How will YOU vote on the Stadium issue? - Page 2

Sig Kauffman · 10-10-2004, 01:34 PM

Shall a retail sales tax of one-fourth (1/4) of one cent be levied and collected in Kansas and
Missouri metropolitan Culture District (“Bistate Metropolitan District”) consisting of Johnson
County, Kansas and Jackson County, Missouri, and such other counties which are or may
become part of the Bistate Metropolitan District and which authorize this tax to be levied
(each a “Participating County”), including the counties of Clay and Platte in Missouri and
Wyandotte in Kansas?

go bo · 10-10-2004, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beer me

I live in Illinois, so I don't think they'll let me vote. You can ask my sister in Lee's Summitt though if you want.

what? you have siblings?

i guess i figured you for a one-of-a-kind kinda guy...

go bo · 10-10-2004, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phobia

Thanks for typing that for me. It saved me a lot of time.

Another issue for me is dual purpose stadiums. With all the architectural advancements of the past 30 years, don't tell me a firm can't develop a transforming stadium that will appeal to baseball/football/soccer for <2/3rds the cost of 2 brand new venues. I know dual purpose stadiums suck, but if somebody really wanted to, they could be innovative with adaptable seating.

well, we'd only need a dual purpose stadium if the royals were gonna stay in kc...

but it's doubtful that they will be here too much longer...

the market is just too small, apparently...

everytime we get a good player come up through the farm system we trade them away for next to nothing because we can't afford to pay them what they're worth...

it's annoying to see so many good players for other (big market) teams that were once royals...

VonneMarie · 10-10-2004, 08:22 PM

And another thing with this new arena coming if we get an NHL or NBA, I'm afraid that's gonna push out the Royals. I don't think KC could support 3 or 4 sports franchises. Tho I would love to see it here.

Big Dog · 10-10-2004, 08:42 PM

I'm voting no because the 6 gold level seats and 2 parking passes we pay for (over 5K this year) seems plenty to me. I can't tell you how upset all this crap makes me feel. Billion dollar franchises need the help of the peopl to keep their stadiums (that we paid for in the first place) in good shape? BAH

Oh, and just because 'everyone else does it' doesn't make it right.

I bleed Chief's red like the rest of you, but if the Chiefs pulled a 'Browns' I would be crushed, but turn my back on football as fast as I did baseball after the last strike...by the way, do they still play baseball on a professional level in this city?

Mark M · 10-11-2004, 06:42 AM

I'm voting for it, but not because of the stadium issues.

The art district that is proposed is why I'm voiting for this measure.

Throwing in the stadium upgrades was kinda weak, IMHO, but it's something that needs to be done. The residents in KC will NOT go for $400-500 million for new stadiums, and I have enough faith in HOK and the other stadium design firms in town that, whatever they do, they will do enough to keep the stadium viable for at least another 20 years.

MM
~~

KCN · 10-11-2004, 07:42 AM

It is unfortunate that the arts funding got lumped into this. KC needs a nationally known performing arts center to continue regaining its status as a national destination.

If it were just the stadium funding, I would vote no. I have seen renderings of the projected improvements and they are not worth 2/3 the cost of building a new stadium. Just wait a few years and bring the royals downtown in a new facility down the street from the arena for just $100M more.

As it stands now I'm still undecided. I voted "not voting" forgetting that this issue was on the back of my absentee ballot.

redbrian · 10-11-2004, 07:58 AM

I'm voting yes on this, I don't see this as a stop gap, Arrow Head and the K are not going to be replaced any time soon (if ever), there is more of a chance of MLB falling apart or the Royals leaving town.

The bi-state is a good tax for the region, it is going to support a lot of cultural and entertainment venues (not just sports), which are required to induce top notch corporations to move to the KC area.

The downtown rebirth is gaining critical mass which this will only add to, with the announcement of H&R block adding a 300 seat performance space for the rep, the exceedingly hot residential market downtown, this tax will help bring the performing arts center off the page to reality.

redbrian · 10-11-2004, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KCN

It is unfortunate that the arts funding got lumped into this. KC needs a nationally known performing arts center to continue regaining its status as a national destination.

If it were just the stadium funding, I would vote no. I have seen renderings of the projected improvements and they are not worth 2/3 the cost of building a new stadium. Just wait a few years and bring the royals downtown in a new facility down the street from the arena for just $100M more.

As it stands now I'm still undecided. I voted "not voting" forgetting that this issue was on the back of my absentee ballot.

Leave the K where the K is, take that $100 mil and build around the Truman Sports complex, a lot of stuff is happening down the 70 corridor which is starting to bring all of the venues that people have been screaming for. The new Bass Pro complex (including a hotel), will be a great addition to the area and a great place for fans to stay.

A shuttle bus system running between the complex and say Blue Springs Expressway would be a great way of moving fans to the various restaurants, bars and hotels popping up all along this corridor.

cookster50 · 10-11-2004, 08:16 AM

Definitely a NO. If they put an ending date on it, I would consider it. But I can see this tax being a never ending tax that everyone will regret 15 years from now.

**BigRedChief** · 10-11-2004, 08:25 AM

This poll is worthless without a Gaz option.

**BigRedChief** · 10-11-2004, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phobia

No, this is a revitalization project for both stadiums. They want $238 million from taxpayers. They also both want new stadiums at some point in the future.

I agree and soon. Probably 2015 we will start to hear it from the Royals and Chiefs.

shaneo69 · 10-11-2004, 08:42 AM

I think I read somewhere that the tax would cost the average KC family an estimated $94 per year.

Who will get more value from the stadium improvements, the fan who gets more toilets and concession stands, or the owner who gets more income from new luxury boxes and higher ticket prices? Does the owner profit enough from the improvements to cover the costs himself?

You've already got football owners looking to move in San Diego, Oakland, and Minnesota. LA can't get its crap together and build a stadium. Where would Hunt move the team if he didn't get the stadium improvements? It took four years to move the Expos. Where would Glass move the Royals?

KC Jones · 10-11-2004, 09:34 AM

The problem with our stadiums isn't just revenue generating potential from luxury suites. It's also 30+ year old plumbing, wiring, etc.

However I'm opposed to the crappy job they've done of tacking on free money for the Chiefs and Royals. I think someone had the bright idea that if you put the Chiefs on the ticket the vote would pass and that would be the only way to get bistate through. I'd have preferred just voting for the performing arts package alone. Now I'm not sure which way I'll vote.

I'm leaning towards no because I feel like this is a frankenstein tax that hasn't been well thought out.

KCN · 10-11-2004, 10:01 AM

I'm not even sure exactly what the arts package is. The PAC is being built regardless. It would have been nice to give voters a better idea of what we're actually voting on.

htismaqe · 10-11-2004, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shaneo69

I think I read somewhere that the tax would cost the average KC family an estimated $94 per year.

Who will get more value from the stadium improvements, the fan who gets more toilets and concession stands, or the owner who gets more income from new luxury boxes and higher ticket prices? Does the owner profit enough from the improvements to cover the costs himself?

You've already got football owners looking to move in San Diego, Oakland, and Minnesota. LA can't get its crap together and build a stadium. Where would Hunt move the team if he didn't get the stadium improvements? It took four years to move the Expos. Where would Glass move the Royals?

Just an FYI -- I'm in no way suggesting that KC would be the same -- it's NOT a coincidence that the biggest spenders in free agency over the last few years (Denver, Washington, etc.) have new stadiums with TONS of luxury boxes.

View Poll Results: How will YOU vote on the Stadium Issue Nov. 2?
Yes	41	43.16%
No	26	27.37%
Undecided	5	5.26%
Not Voting	23	24.21%
Voters: 95. You may not vote on this poll

10-10-2004, 01:34 PM
Sig Kauffman Adopt-a-Chief... Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: I-70 & Blue Ridge Cutoff Casino cash: $10004900	How will YOU vote on the Stadium issue? Shall a retail sales tax of one-fourth (1/4) of one cent be levied and collected in Kansas and Missouri metropolitan Culture District (“Bistate Metropolitan District”) consisting of Johnson County, Kansas and Jackson County, Missouri, and such other counties which are or may become part of the Bistate Metropolitan District and which authorize this tax to be levied (each a “Participating County”), including the counties of Clay and Platte in Missouri and Wyandotte in Kansas?
Posts: 236

10-10-2004, 08:22 PM	#18
VonneMarie Don't look over here Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Kansas City, MO Casino cash: $10008987	And another thing with this new arena coming if we get an NHL or NBA, I'm afraid that's gonna push out the Royals. I don't think KC could support 3 or 4 sports franchises. Tho I would love to see it here.
Posts: 17,644

10-10-2004, 08:42 PM	#19
Big Dog gimme 3 stacks of high society Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Grain Valley, MO Casino cash: $10004900	I'm voting no because the 6 gold level seats and 2 parking passes we pay for (over 5K this year) seems plenty to me. I can't tell you how upset all this crap makes me feel. Billion dollar franchises need the help of the peopl to keep their stadiums (that we paid for in the first place) in good shape? BAH Oh, and just because 'everyone else does it' doesn't make it right. I bleed Chief's red like the rest of you, but if the Chiefs pulled a 'Browns' I would be crushed, but turn my back on football as fast as I did baseball after the last strike...by the way, do they still play baseball on a professional level in this city? __________________ If you are going to run with the big dogs, you had better learn to pee in the tall grass!
Posts: 236

10-11-2004, 06:42 AM	#20
Mark M What time is it? Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: You tell me ... Casino cash: $9884900	I'm voting for it, but not because of the stadium issues. The art district that is proposed is why I'm voiting for this measure. Throwing in the stadium upgrades was kinda weak, IMHO, but it's something that needs to be done. The residents in KC will NOT go for $400-500 million for new stadiums, and I have enough faith in HOK and the other stadium design firms in town that, whatever they do, they will do enough to keep the stadium viable for at least another 20 years. MM ~~ __________________ ChiefsPlanet -- n. The place where brilliant minds assemble to willfully pool ignorance with questionable logic in order to reach absurd conclusions.
Posts: 4,687

10-11-2004, 07:42 AM	#21
KCN Veteran Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Ohio Casino cash: $10004900	It is unfortunate that the arts funding got lumped into this. KC needs a nationally known performing arts center to continue regaining its status as a national destination. If it were just the stadium funding, I would vote no. I have seen renderings of the projected improvements and they are not worth 2/3 the cost of building a new stadium. Just wait a few years and bring the royals downtown in a new facility down the street from the arena for just $100M more. As it stands now I'm still undecided. I voted "not voting" forgetting that this issue was on the back of my absentee ballot.
Posts: 1,320

10-11-2004, 07:58 AM	#22
redbrian Veteran Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Kansas City MO Casino cash: $10004900	I'm voting yes on this, I don't see this as a stop gap, Arrow Head and the K are not going to be replaced any time soon (if ever), there is more of a chance of MLB falling apart or the Royals leaving town. The bi-state is a good tax for the region, it is going to support a lot of cultural and entertainment venues (not just sports), which are required to induce top notch corporations to move to the KC area. The downtown rebirth is gaining critical mass which this will only add to, with the announcement of H&R block adding a 300 seat performance space for the rep, the exceedingly hot residential market downtown, this tax will help bring the performing arts center off the page to reality.
Posts: 3,899

10-11-2004, 08:16 AM	#24
cookster50 Supreme Commander of My House Join Date: Apr 2004 Casino cash: $2933622	Definitely a NO. If they put an ending date on it, I would consider it. But I can see this tax being a never ending tax that everyone will regret 15 years from now.
Posts: 3,431

10-11-2004, 08:25 AM	#25
BigRedChief Has a particular set of skills Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: On the water Casino cash: $2779627 VARSITY	This poll is worthless without a Gaz option. __________________ Time is worth more than money.
Posts: 79,266

10-11-2004, 08:42 AM	#27
shaneo69 Smug Weasel Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Bleachers at Busch Casino cash: $10004900	I think I read somewhere that the tax would cost the average KC family an estimated $94 per year. Who will get more value from the stadium improvements, the fan who gets more toilets and concession stands, or the owner who gets more income from new luxury boxes and higher ticket prices? Does the owner profit enough from the improvements to cover the costs himself? You've already got football owners looking to move in San Diego, Oakland, and Minnesota. LA can't get its crap together and build a stadium. Where would Hunt move the team if he didn't get the stadium improvements? It took four years to move the Expos. Where would Glass move the Royals?
Posts: 4,910

10-11-2004, 09:34 AM	#28
KC Jones Genious Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Colorado Casino cash: $10012761	The problem with our stadiums isn't just revenue generating potential from luxury suites. It's also 30+ year old plumbing, wiring, etc. However I'm opposed to the crappy job they've done of tacking on free money for the Chiefs and Royals. I think someone had the bright idea that if you put the Chiefs on the ticket the vote would pass and that would be the only way to get bistate through. I'd have preferred just voting for the performing arts package alone. Now I'm not sure which way I'll vote. I'm leaning towards no because I feel like this is a frankenstein tax that hasn't been well thought out. __________________ re-sign: to sign again resign: to withdraw from employment
Posts: 5,366

10-11-2004, 10:01 AM	#29
KCN Veteran Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Ohio Casino cash: $10004900	I'm not even sure exactly what the arts package is. The PAC is being built regardless. It would have been nice to give voters a better idea of what we're actually voting on.
Posts: 1,320