View Full Version : WTF?!?! Why should WE pay for a stadium in St. Loser??

Mark M
06-20-2001, 06:01 AM
This is a total crock of f*cking sh!t:


Why should the entire state have to pay to replace the concrete donut that is Busch stadium? Kansas Citians (actually, Jackson County residents) sacked up to pay for the Truman Sports complex ... just because the city of St. Loser can't do the same shouldn't mean that we all have to pay for it.

Call or write your state representative(s) and tell them this is a terrible idea! If they vote in favor of it, then don't vote for them next time around.

St. Louis has to steal their teams from other cities ... they shouldn't steal our money as well. The bias towards the other side of the state if in-freaking-credible!

~~Infuriated. :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

06-20-2001, 06:17 AM
I share your fury Mark. I encourage all the memebers of this board that are MO residents to write their senators and representatives and put a stop to this nonsense.

The State of Mo has a very tight budget right now and we have lots of needs, including repairing our road system. This shouldn't even be a consideration.

And to make matters worse, this new stadium will feature less regular seating than Busch but more room for luxury boxes. So what this means folks is that average Joe MO taxpayers will be footing the bill for luxury boxes that the average Joe Mo taxpayer can't afford to use.

This must be stopped!

06-20-2001, 06:20 AM
From what I gathered, taxpayers on that side of the state will have to pay for repairs to Kaufman & Arrowhead. The owners are actually footing most of the bill. Have you seen the new proposed stadium? Looks awesome.............

06-20-2001, 06:22 AM
I'll second that on the road repairs. I-70 from St. Louis to Kansas City really sucks. It must be because everyone is trying to leave St. Louis :D . j/k

I drive from Ohio to Kansas City 2 - 3 times a year and the roads between here and there are really bad.

06-20-2001, 06:26 AM
MI, for the record I'm opposed to the public footing the bill for those repairs too. Maybe you're not aware of all the budget wrangling that went on this year and all the talk about "no money, no money, no money" and now THIS?

Frankly I don't give a crap if the stadium is awesome. If they need a new stadium let the Cardinals and the city of St Louis foot the bill.

If they don't have the money to fix I-70 then they sure as hell don't have the money for a ******* baseball stadium.

06-20-2001, 07:01 AM
While I'm in agreement 100% about the public NOT footing the bill for stadium building and repairs, I would like to clear up a misconception.

The State Highway Department is NOT funded by the General Assembly funds. It derives its money strictly from Drivers Licencse fees, Licence Plate fees and the State gasoline tax. This was set up years ago to ensure that the entire state got new roads not just Jackson County and St. Louis County (where the predominant number of state representatives come from).

I know this, because my father retired after 42 years with the State Highway Department, and I worked highway construction when I was in college. The State Highway Department lead the fight against allowing overweight tractor trailers and dualies because they knew with their limited budget that there was no way they'd be able to maintain the roads, but the Federal government decided that since everyone else let them on, Missouri, Illinois and Arkansas had to do it also or lose any matching funds.

So, again, I'm 100% (or more if possible) against the public allowing ANY owner to stick their nose in the public funds, you can't blame the roads on the State legislature.

06-20-2001, 07:27 AM
I'll argue with you a bit on that Misplaced. Primarily you're right, most of the road funds come from the sources you mentioned, however there are "small" amounts that come out of general revenue and there is nothing other than past practice that prevents larger amounts being appropriated by the state legislature for that purpose.

As a matter of fact, the governor proposed a general state sales tax increase this year that would have gone into general revenue but would have supposedly been used for road construction. This ulitmately did not pass.

And the bottom line is, taxpayer money is taxpayer money. We have many needs in MO, the roads being a big one. A new baseball stadium with less regular seating for Joe Blow and more luxury boxes for the elite is not one of them.

06-20-2001, 07:30 AM
Kietzman interviewed KC, MO mayor Kay Barnes last night, but I only heard the last few minutes. Most of the talk centered around Kauffman, but from what I could gather, she said that the St. Louis bill still hasn't passed the legislature, so her office is working on plans, whether they be upgrading Kauffman or builiding a new stadium and will have them out in the next 2-3 months, probably to go with the bill mentioned above. Finally, she said that Gov. Holden recognizes there has been favortism shown to St. Louis in the past and is willing to work to get KC something as well.

She definitely made it sound like something good for KC sports will come out of this bill as well.

06-20-2001, 07:35 AM
my impersonation of WHB's KK:




Alton deFlat
06-20-2001, 09:25 AM
I can understand upgrading Kauffman, but replacing it?!?! What the hell for? It's still one of the best facilities in MLB, IMO.
What Kansas City needs, is a replacement for Kemper Arena. What were they thinking when they built that place? Was there a "design an ugly sports arena for an inconvenient location"" contest at that time?

06-20-2001, 09:29 AM
<i>What Kansas City needs, is a replacement for Kemper Arena</i>

Why? what are we going to use it for?

We're not going to replace The K btw - the lease does not expire for another thirteen years or so. :)

06-20-2001, 09:34 AM
Originally posted by bkkcoh
I'll second that on the road repairs. I-70 from St. Louis to Kansas City really sucks. It must be because everyone is trying to leave St. Louis :D . j/k

I drive from Ohio to Kansas City 2 - 3 times a year and the roads between here and there are really bad.

Don't raise taxes to improve I70!!

Make a toll road and let the out of state travelers pay for the nice highway. It has been proposed numerous times, but keeps getting shot down.

Mark M
06-20-2001, 09:38 AM
The bill has not passed yet, but I have a sneaking suspicion that it will.

The problem? While St. Loser is supposed to get $100 million, the $$ for KC will be much, MUCH less (say around 2-5% of that). I have no problem with public funds being used as long as the voters say it's okay, i.e. putting a vote to the people. That is how the Truman Complex was built.

If the dipsh!ts to the east want to have a new stadium, then they should pay for it. People in KC, Holden, Springfield, Laurie, Sunrise Beach, Marysville, or wherever else in the state should not have to pay the price for St. Loser's piss poor planning of that concrete monstrosity they call a stadium (can you tell I hate St. Louis?).

Kauffman does not need to be replaced. They just need some more upgrades to generate revenue. Also, Kemper was a design innovation due to the way the roof is supported (or not, as was proven several years ago when the roof caved in). Architects applauded it's desgin at the time. However, I agree it's ugly and in a terrible location.

~~Venting ... and appreciating the support.

06-20-2001, 11:36 AM
Someone said on an earlier post that this bill wouldn't be so bad because KC would benefit also. IMO that just makes it twice as bad. The owners are rich enough that they can finance their own stadiums if they want them. There is no need to throw taxpayer money into this project. All they need to do to raise a little extra cash is quit paying multi-million dollar contracts to every average player they can find.

06-20-2001, 10:21 PM
Looks like on the heels of this St Loser thing, David Glass is mulling over building his own downtown stadium...


"Our approach all along has been that we wanted to improve Kauffman," said Glass, reached by phone Wednesday from his office in Bentonville, Ark. "The most efficient use of money is to retrofit and renovate Kauffman and make it more competitive with some of the newer stadiums.

"But I'm surprised at the amount of interest there is in a downtown renovation project that would include a new stadium. There have been enough people who have said this might be the thing to do where you at least have to talk about it."

So that's what he, as well as Kansas City Mayor Kay Barnes, plan to do.

"A downtown stadium is definitely an idea that has bubbled up," Barnes said. "I believe there is traction now that there hasn't been in the past for this kind of facility.

"Now is the time to look at all our options."

Neither Glass nor Barnes is ready just yet to vacate Kauffman Stadium, which the Royals first occupied for the 1973 season. They agree it's a capable facility that offers fans convenient access as well as aesthetic appeal.

Glass, in particular, is sensitive to the desires of Royals faithful. So far, he said, "I don't have a sense for what the mood is in our community as to what we should do."

Mark M
06-21-2001, 06:06 AM
Actually, Glass was on WHB yesterday talking about this very issue. What impressed the living hell out of me was the fact he wanted to know what the fans of KC wanted to do. So WHB put up a poll on their website.

I say retrofit the stadium somehow. Downtown stadiums are good for a while, but then they deteriorate just like they did before. It's a quick fix problem for issues that need long term solutions. If you want a prosperous downtown, you need to get people to live there, not just shop, eat and play there. Plus, parking sucks and KC's downtown is a giant clusterf---. has anyone driven downtown lately?

~~Will fight to the end for the K.