The Buck stops here : Stadium / tax vote.
 

Got this from the coalition site ..........

The Buck Stops Here:
An Open Letter to Jackson County Voters
By Buck Buchanan
Chiefs Coalition Columnist

So, you've decided to hold a vote on your sports teams, and you're just a little nervous about which way this will go.

Lucky for you, you've got Buck around to break it all down for you.

You see, old Buck has been listening quietly to the arguments for and against, and he thinks he's got it figured out.

Unfortunately for you, Buck still hasn't figured out why he's speaking in third person, but lest we digress, let's get on with it.

Now, there are a few old boys out there that would play on your sensibilities. They want you to vote no, and they have all kinds of agendas... excuse me... reasons why they want you to vote no.

These range from selfish reasons like wanting to increase their own pocketbooks by building a downtown baseball stadium to just generally disliking taxes of any kind.

But let's start with the downtown boys. If you've been listening to the local talk radio stations, you probably already know that most of the talking heads are attacking this proposal like they were a pit bull and the proposal had a steak down it's pants.

They would have you believe that tearing down Kauffman stadium, and much like the phoenix, having it rise from the dust downtown would be a good thing for KC.

Now, Buck doesn't know about all that, but he does know this... Why would you approve of spending twice as much money to build a new stadium downtown, if you're not willing to spend half that much to fix the very nice stadium you already have?

Unless, of course, you have some sort of unstated fascination with the downtown area... like... say... maybe you own land (or perhaps a building or 2) downtown, and are expecting the price of your land and/or building(s) to skyrocket, as entrepreneurs snatch up said land to build the inevitable 40,000 Starbucks that will surround the new stadium.

Now, Buck isn't saying that all of the people involved in KC sports radio have a financial interest in opposing the stadium renovations... but Buck is saying that some of their bosses probably do, and when your boss tells you that you need to attack the renovations on the air or you'll be covering local sports in Hillbillyville, Arkansas next week, you tend to listen.

I guess what Buck is really saying, is that he doesn't know whether a baseball only stadium in downtown KC is a good idea or not... but he does know a line of bull when he hears one, and there's so much bull flying from KC sports talk stations, one can only guess that one of their downtown buildings is primed to be the next KC steakhouse.

But the KC sports talk agenda isn't the only place you'll hear disparaging comments on the proposal. You've probably also heard from your local "concerned citizen committees". These are the ones that will spill their britches over any type of tax proposal, and concerns range from the "anti-anything" groups to those opposed to what they call welfare for millionaire owners and spoiled athletes.

Now, Buck knows an a good fight when he see's one, and the fight against the "anti-anything" folks is a losing one. Frankly, these people will not listen to any arguments, facts, proposals, or anything else that gets in the way of their inalienable right to be cranky.

Buck won't even try.

So, on to the corporate welfare folks.

These are the ones Buck can sympathize with. But Buck thinks they might be a little misguided here.

Let's lay it all out on the table. One misconception that they are promoting, is that by fixing these stadiums, all you're doing is enabling rich spoiled athletes and the even richer owners. They'll tell you that you are building a playpen for Richie Rich.

But Buck thinks we need to differentiate between a sports stadium and corporate welfare.

Buck knows all about corporate welfare, like when citizens in Ohio voted on whether to use public money to expand existing manufacturing facilities, versus letting the plant move to a town in Michigan, which was willing to spend the cash to bring in the jobs.

Or how about the proposal that goes to the voters in Oklahoma on Tuesday. They want to use public cash to build temporary hangars for use by American Airlines.

Speaking of airlines, there's also the public money provided by the federal government to prop up failing airlines... or to prop up virtually every energy company in the U.S., and some not in the U.S..

This is the very definition of corporate welfare, and it happens in every state. But very few will ever see the benefits of this money, unless you work for these companies, run these companies, or own stock in them.

But Buck doesn't care one way or another on this subject, except to point out that it's very boring to watch somebody at American Airlines or Exxon do their job.

On the other hand, Buck loves watching the employees at Arrowhead stadium do their job. Plus, for some reason, nobody wants to buy Exxon jersey's.

And Buck thinks, whether you agree with the proposals or not, there's a difference between rebuilding a manufacturing facility in Ohio and rebuilding a stadium in Kansas City.

The most obvious difference, is that the average citizen of Jackson County does see benefits from having major league sports teams.

For instance, every ticket that's sold to one of these games and every oversized foam finger, whether the buyer lives in KC or not, brings in tax money that goes to Jackson County.

Under the new proposal, every time Buck parks the Buckmobile at Arrowhead or Kauffman, Jackson County will get a piece of it.

Every entertainer and sports figure that performs in these stadiums brings in money to the state of Missouri, through the "athletes and entertainers tax".

Every time a local business sells a Chiefs jersey or an autographed Elvis Grbac helmet, Jackson County gets a chunk of the sales tax. Okay, so nobody's selling any Grbac helmets... Buck'll give you that one. But the basic premise is still true.

Plus, without a local major league team, sports stores in KC will be reduced to selling Rams jerseys. And NOBODY wants that.

There's also local revenue produced by out-of-towners. They spend money at hotels, restaurants, and gas stations, at the least, and not only does this help produce jobs, but Jackson County once again see's sales tax benefits.

There are other ways the teams bring in revenue, but Buck is a little tired and a lot lazy right now, so go look it up yourself.

But enough talk about all that. Buck is a simple guy, and he wants to break this down in simple terms.

Depending on who you believe, Question 1, the stadium renovations will cost the average person between 20 and 40 dollars. The numbers from the Feds say about $23.50 per year.

Now, Buck wants to know what he gets for that money. After all, $23.50 per year will buy old Buck a giant rack of ribs at Jack Stack, or one cup of coffee from any 2 of the 40,000 Starbucks that might surround a new downtown stadium.

And if Buck is giving up Jack Stack ribs, he wants to know what's in it for him.

Here's what we know.

If voters approve Question 1, they are guaranteed to keep the two teams they already have until about 2031.

They are also guaranteed an MLB all-star game, sometime betwixt 2010 and 2014. The all-star game is not dependent on Question 2 (the rolling roof) passing.

Since there is a hard cap on the amount of public money put into these stadiums, they are also guaranteed not to have to worry about this issue for the next generation.

While not guaranteed, renovating the stadiums might produce more competitive teams from the Royals, who have fallen behind in the current MLB climate that rewards teams with lots of extra spending cash.

While not guaranteed, the Chiefs will be in a position to be more competitive. Even in the NFL, the model by which all sports leagues in the U.S. are compared, teams that bring in more stadium revenue are able to spend more cash on free agents. Usually, this money comes from several sources, including lucrative luxury boxes, stadium naming rights, and PSL's (Personal Seat Licenses).

As of now, the Chiefs have very little comparative revenue from those three sources. By comparison, a large chunk of Reliant Stadium in Houston was paid for by PSL's, and stadiums in large metro areas (like Boston and New York) are able to bring in wads of cash from luxury boxes.

The simple fact of the matter is that small markets like KC don't have the population to bring in lucrative broadcasting rights fee's. They also don't have a big enough business community to bring in cash from sponsorships. And they don't have the population demographics to support PSL's and higher priced tickets without losing the fan base.

That's why you'll see that there is a sliding scale on public money, depending on the size of your town. Larger markets have access to more revenue streams, leading to reduced need for public funding.

In other words, the smaller the market, the more public funding you're looking at. For a town the size of KC, the average is about 80% public, 20% private, which is a bit more than these proposals ask for.

Of the recent NFL and MLB stadiums built, those with 80% or more in public financing include Tampa, St. Louis, Cincinnati (NFL & MLB), Baltimore (MLB & NFL), Jacksonville, Indianapolis, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, and Denver. Stadiums with over 60 percent public financing include those recently built in Nashville (71%), Seattle (65%), Cleveland (70%), and San Diego (68%).

Vote yes on Question 2 (the rolling roof), and voters will see several other benefits.

They are guaranteed a Superbowl, to be held at Arrowhead in 2015.

While not guaranteed, KC would likely play host to a final four, with the first bid likely coming for the 2013 final four. Interestingly enough, no city has hosted more final fours than KC (nine total), although the last one came in 1988, due in large part to the NCAA mandating in 1997 that final fours will only be held in stadiums that seat at least 30,000 people, which pretty much relegates the event to large domed stadiums.

If KC gets a final four, they are also guaranteed to host an earlier round in the NCAA men's basketball tournament the year before they host the final four (the NCAA likes to iron out problems beforehand).

While not guaranteed, it is bloody likely that the new rolling roof would be a symbol for KC, a unique structure much like the arch is to St. Louis. Everyone Buck has talked to about the roof wants to come and see it.

So, what do voters get if they vote no on both proposals?

Less tax revenue? check.

2 sports teams that are eligible to leave town after 2007? check.

A harder time convincing corporations to invest in KC? check.

An uphill battle, with our friends in the KC sports talk industry asking you to pony up even more money to build a new stadium downtown? check.

An uncertain future? check.

A futile battle to build a new NFL stadium, possibly in Kansas? check. (side note: Buck doesn't buy the arguement that they'll build a new stadium in Kansas. Let's all remember that those pansies killed Bi-State II)

An extra rack of ribs once a year from Jack Stack? check.

Buck's gotta tell ya, those ribs at Jack Stack are mighty tasty, but they're not that good.

Sincerely,

Buck Buchanan

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's what I don't get about those opposing a downtown stadium.. this line about "well, we don't want some radio annoucer to get rich.."

well, if its true that moving the stadium downtown increases property values so much in the area, aren't they just admitting its a good idea; but they hate Keitzman so much that they dont' wanna do it just to ***** him?!

Tell Buck Bob Dole said he needs to get his own schtick.

As one poster over there said, it sounds more like a Rufus column.

And this is where the NFL (and the Chiefs) screwed the marketing pooch and left KC as a "small market" team.

The old politically incorrect logo didn't have 6 states on it by accident.

http://pkholling.bravepages.com/kc_logo69.gif

It also is inconvenient for the fans, KC does not have good mass transit so where will everyone park, do you like 3 hour trips into and out of the stadium. How about paying 10 an hour to park your car. No tailgating. smaller seats, not nearly as good views of the field (San Diego got all of those).

Finally why spend 400+ million on the Royals who will probably never field a consistent winner because of the structure of MLB and may be destined to leave anyway.

The reason I oppose downtown baseball (even though I don't live in KC) is because the big argument FOR downtown baseball, thrown about by guys like Keitzman, doesn't hold water.

Building a downtown baseball stadium isn't going to revitalize downtown long-term. All of these cities that he cites, like Cleveland for instance, had SHORT TERM revitalization, but it trailed off after the first 3 years. As did baseball attendance.

If there was a plan out there for a downtown stadium, one that wouldn't cost an arm and a leg, and would produce enough revenue to make the Royals competitive, then I would be all for it.

But you don't see that. All we hear is squawking about a downtown baseball stadium from radio talking heads, when there's no plan out there or anything. We're supposed to reject something that seems pretty good and will lock the teams in for years to come, because of something else that maybe could happen, but there are no plans working right now for?

Screw that.

If the tax passes how pissed off are people going to be when the organization institutes PSL's? I personally find the rolling roof idea to be idiotic, but I'm a purist and like footbal played outdoors in inclimate weather.

Peronally, I'm just sick of hearing Keitz rail against this thing day in and day out. I have no agenda against 810, I just feel like they are making their minds up on what they want based on what they can get personally, then turning around and telling us all how it would benefit the city. Did the same moves benefit Denver, Pittsburgh, or Cincinati? None of those teams are powerhouses, abd I won't speak to any windfalls those cities might have gleaned because of downtown parks (because I honestly don't know).

There is nothing wrong with the Sports Complex, other than it needs to be overhauled. The ease with which you can get 30,000 cars out of that place is amazing. And Vlad has a good point about our mass transit (or lack thereof). People want to bitch about the surrounding areas around the stadiums - that there is nothing out there or nowhere to go, other than Taco Bell. Well, then why isn't THAT an issue? Why doesn't anybody take the initiative to research the area, and build it up? Put in an entertainment district, shopping, restaurants, whatever. I would be all for that, as well.

If this thing fails, it will fail because of one of two things....

1) The Jackson County Sports Authority has the effectiveness of a turd-in-the-punchbowl, and nobody trusts them to do their jobs.

2) Jackson Country has a well of people who are set in their ways, and can't get past the fact that they are having their taxes raised (pennies on the dollar, at that). They think times will be tough if this tax passes? Let them see what happens when the Chiefs and possibly the Royals pack up and leave, and all the revenue from those two are gone.

Like I said, this for me has nothing to do with some grudge against Keitzman and his guys. They've earned wht they have, just don't try bullshitting us into getting more.

Well, that sounds good, but who is going to go out there on non-game days?

There are already shopping and dining districts closer to me. And I don't think that area has it in them to support something major like that. There really isn't a whole lot of nice stuff around there, a mall that used to be nearby is getting bulldozed... it doesn't seem like an area where something upscale would succeed.

I'm not sure why someone like me, who lives up north, would drive out to the stadiums to eat a nice meal and visit a bar or whatever, when I can do that pretty easily within 10 minutes or so of myself already.

Sure I'd go out there once to check it out, but not regularly. There is nice stuff out at the Speedway, but I never go out there. I have been out to Cabelas a few times, I ate at famous dave's, I even went to a race last year. But other than that, why drive 30 minutes when I can only drive 10 and get the same things?

Well done Buck!!

I get what you're saying - I'm a Northlander as well. And I'm not proposing a Zona Rosa South or anything, just some places to meet up before the game, or go to after the game. It wouldn't take much to shut the people up about having no amenities around the stadiums. It seems like on the east side of the complex, there is a whole lot of nothing. Just a National Guard ammo dump, and a deserted mental hospital, iirc.

My view is based on when I went to visit Lambeau Field last year. Before that, I actually thought it would be best to have a brand spanking new Arrowhead out in Wyandotte, and the Royals downtown. After I left Lambeau, I completely changed my mind. If we could do what Green Bay did to that stadium, only to BOTH Arrowhead and the K, it would blow everyone away. It's hard to explain it, you really have to see Lambeau to appreciate it. Halfcan and jspchief have been there and know what I'm saying.

The thing that annoys me the most is the way the 'teams leaving' scenario is being presented.

The "Yes" side says that we will save our teams, lock them into a long-term lease which is true. Now, are the teams going anywhere either way? Probably not. But it's true that we would be locking them in for a real long time.

The 810 side is like "They're lying about the teams leaving, they aren't going anywhere, it's just an outright lie". Well, sure the teams probably are not going anywhere. But CAN they? Yes. I think that in 2007 Jackson county would officially be in default on the lease and the teams could move if they really wanted to at that point.

Are they going to leave? Well, no not anytime soon. But why play with fire and let them into a position where they could move if they wanted to?

I'm not sure how many times it's been mentioned, but I'm positive it's been mentioned at least once, if not 10 - 20 times now. The roof will not be used for football, except for the SB and any college bowl game .

Personally, I could give a rats ass about what Keitzman has to say, I stopped listening to 810 about 2 years ago. I oppose a downtown baseball stadium becuase of the following reasons:

1) I hate driving downtown. I don't go down there unless I have to and all a downtown baseball stadium would do is add to the congestion, primarly on day games. I know some will say, "well what about the Sprint Center!" Well, 18,000 people coming out of downtown is better that 35,000+ people coming out of downtown on top of rush hour traffic. Most events happening at the Sprint center will be occuring at night anyway.

2) Public transportation in this city is absolue S**T!! There will be no reliable CITY bus service, El Train, or Subway headed downtown for a baseball game. City's like NY, Boston, LA, Chicago, etc can handle a downtown ball park because their public transportation system is far superior to anything we have in this city.

3) A downtown stadium would cost so much more. If people are complaining about this improvements tax, wait unitl they see a tax for a new stadium. Improving Kuaffmann Stadium makes good sense economical sense.

4) The Royals have already expressed that they want to stay where they are at. That should be the most important point.

So you see, none of opinions have to do with a talk show host, whom of which I haven't listened to in a long time.

I understand what you're saying. I just don't know how much that area, which is not exactly the most affluent, would be able to support those kinds of things.

I mean, if you think about it you have pretty much 90-100 days a year where there are major events at the K + Arrowhead, right? Where's the money for those restaurants and such going to come from for the rest of the year?

It would be cool for there to be something to do besides firing your grill back up after the game for more tailgating, but I don't see it. The area is delapidated and the problem is a lot bigger than the truman sports complex.

If you haven't noticed by now, some people don't like to look at ALL of the facts be for they make a decision.

There was an article by Rand (I believe) that said it would be used for football in bad weather.

He's a writer, CP was joking around and said it would not be used unless they were playing the Packers and it was snowy and icy, then he would cover it, as for Miami, it would not be covered. Carl and Lamar likes football outside in the elements.

That's what I thought too, but then there was this in the Star today:

So you tell me? :shrug:

The way it sounds, the really shitty weather games will be covered - no more Flood Bowl games like against Seattle, or no more -25 wind chill games, like against the Colts in '95.

Can't say that hurts my feelings.

Read it again...

Many people have fears about it.... This is directed to them....


It takes a couple of days to heat the stadium after it has been moved, IMHO I don't see football being an issue with the roof.

It would be good for the major events that KC could draw.

As for the giant flying roof from an F-5 tornado, doomsday( F-25 ) destruction that so many people have harped on..... it's not different than any other stucture in KC. Besides, it will be insured as any other structure.... Arrowhead, the K, etc.

To build new is more costly than it is to repair, which will be good for another 25 - 30 years.

Look around and see who has built new stadiums twice since the sports complex was built ?

funny ROFL

FTR, I'm not against it. In fact, I can't even vote on it. I'm just pointing out what was printed in the paper today about it.

OK I'll bite. Who? Denver? St. Louis?

It wasn't directed towards you....... I knew better. :D

Well done Buck. I had no idea you could write so well.

I live outside of KC but I'm just as affected by this vote as people in Clay county. I've always thought it was stupid to have Jackson County control everything but when I saw haw little tax they're actually paying, I was shocked.

If this doesn't pass, they deserve what they get - nothing and lots of it.

Indy is working on there 2nd one right now.

I'll have to check to see who else, it was in the paper the other day. Baseball too.........

To build new will cost double, if not triple. We have to build 2 stadiums or build one big one for both. I'm sure the Chiefs and Royals want there own park.

Common sense says the roof will be used for Chief games. If Carl and Lamar believe 10,000 people are no shows in December because of cold weather, they will close the damn roof and hope more people show up. They aren't spending all that money just to use it for the Super Bowl 20 years down the road. Right now there is no official policy on the roof. The general policy has always been - make $$. If Lamar thinks more people will show up with a roof, guess what his decision is going to be.

Plus, it may not be the Chiefs decision. Didn't the league mandate a roof closure in the World Series or playoffs this year even though the home team played much better with it open?