KCRag Forum

Let's renovate our campaigns

I wondered, why do some of the sharpest people in Kansas City put up with the antics of Steve Glorioso? And how can officials of The Kansas City Star sleep after the paper's boosterish, one-sided coverage of the stadium renovation issue?

When you have a side backed by such respected figures as Lamar Hunt, by all the serious money in town and the threat that the Chiefs and Royals might leave town, you don't need sophomoric antics. Glorioso's antics were an embarrassment to city civic leaders who should know better.

It didn't help that The Star gave up any pretense of probing, balanced coverage once the campaign kicked into gear. Color renderings of the rolling roof overtook stories on team owners' true contributions, plans by the Chiefs to let the NFL pay much of its share and the real amount taxpayers will pay. All of which, by the way, the Kansas City Business Journal wrote about, even though our editorial board supported the measures.

Perhaps someday Kansas City will learn that a vigorous opposition doesn't kill good ideas; it only makes them stronger. City leaders and institutions might find there's less opposition to grand plans -- whether dealing with bistate cooperation, light rail or race relations -- if there is more open discussion and less bare-knuckled campaigning.

Bravo!

Personnaly I thought the business journal editorial was childish and unprofessional.

The big point seemed to be that the cost of the stadium work should have been quoted as over 1 billion because according to the business journal you have to include interest.

They lambast the Star for saying that people that buy a house for 200 K don't say that the house costs 360 K because you have to include the interest paid on the mortgage --- BUT GET THIS --- They don't deny that what the Star said was true and they don't even attempt to make an argument why what the Star said was wrong.

The actual construction cost has always been used to describe the cost of a stadium project. When Arrowhead and Royals stadiums were built, the quoted cost was the actual construction cost without interest on the bonds. That is the way it has been done throughout the US. The editors of the Business Journal seem to think they are much smarter than almost eveyone else. In fact they think they are so smart they don't even have to explain why everyone should change how costs are quoted. We should just change because the KC Business journal will pitch a hissy fit if they can't get there way.

I saw the point of the Biz Journal to be more of that the Star should have been a bit more objective in their reporting.  The actual cost of the project aside, it was overly evident that the Star was Pro renovations and almost everything they printed was slanted that way.

My thought is this... if it were truly a good deal for the citizens of Jackson county, then there was no need to use all of the scare tactics and inflated news stories to convince people.  Present the facts, pro and con, and let them decide themselves.  Someone brought up this point earlier, too... why was the Star so anti-Bi-State but so Pro this last tax?  What kind of deal was worked under the table?

knucklehead wrote: Personnaly I thought the business journal editorial was childish and unprofessional.

The big point seemed to be that the cost of the stadium work should have been quoted as over 1 billion because according to the business journal you have to include interest.

They lambast the Star for saying that people that buy a house for 200 K don't say that the house costs 360 K because you have to include the interest paid on the mortgage --- BUT GET THIS --- They don't deny that what the Star said was true and they don't even attempt to make an argument why what the Star said was wrong.

The actual construction cost has always been used to describe the cost of a stadium project. When Arrowhead and Royals stadiums were built, the quoted cost was the actual construction cost without interest on the bonds. That is the way it has been done throughout the US. The editors of the Business Journal seem to think they are much smarter than almost eveyone else. In fact they think they are so smart they don't even have to explain why everyone should change how costs are quoted. We should just change because the KC Business journal will pitch a hissy fit if they can't get there way.

pretty much what i had been saying all along. noone is saying the new busch ( 25 year loans from the city of stl to the owners will acrew intrest over 25 years ) is a 600m stadium, or noone says the sprint center will cost 500m, or noone says that the east village ( another bonded / tif project ) will really cost 650m. just with this project. and, yeah, with intrest, sure, but, those are not the actual construction costs. the construction, will actually cost what it is supposed to. over the 20 or so years AFTER the construction, the intrest piles up, but, not the actual construction cost, and, that is the same with ANY project. not just this one. because most construction projects these days are bonded projects. very few construction projects just happen because the financier has HUGE pockets and has the dough to pay for it with one payment.

knucklehead wrote: Personnaly I thought the business journal editorial was childish and unprofessional.

The big point seemed to be that the cost of the stadium work should have been quoted as over 1 billion because according to the business journal you have to include interest.

They lambast the Star for saying that people that buy a house for 200 K don't say that the house costs 360 K because you have to include the interest paid on the mortgage --- BUT GET THIS --- They don't deny that what the Star said was true and they don't even attempt to make an argument why what the Star said was wrong.

The actual construction cost has always been used to describe the cost of a stadium project. When Arrowhead and Royals stadiums were built, the quoted cost was the actual construction cost without interest on the bonds. That is the way it has been done throughout the US. The editors of the Business Journal seem to think they are much smarter than almost eveyone else. In fact they think they are so smart they don't even have to explain why everyone should change how costs are quoted. We should just change because the KC Business journal will pitch a hissy fit if they can't get there way.

Childish?  Unprofessional?  Did you read Mr. Abouhalkah's column last week in the Star?

Finally, for all the skeptics out there — those who haughtily proclaimed the issue was “going down in flames,â€

I don't think their point is that the cost of the renovations should be quoted as anything other than $575 million.  It is the amount of the tax that should be quoted differently.  The two happen to be nowhere close to each other, so it IS a meaningful distinction. 

lock&load wrote: I don't think their point is that the cost of the renovations should be quoted as anything other than $575 million.  It is the amount of the tax that should be quoted differently.  The two happen to be nowhere close to each other, so it IS a meaningful distinction. 

so, in future elections, you would support jacko and kcmo doing this on all projects? sprint center, by definition, had we touted it as a 500-550m project, might have not even passed. or the power and light district.

be careful what you wish for.

I think you guys are missing the point by harping on the $1 billion or not point. The larger point is, more questions should have been asked by our city's leading paper. Even if this was a good deal, its not a perfect deal, and the imperfections should be raised and questioned.  The other larger point was that fear should not be the reason why voters should approve of a project, but rather rational facts.

KCMax wrote: I think you guys are missing the point by harping on the $1 billion or not point. The larger point is, more questions should have been asked by our city's leading paper. Even if this was a good deal, its not a perfect deal, and the imperfections should be raised and questioned.  The other larger point was that fear should not be the reason why voters should approve of a project, but rather rational facts.

Word is born.

This is somewhat off point, but did anyone see this hilarious article in the Star about Richard Tolbert, one of the prime movers behind the anti-stadium groups.

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascit ... 273776.htm

The guy has filed for personal bankruptcy 10 times. He owes huge amounts of back taxes. 

I fault the media for giving absolute clowns like this guy airtime and column space. Can any nut job get airtime as long as they bash the something like the stadium rennovations?

I fault the media for giving absolute clowns like this guy airtime and column space.

There was plenty of airtime and space for the "clowns" who let the 1st lease default (with absolutely zero repercussions, instead they get a reward of a bajillion $$$ to go nuts with this time), so seems fair to me.

I always thought Tolbert and Davis were horrible spokesmen for the anti-renovations crowd.

KCMax wrote: I always thought Tolbert and Davis were horrible spokesmen for the anti-renovations crowd.

I totally agree. We didn't have a leader on our side at all. Wayne Cauthen would have been perfect, but he was under political hush, practically at gunpoint.

Davis did the best he could I think.  Tolbert on the other hand, he wa just an embarrassment.  But I guess we don't have a lot of room to complain, as none of us stepped up to do a better job.

lock&load wrote: Davis did the best he could I think.  Tolbert on the other hand, he wa just an embarrassment.  But I guess we don't have a lot of room to complain, as none of us stepped up to do a better job.

Well, no one would've listened to me.    Is it possible that Barnes threatened to eat the first born of anyone who publicly opposed the tax?

I think everyone "got paid" under the table on this one... Barnes, Cauthen.... all of em.

This was the most stupid, senseless decision ever made by this area.
This thing was rammed through will no opposition at all... amazing.
Even when STL was finishing their new stadium Jackson County was voting like blockheads.

If one company moved downtown JUST because of a new downtown baseball stadium, would it have been worth it to have built a new one?

maybe the fellowship of muslim athletes could build a headquarters next door to the christian one?  that would be a new office us in the blue ridge / I-70 area...

Boognish wrote: I totally agree. We didn't have a leader on our side at all. Wayne Cauthen would have been perfect, but he was under political hush, practically at gunpoint.

Can you back that up with proof?

Probably not.

sethyg wrote: Well, no one would've listened to me.    Is it possible that Barnes threatened to eat the first born of anyone who publicly opposed the tax?

lol

aknowledgeableperson wrote: Can you back that up with proof?

Probably not.

he was publicly FOR a downtown stadium a a year ago as was Barnes. Get real.