Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower (Post 17467873)

Comparing the airport to the stadium vote isn't accurate.

There were obvious problems with MCI. So far, the issues with the new terminal haven't demonstrated a clear downgrade in the old ones. No, you can't roll up to security thirty minutes before boarding and be assured of making your flight. But it's not close to the level of Denver's lag time between arriving, checking in, TSA harassment and getting to your gate.


There hasn't been a clear structural problem with Kauffman like old MCI. It's replacement with a downtown facility is a negative for people who like the ability to park their and walk into the stadium in < 15 minutes. Strike one, so to speak. Second, it's a money grab for ownership in shrinking the capacity per game while maximizing new luxury boxes *AND* the real estate speculation of owning county-paid development of mixed use residential / commercial development. The airport, in spite of its touted upgraded amenities, serves a wider public good of facilitating air travel. Strike two.

Originally Posted by ModSocks (Post 17467463)

I'm not versed in what's going on with ya'lls stadium situation, but everything i've read so far is exactly like the situation in San Diego.

And the same arguments Mecca and Zach are making were also made here.

"We don't want to give money to billionaires".

You're focused on the wrong thing. Your tax money is going to billionaires regardless. This isn't about saving you tax money, fools. This is about which special project GETS your tax money.

You can bet your ass you will be paying that tax in something else.

In San Diego, politicians and non-sports fans aligned to lead the public to believe that the hotel tax that the Chargers wanted to fund the stadium was about billioniares.

That was a lie. It was about ANOTHER project those politicians wanted to fund. The Convention Center remodel.

In the end, San Diego said "No" to using that hotel tax to build a stadium. The Chargers left.

Later, the city approved a new hotel tax to fund the remodel of the Convention Center as they wanted to invest in keeping Comic-Con in town. New pedestrian bridges that no one wanted etc.

And you know what happened after that? Covid hit. And Comic-Con was basically canceled and reduced to a shell of its former self.

Take a ****ing history lesson, before you're doomed to repeat it.

Quit the bullshit, it's not about billionaires. It's about which special project you WILL eventually be paying for.

Originally Posted by louie aguiar (Post 17467861)

Voted yes, really hope the royals don’t end up in KCK

Originally Posted by wazu (Post 17467875)

It gives us Arrowhead for another 25+ years. Home run.

Originally Posted by BWillie (Post 17467867)

You aren't looking at the big picture though and just direct costs. I guarantee you visitors have a much favorable opinion of KC than they did decades ago in the 80s and 90s. That gets ppl to decide to visit, pursue careers here, spend money at other adjacent businesses when there are events. Its an entertainment district that is also a marketing concept to show off Kansas City to the world. It has been a huge success for KCs image overall. A small price to pay for such benefit.

Originally Posted by ModSocks (Post 17467463)

I'm not versed in what's going on with ya'lls stadium situation, but everything i've read so far is exactly like the situation in San Diego.

And the same arguments Mecca and Zach are making were also made here.

"We don't want to give money to billionaires".

You're focused on the wrong thing. Your tax money is going to billionaires regardless. This isn't about saving you tax money, fools. This is about which special project GETS your tax money.

You can bet your ass you will be paying that tax in something else.

In San Diego, politicians and non-sports fans aligned to lead the public to believe that the hotel tax that the Chargers wanted to fund the stadium was about billioniares.

That was a lie. It was about ANOTHER project those politicians wanted to fund. The Convention Center remodel.

In the end, San Diego said "No" to using that hotel tax to build a stadium. The Chargers left.

Later, the city approved a new hotel tax to fund the remodel of the Convention Center as they wanted to invest in keeping Comic-Con in town. New pedestrian bridges that no one wanted etc.

And you know what happened after that? Covid hit. And Comic-Con was basically canceled and reduced to a shell of its former self.

Take a ****ing history lesson, before you're doomed to repeat it.

Quit the bullshit, it's not about billionaires. It's about which special project you WILL eventually be paying for.

Originally Posted by tk13 (Post 17467921)

I don't know about something else but if this fails I'd believe 1000% there will be some other tax put into place to make up for all the lost tax revenue. That's the catch with these things, sports teams hold all the cards. You aren't going to win. It's especially true for the Royals and Chiefs because they can move across state lines and use that as leverage. The teams move and it will cost Missouri and Jackson County quite a bit of tax revenue from fans, visitors, and of course players who pay tax on every game played in KC. Maybe it will be another project, but they will have to make up the tax revenue somehow.

Originally Posted by -King- (Post 17467845)

Voted yes. I know saving that 3/8 cents would have been life changing but I like having the chiefs and royals better.

Originally Posted by Titty Meat (Post 17467887)

Just voted No. Not many people there which is good

Originally Posted by Titty Meat (Post 17467887)

Just voted No. Not many people there which is good

Originally Posted by Titty Meat (Post 17467894)

"Ignore the costs and forgot every year millions from your general funds are being taken out to subsidize a billionaire from the east cost. Sure your roads are crumbling, your public schools are failing, and there's high crime but just think about the hillbilly in BFE who thinks favorably of your city now"

Originally Posted by Red Dawg (Post 17467945)

Some of you are sorry ass shitbags. Chargers, Raiders and Rams all voted no and team left.

Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower (Post 17467891)

It's a lot less likely the Chiefs leave the metro vs Royals.

The one downside to the Chiefs relocating to Kansas is that they'll probably rename the team in order to take advantage of a total rebrand for the political points it would score and maximizing new merchandise sales.

Originally Posted by BWillie (Post 17467955)

I hope somebody bites your dick off through the Jiffy Lube glory hole in stall #2 off of Blue Ridge Cutoff.

Originally Posted by Titty Meat (Post 17467956)

I guess we know which way the low info vote is going

Originally Posted by BWillie (Post 17467955)

I hope somebody bites your dick off through the Jiffy Lube glory hole in stall #2 off of Blue Ridge Cutoff.

Originally Posted by Pablo (Post 17467962)

Red dawg is a tax and spend type

Originally Posted by KCChiefsFan88 (Post 17467965)

Enjoy paying those higher taxes after the Chiefs/Royals depart.

Originally Posted by Titty Meat (Post 17467972)

^lives 2,000 miles away and has never been to KC

Originally Posted by Titty Meat (Post 17467969)

Did they up in leave when the stadium renovations failed in 2006 and LA didn't have a team then?

Originally Posted by KCChiefsFan88 (Post 17467987)

Imagine voting No today, with the rationale that the stadium funding vote was not approved in 2006 but the Chiefs/Royals remained in KC… only to find out the stadium funding vote DID in fact pass in 2006. LMAO



Exhibit A of a Low Information Voter.

Originally Posted by TribalElder (Post 17467989)

It was the truman sports complex tax

they should split the royals and the chiefs out and re-vote

Originally Posted by KCChiefsFan88 (Post 17467965)

Enjoy paying those higher taxes after the Chiefs/Royals depart.

Originally Posted by KCChiefsFan88 (Post 17467987)

Imagine voting No today, with the rationale that the stadium funding vote was not approved in 2006 but the Chiefs/Royals remained in KC… only to find out the stadium funding vote DID in fact pass in 2006. LMAO



Exhibit A of a Low Information Voter.

Originally Posted by philfree (Post 17468043)

So in the face of NFL history and a possible 3-peat the county voters are forsaking the Kansas City Chiefs because of a fraction of a penny tax that they've been paying for years already?

Originally Posted by philfree (Post 17468043)

So in the face of NFL history and a possible 3-peat the county voters are forsaking the Kansas City Chiefs because of a fraction of a penny tax that they've been paying for years already?

Originally Posted by Womble (Post 17468005)

If I lived in Jackson County and was in two minds on which way to vote, I would vote No solely on the basis of seeing KCChiefsFan88 advocating so strongly for Yes.

Originally Posted by |Zach| (Post 17468048)

I think it is great you want to fork over billions of dollars to these already wealthy guys who could not even be assed enough to put up a proper plan when asking for the money but not everyone feels that way.

They could not even begin to do the basic shit needed to properly present this to the community.

Originally Posted by |Zach| (Post 17468048)

I think it is great you want to fork over billions of dollars to these already wealthy guys who could not even be assed enough to put up a proper plan when asking for the money but not everyone feels that way.

They could not even begin to do the basic shit needed to properly present this to the community.

Originally Posted by Red Dawg (Post 17468056)

It's not the owners land and stadium. Voters shitting on Chiefs for sure is pathetic. Voting no is a slap in Mahomes face. And why not have a better baseball stadium? Every ****ing city has a new one.

Originally Posted by |Zach| (Post 17468063)

I love the Chiefs. I love the Royals. I want a downtown stadium.

That does not mean I am going to vote for it no matter what. We are talking about billions of dollars here. They get to make their decision based on specific financial information and planning but we are supposed to say yes purely on emotions and vibes?

Bring us a better plan we will vote for it. I don't love the Chiefs enough to agree to some bullshit that is bad for the community I live in.

Originally Posted by |Zach| (Post 17468063)

I love the Chiefs. I love the Royals. I want a downtown stadium.

That does not mean I am going to vote for it no matter what. We are talking about billions of dollars here. They get to make their decision based on specific financial information and planning but we are supposed to say yes purely on emotions and vibes?

Bring us a better plan we will vote for it. I don't love the Chiefs enough to agree to some bullshit that is bad for the community I live in.

Originally Posted by Red Dawg (Post 17468056)

It's not the owners land and stadium. Voters shitting on Chiefs for sure is pathetic. Voting no is a slap in Mahomes face. And why not have a better baseball stadium? Every ****ing city has a new one.

Originally Posted by |Zach| (Post 17468063)

I love the Chiefs. I love the Royals. I want a downtown stadium.

That does not mean I am going to vote for it no matter what. We are talking about billions of dollars here. They get to make their decision based on specific financial information and planning but we are supposed to say yes purely on emotions and vibes?

Bring us a better plan we will vote for it. I don't love the Chiefs enough to agree to some bullshit that is bad for the community I live in.

Originally Posted by |Zach| (Post 17468063)

I love the Chiefs. I love the Royals. I want a downtown stadium.

That does not mean I am going to vote for it no matter what. We are talking about billions of dollars here. They get to make their decision based on specific financial information and planning but we are supposed to say yes purely on emotions and vibes?

Bring us a better plan we will vote for it. I don't love the Chiefs enough to agree to some bullshit that is bad for the community I live in.

Originally Posted by Red Dawg (Post 17468073)

Bad for community? Get the **** outta here with that bullshit. Those teams generate a ton of profits for the city. New stadium would generate even more. Chiefs have generated a shit ton lately. There is no downside to voting yes. The tax is already there and nobody has bitched about in the last 20 years. Lease is up in 6 years. All of you will be bitching.

Originally Posted by Red Dawg (Post 17468073)

Bad for community? Get the **** outta here with that bullshit. Those teams generate a ton of profits for the city. New stadium would generate even more. Chiefs have generated a shit ton lately. There is no downside to voting yes. The tax is already there and nobody has bitched about in the last 20 years. Lease is up in 6 years. All of you will be bitching.

Originally Posted by Mecca (Post 17468078)

Every single economist that has actually done a study on this will tell you professional sports do not bring money to the community.

Originally Posted by Mecca (Post 17468078)

Every single economist that has actually done a study on this will tell you professional sports do not bring money to the community.

Originally Posted by philfree (Post 17468081)

Yeah you can have things like the KC Chiefs everyday for free!

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy (Post 17468079)

This. Plus a yes vote locks both teams in for 40 years...name me another team in either sport that has a lease that long? (I honestly don't know, seems like most teams have a 20 year lease or so).

Originally Posted by philfree (Post 17468081)

Yeah you can have things like the KC Chiefs everyday for free!

Originally Posted by |Zach| (Post 17468093)

......it is not for free.

Originally Posted by LoneWolf (Post 17468098)

The tax costs you at most $200 per year. You spend more than that a month on Snickers and Mountain Dew.

Originally Posted by LoneWolf (Post 17468098)

The tax costs you at most $200 per year. You spend more than that a month on Snickers and Mountain Dew.

Originally Posted by |Zach| (Post 17468104)

It is literally billions of dollars lets have enough respect for the taxpayers not pretend this is free.

Originally Posted by |Zach| (Post 17468104)

It is literally billions of dollars lets have enough respect for the taxpayers not pretend this is free.

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy (Post 17468107)

It is not costing you billions of dollars... the benefits far outweigh the costs....unless you want KC to take a step back and be a glorified Little Rock.

Originally Posted by |Zach| (Post 17468104)

It is literally billions of dollars lets have enough respect for the taxpayers not pretend this is free.

Originally Posted by Mecca (Post 17468078)

Every single economist that has actually done a study on this will tell you professional sports do not bring money to the community.

Originally Posted by |Zach| (Post 17468111)

If they offer up a plan that works I will vote for it.

You being scared about their bluff is a you problem.

Originally Posted by IowaHawkeyeChief (Post 17468113)

but loves taxes on every other level...

Originally Posted by |Zach| (Post 17468111)

If they offer up a plan that works I will vote for it.

You being scared about their bluff is a you problem.

Originally Posted by Red Dawg (Post 17468114)

Yes they do. What hell are talking about. Hotels and restaurants benefit and the lease brings in money.

Originally Posted by smithandrew051 (Post 17468118)

If it doesn’t pass, who do you blame?

Originally Posted by smithandrew051 (Post 17468118)

If it doesn’t pass, who do you blame?

Originally Posted by smithandrew051 (Post 17468118)

If it doesn’t pass, who do you blame?

Originally Posted by |Zach| (Post 17468116)

We all know if this tax money was used to actually help the citizens of Kansas City people like you would hate it.

But billionaires are asking for it? They won't even tell me what their plan is? Hell yea brother where do I sign up. :)

Originally Posted by DrRyan (Post 17468123)

I was just back in KC for a wedding last weekend. Stayed downtown and enjoyed it. I know several people with businesses that would be directly affected positively and negatively in the area. What left a really sour taste in my mouth was hearing from business owners that have reached out to the Royals on numerous occasions asking for details about the project to try and plan for potential outcomes. Not a single one of them got any response from the team regardless of if they were inside the Grand, locust, Truman, 17th St boundary or outside it. I have to assume that has something to do with it being a haphazardly thrown together plan without many of the details sorted out.

Would a stadium near Crossroads be cool? Sure. Would far less businesses be displaced with the other plan near the courthouse/Admiral? Without a doubt. If I was still living in KC this proposal would be a no for me. Get your plans in order, communicate with the business that will be affected and I would be more likely to be a yes.

Originally Posted by Mecca (Post 17468120)

You should do some research on this then you'd understand.

Originally Posted by Red Dawg (Post 17468127)

Billionaires don't own the stadium and property. How the hell do people not know this. They lease all of it.