Would they be able to keep the tax revenue generated by the fields?

What tax revenue? It would be a privately held business.

The tax revenue being generated by the people attending the events through the purchase of services and goods in the surounding area, which will be in the millions of dollars.

The sales taxes? The govt. gets that either way. I'm not getting your point, though I'm sure it's coming as soon as I type some tripword you're looking for. The only difference is who pays to build the thing.

Here is how is works, these fields will be used for tournaments which bring players and families into the area who would not come to the area without the tournaments, they will be spending money on goods and services in the area which they would not be buying except for the fact that they are coming to the area to attend the tournaments. The only reason that the extra money would be spent in the area is because of the tournaments.

A real life example;

The City of Gladstone is helping to build a Natatorium for the North Kansas City School District and the local community to use. The Natatorium will be large enough to host swim meets up to the state final levels. The money generated from taxes collected on goods and services purchased by the athletes and the families and supporters is estimated in the millions of dollars over the life of the facility, giving a very respectable return on the money invested by the city. The upshot being this will help hold down property taxes.

I hope I have made that clear.

Yes, and if the businesses near there ponied up $75M to build it then all of that would still happen and they'd still see the economic benefits.

I get what you're saying, my point is that NONE OF THIS is in the pervue of the government.

The folks in Gladstone will soon get their dose of reality just like the turnpike in KS. They were supposed to remove the toll boths decades ago, once the road was paid for. For some reason those are all still there. Why? Once the government finds their way into your wallet you can't get them to back out.

Just for the record, not everyone in JC is rich... or snooty.

Also, the fields would let rich snooty kids from all over the midwest come and play on them, not just rich snooty Kansas kids. :)

You lost me on that comparison, how is the City in this example getting into anyones "wallet"; it's a one time outlay for the natatorium with a continuing income for the city in the form of taxes from the sales of services and goods.

The tax revenue (collected from the sales of goods and services) generated for the city helps to hold down property taxes.

To put it another way I’m sure you have heard the old saying it takes money to make money, the local government needs to generate money.

When the local government can invest money and get a good return on that investment it is a prudent thing to do.

They'd be building on what is currently just a beautiful field. One of the few still left in the area. I went with No, but unfortunately it's going to get developed anyway, somehow.

You can count on that, with the soccer fields you would have more green space left, with out the fields you will get more concrete and asphalt and ugly suburban architecture.

Just say NO to the government offering to reach into your pocket. I won't even get into the soccer thing, just NO NO NO. I hired a headhunter to bring in illegals to vote no on this, I consider it a worthwhile investment.

LOL! KC might finally get the light rail... passing 53-47 with 54% in. :)

Yeah... that's the only reason I would have to support it.

It's about time we stepped out from the stone age.

I'm so happy I could cry... WooWoo