FlippantCitizen wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2024 6:33 pm
What tax revenue do the teams generate for the city? Not property tax as the stadiums are owned by the county, correct? E-tax for player and staff salaries but even if the teams moved to KS some of those people might reside in KCMO still, so that plus sales tax on concessions. Let me know what other sources I might not be considering.
So that is > 3/8 cent sales tax on every other transaction in the county? IDK doesn’t really pass the smell test to me.
Well, I'm sure those estimates could be complied or already have been. I think there's no question that both teams have far more than 50 million annual economic impact on the county which was what the sales tax would have raised. The Chiefs came out with a independent study saying they alone contributed almost a billion to the regions economy in 2023 alone.
EDIT: One thing I can't stand is that sports economist like to base their entire negative argument on this idea that people were going to spend that money anyway. They say people have a limited entertainment budget and if they don't spend it on the games, they'd find other options to spend it on. Sure, some of that can be true but what about the retails sales from merch? What about the aspect of people leaving and moving to cities based on sports entertainment options? What about the income taxes paid by players? Do we all wear shirts and gather around on Monday's at work to talk about the latest cool movie we just watched? Not these days but sports has that impact on a community. These arguments by sports economists are horrible flawed.
So according to your graphic 28.8 million a year in taxes generated “direct, indirect and induced” e.g. the most reaching and optimistic estimate possible and that is “for the state of Missouri” so not necessarily every dollar of that is for Jackson County.
DColeKC wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2024 10:13 am
But only a small amount of people voted no because of the location or because they cared to save this area of the crossroads.
You have exit polls to share? Or is this anecdote or from Sean Smith's unreliable opt-in internet form? Seriously, tell the team to do their homework and bring data. We're not having it.
FlippantCitizen wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2024 6:33 pm
What tax revenue do the teams generate for the city? Not property tax as the stadiums are owned by the county, correct? E-tax for player and staff salaries but even if the teams moved to KS some of those people might reside in KCMO still, so that plus sales tax on concessions. Let me know what other sources I might not be considering.
So that is > 3/8 cent sales tax on every other transaction in the county? IDK doesn’t really pass the smell test to me.
Well, I'm sure those estimates could be complied or already have been. I think there's no question that both teams have far more than 50 million annual economic impact on the county which was what the sales tax would have raised. The Chiefs came out with a independent study saying they alone contributed almost a billion to the regions economy in 2023 alone.
EDIT: One thing I can't stand is that sports economist like to base their entire negative argument on this idea that people were going to spend that money anyway. They say people have a limited entertainment budget and if they don't spend it on the games, they'd find other options to spend it on. Sure, some of that can be true but what about the retails sales from merch? What about the aspect of people leaving and moving to cities based on sports entertainment options? What about the income taxes paid by players? Do we all wear shirts and gather around on Monday's at work to talk about the latest cool movie we just watched? Not these days but sports has that impact on a community. These arguments by sports economists are horrible flawed.
I feel like these studies miss a lot of economic activity teams bring to cities. If you don't have a pro team, you will not have a top facility and then you also would not have the major concerts and other events the stadiums bring to town. And what about all the charity teams and individual players donate to in the city? If the Chiefs were not in town, would KC have this new soccer stadium? Would they be hosting the world cup? Would KC get major stadium concerts and NCAA events?
I also think it matters a LOT more to a city like KC. It's a smaller city that doesn't get many visitors from outside the immediate region. The teams give the city and identity and the teams have more impact on the economy of the community.
DColeKC wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2024 10:13 am
But only a small amount of people voted no because of the location or because they cared to save this area of the crossroads.
You have exit polls to share? Or is this anecdote or from Sean Smith's unreliable opt-in internet form? Seriously, tell the team to do their homework and bring data. We're not having it.
I don’t have the authority to share the information. Not that it’s relevant but my own anecdotal experience is most people just wanted a better, more organized plan along with more information. The save the crossroads noise was loud for sure but not in the top 3 factors for why this failed. I also haven’t heard of campaigns sharing internal polling even if they don’t give it another run.
DColeKC wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2024 4:24 pm
Not if the case is made about what the city stands to lose. If both teams leave KCMO, taxes will need to go up in order to cover the significant loss of tax revenue and it will need to go up far more than the 3/8th cent county tax that just failed. Make it about the truth, that this city and its coffers need these teams. Not just in the immediate but for the long term as well.
The current 3/8 tax goes to the county not the city. Yes the city does collect some E-tax and sales tax but isn't some of that kicked back to the TSC? And yes the city also collects an amount of other taxes but I would imagine the amounts are just a small portion of the totals collected for each of the taxes.
DColeKC wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2024 10:50 pm
I don’t have the authority to share the information. Not that it’s relevant but my own anecdotal experience is most people just wanted a better, more organized plan along with more information. The save the crossroads noise was loud for sure but not in the top 3 factors for why this failed. I also haven’t heard of campaigns sharing internal polling even if they don’t give it another run.
We all have our own anecdotal experience as to why voters voted no. Mine has people saying the team needs to stay at the K as their #1 reason. With regards to polling we all know it all depends on not who was asked but those that actually respond. Also polls can be somewhat unreliable.
Of course this quote wasn't usually used until later, and often modified, in the voting period but many had a liking to it.
" "When we build a public library, we don't have to pay to get in, but when we build a stadium, we have to pay the owner every time we go to a game." ~ Jesse Ventura
DColeKC wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2024 10:50 pm
I don’t have the authority to share the information. Not that it’s relevant but my own anecdotal experience is most people just wanted a better, more organized plan along with more information.
You are always privy to important men's skivvies while they are lined up on a high light floor drooling over their vision of a gem across the highway that will make KC great again. In my anecdotal experience, many downtown stadium supporters were disappointed with the plan but were looking for a reason to vote yes. When Sherman came out and said that baseball players are artists, too, that was the final straw.
DColeKC wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2024 10:50 pm
I don’t have the authority to share the information. Not that it’s relevant but my own anecdotal experience is most people just wanted a better, more organized plan along with more information. The save the crossroads noise was loud for sure but not in the top 3 factors for why this failed. I also haven’t heard of campaigns sharing internal polling even if they don’t give it another run.
We all have our own anecdotal experience as to why voters voted no. Mine has people saying the team needs to stay at the K as their #1 reason. With regards to polling we all know it all depends on not who was asked but those that actually respond. Also polls can be somewhat unreliable.
Of course this quote wasn't usually used until later, and often modified, in the voting period but many had a liking to it.
" "When we build a public library, we don't have to pay to get in, but when we build a stadium, we have to pay the owner every time we go to a game." ~ Jesse Ventura
Staying at the K was never an option. The Royals will take a breath and see what their options are now - staying at the K will almost assuredly not be one of them.
DColeKC wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2024 10:50 pm
I don’t have the authority to share the information. Not that it’s relevant but my own anecdotal experience is most people just wanted a better, more organized plan along with more information.
You are always privy to important men's skivvies while they are lined up on a high light floor drooling over their vision of a gem across the highway that will make KC great again. In my anecdotal experience, many downtown stadium supporters were disappointed with the plan but were looking for a reason to vote yes. When Sherman came out and said that baseball players are artists, too, that was the final straw.
I think you can do better with the insult but thanks for basically agreeing with me.
Highlander wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2024 11:14 am
Staying at the K was never an option. The Royals will take a breath and see what their options are now - staying at the K will almost assuredly not be one of them.
Very well could be in the long term a new stadium but in the short term playing at the K may be the only option outside of selling the team to out-of-towners. Even then it is very likely the K will be home until the end of the lease term.
"Kansas City Manager Brian Platt said Monday on radio station KCUR that the city is in talks with both teams and will take the lead on future negotiations, displacing Jackson County government from that role. Platt suggested that the next deal for a downtown ballpark might not require a public vote and said he still favors the East Crossroads site because of its proximity to other downtown attractions and the streetcar."
"Kansas City Manager Brian Platt said Monday on radio station KCUR that the city is in talks with both teams and will take the lead on future negotiations, displacing Jackson County government from that role. Platt suggested that the next deal for a downtown ballpark might not require a public vote and said he still favors the East Crossroads site because of its proximity to other downtown attractions and the streetcar."
KCPowercat wrote: ↑Tue Apr 16, 2024 9:39 am
Gonna get ugly if the city does this without a vote after losing the last vote so bad. Better have small business impacted on board
They had nothing to do with the last vote. I'm sure the Royals have learned their lesson and would have a much better plan in place regarding displaced or impacted businesses.
I'm not saying they were materially the reason but the downtown voting bloc ending up such in the no camp the whole impacting the neighborhood had some impact.
I'm just saying overall if a vote goes so badly and then the government finds a way to make it happen anyways without another vote, it typically gets pretty nasty. I don't disagree with doing so honestly I'm just predicting this will not be well received and will take a LOT more good will footwork for it to be palatable.
The city manager was asked if there will be another stadium vote this year. He said there just may not be a vote again. IMHO came off to me as: “this moving forward isn’t a done deal. We are trying but it may not advance. We will try”
KCPowercat wrote: ↑Tue Apr 16, 2024 9:49 am
I'm not saying they were materially the reason but the downtown voting bloc ending up such in the no camp the whole impacting the neighborhood had some impact.
I'm just saying overall if a vote goes so badly and then the government finds a way to make it happen anyways without another vote, it typically gets pretty nasty. I don't disagree with doing so honestly I'm just predicting this will not be well received and will take a LOT more good will footwork for it to be palatable.
They should do this work out of the public eye. Work with property owners and tenants one on one or in small groups. They need to keep the negotiating out of the media unless it gets to a point where that leverage is needed. Jill and anyone with an attitude like hers shouldn't be a part of the discussions. She's going to twist and manipulate regardless of what is offered to her. Once everyone is in a good place, they should come out with the plan. Organized, clean and fair.
