Jump to content

Kansas City Royals, Chiefs concede loss in stadium sales tax vote


Recommended Posts

https://www.kctv5.com/2024/04/03/royals-chiefs-concede-loss-stadium-sales-tax-vote/

Quote

Jackson County voters have resoundingly voted against a sales tax extension to fund stadium projects for the Chiefs and Royals.

Question 1 on the Jackson County April 2 ballot would extend a stadium sales tax to go toward building a new stadium for the Kansas City Royals and renovating Arrowhead Stadium for the Kansas City Chiefs.

Barring a remarkable change, that effort appears to have failed.

 

 

 

  • Like (+1) 5
  • Awesome! (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Chiefs did the Royals a massive favor by going on the ballot together with them. They won't make the same mistake twice. From the coverage I read, the Royals didn't communicate very well to taxpayers the implications of a downtown ballpark. If the Royals can't ride the Chiefs' popularity to a YES vote, they're in serious trouble with their current plans. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, scuba guy said:

Most people don't know that Kansas is only a 1/2 mile away. And that Cincinnatis airport is in Kentucky.

I was there last time we played .. and that is still a completely different state that will reap benefits 

 

KC Missouri is vastly nicer because they have the money of the royals and chiefs 

 

Missouri won't benefit anymore 

 

 

  • Awesome! (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Punching Bag said:

I know nothing of the politics of this situation. Ordinarily I would say 2 billion dollars over a 40 year span is literally nothing. 

 

But because of KC's straddling of the Kansas and Missouri line, Jackson County  has a smaller than expected population of 700k. Simple math tells you this could impact the average taxpayer far more than an Erie County resident's tax burden for the Bills new stadium. 

 

So I understand the results of this vote. 

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The millionaires wouldn't be millionaires without the billionaires:

 

The Chiefs have been making a big push on this. Stars like Patrick Mahomes, Travis Kelce, and Andy Reid participated in an ad urging a “yes” vote. Both teams have made it clear that, if the measure fails, they could move out of Kansas City.

 

 So leave a Lil hate for them too!

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Buffalo716 said:

I was there last time we played .. and that is still a completely different state that will reap benefits 

 

KC Missouri is vastly nicer because they have the money of the royals and chiefs 

 

Missouri won't benefit anymore 

 

 

 

Strongly disagree with all of this.

 

The Missouri side being nicer has little to nothing to do with the sports teams.  It goes back to the 1800s when - quite simply - it was easier not to cross the river and the land on the Missouri side was considered better.  This led to the growth of the Missouri side of the river and post war, spurred development of suburbs on the Kansas side of the river with the growth of the Interstate highway system.

 

Even if both teams move, players will still choose to live wherever they want and generate income tax for their respective state.  The airport isn't going to move to the other side of the river.  The downtown isn't going anywhere.  Visiting teams and tourists will continue to fly into MCI and those who want to visit the city will continue to do so.

 

The current stadium setup - where both are literally in the middle of nowhere, have their own highway exit, and provide little in the way of economic benefit to the immediate surrounding area, creates questionable economic benefit in the first place.  Why not let Kansas foot the bill for the stadiums while you can reap all the associated economic benefits?

  • Like (+1) 6
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, sullim4 said:

 

Strongly disagree with all of this.

 

The Missouri side being nicer has little to nothing to do with the sports teams.  It goes back to the 1800s when - quite simply - it was easier not to cross the river and the land on the Missouri side was considered better.  This led to the growth of the Missouri side of the river and post war, spurred development of suburbs on the Kansas side of the river with the growth of the Interstate highway system.

 

Even if both teams move, players will still choose to live wherever they want and generate income tax for their respective state.  The airport isn't going to move to the other side of the river.  The downtown isn't going anywhere.  Visiting teams and tourists will continue to fly into MCI and those who want to visit the city will continue to do so.

 

The current stadium setup - where both are literally in the middle of nowhere, have their own highway exit, and provide little in the way of economic benefit to the immediate surrounding area, creates questionable economic benefit in the first place.  Why not let Kansas foot the bill for the stadiums while you can reap all the associated economic benefits?

Regardless KC Missouri reaps of the benefit of the royals and Chiefs

 

They won't if they move to Kansas 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The next time a stadium vote comes up in KC, they'll have much more intel on how the Buffalo stadium is playing out. There's a segment of Chiefs fans who almost surely desire a new stadium over a renovated Arrowhead. But once they see PSL prices in Buffalo and a potential decent sized increase in ticket prices (partly due to reduced seating capacity) it may motivate them to want to preserve Arrowhead rather than pursue a shiny new stadium. 

 

There are way too many characterless NFL stadiums. Pats, Jets, Fins, Colts, Jags, Texans, Titans, Chargers, Raiders, 49ers, Rams, Cardinals, Falcons, Bucs, Panthers, Bears, Lions, Commanders and Giants are all a snooze fest.

 

Bills - good tailgating scene, great fans 

Chiefs - loudest stadium in the world, iconic venue 

AFC North - all of these stadiums are pretty solid overall, mostly good fans w good outdoor atmospheres 

Seahawks - great fans, very loud stadium 

Saints - Superdome has had a good longstanding reputation, gets very loud indoors 

Vikings - A new stadium with some actual character, good fans and cool tradition (Skol chant) 

Packers - Historic value through the roof, community owned stadium 

Eagles - Stadium itself kinda sucks but mean fans make it unique 

Cowboys - Jerry World is the original Mega Stadium, has more character than SoFi. 

 

That's pretty much the list. 

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Buffalo716 said:

I was there last time we played .. and that is still a completely different state that will reap benefits 

 

KC Missouri is vastly nicer because they have the money of the royals and chiefs 

 

Missouri won't benefit anymore 

 

 


Just like how Abbot road has so much more going on than Allen. Or how the cobblestone district and Perry street have been major economic drivers of the quality of life in downtown Buffalo?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, beebe said:

The next time a stadium vote comes up in KC, they'll have much more intel on how the Buffalo stadium is playing out. There's a segment of Chiefs fans who almost surely desire a new stadium over a renovated Arrowhead. But once they see PSL prices in Buffalo and a potential decent sized increase in ticket prices (partly due to reduced seating capacity) it may motivate them to want to preserve Arrowhead rather than pursue a shiny new stadium. 

 

There are way too many characterless NFL stadiums. Pats, Jets, Fins, Colts, Jags, Texans, Titans, Chargers, Raiders, 49ers, Rams, Cardinals, Falcons, Bucs, Panthers, Bears, Lions, Commanders and Giants are all a snooze fest.

 

Bills - good tailgating scene, great fans 

Chiefs - loudest stadium in the world, iconic venue 

AFC North - all of these stadiums are pretty solid overall, mostly good fans w good outdoor atmospheres 

Seahawks - great fans, very loud stadium 

Saints - Superdome has had a good longstanding reputation, gets very loud indoors 

Vikings - A new stadium with some actual character, good fans and cool tradition (Skol chant) 

Packers - Historic value through the roof, community owned stadium 

Eagles - Stadium itself kinda sucks but mean fans make it unique 

Cowboys - Jerry World is the original Mega Stadium, has more character than SoFi. 

 

That's pretty much the list. 

 

 

You have a weird definition of "character." You list the Eagles' stadium as having "character" but then say the stadium sucks. That's odd.

 

Lucas Oil stadium is one of my favorites. Architecturally it has a ton of character. Same with Mercedes Benz stadium. Same with Raiders stadium....and SoFi.....

 

Lambeau field has "character" but Soldier field doesn't. Weird.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Mango said:


Just like how Abbot road has so much more going on than Allen. Or how the cobblestone district and Perry street have been major economic drivers of the quality of life in downtown Buffalo?

My point was Missouri Will no longer benefit economically 

 

Kansas will

 

All of WNY from OP to downtown Buffalo do share in economic impact it's the same state and county 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Buffalo716 said:

My point was Missouri Will no longer benefit economically 

 

Kansas will

 

All of WNY from OP to downtown Buffalo do share in economic impact it's the same state and county 

 

Again, the economic impact from these stadiums is almost exclusively generated from the hotels, restaurants, airports, and adjacent downtowns.  If a new stadium is built in Kansas, visiting fans are still going to fly into and out of Missouri - they are not building a new airport in Kansas for a stadium.  Those same people are going to rent cars in Missouri.  They are going to stay in hotels and eat in restaurants in Missouri because there's actually stuff to do there other than the game.  Players are going to continue to live in Missouri and pay income taxes to Missouri.

 

That's where the vast majority of economic benefit from these stadiums come from.  Very little is actually generated from ticket sales.  I think it's actually quite shrewd if Missouri finds a way out of this and Kansas pays for these stadiums as a way to blow their own state's horn.

  • Like (+1) 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, LeGOATski said:

You have a weird definition of "character." You list the Eagles' stadium as having "character" but then say the stadium sucks. That's odd.

 

Lucas Oil stadium is one of my favorites. Architecturally it has a ton of character. Same with Mercedes Benz stadium. Same with Raiders stadium....and SoFi.....

 

Lambeau field has "character" but Soldier field doesn't. Weird.

 

I meant more or less the overall stadium experience. Highmark, the actual stadium itself, is a complete dump. But the fanbase and surroundings make it a unique place to visit and the gameday atmosphere (including pregame) is a top-10 gameday experience in the NFL. Allegiant Stadium and SoFi are obviously very nice. But Rams, Chargers and Raiders games are routinely overrun by visiting fans and the in-person atmosphere (I've been to both) is very lacking. Soldier Field is forgettable in ways that Lambeau is not. Lucas Oil is a nice stadium, but the gameday atmosphere is nothing compared to the old RCA Dome, which was a truly rocking stadium in the Manning years. 

 

So if I were to reframe my original post, I would say that the Oakland Coliseum with the black hole and detestable fans was a superior, more memorable experience than watching the Raiders in their brand new gold plated Casino stadium overrun by tourists, visiting fans and casino guests. I would say that Candlestick Park, with its history, location and bowl shape, is superior to Levi's Stadium, located in Santa Clara and widely considered the worst of the new stadiums not named MetLife. I would say that Arrowhead, one of the original NFL stadiums that has held up for 50-plus years and has arguably the best gameday environment in the NFL, ranks higher than, say, a trip to newer stadiums like Arizona or Atlanta. 

 

But obviously to each their own. There's no doubt people who prefer attending a game at SoFi than at Highmark, just like there's baseball fans who would rather visit new GlobeLife Field in Texas than Wrigley Field in Chicago. 

Edited by beebe
  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, sullim4 said:

 

Again, the economic impact from these stadiums is almost exclusively generated from the hotels, restaurants, airports, and adjacent downtowns.  If a new stadium is built in Kansas, visiting fans are still going to fly into and out of Missouri - they are not building a new airport in Kansas for a stadium.  Those same people are going to rent cars in Missouri.  They are going to stay in hotels and eat in restaurants in Missouri because there's actually stuff to do there other than the game.  Players are going to continue to live in Missouri and pay income taxes to Missouri.

 

That's where the vast majority of economic benefit from these stadiums come from.  Very little is actually generated from ticket sales.  I think it's actually quite shrewd if Missouri finds a way out of this and Kansas pays for these stadiums as a way to blow their own state's horn.

 

I'm not sure that's how it works. Players pay income tax where they play. For instance, if the Bills play in California, they pay income tax in California. I'm not sure how it would affect players if they would need to pay both Kansas and Missouri income tax in that case, but *if* that stadium was moved to Kansas (seems extremely unlikely), they players would pay Kansas income tax for each game played there. If they lived in Missouri and had pay there too (I don't believe they would).. I'd suspect that most players would move to the Kansas side.

 

So long story, short.. if they moved to Kansas, Missouri would lose the tax revenue from players (and the other taxes related to the stadium), but independent studies show that Stadiums rarely 'pay' dividends strictly in the financial sense without some creative accounting where they include things like the bartender serving people spending money. They're not a good investment for taxpayers.

 

So yea, if Missouri would continue to reap the income from tourist without the tax burden then they'd be making out imho, but overall revenue for the state would be down (which, again, is probably a net positive given the costs).

Edited by Malazan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

No 58%, Yes 42q%

 

https://www.kctv5.com/video/2024/04/03/jackson-county-votes-no-new-royals-stadium/

 

Before vote polling company stated vote favored approval by 1% with a good portion undecided.  Vote raised percentage of people participating in vote and those against approval were much better at organizing supporters as opposed to supporters who relied on star power.

Edited by Punching Bag
Corrected.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...