322-02.pdf

So nice to see an owner who seemingly cares about downtown and isn't just concerned with pleasing the suburbs because "that's where all the money and jobs are or something". Office is a huge problem.

[normalthings]

Removing a tax for a supposed private project is a type of incentive or abatement?

[WoodDraw]

The city isn’t in a position to pay a billion dollars for anything.

You don't listen very well. The public financing piece will come from the already existing stadium tax. I think they've said no general fund money will be spent on the stadium. There might be some city money spent on infrastructure for the area (roads, traffic signals, utility replacement, etc.) but all those need to happen anyway for anything that is built in East DT.

Are we all just pretending they’re not going to ask for the land for free too?

There will be other incentives as well.

[rxlexi]

One interesting thing mentioned during the last listening session, with regards to financing, was the possibility of "creative federal options".

Is East Village an Opportunity Zone? Not sure where OZ investing stands in 2023 but I believe the northern portion where the old AT&T building is a QOZ.

And then perhaps there is potential for highway reconstruction, land bridges, etc. that close or minimize the freeway gap to the east (and "reconnect" a blighted/under-served neighborhood) with federal $$?

[Cratedigger]

One interesting thing mentioned during the last listening session, with regards to financing, was the possibility of "creative federal options".

Is East Village an Opportunity Zone? Not sure where OZ investing stands in 2023 but I believe the northern portion where the old AT&T building is a QOZ.

And then perhaps there is potential for highway reconstruction, land bridges, etc. that close or minimize the freeway gap to the east (and "reconnect" a blighted/under-served neighborhood) with federal $$?

The original Populous plans (which to be fair, could be outdated - but they look pretty similar to the renderings that are on the site!) had a pedestrian bridge extending over the highway and multiple developments in Paseo West

[beautyfromashes]

Are we all just pretending they’re not going to ask for the land for free too?

There will be other incentives as well.

I always assumed that EV land was already in control by one of the owners or an entity owned by one of the owners and that it was used as collateral for an ownership buy-in.

[Cratedigger]

https://archive.ph/xZY4c

Hadn't seen this mentioned yet, but in yesterday's meeting the Royals mentioned the stadium would be Union built and have up to 20,000 people employed in the construction of the stadium. They're using the airport as a model for labor negotiations. Construction of the stadium is expected to take about three years.

[TheUrbanRoo]

https://archive.ph/xZY4c

Hadn't seen this mentioned yet, but in yesterday's meeting the Royals mentioned the stadium would be Union built and have up to 20,000 people employed in the construction of the stadium. They're using the airport as a model for labor negotiations. Construction of the stadium is expected to take about three years.

Opening Day 2027 then

[chrizow]

this could be a dumb question which has been discussed previously--but i was in downtown STL recently for work and walking around the govt/courthouse district, which is close to busch stadium. does STL illustrate how a downtown stadium could feel in KC? the two downtown stadium locations seem somewhat similar, esp. with ballpark village/P&L district, and both downtowns experienced rather dramatic declines over the decades until recently. just thinking STL could be a more apt comparison than a place like San Diego or Denver.