Quote:
Originally Posted by tredadda
Except the billionaire’s don’t own the stadium. The city/county does. In essence the taxpayers would benefit from the revenue generated from events the stadium(s) hosts. That does not go into the pockets of the owners of the sports teams. I wasn’t referring to building a new school or water treatment plant. Let’s not pretend that eliminating the 3/8 cent tax would result in either of those being built.
Now a tax I was referring to is a property tax. A portion of that tax goes to funding schools that are zoned in that area. Should someone who has no children or children that do not go to those schools be forced to fund them without a say in it? If so, why?
|
That's just it. At worst, the majority of the residents apparently do not feel they would get enough of a benefit from it. At best, they just didn't like the Royals side of it.
People comparing the votes and funding of a need, public schools, to a want, private sports, and targeting the voters who prioritize those two things as they should be is asinine. They vote on each as they see fit and as they come along. Unless they're willing to foot the bill non locals should probably keep their traps shut about the locals making their own area's financial decisions, especially considering they haven't even cleaned up the property tax debacle, scandal, ineptitude, whatever you want to call it. If you want a bigger middle finger the next time around, everyone should keep talking smack to the residents about how they should be spending their money.
I don't really understand why people would even expect a county to compete with a state at this point either. Especially, when those resident can just drive a few miles and get the same experience for free. Kansas didn't even think about trying to ram the funding down a single county's throat, and for good reason.