The Roof was destined to Fail.

[teedubya]

Ok... I want to know whose brainchild this is... to put the stadium renovations AND the roof at the same time?

Seriously, You most likely going to vote FOR or AGAINST for renovations.

Now, if you voted yes FOR the renovations... you may be for or against the roof...

however, if you voted NO for renovations, there is ZERO chance you are gonna vote YES for the roof.

So, by this logic, if only ONE person wanted the renovations but thought the roof idea was gay... the roof would have failed.

Now, you have to ask, was the roof just a diversion to insure that the renovations got passed?

[jspchief]

Originally Posted by tomahawk kid

But the purchases would need to total over $2k for the tax to kick in.

Wrong. That is what is currently in place in the state of Missouri.

The passing of question #2 would have removed that $2k buffer for residents of Jackson County.

[Lzen]

Originally Posted by morphius

I really don't see why that should be. Throw in a little bit of extra cash to design them so they can handle a roof if they are able to get it passed down the road. I mean really, why wouldn't you do it this way?

I'm guessing that it wouldn't be a little bit of extra cash. I'm thinking that the $250 million wouldn't just be for a rolling roof. It probably also include climate control systems for the stadiums.

[morphius]

Originally Posted by Lzen

I'm guessing that it wouldn't be a little bit of extra cash. I'm thinking that the $250 million wouldn't just be for a rolling roof. It probably also include climate control systems for the stadiums.

Oh, I understand that as well. But if it is something the owner really wants, then you design the facility so that it wouldn't take another huge reinvestment by the tax payers to get it done. You wait to put the actual equipment in until it passes, but you design it so that it is possible.

[BigChiefFan]

It was rumored that people could actually go up IN the rolling roof and watch the game from ABOVE the playing field.

[patteeu]

I'm revoking your permit to use the phrase "So, by this logic,..."

[ChiefsCountry]

If they want the roof to pass, they need to tax something that residents wont use that much like a hotel or rental car tax. Those always seem to work well.

[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.

[epitome1170]

Originally Posted by bunnytrdr

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.

Ok, fair enough, I guess I got the opposite impression from you as to not to vote for the rolling roof because of potential disasters that could destroy the roof. That would just be plain ignorant is all.