Voters reject stadium tax for Royals and Chiefs
Voters reject stadium tax for Royals and Chiefs
The future of the Royals and Chiefs in Kansas City was thrown into question Tuesday when residents of Jackson County voted down a sales tax measure that would have helped to fund a new downtown ballpark along with major renovations to Arrowhead Stadium.
How dare voters not want to pay 75 basis points on every purchase for decades to fund private enterprise!
Do you ever think about how if every sports team was structured like the Green Bay Packers, there would be no conflict of interest with the city funding the development or renovation of a stadium for the team? What’s even more fun is that the NFL expressly prohibits any team from joining the league which is not privately owned. Literally the only exception is the Green Bay Packers and they only got that exception because they’re so old.
36That's a strong and damning take. Also, totally apt.
It's truly baffling to me that people who could never afford to go to their home team's games nonetheless want endless piles of taxpayer money thrown at them.
By this logic, all country clubs should be funded by taxes yet remain exclusive.
19Permanently Deleted
4Aint that a more recent development, ie after 2000/10. Were not sports for everyone at some point? Gen pop has not caught on that is now mostly for well off.
With that said, the point stands either way. Why is the tax payer funding this shit!
2
The Hunt family has more than enough money to finance this themselves.
16Fuck yeah we did!
12Good. Every city should refuse to publicly fund these projects, they have never delivered even a fraction of the benefits they claim to. If pro sports leagues just got told by every city worth a damn to pay their own way, things would be marginally better in this country.
10Churches too.
4
So now they'll threaten to move the teams to LA, right?
8Kinda disgusting they thought peasants are stupid enough to fall for this bullshit again tbh...
7There's a chance it could still happen. I live in Kansas City and voted No. While spending public money on a private endeavor was certainly a big issue, I think a lot of people were more POed with the way the teams and county/city went about this. There were almost no concrete plans on remaining sources of funding, potential traffic/parking/public transit issues, if the affected businesses in the proposed district would even sell off their land and properties, and more. Plus the fact that the selected location seemingly appeared out of nowhere. For months, there were two other locations -- one of which is literally almost entirely parking lots and empty space -- that were being talked about. And of course the implicit threats of leaving if the vote failed. There was also the rushed vote. There's no reason this had to be voted on this instant. This could've wait until the November election. People rightfully saw this was a bad way to go about this.
I think if the teams and city/county go back to the drawing board, change the location, come up with more concrete plans, lessen the amount of public money going in (like maybe not have a 40yr tax), get the teams to agree to stay the whole term -- the teams weren't even guaranteed to stay the whole term of the tax -- and just in general make it more appealing to people (the Chiefs were going to use their cut of the money to improve/build out more premium suites that average people will never see/use), people might be willing to vote for it. It'd still be a close call, but I could see people saying Yes if everything lined up.
Another option is for the teams to go across the state line to Kansas. Which I'd have no problem with that. If Kansans want to pay, let them. It's their money, not mine at that point.
2
Good for them. Wealthy owners should be paying for stadiums, not extorting taxpayers.
4Another reason why my professional sports viewing faded away.
3