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. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DRM08:
The Kansas legislature fumbled the ball yesterday. It will be interesting to see what happens in the coming months.
Read the thread or any other source. The Kansas legislature is going to address this in the next special session. That will probably happen in the next couple of weeks. It sounds like they are very positive about getting something done about the Chiefs and/or Royals. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Bowser:
If the city and state lose one or both of these teams, they basically deserve to be passed in relevance and as a destination by both Omaha and Des Moines.
What a complement that would be. Both citites are much safer and cleaner [Reply]
Originally Posted by Stewie:
Read the thread or any other source. The Kansas legislature is going to address this in the next special session. That will probably happen in the next couple of weeks. It sounds like they are very positive about getting something done about the Chiefs and/or Royals.
That would be good if they do the special session in a couple weeks. Guess we'll see how it shakes out. Some of the comments in this article don't sound that positive about getting this finalized, but maybe it's just the loud minority? There is at least one activist group putting pressure on Republicans to go against this plan.
Americans for Prosperity-Kansas, a small-government, low-tax group that has long opposed the use of such bonds, opposed the stadium financing proposal. The group is influential with Republicans and told lawmakers it would consider their votes in evaluating their records.
Critics have long argued that allowing the bonds to finance big projects represents the state picking economic winners and losers instead of the free market. The same kind of bonds have financed multiple projects, including NASCAR's Kansas Speedway in Kansas City, Kansas.
One northeastern Kansas lawmaker, Democratic Sen. Tom Holland, called the stadium proposal "economic development for millionaires." He added that it's "total foolishness" to have taxpayers subsidize the stadiums -- either through taxes they pay when they visit or because the state forgoes revenues that would flow into its coffers.
Another northeastern Kansas lawmaker, conservative GOP Sen. Dennis Pyle, said: "We've got a lot of priorities in Kansas, and I'm not sure that's one of them."
Other lawmakers were critical because the Legislature had no public hearings or debates before three senators and three House members met in public this week to hash out the details of the proposal.
"As much as I would love to see the Chiefs and the Royals both come to Kansas, this is a very large expenditure of tax money that merits careful consideration, not a last-minute scheme," said Democratic state Rep. John Carmichael, of Wichita. [Reply]
Wow. I dunno, this just kinda sucks. To me anyway. I mean, come up with a better plan for Arrowhead FFS. I don't care about glass enclosures and a dome...
I don't know what the answer is. But the thought of Arrowhead going away is depressing. [Reply]
Meh. There's always opposition to any new plan. Gov. Parsons said yesterday the economic impact of the Chiefs and Royals is huge. If Missouri doesn't want them, we'll be happy to take on that "burden." [Reply]
Originally Posted by DRM08:
That would be good if they do the special session in a couple weeks. Guess we'll see how it shakes out. Some of the comments in this article don't sound that positive about getting this finalized, but maybe it's just the loud minority? There is at least one activist group putting pressure on Republicans to go against this plan.
Americans for Prosperity-Kansas, a small-government, low-tax group that has long opposed the use of such bonds, opposed the stadium financing proposal. The group is influential with Republicans and told lawmakers it would consider their votes in evaluating their records.
Critics have long argued that allowing the bonds to finance big projects represents the state picking economic winners and losers instead of the free market. The same kind of bonds have financed multiple projects, including NASCAR's Kansas Speedway in Kansas City, Kansas.
One northeastern Kansas lawmaker, Democratic Sen. Tom Holland, called the stadium proposal "economic development for millionaires." He added that it's "total foolishness" to have taxpayers subsidize the stadiums -- either through taxes they pay when they visit or because the state forgoes revenues that would flow into its coffers.
Another northeastern Kansas lawmaker, conservative GOP Sen. Dennis Pyle, said: "We've got a lot of priorities in Kansas, and I'm not sure that's one of them."
Other lawmakers were critical because the Legislature had no public hearings or debates before three senators and three House members met in public this week to hash out the details of the proposal.
"As much as I would love to see the Chiefs and the Royals both come to Kansas, this is a very large expenditure of tax money that merits careful consideration, not a last-minute scheme," said Democratic state Rep. John Carmichael, of Wichita.
Originally Posted by InChiefsHeaven:
Wow. I dunno, this just kinda sucks. To me anyway. I mean, come up with a better plan for Arrowhead FFS. I don't care about glass enclosures and a dome...
I don't know what the answer is. But the thought of Arrowhead going away is depressing.
Just to make sure everyone's clear, the images and video are just concepts put out there by a developer. The Chiefs haven't been involved in this at all, so who knows if this concept is anywhere near what would be the reality. [Reply]
I live about 12 minutes from the Legends right up 435. That being said, I'd love to see Jackson county figure out a plan that keeps Arrowhead for the next 25 years. I'm not sure how that would work with all the political BS going on in KC. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Titty Meat:
Why should we have voted for it if Clark didn't want the team to be there?
Clark’s making a business decision.
The current stadium situation forces him to invest 100s of millions on ground he doesn’t own. He won’t own the land in Kansas either but he gets a big new stadium that will have all the amenities to help the team make money. The TSC offers him very little. [Reply]
Have said this before on here, but my brother in law is a lead architect at Populous. He’s worked on numerous stadiums. One of the key issues with both the K and Arrowhead, as much as we like to poke fun at it as an excuse, is the concrete construction.
Stadiums like Wrigley, Fenway, Lambeau, etc, were constructed largely using steel frame. It’s much easier to replace or mend steel I-beam construction than concrete, which naturally degrades over time.
He said rough estimates to truly keep Arrowhead viable for 25-40 more years would rival the cost to build a brand new stadium, and would likely make the stadium not usable for a full season of football. [Reply]
Manny Abarca, the 1st District legislator, told The KC Star he plans to introduce two Chiefs-only ballot measures to the county legislature at a May 13th meeting. Abarca is targeting a November ballot for the measures:
• The first option is a 3/8th-cent sales tax, reserved fully for the Chiefs rather than split with the Royals, over a 40-year term.
• The second option is a 3/16th-cent sales tax over 30 years —similar terms to their share of the existing tax.
The first option — the 3/8th-cent sales tax — would open up avenues for the Chiefs to move ahead with their renovation plans of Arrowhead Stadium or possibly instead explore a new build inside the county, Abarca said. [Reply]
Manny Abarca, the 1st District legislator, told The KC Star he plans to introduce two Chiefs-only ballot measures to the county legislature at a May 13th meeting. Abarca is targeting a November ballot for the measures:
• The first option is a 3/8th-cent sales tax, reserved fully for the Chiefs rather than split with the Royals, over a 40-year term.
• The second option is a 3/16th-cent sales tax over 30 years —similar terms to their share of the existing tax.
The first option — the 3/8th-cent sales tax — would open up avenues for the Chiefs to move ahead with their renovation plans of Arrowhead Stadium or possibly instead explore a new build inside the county, Abarca said.
Sounds like he's trying to get things done. The problem is that putting a tax to a public vote almost never works. Too many people that don't care about sports will vote "no" every time. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Stewie:
Sounds like he's trying to get things done. The problem is that putting a tax to a public vote almost never works. Too many people that don't care about sports will vote "no" every time.
If Jackson County leaders put both of those options on the ballot, I would guess the voters will go for the cheaper option and vote against the more expensive option. That probably would not sound great to Clark Hunt when he potentially has a very lucrative offer from the State of Kansas in the coming weeks/months. [Reply]