KCRag Forum

Posted: **Mon Mar 27, 2006 1:35 pm**

If it came to it, how would you vote. Would you support downtown baseball?

This is completely hypothetical, so please, no comments of, "it'll never happen," or, "it's not realistic."

Posted: **Mon Mar 27, 2006 1:41 pm**

David Glass has said that he wants to do, "what the community wants to do." So if Q1 fails, the community will have spoken. (Yeah right, like TSC folks won't try, again, and again, and again.)

His quote actually was, "what the community wants to do, so long as I don't have to pay for it."

Posted: **Mon Mar 27, 2006 1:43 pm**

I can't really answer that because my issue with both the renovations and the downtown stadium is that the owners are not investing enough money. Has to be over 50% for remodel and 30% for downtown. Then I would vote for either.

Posted: **Mon Mar 27, 2006 2:16 pm**

I'm voting no on Questions 1 and 2 solely because it precludes the downtown baseball option for another generation.

Before we move on to downtown baseball we do have to resolve the current lease default and the future of Arrowhead. First priority should be an August election for the $80 band-aid repairs to take us through the end of the 2014 leases. Then we can start over with discussions of downtown baseball and Arrowhead renovation or replacement.

The Downtown Council had bette prepared to step up with something bold and aggressive. Something like Hallmark or H&R Block pledging $200 million for naming rights to a downtown ballpark.

Posted: **Mon Mar 27, 2006 2:18 pm**

TheNorthlander wrote: David Glass has said that he wants to do, "what the community wants to do." So if Q1 fails, the community will have spoken. (Yeah right, like TSC folks won't try, again, and again, and again.)

His quote actually was, "what the community wants to do, so long as I don't have to pay for it."

exactly. david glass and lamar hunt have both stated openly and publicly they are behind the tsc, and will continue to be, because their people working for them have made it abundantly clear that is what they want.

if there was some sort of dramatic shift in public opinion, and glass and hunt change their minds, who is to say.

i personally would reluctantly support it if the owners, legislators, and sensible media did. until then, no way. reluctantly, as in, i would be pissed off to lose kauffman, but, would recognize what the powers that be want.

Posted: **Mon Mar 27, 2006 2:28 pm**

kcdcchef wrote: exactly. david glass and lamar hunt have both stated openly and publicly they are behind the tsc, and will continue to be, because their people working for them have made it abundantly clear that is what they want.

I think failure on April 4th would be pretty clear.

Posted: **Mon Mar 27, 2006 2:36 pm**

lock&load wrote: I think failure on April 4th would be pretty clear.

failure on april 4th might mean that a lot of people want the owners contributing more? or a smaller reno in general?? a close no vote does not mean people want downtown baseball.

Posted: **Mon Mar 27, 2006 2:41 pm**

kcdcchef wrote: exactly. david glass and lamar hunt have both stated openly and publicly they are behind the tsc, and will continue to be, because their people working for them have made it abundantly clear that is what they want.

They'll play where we put them. We own and fund the facilities. Not them.

Posted: **Mon Mar 27, 2006 2:43 pm**

bahua wrote: They'll play where we put them. We own and fund the facilities. Not them.

that may be so bahua, however, when they say where they want to be, the civic leaders listen, on all 3 levels. and this election coming up, if it fails, if it is by any less then 5-8 points, that does not show a strong desire by the public for a downtown park.

Posted: **Mon Mar 27, 2006 2:44 pm**

kcdcchef wrote: that may be so bahua, however, when they say where they want to be, the civic leaders listen, on all 3 levels. and this election coming up, if it fails, if it is by any less then 5-8 points, that does not show a strong desire by the public for a downtown park.

I wasn't disputing that. I was just saying that it doesn't matter what Glass and Hunt think. It's not their decision.

Posted: **Mon Mar 27, 2006 2:52 pm**

I agree, bahua, that we're paying for it, and should be able to tell them a thing or two. But the owners obviously have a say in what we pay for. Look at the last negotiations for the leases to go with questions 1 and 2. It was a cluster ---- ! All-nighters? Gosh--the legislature really worked hard! The legislature totally bent over backwards. You've got the Royals saying they're in to the concert biz now and the County is like "ok! sure!"

I personally think it's stilly the county agreed to something like that. I wonder what the teams started with and had to "give up" in order to get where we are today.

Posted: **Mon Mar 27, 2006 2:53 pm**

Kard wrote: I personally think it's stilly the county agreed to something like that. I wonder what the teams started with and had to "give up" in order to get where we are today.

One private toilet for Lamar and David instead of the two each they desired.

Posted: **Mon Mar 27, 2006 3:23 pm**

Kard wrote: I personally think it's stilly the county agreed to something like that. I wonder what the teams started with and had to "give up" in order to get where we are today.

Man, I love that question. I keep hearing that it was a tough negotation involving $$$ in attorney's fees (paid to Jack Craft, by taxpayers). Just what did the teams give up to the tough Jackson County negotiators?

Posted: **Mon Mar 27, 2006 3:36 pm**

I voted yes, but I'll add the caveat I would not support a downtown stadium that was more than 70% publicly financed.

Posted: **Mon Mar 27, 2006 5:58 pm**

bahua wrote: I wasn't disputing that. I was just saying that it doesn't matter what Glass and Hunt think. It's not their decision.

You are so wrong on this. It is their decision on where the teams will play, especially if you want them to contribute to the construction costs.
A point was recently made that the teams did not have to negotiate for the lease extensions and improvements, but they did. If this election fails that leaves us with the curernt leases. Even with an August election that will not give the county enough time to make the facilities "Up-to-date" before the end of the year and the county will be in default. When the county is in default then the teams control their destiny. Negotiate a new lease for TSC. Move to another part of the city. Go to another city.

It takes two sides to make an agreement on a contract. If one side does not like the terms then it will not sign the contract.

Posted: **Mon Mar 27, 2006 6:41 pm**

aknowledgeableperson wrote: Even with an August election that will not give the county enough time to make the facilities "Up-to-date" before the end of the year and the county will be in default. When the county is in default then the teams control their destiny. Negotiate a new lease for TSC. Move to another part of the city. Go to another city.

This is entirely the county's fault. Why weren't they working on finsing the $80 million three years ago? They were too busy greasing the Chiefs and Royals and their grand renovation schemes, instead of fulfilling their obligation to taxpayers.

Posted: **Mon Mar 27, 2006 6:41 pm**

No, it's not Glass' decision. We're paying for his team's facilities, and we hold the deed. He has already established, through his posturing, that he's not willing to pay for anything. He wants the better part of a billion dollars, which will easily offset any amount he's claimed to be contributing, with no expressed assurance of anything in return, except the honor of his horrible team staying in town.

We're not going to get anything out of David Glass, for a downtown ballpark, just as we're not going to get anything out of him for the TSC. The TSC doesn't do anything for Kansas City, except generate some tax money, which it would do in any location.

Glass is folding his arms and threatening to go home and take his toy with him. I say we call his bluff on April 4th, and see about downtown baseball.

David Glass will not contribute a red cent to a new ballpark, nor will he contribute to the one he has, unless the taxpayers commit to paying him more than that. The Royals will move downtown if they're staying in town. If they leave, that's fine too.

Posted: **Mon Mar 27, 2006 7:24 pm**

dangerboy wrote: I'm voting no on Questions 1 and 2 solely because it precludes the downtown baseball option for another generation.

Before we move on to downtown baseball we do have to resolve the current lease default and the future of Arrowhead. First priority should be an August election for the $80 band-aid repairs to take us through the end of the 2014 leases. Then we can start over with discussions of downtown baseball and Arrowhead renovation or replacement.

The Downtown Council had bette prepared to step up with something bold and aggressive. Something like Hallmark or H&R Block pledging $200 million for naming rights to a downtown ballpark.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for a DT park but we cannot even get the PAC (a non profit endeavor) built on donations so I do not think many corporations are going to come forth to fund a DT stadium for the Glass family. What really worries me about KC is the absolute intranisgence of the city's population against a DT stadum. This seems to be the case regardless of the demographic.....east Jackson County, Johnson County, Wyanotte County, South Jackson County etc... The Cordish people must sometimes be thinking what the hell have they gotten themselves into when the apathetic attitude towards DT surfaces as it does over and over again. Consequently, I just do not think this stadium is ever going to happen; not in my lifetime at least (and I am pretty disappointed by that). I don't blame it on Glass or Hunt, it is just the prevailing attitude that KC is just fine without a vibrant downtown, that DT is a pain-in-the-ass to go to because we might have to walk a few blocks or get mugged by vagrants, or the traffic is going to be bad etc..... That's why if I was there, I'd give up and vote for the stadium improvement. Baseball somewhere is better than baseball nowhere. I also see it as a price I am going to have pay for wanting to live in a smaller city; if you want pro sports, you will have to pay a premium for them because nobody is going to bring them without the enticement.

Posted: **Mon Mar 27, 2006 8:20 pm**

Highlander wrote: Don't get me wrong, I am all for a DT park but we cannot even get the PAC (a non profit endeavor) built on donations so I do not think many corporations are going to come forth to fund a DT stadium for the Glass family. What really worries me about KC is the absolute intranisgence of the city's population against a DT stadum. This seems to be the case regardless of the demographic.....east Jackson County, Johnson County, Wyanotte County, South Jackson County etc... The Cordish people must sometimes be thinking what the hell have they gotten themselves into when the apathetic attitude towards DT surfaces as it does over and over again. Consequently, I just do not think this stadium is ever going to happen; not in my lifetime at least (and I am pretty disappointed by that). I don't blame it on Glass or Hunt, it is just the prevailing attitude that KC is just fine without a vibrant downtown, that DT is a pain-in-the-ass to go to because we might have to walk a few blocks or get mugged by vagrants, or the traffic is going to be bad etc..... That's why if I was there, I'd give up and vote for the stadium improvement. Baseball somewhere is better than baseball nowhere. I also see it as a price I am going to have pay for wanting to live in a smaller city; if you want pro sports, you will have to pay a premium for them because nobody is going to bring them without the enticement.

Posted: **Mon Mar 27, 2006 8:22 pm**

BTW, bahua, what the hell kind of thread is this? 90% of this forums members would give their left (you fill in the blank) for a downtown park. Don't even try saying otherwise.

KCRag Forum

Questions Fail - Downtown Baseball?

Questions Fail - Downtown Baseball?

Re: Questions Fail - Downtown Baseball?

Re: Questions Fail - Downtown Baseball?

Re: Questions Fail - Downtown Baseball?

Re: Questions Fail - Downtown Baseball?

Re: Questions Fail - Downtown Baseball?

Re: Questions Fail - Downtown Baseball?

Re: Questions Fail - Downtown Baseball?

Re: Questions Fail - Downtown Baseball?

Re: Questions Fail - Downtown Baseball?

Re: Questions Fail - Downtown Baseball?

Re: Questions Fail - Downtown Baseball?

Re: Questions Fail - Downtown Baseball?

Re: Questions Fail - Downtown Baseball?

Re: Questions Fail - Downtown Baseball?

Re: Questions Fail - Downtown Baseball?

Re: Questions Fail - Downtown Baseball?

Re: Questions Fail - Downtown Baseball?

Re: Questions Fail - Downtown Baseball?

Re: Questions Fail - Downtown Baseball?