Stadium Watch 2024 -Jackson County Residents: How Are You Voting?

[Pablo]

Vote in this poll if you actually live in Jackson county.

We've all shared our opinions in the other thread. But who gives a shit what somebody in Platte County or Johnson County or Phoenix or NYC thinks. We're all just noise.

[vonBobo]

Originally Posted by LoneWolf

Is it really half the benefit if it is a much better stadium plan than what was previously communicated. The thing that makes this entire process hilarious is that it is a pretty insignificant amount of money per household.

And you disregard the fact that a lot of homes don't give a shit about sports, or that this tax will affect tax payers that aren't even born yet, or the fact that JaCo is already in debt from other corporate welfare projects, or that JaCo tax payers are in the middle of suing the city because of the massive tax hike that was just implemented, or the fact that no one wanted royals stadium where they tried to force it, or the fact that the chiefs renovation plan only benefits a few 1%ers on game day, or that the funding and default plan was so weak that a Jaco legislator tried to cancel the vote.

So yeah. I guess if you ignore all the problems with this proposal then it does seem silly.. but that's on you and willful ignorance.

[DanT]

Originally Posted by vonBobo

The commercials I saw during the vote made it clear they were threatening to move out of state, even Patrick had a line about "keeping the team in the city". If the NFL is worried about optics then threatening the voters was an odd choice.

And the NFL got numerous contract deals during the LA extortion. They were clear a new team was headed to LA and the Rams were one of the last teams to get a deal done. The league moved them even though the city voted yes, then the NFL had to pay st Louis 800 million. I can't imagine worse optics than that.

I don’t live in the KC area, but I doubt the Chiefs paid for ads that threatened the team would move to somewhere outside the KC metro area, which includes two states.

St. Louis losing a team does not have the worst optics. They had already lost the Cardinals NFL franchise that they got from Chicago and although the Rams won it all while in St. Louis, that franchise was only in St. Louis for a short fraction of its existence, especially compared to where it is has mainly been, the city it moved back to.

[LoneWolf]

Originally Posted by vonBobo

And you disregard the fact that a lot of homes don't give a shit about sports, or that this tax will affect tax payers that aren't even born yet, or the fact that JaCo is already in debt from other corporate welfare projects, or that JaCo tax payers are in the middle of suing the city because of the massive tax hike that was just implemented, or the fact that no one wanted royals stadium where they tried to force it, or the fact that the chiefs renovation plan only benefits a few 1%ers on game day, or that the funding and default plan was so weak that a Jaco legislator tried to cancel the vote.

So yeah. I guess if you ignore all the problems with this proposal then it does seem silly.. but that's on you and willful ignorance.

Bottom line is it is really an insignificant amount of money per household. All the other bullshit is just that, bullshit. If you don't support that tax staying in effect because you don't like sports, great. This tax isn't going to put anyone in the poor house or cause people to lose their homes.

You sound like a bitter douchebag who walks around wearing a "Tax is Theft" T-shirt while drawing a welfare check and food stamps each month.

[duncan_idaho]

Originally Posted by vonBobo

The tax revenue lost when the stadium leaves is offset by no longer paying the extortion tax. So now every Zman sold or hotel rented downtown MO is no longer leveraged against the extortion tax either. But yeah, nothing solves the problem of siphoning unless the city is already a destination itself and tourism is hot, which KC will never compete against mountains or casinos or the Pacific ocean.

I appreciate your insight and I want to know more. When the JaCo stadium folks announced that last year they lost money, is that not also accounting for the player tax you are talking about?

The Earnings Tax is a city budget item, not a county budget item. I think what you're referencing was the county executive's office talking about the operation of the stadiums. I also trust that to be accurate and not adjusted to meet White's narrative... not at all.

And the deal that was rejected shifted many of the operating costs to the teams.

[philfree]

The people that allow the Chiefs to walk to a different state should have to where a big Chiefs Red L on their forehead for the rest of their lifes. $150.00 a year each? And that probably doesn't account for the tax revenue collected from people from out of the county that come to see the Chiefs and Royals.

[TEX]

Originally Posted by vonBobo

And you disregard the fact that a lot of homes don't give a shit about sports, or that this tax will affect tax payers that aren't even born yet, or the fact that JaCo is already in debt from other corporate welfare projects, or that JaCo tax payers are in the middle of suing the city because of the massive tax hike that was just implemented, or the fact that no one wanted royals stadium where they tried to force it, or the fact that the chiefs renovation plan only benefits a few 1%ers on game day, or that the funding and default plan was so weak that a Jaco legislator tried to cancel the vote.

So yeah. I guess if you ignore all the problems with this proposal then it does seem silly.. but that's on you and willful ignorance.

You seem like "That Guy" who will complain about anything, just to complain...But that's on you, and it's called ignorance by choice.

[tredadda]

Originally Posted by vonBobo

And you disregard the fact that a lot of homes don't give a shit about sports, or that this tax will affect tax payers that aren't even born yet, or the fact that JaCo is already in debt from other corporate welfare projects, or that JaCo tax payers are in the middle of suing the city because of the massive tax hike that was just implemented, or the fact that no one wanted royals stadium where they tried to force it, or the fact that the chiefs renovation plan only benefits a few 1%ers on game day, or that the funding and default plan was so weak that a Jaco legislator tried to cancel the vote.

So yeah. I guess if you ignore all the problems with this proposal then it does seem silly.. but that's on you and willful ignorance.

Should taxpayers only pay for stuff they care about and not for the stuff they don’t care about?

[GloryDayz]

Originally Posted by tredadda

Should taxpayers only pay for stuff they care about and not for the stuff they don’t care about?

No, but we should vote on large effort-specific "special purpose" taxes. That's what happened here.

[dlphg9]

Originally Posted by LoneWolf

Is it really half the benefit if it is a much better stadium plan than what was previously communicated. The thing that makes this entire process hilarious is that it is a pretty insignificant amount of money per household.

The Royals and Chiefs did such an incredibly bad job campaigning for this to pass. So much misinformation was being thrown out and they did nothing to counter it. They didn't explain that the money from a 3/8 cent sales tax amounts to jack shit.

If you were to buy on average $300/week in Jackson County the amount of money that would be going to the stadiums is $58.50 for the entire year. That is 16 cents a day or $4.88/month. So you would be paying $2.44 a month to each the Royals and Chiefs.

Yeah let's lose all the tax revenue from players game day checks and employees of the teams checks, so that people will at most put less than $5/month in there pocket.

Hold on though, I don't think the county is going to just lose millions of dollars in tax revenue. They'll get that money back from the tax payer somehow.

[dlphg9]

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho

The Earnings Tax is a city budget item, not a county budget item. I think what you're referencing was the county executive's office talking about the operation of the stadiums. I also trust that to be accurate and not adjusted to meet White's narrative... not at all.

And the deal that was rejected shifted many of the operating costs to the teams.

I don't believe a single thing that comes from Frank White's mouth in regards to any of this. He's just a bitter old man that is trying to get his.

[ghak99]

Originally Posted by tredadda

Should taxpayers only pay for stuff they care about and not for the stuff they don’t care about?

Are we pretending a county subsidizing a billionaire's entertainment business is anywhere near the same thing as funding something like a new school or water treatment plant? We vote on those things all the time and they're a hell of a lot more important than something as trivial as sports entertainment.