PDA

View Full Version : The Roof was destined to Fail.


teedubya
04-04-2006, 11:25 PM
Ok... I want to know whose brainchild this is... to put the stadium renovations AND the roof at the same time?

Seriously, You most likely going to vote FOR or AGAINST for renovations.

Now, if you voted yes FOR the renovations... you may be for or against the roof...

however, if you voted NO for renovations, there is ZERO chance you are gonna vote YES for the roof.

So, by this logic, if only ONE person wanted the renovations but thought the roof idea was gay... the roof would have failed.

Now, you have to ask, was the roof just a diversion to insure that the renovations got passed?

philfree
04-05-2006, 02:39 AM
Ok... I want to know whose brainchild this is... to put the stadium renovations AND the roof at the same time?

Seriously, You most likely going to vote FOR or AGAINST for renovations.

Now, if you voted yes FOR the renovations... you may be for or against the roof...

however, if you voted NO for renovations, there is ZERO chance you are gonna vote YES for the roof.

So, by this logic, if only ONE person wanted the renovations but thought the roof idea was gay... the roof would have failed.

Now, you have to ask, was the roof just a diversion to insure that the renovations got passed?

No it was a test to see how receptive the idea was the the people of Jackson County. After recieving 49% of the vote they now know that there is a pretty good chance that it can indeed happen. All they have to do is persuade 2% of those voter to change their mind. I believe they'll do it. All Lamar has to do is toss a little more of his own cash and IMO the vote will swing.

PhilFree:arrow:

DaWolf
04-05-2006, 03:15 AM
Also they need to know pretty soon because as one of the articles pointed out, the planning of the configuration of the stadium changes a bit with a roof vs without a roof...

007
04-05-2006, 03:26 AM
Also they need to know pretty soon because as one of the articles pointed out, the planning of the configuration of the stadium changes a bit with a roof vs without a roof...


If they want it that bad then they had better pay up then. :harumph:

Yeah, that'll happen. :banghead:

Chief Chief
04-05-2006, 04:56 AM
Ali Chi3fs, your logic abolutely sucks...but to answer your question:

Yes, it definitely was a so-called "diversion" (kind of like asking somebody, "Would you rather have your ass beaten and kicked or just your ass beaten?"). As you remember, the rolling roof was the brainchild of the Chiefs. Glass, owner of the Royals, was initially adamantly against having a roof over the "K". But after the Chiefs clued him in on their gameplan, lo and behold!, he then became a big advocate of the roof.

cookster50
04-05-2006, 05:45 AM
Ali Chi3fs, your logic abolutely sucks...but to answer your question:

Yes, it definitely was a so-called "diversion" (kind of like asking somebody,

Agreed. They knew that if only the renovations were talked about, people would realize they were being bent over a barrel and the Chiefs and Royals were sodomizing the people. By having the roof, the focus was away from the details of the renovation plan.

jspchief
04-05-2006, 06:40 AM
I think the reason they wanted it to be on the same ballot is they don't want to look like they are coming back asking for even more money here in just a short time after they got the stadium deal passed.

Personally, I think the roof is a bad idea. It's a gimmick and impractical in relation to it's cost. A city that needed 3 tries just to get neccessary stadium funding isn't the type of city you should expect that kind of progressive vision from.

epitome1170
04-05-2006, 07:42 AM
I think the reason they wanted it to be on the same ballot is they don't want to look like they are coming back asking for even more money here in just a short time after they got the stadium deal passed.

Personally, I think the roof is a bad idea. It's a gimmick and impractical in relation to it's cost. A city that needed 3 tries just to get neccessary stadium funding isn't the type of city you should expect that kind of progressive vision from.

I personally loved the idea of the rolling roof. I have heard quite a few people question the reliability of the idea, but being an engineer, I would have to trust that a well known firm such as HOK would not suggest the idea without having the capability of it working. Engineers careers are ruined very easily with any sort of mistake so I do not think they would risk that.

In addition to the pure engineer in me liking the idea, the sports fan in me loves the idea of the final four and the superbowl possibly coming to KC. Obviously I would rather have one of my teams be in those respective championships, but if I cant have that then having the chance to be near such an event would have to suffice.

greg63
04-05-2006, 08:07 AM
The Roof was destined to Fail.

I think so too.

Old Dog
04-05-2006, 08:15 AM
What I don't understand (and maybe it's because I didn't fully understand the roof issue) is why vote for renovations and not the roof.

#1 Wasn't the rolling roof supposed to be primarily with "user fees" (not taxing the residents of Jackson Co) and

#2 The cost of the roof itself was (if I'm thinking clearly) somewhere in the proximity of $250 million. A Super Bowl (a sure thing if the roof passed) would bring in >$300 million to the county, so in my thinking it would pay for itself in time (especially adding in revenues from large conventions/Finals Four etc...)

Am I wrong in either of those thoughts? I'm just trying to figure it out.

jspchief
04-05-2006, 08:15 AM
I personally loved the idea of the rolling roof. I have heard quite a few people question the reliability of the idea, but being an engineer, I would have to trust that a well known firm such as HOK would not suggest the idea without having the capability of it working. Engineers careers are ruined very easily with any sort of mistake so I do not think they would risk that.

In addition to the pure engineer in me liking the idea, the sports fan in me loves the idea of the final four and the superbowl possibly coming to KC. Obviously I would rather have one of my teams be in those respective championships, but if I cant have that then having the chance to be near such an event would have to suffice.I don't hate the idea. I just think it was impractical to try and get this roof, when they are having a hard enough time convincing the city to even pay for the stadium upgrades. It's like trying to sell someone a car that they don't want, and expecting them to buy a boat too. KC is just too conservative to expect them to support something as progressive as this.

The Superbowl isn't much of a selling point for me. Only about 5% of Superbowl tickets are made available to the host city, so it's unlikely that I would be able to attend anyway. For the large majority of Kansas Citians, a Superbowl just means a week's worth of headaches and bad press.

The Final Four would be cool, but if I ever decide to attend a Final Four, the location is going to have very little impact on that decision.

Brock
04-05-2006, 08:19 AM
For the large majority of Kansas Citians, a Superbowl just means a week's worth of headaches and bad press.

That's the truth. I viewed it as just a giant invasion of a-holes.

cmh6476
04-05-2006, 08:22 AM
What I don't understand (and maybe it's because I didn't fully understand the roof issue) is why vote for renovations and not the roof.
#1 Wasn't the rolling roof supposed to be primarily with "user fees" (not taxing the residents of Jacskon Co) and
#2 The cost of the roof itself was (if I'm thinking clearly) somewhere in the proximity of $250 million. A Super Bowl (a sure thing if the roof passed) would bring in >$300 million to the county, so in my thinking it would pay for itself in time (especially adding in revenues from large conventions/Finals Four etc...)

Am I wrong in either of those thoughts? I'm just trying to figure it out.


yep, if you voted for the improvements you might as well have voted for the roof.

epitome1170
04-05-2006, 08:22 AM
I don't hate the idea. I just think it was impractical to try and get this roof, when they are having a hard enough time convincing the city to even pay for the stadium upgrades. It's like trying to sell someone a car that they don't want, and expecting them to buy a boat too. KC is just too conservative to expect them to support something as progressive as this.

Perhaps, I am mistaken on my facts, but I thought that if question 1 passed then question 2 was just to find out how they wanted to spend the money, i.e. the rolling roof. Now that the roof failed that just means that they will still be taxed the same but will have renovations just no roof. Is that correct? If so, then I guess I would think of it as someone buying a car and then the salesman to ask if they wanted a convertible for the same price.

However, I could be mistaken on the whole thing... some clarification on the exact wording of question 2 would help.

Old Dog
04-05-2006, 08:25 AM
However, I could be mistaken on the whole thing... some clarification on the exact wording of question 2 would help.

You can find the wording here:http://kcchiefs.com/news/2006/04/05/gretz_yes_and_no/

about 2/3 of the way down the page.

morphius
04-05-2006, 08:25 AM
Perhaps, I am mistaken on my facts, but I thought that if question 1 passed then question 2 was just to find out how they wanted to spend the money, i.e. the rolling roof. Now that the roof failed that just means that they will still be taxed the same but will have renovations just no roof. Is that correct? If so, then I guess I would think of it as someone buying a car and then the salesman to ask if they wanted a convertible for the same price.

However, I could be mistaken on the whole thing... some clarification on the exact wording of question 2 would help.
No, question 2 was a different tax.

cookster50
04-05-2006, 08:25 AM
#1 Wasn't the rolling roof supposed to be primarily with "user fees" (not taxing the residents of Jackson Co) and



No, it was a "use tax" that would be assessed on purchases over $2000 or something like that which were purchased out of county if I'm not mistaken. Mainly geared towards businesses. The common misconception would be that most people wouldn't be paying that. However, how do you think businesses would recoup the money they spent on the tax? You betcha, raise prices!

morphius
04-05-2006, 08:28 AM
Also they need to know pretty soon because as one of the articles pointed out, the planning of the configuration of the stadium changes a bit with a roof vs without a roof...
I really don't see why that should be. Throw in a little bit of extra cash to design them so they can handle a roof if they are able to get it passed down the road. I mean really, why wouldn't you do it this way?

Eleazar
04-05-2006, 08:29 AM
That's the truth. I viewed it as just a giant invasion of a-holes.

Me too.

A week of everything being packed, traffic being horrible, a game I won't get to go to.

jspchief
04-05-2006, 08:33 AM
I really don't see why that should be. Throw in a little bit of extra cash to design them so they can handle a roof if they are able to get it passed down the road. I mean really, why wouldn't you do it this way?Because they might be limiting their design possibilities in anticipation of a roof that will never happen. I don't know to what extent, but I'm sure they'd rather have the additional options than be hampered by something that may or may not ever happen.

epitome1170
04-05-2006, 08:34 AM
You can find the wording here:http://kcchiefs.com/news/2006/04/05/gretz_yes_and_no/

about 2/3 of the way down the page.

Thanks, that helps... sort of. The damn legal wording in documents just muddy up the waters, but from my impression the tax will still be imposed for 25 years but now the extra money from that that would have gone toward the roof will now just go toward the renovations.

philfree
04-05-2006, 08:37 AM
What I don't understand (and maybe it's because I didn't fully understand the roof issue) is why vote for renovations and not the roof.

#1 Wasn't the rolling roof supposed to be primarily with "user fees" (not taxing the residents of Jackson Co) and

#2 The cost of the roof itself was (if I'm thinking clearly) somewhere in the proximity of $250 million. A Super Bowl (a sure thing if the roof passed) would bring in >$300 million to the county, so in my thinking it would pay for itself in time (especially adding in revenues from large conventions/Finals Four etc...)

Am I wrong in either of those thoughts? I'm just trying to figure it out.

How bout some winter rock concerts? That'd be a possibility. IMO the roof would pay for it self in time. If the 1st Super Bowl goes off well then there's a good chance there might be another. Also how much money will be spent locally just building the thing? How many new jobs will be created? How many new jobs will be created for all the Hotels that will have to be built to house the people attendding the game and other events that comes with it? To me this thing will be revisited and it should be.

PhilFree:arrow:

jspchief
04-05-2006, 08:44 AM
There is already a use tax in existence in Missouri. But it is limited to expenditures over $2000. So if you order $1999 worth of clothing from your favorite online retailer, you don't pay any sales tax (unless said retailer also has a store in MO). But if you spend $2000+, you will be charged the MO sales tax on your purchase.

The use tax that was proposed in question #2 would essentially eliminate that $2000 buffer. Every penny spent on out of state purchases would be subject to the county sales tax which is currently .75 of one percent.

In essence, a yes vote for question #2 would have made catalog/internet purchases subject to the 3/4 of one percent sales tax that Jackson County already has in place.

The sad thing is, states are starting to put these use taxes into place already, usually without any vote. This would have been a way to earmark that money for the roof, and it's a tax that you'll probably be paying within 5 years anyway.

IMO, that tax didn't pass because too many people simply did not understand what they were voting on.

Skip Towne
04-05-2006, 08:49 AM
How much is the sales tax in Jackson County? It's 8% in Tulsa.

jspchief
04-05-2006, 08:51 AM
How much is the sales tax in Jackson County? It's 8% in Tulsa.The county tax is only 3/4 of one percent. That's all the use tax in question two would have been.

jidar
04-05-2006, 09:00 AM
The county tax is only 3/4 of one percent. That's all the use tax in question two would have been.

Yeah but what's the total right now? .0075 isn't much but it adds up and there is a limit to what people want to pay for sales tax. Around here going over that 8 cent marker is probably high to most folks.

jspchief
04-05-2006, 09:03 AM
Yeah but what's the total right now? .0075 isn't much but it adds up and there is a limit to what people want to pay for sales tax. Around here going over that 8 cent marker is probably high to most folks.It wouldn't push the total over what Jackson county residents are already paying for in state purchases. It would just make the tax on out of state purchases equal to in state.

jidar
04-05-2006, 09:09 AM
It wouldn't push the total over what Jackson county residents are already paying for in state purchases. It would just make the tax on out of state purchases equal to in state.

Woah, wait.. what?
So you're saying that had the measure passed then the roof would have been funded by 100% Out of State purchases? That's where the money is coming from?

If that's the case then why in the hell would voters vote it down? It costs them nothing directly.

jspchief
04-05-2006, 09:11 AM
Woah, wait.. what?
So you're saying that had the measure passed then the roof would have been funded by 100% Out of State purchases? That's where the money is coming from?

If that's the case then why in the hell would voters vote it down? It costs them nothing directly.No.

Out of state purchases as in: "Joe in Jackson county is buying a shirt from his Lands End catalog and will now pay .0075% tax on that purchase"

Not out of state as in: "Joe in California will pay the tax when he buys something from Jackson county"

tomahawk kid
04-05-2006, 09:54 AM
No.

Out of state purchases as in: "Joe in Jackson county is buying a shirt from his Lands End catalog and will now pay .0075% tax on that purchase"

Not out of state as in: "Joe in California will pay the tax when he buys something from Jackson county"

But the purchases would need to total over $2k for the tax to kick in.

jspchief
04-05-2006, 09:56 AM
But the purchases would need to total over $2k for the tax to kick in.Wrong. That is what is currently in place in the state of Missouri.

The passing of question #2 would have removed that $2k buffer for residents of Jackson County.

Lzen
04-05-2006, 10:06 AM
I really don't see why that should be. Throw in a little bit of extra cash to design them so they can handle a roof if they are able to get it passed down the road. I mean really, why wouldn't you do it this way?

I'm guessing that it wouldn't be a little bit of extra cash. I'm thinking that the $250 million wouldn't just be for a rolling roof. It probably also include climate control systems for the stadiums.

morphius
04-05-2006, 10:48 AM
I'm guessing that it wouldn't be a little bit of extra cash. I'm thinking that the $250 million wouldn't just be for a rolling roof. It probably also include climate control systems for the stadiums.
Oh, I understand that as well. But if it is something the owner really wants, then you design the facility so that it wouldn't take another huge reinvestment by the tax payers to get it done. You wait to put the actual equipment in until it passes, but you design it so that it is possible.

BigChiefFan
04-05-2006, 10:55 AM
It was rumored that people could actually go up IN the rolling roof and watch the game from ABOVE the playing field.

patteeu
04-05-2006, 11:04 AM
I'm revoking your permit to use the phrase "So, by this logic,..."

ChiefsCountry
04-05-2006, 11:15 AM
If they want the roof to pass, they need to tax something that residents wont use that much like a hotel or rental car tax. Those always seem to work well.

Calcountry
04-05-2006, 11:19 AM
I personally loved the idea of the rolling roof. I have heard quite a few people question the reliability of the idea, but being an engineer, I would have to trust that a well known firm such as HOK would not suggest the idea without having the capability of it working. Engineers careers are ruined very easily with any sort of mistake so I do not think they would risk that.

In addition to the pure engineer in me liking the idea, the sports fan in me loves the idea of the final four and the superbowl possibly coming to KC. Obviously I would rather have one of my teams be in those respective championships, but if I cant have that then having the chance to be near such an event would have to suffice.Life is full of risks.

It was risky, to build such tall towers in N.Y. One can never fully predict all future eventualities. Like, a 7.0 earthquake in some hidden fault that may or may not lie under K.C.

Or the Monster tornado that would gust up and under said roof and carry it away like Toto back to Kansas.

epitome1170
04-05-2006, 11:30 AM
Life is full of risks.

It was risky, to build such tall towers in N.Y. One can never fully predict all future eventualities. Like, a 7.0 earthquake in some hidden fault that may or may not lie under K.C.

Or the Monster tornado that would gust up and under said roof and carry it away like Toto back to Kansas.

So are you trying to say that the engineers didn't design this roof to sustain more than the minimum regulations? I am simply saying that the engineers involved are very competent and would not RISK putting out plans for this if they were not confident it would be feasible under certain events. These certain events have been stated as a F3 tornado.

True other events could occur in which the roof could get destroyed, but if that happened I am pretty sure anything else in that area would be gone as well. As for the earthquake in KC, assuming there is a hidden one that all of the geologists happened to not see, and then that it suddenly hit with a 7.0 I am positive that the roof would be the last thing we would be thinking about being as very few, if any, of the buildings in KC are designed for earthquakes being we are not in a seismic region and thus civil engineers do not have to design for them according to building codes.

Calcountry
04-05-2006, 11:41 AM
So are you trying to say that the engineers didn't design this roof to sustain more than the minimum regulations? I am simply saying that the engineers involved are very competent and would not RISK putting out plans for this if they were not confident it would be feasible under certain events. These certain events have been stated as a F3 tornado.

True other events could occur in which the roof could get destroyed, but if that happened I am pretty sure anything else in that area would be gone as well. As for the earthquake in KC, assuming there is a hidden one that all of the geologists happened to not see, and then that it suddenly hit with a 7.0 I am positive that the roof would be the last thing we would be thinking about being as very few, if any, of the buildings in KC are designed for earthquakes being we are not in a seismic region and thus civil engineers do not have to design for them according to building codes.No, I am not saying that at all. Engineers rock dude. I use to have Calculus courses with them in College when I was still on the track to be an Economist. I am quite sure they think out more contingencies than I threw up off the top of my head to merely suggest, that one can never be 100% sure of integrity for all eventualities. 4 Standard deviations from the mean sure, but never does that curve touch the line.

epitome1170
04-05-2006, 11:45 AM
No, I am not saying that at all. Engineers rock dude. I use to have Calculus courses with them in College when I was still on the track to be an Economist. I am quite sure they think out more contingencies than I threw up off the top of my head to merely suggest, that one can never be 100% sure of integrity for all eventualities. 4 Standard deviations from the mean sure, but never does that curve touch the line.

Ok, fair enough, I guess I got the opposite impression from you as to not to vote for the rolling roof because of potential disasters that could destroy the roof. That would just be plain ignorant is all.