The Roof was destined to Fail.

[epitome1170]

Originally Posted by jspchief

I don't hate the idea. I just think it was impractical to try and get this roof, when they are having a hard enough time convincing the city to even pay for the stadium upgrades. It's like trying to sell someone a car that they don't want, and expecting them to buy a boat too. KC is just too conservative to expect them to support something as progressive as this.

Perhaps, I am mistaken on my facts, but I thought that if question 1 passed then question 2 was just to find out how they wanted to spend the money, i.e. the rolling roof. Now that the roof failed that just means that they will still be taxed the same but will have renovations just no roof. Is that correct? If so, then I guess I would think of it as someone buying a car and then the salesman to ask if they wanted a convertible for the same price.

However, I could be mistaken on the whole thing... some clarification on the exact wording of question 2 would help.

[Old Dog]

Originally Posted by epitome1170

However, I could be mistaken on the whole thing... some clarification on the exact wording of question 2 would help.

You can find the wording here:http://kcchiefs.com/news/2006/04/05/gretz_yes_and_no/

about 2/3 of the way down the page.

[morphius]

Originally Posted by epitome1170

Perhaps, I am mistaken on my facts, but I thought that if question 1 passed then question 2 was just to find out how they wanted to spend the money, i.e. the rolling roof. Now that the roof failed that just means that they will still be taxed the same but will have renovations just no roof. Is that correct? If so, then I guess I would think of it as someone buying a car and then the salesman to ask if they wanted a convertible for the same price.

However, I could be mistaken on the whole thing... some clarification on the exact wording of question 2 would help.

No, question 2 was a different tax.

[Calcountry]

Originally Posted by epitome1170

I personally loved the idea of the rolling roof. I have heard quite a few people question the reliability of the idea, but being an engineer, I would have to trust that a well known firm such as HOK would not suggest the idea without having the capability of it working. Engineers careers are ruined very easily with any sort of mistake so I do not think they would risk that.

In addition to the pure engineer in me liking the idea, the sports fan in me loves the idea of the final four and the superbowl possibly coming to KC. Obviously I would rather have one of my teams be in those respective championships, but if I cant have that then having the chance to be near such an event would have to suffice.

Life is full of risks.

It was risky, to build such tall towers in N.Y. One can never fully predict all future eventualities. Like, a 7.0 earthquake in some hidden fault that may or may not lie under K.C.

Or the Monster tornado that would gust up and under said roof and carry it away like Toto back to Kansas.

[epitome1170]

Originally Posted by bunnytrdr

Life is full of risks.

It was risky, to build such tall towers in N.Y. One can never fully predict all future eventualities. Like, a 7.0 earthquake in some hidden fault that may or may not lie under K.C.

Or the Monster tornado that would gust up and under said roof and carry it away like Toto back to Kansas.

So are you trying to say that the engineers didn't design this roof to sustain more than the minimum regulations? I am simply saying that the engineers involved are very competent and would not RISK putting out plans for this if they were not confident it would be feasible under certain events. These certain events have been stated as a F3 tornado.

True other events could occur in which the roof could get destroyed, but if that happened I am pretty sure anything else in that area would be gone as well. As for the earthquake in KC, assuming there is a hidden one that all of the geologists happened to not see, and then that it suddenly hit with a 7.0 I am positive that the roof would be the last thing we would be thinking about being as very few, if any, of the buildings in KC are designed for earthquakes being we are not in a seismic region and thus civil engineers do not have to design for them according to building codes.

[Calcountry]

Originally Posted by epitome1170

So are you trying to say that the engineers didn't design this roof to sustain more than the minimum regulations? I am simply saying that the engineers involved are very competent and would not RISK putting out plans for this if they were not confident it would be feasible under certain events. These certain events have been stated as a F3 tornado.

True other events could occur in which the roof could get destroyed, but if that happened I am pretty sure anything else in that area would be gone as well. As for the earthquake in KC, assuming there is a hidden one that all of the geologists happened to not see, and then that it suddenly hit with a 7.0 I am positive that the roof would be the last thing we would be thinking about being as very few, if any, of the buildings in KC are designed for earthquakes being we are not in a seismic region and thus civil engineers do not have to design for them according to building codes.

No, I am not saying that at all. Engineers rock dude. I use to have Calculus courses with them in College when I was still on the track to be an Economist. I am quite sure they think out more contingencies than I threw up off the top of my head to merely suggest, that one can never be 100% sure of integrity for all eventualities. 4 Standard deviations from the mean sure, but never does that curve touch the line.

[greg63]

Originally Posted by Ali Chi3fs

The Roof was destined to Fail.

I think so too.

[Old Dog]

What I don't understand (and maybe it's because I didn't fully understand the roof issue) is why vote for renovations and not the roof.

#1 Wasn't the rolling roof supposed to be primarily with "user fees" (not taxing the residents of Jackson Co) and

#2 The cost of the roof itself was (if I'm thinking clearly) somewhere in the proximity of $250 million. A Super Bowl (a sure thing if the roof passed) would bring in >$300 million to the county, so in my thinking it would pay for itself in time (especially adding in revenues from large conventions/Finals Four etc...)

Am I wrong in either of those thoughts? I'm just trying to figure it out.

[cmh6476]

Originally Posted by truebigdog

What I don't understand (and maybe it's because I didn't fully understand the roof issue) is why vote for renovations and not the roof.
#1 Wasn't the rolling roof supposed to be primarily with "user fees" (not taxing the residents of Jacskon Co) and
#2 The cost of the roof itself was (if I'm thinking clearly) somewhere in the proximity of $250 million. A Super Bowl (a sure thing if the roof passed) would bring in >$300 million to the county, so in my thinking it would pay for itself in time (especially adding in revenues from large conventions/Finals Four etc...)

Am I wrong in either of those thoughts? I'm just trying to figure it out.

yep, if you voted for the improvements you might as well have voted for the roof.

[cookster50]

Originally Posted by truebigdog

#1 Wasn't the rolling roof supposed to be primarily with "user fees" (not taxing the residents of Jackson Co) and

No, it was a "use tax" that would be assessed on purchases over $2000 or something like that which were purchased out of county if I'm not mistaken. Mainly geared towards businesses. The common misconception would be that most people wouldn't be paying that. However, how do you think businesses would recoup the money they spent on the tax? You betcha, raise prices!

[philfree]

Originally Posted by truebigdog

What I don't understand (and maybe it's because I didn't fully understand the roof issue) is why vote for renovations and not the roof.

#1 Wasn't the rolling roof supposed to be primarily with "user fees" (not taxing the residents of Jackson Co) and

#2 The cost of the roof itself was (if I'm thinking clearly) somewhere in the proximity of $250 million. A Super Bowl (a sure thing if the roof passed) would bring in >$300 million to the county, so in my thinking it would pay for itself in time (especially adding in revenues from large conventions/Finals Four etc...)

Am I wrong in either of those thoughts? I'm just trying to figure it out.

How bout some winter rock concerts? That'd be a possibility. IMO the roof would pay for it self in time. If the 1st Super Bowl goes off well then there's a good chance there might be another. Also how much money will be spent locally just building the thing? How many new jobs will be created? How many new jobs will be created for all the Hotels that will have to be built to house the people attendding the game and other events that comes with it? To me this thing will be revisited and it should be.

PhilFree

[jspchief]

There is already a use tax in existence in Missouri. But it is limited to expenditures over $2000. So if you order $1999 worth of clothing from your favorite online retailer, you don't pay any sales tax (unless said retailer also has a store in MO). But if you spend $2000+, you will be charged the MO sales tax on your purchase.

The use tax that was proposed in question #2 would essentially eliminate that $2000 buffer. Every penny spent on out of state purchases would be subject to the county sales tax which is currently .75 of one percent.

In essence, a yes vote for question #2 would have made catalog/internet purchases subject to the 3/4 of one percent sales tax that Jackson County already has in place.

The sad thing is, states are starting to put these use taxes into place already, usually without any vote. This would have been a way to earmark that money for the roof, and it's a tax that you'll probably be paying within 5 years anyway.

IMO, that tax didn't pass because too many people simply did not understand what they were voting on.

[Skip Towne]

How much is the sales tax in Jackson County? It's 8% in Tulsa.

[jspchief]

Originally Posted by Skip Towne

How much is the sales tax in Jackson County? It's 8% in Tulsa.

The county tax is only 3/4 of one percent. That's all the use tax in question two would have been.

[jidar]

Originally Posted by jspchief

The county tax is only 3/4 of one percent. That's all the use tax in question two would have been.

Yeah but what's the total right now? .0075 isn't much but it adds up and there is a limit to what people want to pay for sales tax. Around here going over that 8 cent marker is probably high to most folks.