Stadium Watch 2024 -Jackson County Residents: How Are You Voting?

[Pablo]

Vote in this poll if you actually live in Jackson county.

We've all shared our opinions in the other thread. But who gives a shit what somebody in Platte County or Johnson County or Phoenix or NYC thinks. We're all just noise.

[Balto]

Do Jackson county residents get any discounts on tickets/Parking or merchandise inside the stadium?

[Fish]

Originally Posted by LoneWolf

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware you were going to have to write a personal check for 2 billion dollars. How much say do you have on where your other tax dollars are being spent? Do you help set any of the county's budgets?

Yes, we typically vote often on how our tax dollars are to be spent. Just last November, our county had a vote regarding a use tax for online out of state purchases. We rejected that one too.

Also voted last year to approve a 3/8th cent tax to fund the public bus system.

That's just a couple I can remember from last year. So, yes this is typical for Jackson county voters deciding how to spend our taxes.

[-King-]

Originally Posted by Titty Meat

Stop telling people how to spend their money Queen

I'm not. That's why I asked how much would have been ok for you guys. Clearly 3/8 of a cent tax was too much. What would have worked for you?

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by Fish

I don't get why outsiders think we should have simply handed over $2B of our tax dollars when you admit outright that they asked for this money without providing us any plans for how it was supposed to work.

That was a big part of the reason why many people voted NO. The Royals did a very poor job of giving any kind of details about specifics. There basically weren't any. There was no community benefits agreement made. They simply wanted a blank check.

Sure, but this implies that it wouldn't have been a blank check even if they'd presented you with the best plan you ever could have hoped for. Nothing in their designs was binding - they could have gotten the vote and then done something entirely different.

They gave designs to give people an idea of what they were hoping for, but THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU VOTED ON. You voted on a tax that would go into place if they signed a contract to stay in the county - that's it. And you voted against it. Period.

[Titty Meat]

Originally Posted by -King-

I'm not. That's why I asked how much would have been ok for you guys. Clearly 3/8 of a cent tax was too much. What would have worked for you?

0

[Titty Meat]

Originally Posted by Balto

Do Jackson county residents get any discounts on tickets/Parking or merchandise inside the stadium?

No but we do get to stand in line for X amount of tickets the Chiefs pre-release

[-King-]

Originally Posted by Titty Meat

0

Cool. Gotcha.

[dlphg9]

Originally Posted by Mecca

You still pay far more if you live in that county, it's not like someone from Johnson county is buy their ****ing groceries in Jackson county.

Yeah and if you go out and get $250 in groceries you know how much tax would be added to the bill for the stadiums?

94 cents. That's all.

[Balto]

Originally Posted by Titty Meat

No but we do get to stand in line for X amount of tickets the Chiefs pre-release

Maybe some kind of discount would help? Would people be more inclined to vote yes for free parking? % off tickets? Maybe a updated tailgating area for JAckson county residents?

[ghak99]

Originally Posted by -King-

Sherman has better plans than Clark and was going to put up like 3x the money Clark did

In your opinion. Others would disagree. Lets just start with something simple like only one of the organizations was discussing removing locally owned businesses from the community. That alone is enough for many to be ok with the Chiefs proposal and against the Royals proposal.

On the other hand, a weak proposal from the Chiefs is the easiest way to get separation from a boat anchor. I could be convinced this is exactly what happened after Clark realized what he was paired with.

I personally have never really understood why it was put up as a single ballot initiative, other than hoping the Dynasty could pull the boat anchor across the finish line. If one of the teams wanted to leave the TSC and the other was proposing to stay, it makes sense to handle each individually based on their own plans and the returns the area may see from each of them.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by DaFace

Sure, but this implies that it wouldn't have been a blank check even if they'd presented you with the best plan you ever could have hoped for. Nothing in their designs was binding - they could have gotten the vote and then done something entirely different.

They gave designs to give people an idea of what they were hoping for, but THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU VOTED ON. You voted on a tax that would go into place if they signed a contract to stay in the county - that's it. And you voted against it. Period.

That's not exactly true. The local groups negotiating with the Royals/Chiefs and their proposed Community Benefits Agreement were actually very clearly detailed with regards to financial commitments in specific areas. This was discussed locally a great deal, although for some reason it didn't get much media attention. They Royals/Chiefs and these local groups went round and round over this for a long time but never could come to much agreement. The Royals/Chiefs finally made an official proposal at the very last minute, only days before the vote. But it was still drastically lacking in any actual detail.

If you're curious, here's a good article about it:

The Royals’ new Community Benefits Agreement lacks one important element: the community benefits

The CBA is exactly the vessel that should provide the binding details that voters needed. It's a vital component of any successful publicly funded stadium. The Royals simply failed to commit to the requests of the community.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by Fish

That's not exactly true. The local groups negotiating with the Royals/Chiefs and their proposed Community Benefits Agreement were actually very clearly detailed with regards to financial commitments in specific areas. This was discussed locally a great deal, although for some reason it didn't get much media attention. They Royals/Chiefs and these local groups went round and round over this for a long time but never could come to much agreement. The Royals/Chiefs finally made an official proposal at the very last minute, only days before the vote. But it was still drastically lacking in any actual detail.

If you're curious, here's a good article about it:

The Royals’ new Community Benefits Agreement lacks one important element: the community benefits

The CBA is exactly the vessel that should provide the binding details that voters needed. It's a vital component of any successful publicly funded stadium. The Royals simply failed to commit to the requests of the community.

That's much more about their financial contributions than the actual development plans, no? Or am I missing that somewhere?

[ghak99]

Originally Posted by Balto

Maybe some kind of discount would help? Would people be more inclined to vote yes for free parking? % off tickets? Maybe a updated tailgating area for JAckson county residents?

It sounds like you're talking about the Chiefs.

Last I knew, the Royals couldn't even get most of the private parking providers in the proposed area to offer the team a discount.

[-King-]

Originally Posted by ghak99

In your opinion. Others would disagree. Lets just start with something simple like only one of the organizations was discussing removing locally owned businesses from the community. That alone is enough for many to be ok with the Chiefs proposal and against the Royals proposal.

On the other hand, a weak proposal from the Chiefs is the easiest way to get separation from a boat anchor. I could be convinced this is exactly what happened after Clark realized what he was paired with.

I personally have never really understood why it was put up as a single ballot initiative, other than hoping the Dynasty could pull the boat anchor across the finish line. If one of the teams wanted to leave the TSC and the other was proposing to stay, it makes sense to handle each individually based on their own plans and the returns the area may see from each of them.

Which locally owned businesses there are you fighting for to keep that's more valuable than having a stadium and having a team in town?

You'd think that area would be crowded with consumers the way people talk about the businesses there. But it's mainly always dead. I guess I underestimate how much people love Temptations

[ghak99]

Originally Posted by -King-

Which locally owned businesses there are you fighting for to keep that's more valuable than having a stadium and having a team in town?

You'd think that area would be crowded with consumers the way people talk about the businesses there. But it's mainly always dead. I guess I underestimate how much people love Temptations

Your use of Temptations slides you into the column of people who get ignored in these conversations.

I personally didn't have ties to any specific business within the footprint. I was surprised by how many people seemed to rank this really high on their list of concerns, but I could easily lean to understanding their view as I often personally despise how domain gets used today. Especially when it's obviously being abused.

There's also something to be said for removing locally owned business that nearly always get replaced with chain store brands owned by an investor group in these types of deals. Using tax dollars to cause a business replacement that leads to exporting profits from the community to some investment group just doesn't sit well with many people.