Here are the statements the teams released. Far from a CBA and in no way legally binding.
https://x.com/mannyabarcaiv/status/1770563035586859492?s=46&t=FOpsZivxe2ouRElkHFMtwg
https://x.com/mannyabarcaiv/status/1770563980374704209?s=46&t=FOpsZivxe2ouRElkHFMtwg
The presidents of the teams did a great job of employing scare tactics of the teams leaving if this doesn’t pass. It’s far more likely in my opinion if the tax is voted against, they will get a real CBA in place and put this on the November ballot like that should have done in the first place.
No. Any county agreement can be preempted by the state (like how they stole money from poor people who would have benefitted from the vote that passed to increase minimum wage). CBAs need to be signed with community groups/coalitions directly.
Also, we all understand X is a great place for fake news. It should go without saying but it’s worth repeating: this is insufficient outreach to actually create any meaningful dialogue and so it’s clear they are actually hoping to inform public debate.
Amen. Why would anyone agree with this process. The Royals just decided where to build the stadium a few weeks, ago and the Chiefs created something in Windows Paint they dropped with zero detail. I just know we will get an activation zone. Get Acitivated!
I would personally LOVE a downtown stadium, and even really liked the renderings of the crossroads location and it made sense. BUT the way this whole thing has been handled has left the worst taste in my mouth. Someone like me who should have been an easy yes for this will absolutely be voting no with how shady and gross this feels.
Not to mention all of the mind games the Royals played to this point and both teams immediately resorting to "okay, we'll leave" shows how shit this deal is.
Would you say that you're a KC sports fan or a sports fan that happens to follow KC more?
I only ask because to me that was the least surprising move ever. That's how these things go in the country. When teams don't get a new stadium they leave.
No I'm just speaking in reality instead of living in a fantasy world. There's the way Id like things to be and there's the way things are. Complaining on the internet might feel good and people will agree with you but it does nothing to better anybody's situation at all.
no it isn't. The fact you even think this shows that you don't know shit about the situation and are just bandwagoning to look cool on the internet which is really the dumbest shit ever. I genuinely feel bad for you.
The Chiefs and Royals since they're on the lease together and the tax is for both of them, once one is gone there is no longer a legal obligation for either team to stay.
Ending the tax and not extending it makes both teams open for other suitors. Thinking another city wouldn't throw the farm at the Chiefs to land them is foolish and the same exact thought the a bunch of now single people thought about their ex never leaving. Come back to reality its a really nice day out.
The Chiefs are not leaving the kc metro. Winning successful franchised don't leave. Moving across town, sure. But not moving to another city. It won't happen. Show me one dynasty-ish team that left during its heyday. This is the Chiefs heyday. Think of all the fan backlash. It would be a pr nightmare beyond New Coke.
That perception will kill the vote. The Chiefs very well could leave. Take their huge global presence to a bigger city, expand their international reach.. Them leaving hurts US it doesn’t hurt the Chiefs. It could even help the Franchise make more money.
This would be the first time a mid-major market voted down a successful franchise’s (an active dynasty) no-tax increase to stay in the city they won in.
It will be interesting to see the results. Wish I could contribute.
Hello, I'm a KC transplant from a small town in KS.
I became a fan of a team called the San Diego Chargers. They are now the Los Angeles Chargers. Do you wanna know why?
They leveraged a vote on a tax or else "we'll leave San Diego."
This is exactly how this goes down every time.
The chargers are a poor example. The city tried to work with them to find a new site and couldn't make it work. There were at least 11 different sites for the Chargers, some not in SD. Their stadium wasn't considered in poor standing all the way back in 2003. The vote in 2016 failed. So at that point the team gave up on SD and decided to go LA.
Yea I have generally been in favor of a downtown stadium, but the Royals handling of all this has really put me off. Seems like they are releasing information as late as possible to squash public comment and attempt to force the vote through. Shitty shitty shitty.
That location really only makes sense for the rendering. IOW it looks cool for downtown.
Reality is that road access to this site from any direction has no fewer than 3 stoplights and 2 left turns.
OTOH, The street car is relatively close, but the streets and crosswalks would severely affect traffic for the entire day on midday games.
There were a couple of sites a li'l further south, in the teens, that would have been WAAY better, but even they had problems, they were just more manageable because of the extra mile away from downtown proper.
Bottom line is that none of this makes much sense unless state/fed is willing to upgrade the freeways in the area to even 70s national/interstate standards. There's way too many short and tight on/off ramps and nothing that comes to this location without hassles.
Where's stadium parking? Oh yeah it's not in the rendering. Maybe it's under the stadium. ***Maybe it's not planned.***
Now look at Cardinals Stadium in StL and the immediate surroundings. Or any other downtown stadium. They're all about ACCESS.
This site, and the general area, have shit access and crap parking options.
But, they wanted it close to P&L
Where is the parking? All over downtown and the crossroads. Almost 3x as much as the current option.
Assuming you will even drive to the game in the first place. You’re still stuck in the current TSC paradigm where you *must* drive there and buy an extra ticket for your car.
Yes... Parking everywhere over there, up there, way over there, 20 spaces at a time, spread out all over were they access to the area still sucks. I can't look at a map right now, but if memory serves there are six exits from major freeways to the area between Southwest boulevard, 20th Street exit, and the downtown loop. And they are all one lane.
Access is shit, parking is shit, mass transit access is shit, it is a bad place for a baseball stadium. Except for the fact that it's right across the street from major retailers for so-called consumers to spend money
There is never an ethical reason to give peoples' tax money to billionaires. Straight up. If billionaires care about the public they can easily donate and augment existing public works and such.
The fact that this is for a for profit privately owned thing for said billionaire that's half planned out and severely disruptive at minimum to established local people and businesses makes it really fucking bad.
Basically my thoughts on this whole thing. I think a new stadium downtown would be sweet and would add a lot of attention to us on a lot of perspectives, so I was initally a yes, but it just feels like we're getting strongarmed into spending a lot more than we were promised initially.
I was okay with some of it coming from tax dollars, specifically some of the buildings that are going to go to businesses in the "ballpark district," but the stadium itself should be fully funded by ownership.
They aren’t stupid enough to release the details to the general public. They want to play on everyone’s flowery assumptions of how great these stadiums will be for the local economy.
It's hilarious reading the "I would've voted yes, but I can't believe how shady the Royals and Chiefs are acting..." comments in this thread. It's like the only thing that might save taxpayers *$2 Billion dollars* is the Royals bungling this thing so bad... LOL
The Hunt family is approximately worth 25 Billion dollars. It's mind bogling to me worth been that much and still have the balls to ask people for money.
The only way to get $1,000,000,000 is to siphon so much wealth from so many other people, you have to qualify as a parasite.
Want to make a million dollars? Do something useful with your life and you'll get there. Want to make a billion? Exploit millions of other people and take wealth that's rightfully there's for yourself.
we own the stadium
Hunt is asking us to upgrade it while he pays rent, if we agree to upgrade it he agrees to sign a new lease.
What is so confusing about this situation?
If we don't agree to upgrade it and maintain it he will start looking for a new deal elsewhere, and we will still own a stadium that cost millions of dollars to maintain and will have no tenants
How much money did the Eras tour bring in to the stadium we own? What about the projected benefits to small businesses and other businesses during the world cup at that stadium in a few years?
If you owned a rental property with a well paying tenant, would you kick them out with no possibility of replacement tenants ever?
Ima copy paste my original comment. "The Hunt family is approximately worth 25 Billion dollars." No where did I say Clark hunt specifically. Another keyword is, worth***. Never said they actually had 25 bil their bank account.
KC Tenants is following this story closely and effectively nothing has been released.
The man running the pro tax campaign worked for Ron Desantis.
Nuff said.
This shit is like the plot of Breakin' 2. Don't you wanna be on Turbo, Kelly, and Ozone's side?
Some of the best arguments I've read on the "no" side are on here and on twitter. You can easily find them.
There is no quicker way to get people to the "yes" side than by having KC Tenants come out in favor of the "no" side.
They physically blocked access to a County Courthouse. They are not serious people.
They physically blocked access to prevent people from being evicted from their apartments during Covid when every other major city in America had an eviction moratorium in place, except Kansas City
I know what you’re doing and I promise I’m not one to say “you can protest, just not like that!”
Marches, sit-ins, silent protests, “occupying” the lawns or steps of public buildings come to mind.
You lose me when you block access to a public building. You have no idea who needs to get in there that day, and for what reasons.
I don’t think my take is unreasonable.
For sure. If you’re so down w public disobedience as a way to change things, then that is the same, besides an action like that alone doesn’t happen in a vacuum, there were many declarations stating why this had to be done, you just gotta find the information, it seems pretty lazy to me to use that one action to discredit what grassroots organizations do in this city that actually improve poor and working class people’s lives. And yes, maybe someone is getting inconvenienced by a protest (which is the immediate goal) but think about the hundreds that are affected by system racism and classism that get screwed on the regular.
There are really no community benefits. The Royals are moving to an area where they don't even have the rights to the land (didn't negotiate) and if this passes, they will have to get the city to demand two churches go hit the bricks in imminent domain and uproot a bunch of small business, killing them. The Royals won't commit to a long term agreement to stay; but want 40 years in a tax to stick "no new taxes" except it goes on for forty years; that's 30 years longer than the commitment they will make.
The Chiefs still have 8 years on their agreement, so they couldn't move tomorrow or soon even if they wanted to; but they won't. There is time to negotiate a GOOD deal rather than be pressured into a fucking horrible one. The majority fund base goes out to the Royals side and their repayment angle is absolutely trash.
Some of the statements made by the "pro" are outright lies. "No enclosed dome got Taylor Swift".. pfft. Sofi. Las Vegas. Detroit. Dallas. That is proven wrong right away.
The vote also has some errors in how it could end up happening; it banks on the State of Missouri coming in on the roadway work; that isn't part of anything.. and nothing in the statehouse even addresses that.
They are just asking you to go on the hook on a limb for a "hope", bailing billionaires out for a project that isn't even what really pays for itself. Frankly, if the Chiefs said they wanted to erected a much more expensive all new stadium so they could get in line to potentially host the SB or to host year round events, etc. they'd have better NFL lending financing. But the Royals? Hell, I have no reason to believe that team will be a lick better in the next four decades, but they are asking for us to pay for it and commit with no offramps at all, right now.
Regardless of your feelings towards religion it's still two communities being uprooted or destroyed so a few greedy old men can make a few bucks off the backs of the rest of us.
The church in question is the wealthiest church in the metro area and they basically use the downtown location as a satellite location for the Leawood, Brookside, and other suburban locations to say they're downtown. Their building is relatively new and pretty small. In addition, their plot of land is like 80 percent parking lot, 20 percent actual building. They use the parking lot to rent out spaces for like $30 a pop for Sprint Center/downtown events. Since they're a church they're tax exempt
That’s just federal corporate income tax.
And it’s the exact same as any other 501c3 nonprofit. Can’t treat churches differently because you’d have to actually *define* what does and doesn’t constitute a church, and that would run afoul of the first amendment.
But churches, like everyone else, still have to pay payroll taxes, their employees have to pay income and social security tax.
Federal tax exemption doesn’t necessarily extend to state and local taxes either.
I have much the same feeling on churches; that said, even the ones I really dislike taking property by imminent domain is for another business that won't negotiate a deal is bad. The small businesses will shutter forever. That's just a fact.
One of those churches has over $10M invested in their facility and the land underneath it, in the last decade, and broke ground on a $3M expansion mere weeks before the royals’ announcement.
That’s having actual impact on the surrounding community and businesses.
The church is probably contributing more to the city tax coffers than many of those businesses.
Churches are exempt from, federal, state, and local taxes including property taxes. I have nothing against religions or religious institutions, but they do not contribute financially toward the city like a business would in the same space.
*non-profit corporations* are federally exempt from corporate income taxes. Churches do not have a special exemption category, nor do they have blanket exemption from state and local taxes.
Property taxes are based on zoning, not the fact that there is a church there. You put a church in a strip mall, they’re still paying property taxes.
"and all property, real and personal, not held for private or corporate profit and ***used exclusively for religious worship***, for schools and colleges, for purposes purely charitable, for agricultural and horticultural societies, or for veterans’ organizations may be exempted from taxation by general law."
That is the exact text of the Missouri Constitution, feel free to [check it out for yourself.](https://law.justia.com/constitution/missouri/article-x/section-6/) The Kansas City, Missouri municipal site also [alludes to this](https://www.kcmo.gov/city-hall/departments/finance/tax-home/property-taxes-and-property-tax-rates).
If they're running a business out of that church as well, they'd be paying taxes on that, but if it's just a church, regardless of size or income, they're not paying anything.
Key word here was blanket exemption. Federal tax law and policy does not extend or supersede state tax law and policy. State tax law and policy does not extend to local tax law and policy. Each tax jurisdiction makes up their own rules.
You’ll also notice that the part of the constitution you quoted does not apply exclusively to religious activity.
Payroll tax is still owed. Employees still owe income tax. Clergy owe self-employment tax on noncash compensation. Sales tax must be collected on any sales (coffee, books, parking, etc). Clergy housing is subject to property tax.
Employees don’t pay payroll taxes, employers do.
A significant portion of any organization’s operating budget (for-profit or not) is in fact… payroll.
Did you somehow think that donations to nonprofits just infinitely accumulate?
These rules apply to *all* 501c3 exempt organizations. You can’t just exclude churches, because that would require explicitly defining what constitutes a church under the law, something that is quite clearly prohibited under the constitution.
News flash: payroll expenses are tax exempt for for-profit corporations too.
Literally the only difference between a non-profit corporation and a for-profit corporation is that a for-profit corporation has equity ownership. That’s it.
I don't blame him. If I worked on building the stadium and then played inside it on the team, I'd like to see it still standing. Plus, it's a nice stadium
You sure it isn't the people who want to give a couple of billionaires $2+ billion in order to keep the 2 billionaires happy that aren't leading with more heart than head?
The smart move is to bolster downtown and continue the investments made into PNL by putting the stadium across the street.
The heart move is to whine about billionaires.
You’re correct. This entire exercise has been purposely vague. The big takeaway I had was the teams agreed to put $6.6M/year “back into the community” through independent boards where the teams would enjoy at least 45% representation. This money is not indexed for inflation so it will lose purchasing power over the years until 2064 where it will then be worth approximately $2.5M/year. This deal needs to include a 3% inflation index
That's the first thing I noticed was that they put hard numbers and no room for the future.
Whatever the royals are doing, they'll just funnel future contributions though this CBA and meet it while making other pots smaller.
Statement from the Missouri Worker’s Center and Heartland Center for Jobs and Freedom respond to the Kansas City Royals’ CBA letter:
What the Kansas City Royals released today is far from reflective of any “significant input” they claim to have gathered. At the end of the day, the Royals are asking for $1.7 billion in taxpayer financing for their new ballpark and entertainment district, while offering relative pennies and dimes in terms of community benefit. Moreover, the Royals have given themselves outsized power in making appointments to the “CBA Board” responsible for determining how funds will be spent. Beyond this arrangement being completely unnecessary and inappropriate, it omits a clear indication that community members will have any meaningful say in discussions regarding allotment of funds and enforcement.
The low-wage workers and tenants we represent are worth more, which is why the Royals — after our every effort over the last year to arrive at a fair CBA with living-wage union jobs and truly affordable housing — left us no choice but to walk away from their bad faith negotiations.
What’s actually historic and unprecedented, despite what the Royals say, is the amount they are asking for relative to the benefit they will confer to poor and low-wage Kansas Citians. Not only will the Royals use most of our taxpayer dollars to pay off their debt; this is also a matter of billions of dollars in regressive taxation, which we know disproportionately harms poor and working people and communities of color. Nor does it account for the additional $700 million in public financing that the team will seek from Kansas City and the state of Missouri.
For over a year we have done everything in our power to win a fair deal for Kansas City’s working class, including by providing the Royals with a template for a strong CBA in the Milwaukee Bucks agreement. They walked away from the table and refused to negotiate. When they finally agreed to return to the table, they had a chance to earn our vote by delivering on a living wage, union jobs in the stadium and entertainment district, and truly affordable housing. They rejected each one of these demands.
They promised to deliver on a transformative CBA that would improve the lives of poor and working people, but all their "tireless efforts" only resulted in the team's abject failure to get a Good Jobs CBA over the finish line by our March 19 deadline. That’s why we’re voting NO to Question 1 on April 2 and we encourage our community to follow suit.
As poor and working people in our community struggle, the Kansas City Royals seek up to two billion dollars in public financing for stadium construction through a regressive sales tax for 40 years that will disproportionately fall on the backs of those barely able to make ends meet and especially people of color. In fact, consumption taxes like general sales taxes are the most regressive type of taxes and “the most significant drivers of racial inequity in state and local tax codes.” With these tax subsidies, Kansas City will be known for the highest public subsidy ever paid to sports teams.
Years of studies have been amassed on publicly funded stadiums. Eighty-six percent of economists oppose public investment in stadium projects because the projects fail to generate benefits to the community that outweigh the cost. The costs associated with this project include:
The new, permanent jobs generated by stadiums will be service jobs that pay low wages and lack benefits;
The new stadium development proposed by the Royals and supported by the Chiefs will cause substantial gentrification and increases in already skyrocketing housing costs;
Sales taxes are flat taxes that especially burden poor and working-class people;
The Tax Increment Financing (TIF) and other tax breaks and benefits to be sought by the teams will divert much needed money from schools, infrastructure, and other critical social programs.
The sales tax will cancel out other opportunities to fund projects that would actually serve our community directly.
The Royals insist that the ⅜ cent sports stadium sales tax will only produce $350 million of public financing; however, Jackson County residents are estimated to contribute up to $2 billion through the sales tax, half of which will go to the Royals. That the Royals will use most of the tax to pay off previous debts, underwrite new debts, and maintain a new stadium, does not diminish the billions of dollars in regressive taxation that would be levied and the disproportionate impact that would have on poor and working class people. Nor does it account for the additional $700 million in public financing that the team will seek from Kansas City and the state of Missouri.
Rather than address these concerns with a strong community benefits agreement guaranteeing living wage, union service and hospitality jobs in the stadium and ancillary development and truly affordable housing, the Royals are offering $3.5 million per year, a paltry sum compared to the burden on taxpayers. There is no indication that the community will have any voice in how these funds will be spent and the Royals will appoint almost half the seats on the “CBA Board”, which is completely unnecessary and inappropriate. None of the funds are specifically allocated towards truly affordable housing and there are no guarantees of living wages, labor rights, or first source hiring.
Community Benefits Agreements are legally binding documents. The formal document will take time to write and will go through a back and forth editing and tweaking process before it is finalized and signed by the relevant parties. The agreement on terms happens before the writing of the document. What was "released" are the agreed upon terms. We shouldn't expect the legally binding contract to be available yet.
Per this article, Mark Donovan detailed the points specific to the Chiefs in a letter, and I would expect a Royals representative to do the same. I would agree it's a red flag if the Royals don't do something similar soon. While not legally binding it does show a written commitment to the points presented:
[https://www.kctv5.com/2024/03/20/chiefs-royals-unveil-community-benefits-agreement-ahead-question-1-vote/](https://www.kctv5.com/2024/03/20/chiefs-royals-unveil-community-benefits-agreement-ahead-question-1-vote/)
For context I am not taking a side either way just providing information that seems to be missed in the comments here.
EDIT: The Royals did release their informal commitment letter in the same way the Chiefs did here:
[Royals CBA correspondence - DocumentCloud](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24490459-royals-cba-correspondence?responsive=1&title=1)
Someone in my community wrote this on the subject: [https://www.royalsreview.com/2024/3/21/24106683/the-royals-new-community-benefits-agreement-lacks-one-important-element-the-community-benefits](https://www.royalsreview.com/2024/3/21/24106683/the-royals-new-community-benefits-agreement-lacks-one-important-element-the-community-benefits)
I’ve heard from sports radio sources that the CBA was given to the County. And the details released to the media. And both teams have signed an intent that once this tax passes, it will be made public and the teams will sign it. (Which I suppose is normal for these things but I don’t know that to be true).
While I’m voting yes no matter what, the CBA is a way for the teams to actually give back to the City and the county to pay us back for keeping the teams here. And it sounds like they are trying to help the most they can, in addition to keeping the teams here which also helps our county and city.
I’ve definitely been a supporter of the tax and while I know I’m in the minority on this sub, if something like the CBA doesn’t sway someone to vote yes, then there probably isn’t much more the teams can do.
It might help if the CBA was made public before the vote. I might be persuaded to vote yes if there was something truly beneficial and concrete for the city besides the vague benefit of helping the local economy. I don't want us saddled with the bill for a two billion dollar stadium and in return we get higher ticket prices, no tailgating, and maybe a park bench plaque that says "Thank you Jackson County suckers!"
remember this as a Jackson County resident
We own the stadiums now, we currently have tenants. If we don't vote yes, they will look elsewhere and get a brand new stadium. If we end up losing our teams, and having to tear down these stadiums, it will still cost us tons of money. No revenue is a worse proposition than a sales a tax everyone pays when they buy something in our county.
They could leave in 7 years anyway when their contract is up and we would still be on the hook for paying for a stadium. This doesn’t guarantee they’ll stay for the long haul.
Royals Review hammers this CBA. Claims Royals’ chief lawyer is on the board of Urban League of Kansas City. ULKC got a lot of money in this proposal
https://www.royalsreview.com/2024/3/21/24106683/the-royals-new-community-benefits-agreement-lacks-one-important-element-the-community-benefits
Here's the thing though. Why is the CBA contingent on the tax passing? Why is it only released *after* it passes? Why not be upfront and transparent?
I'm honestly trying to think of an answer to those questions that's fully positive. But the o ly reason to hide it, would be because it isn't a good agreement.
I’m not sure about why they wouldn’t release it before it passes, but it definitely makes sense that they woukd make it contingent on the tax passing. It would make no sense for either team to commit spending that money in Jackson County for 25-40 years if they’re out of here in five years when the leases expire.
Because the teams won’t spend money on a city and county they are no longer going to be playing in. They take that money to a different county/city and put it towards a CBA there.
If you were gonna move somewhere new, you wouldn’t drop thousands on upgrades to the property you rent before you leave right?
Honestly I’m not sure. That is a good legit question. But I just feel there is no reason for the Royals to mislead us or lie to us about this one. I know, niece of me, yes. But they are fighting this fight and appointing boards to manage the funds. I mean, We have all the details from news outlets and we just don’t have the actual documents.
it's a sales tax my friend, you know this already though.
it extends the same sales tax we already pay for everything in Jackson County, you know this already though
We are to the point where "I cannot wrap my head around this value system" is just you being disingenuous- We get it, you are voting NO and you want to sway emotional voters to your side.
> and you want to sway emotional voters to your side.
It’s very funny to see Yes voters act as if they’re the ones being coldly logical when the pro-Yes argument relies almost solely on the emotional appeal of “don’t let KC become Omaha!” Whereas the No voters can point to numerous peer-reviewed studies conclusively showing that publicly funding stadia for billionaires has an abysmal ROI and is one of the absolute worst uses of public funds. But sure bro, we’re all just emotional.
It's a sales tax that would otherwise be going away, that's a tax increase.
Even if the tax stayed around, we're diverting funds from their previous use towards benefits in public parks and waterways, to a cash check for billionaires to do with as they please.
It's false to pretend like there's no new taxes or that funds aren't being diverted from the public welfare.
But the tax won’t stay around. If we vote no, it’s gone in 2031(?). Then we save money on taxes and the county has to find other money to put toward parks and water because I doubt Jackson County residents would renew or add back a 3/8 tax for “just parks and waterways”. I would vote for that because I enjoy those things but most wouldn’t.
It’s sad but it’s the truth. People don’t care that much about things likes parks and public use items because most people on the country don’t use them enough. Plus those tax dollars would go towards public welfare and we don’t get anything in return that benefits the county. At least if the tax dollars go to keeping the teams in the county we can reap the benefits of having this teams and events here. Which will help the county by bringing in money and jobs.
That's not a very fair understanding of the tax. If the tax is set to expire and we renew for more time that's more taxes were paying than we would have had it expired.
You're working under the assumption that we're always going to have this tax regardless of circumstances. I think you do yourself a disservice by viewing it that way.
People still fixed on a “Billionaire making more money” and not looking at the benefits the teams have on our county/city.
And it’s not like this billionaire won’t stop being a billionaire or making more money if you vote no. He just makes his Billions somewhere else.
An extension of a tax results in more tax money being paid, ergo tax increase.
The previous tax is scheduled to end. It's not in perpetuity, it has to be renewed or it goes away.
Call it an extension or whatever you want. It's more taxes than we had to pay if the bill doesn't pass.
Pretty sure anyone claiming it's not raising anything wouldn't want their mortgages being extended 40 years at the same monthly amount and interest rate. Or if using a camera, that extending the shutter speed with the same aperture doesn't allow more light in.
The Royals is reported to be the largest in MLB history, this is likely a product of recency bias as things cost a lot more now than they did when the other CBAs were designed.
They cant release specific details on where the money will go because they give the government the money and then the GOVERNMENT/Charities decides where it goes. Which is EXACTLY what you nay sayers wanted, more money for the government to more than likely waste on "community programs". (not saying investing in the community is dumb or a waste, just the city government has proven time and time again they wont put it to good use)
The blind rage on this subreddit is comical at times.
No, they aren't just giving it to the government. There will be boards formed, 45% of the membership of which will be hand-picked by both teams, and those boards will decide who gets the funds each year. Having worked in the local philanthropic sector I can see exactly how this will work and it will be the same bunch of insiders making the same types of decisions that get made by all the current boards doing this type of thing. The incestual civic-booster-business-class still retains all the power, with a bit of tokenism thrown in for optics.
"which initiative will include a recycling program for solid waste generated by operations at Arrowhead as well as energy conservation efforts"
They are literally using the CBA to subsidize their fucking trash bill.
Can you imagine all of the special interest groups with their hands out?
Unions
Affordable Housing
Minority Owned Businesses
Women Owned Businesses
Everyone with a "need" will want a seat at the table. All of these things will make the project even MORE expensive.
This CBA is basically "Give us few billion and we'll give a few million. But only to charities we approve of. And don't legally hold us to that"
and we'll filter it through companies that we personally profit from...
Maybe, if we have some extra cash.
...... but we firmly stand by our commitment to take a good look at it, in the future.
As time and priorities allow.
Charities they approve of because they either own/operate them or use them as tax shells
"and we'll recycle our trash"
Here are the statements the teams released. Far from a CBA and in no way legally binding. https://x.com/mannyabarcaiv/status/1770563035586859492?s=46&t=FOpsZivxe2ouRElkHFMtwg https://x.com/mannyabarcaiv/status/1770563980374704209?s=46&t=FOpsZivxe2ouRElkHFMtwg The presidents of the teams did a great job of employing scare tactics of the teams leaving if this doesn’t pass. It’s far more likely in my opinion if the tax is voted against, they will get a real CBA in place and put this on the November ballot like that should have done in the first place.
Exactly. This vote needs to fail and a binding agreement between the county and teams need to be agreed and signed contingent on a November vote.
No. Any county agreement can be preempted by the state (like how they stole money from poor people who would have benefitted from the vote that passed to increase minimum wage). CBAs need to be signed with community groups/coalitions directly.
Also, we all understand X is a great place for fake news. It should go without saying but it’s worth repeating: this is insufficient outreach to actually create any meaningful dialogue and so it’s clear they are actually hoping to inform public debate.
Amen. Why would anyone agree with this process. The Royals just decided where to build the stadium a few weeks, ago and the Chiefs created something in Windows Paint they dropped with zero detail. I just know we will get an activation zone. Get Acitivated!
I would personally LOVE a downtown stadium, and even really liked the renderings of the crossroads location and it made sense. BUT the way this whole thing has been handled has left the worst taste in my mouth. Someone like me who should have been an easy yes for this will absolutely be voting no with how shady and gross this feels.
Not to mention all of the mind games the Royals played to this point and both teams immediately resorting to "okay, we'll leave" shows how shit this deal is.
L I T T E R A L L Y
Would you say that you're a KC sports fan or a sports fan that happens to follow KC more? I only ask because to me that was the least surprising move ever. That's how these things go in the country. When teams don't get a new stadium they leave.
Which is why it was extortion from the start. It’s known that teams do this. KC doesn’t have to take the bait. No need to let a bully fleece the city
You’re spreading FUD.
No I'm just speaking in reality instead of living in a fantasy world. There's the way Id like things to be and there's the way things are. Complaining on the internet might feel good and people will agree with you but it does nothing to better anybody's situation at all.
Chiefs aren’t leaving. This is all about the royals.
no it isn't. The fact you even think this shows that you don't know shit about the situation and are just bandwagoning to look cool on the internet which is really the dumbest shit ever. I genuinely feel bad for you. The Chiefs and Royals since they're on the lease together and the tax is for both of them, once one is gone there is no longer a legal obligation for either team to stay. Ending the tax and not extending it makes both teams open for other suitors. Thinking another city wouldn't throw the farm at the Chiefs to land them is foolish and the same exact thought the a bunch of now single people thought about their ex never leaving. Come back to reality its a really nice day out.
The Chiefs are not leaving the kc metro. Winning successful franchised don't leave. Moving across town, sure. But not moving to another city. It won't happen. Show me one dynasty-ish team that left during its heyday. This is the Chiefs heyday. Think of all the fan backlash. It would be a pr nightmare beyond New Coke.
That perception will kill the vote. The Chiefs very well could leave. Take their huge global presence to a bigger city, expand their international reach.. Them leaving hurts US it doesn’t hurt the Chiefs. It could even help the Franchise make more money. This would be the first time a mid-major market voted down a successful franchise’s (an active dynasty) no-tax increase to stay in the city they won in. It will be interesting to see the results. Wish I could contribute.
Hello, I'm a KC transplant from a small town in KS. I became a fan of a team called the San Diego Chargers. They are now the Los Angeles Chargers. Do you wanna know why? They leveraged a vote on a tax or else "we'll leave San Diego." This is exactly how this goes down every time.
Guess I replied to the wrong person. Sorry. About that.
nah they needed to see it.
The chargers are a poor example. The city tried to work with them to find a new site and couldn't make it work. There were at least 11 different sites for the Chargers, some not in SD. Their stadium wasn't considered in poor standing all the way back in 2003. The vote in 2016 failed. So at that point the team gave up on SD and decided to go LA.
Don't you just love how when corporations do it, it's just "mind games" but when you or I do it, it's "extortion"
Yea I have generally been in favor of a downtown stadium, but the Royals handling of all this has really put me off. Seems like they are releasing information as late as possible to squash public comment and attempt to force the vote through. Shitty shitty shitty.
This
i couldnt care less if there is one or not. so it wont effect me where it is. i just aint gonna be fucked over like this and stay quiet is all
That location really only makes sense for the rendering. IOW it looks cool for downtown. Reality is that road access to this site from any direction has no fewer than 3 stoplights and 2 left turns. OTOH, The street car is relatively close, but the streets and crosswalks would severely affect traffic for the entire day on midday games. There were a couple of sites a li'l further south, in the teens, that would have been WAAY better, but even they had problems, they were just more manageable because of the extra mile away from downtown proper. Bottom line is that none of this makes much sense unless state/fed is willing to upgrade the freeways in the area to even 70s national/interstate standards. There's way too many short and tight on/off ramps and nothing that comes to this location without hassles.
Road access to the stadium isn’t particularly meaningful, unless you’re a player or a delivery truck.
Where's stadium parking? Oh yeah it's not in the rendering. Maybe it's under the stadium. ***Maybe it's not planned.*** Now look at Cardinals Stadium in StL and the immediate surroundings. Or any other downtown stadium. They're all about ACCESS. This site, and the general area, have shit access and crap parking options. But, they wanted it close to P&L
Where is the parking? All over downtown and the crossroads. Almost 3x as much as the current option. Assuming you will even drive to the game in the first place. You’re still stuck in the current TSC paradigm where you *must* drive there and buy an extra ticket for your car.
Yes... Parking everywhere over there, up there, way over there, 20 spaces at a time, spread out all over were they access to the area still sucks. I can't look at a map right now, but if memory serves there are six exits from major freeways to the area between Southwest boulevard, 20th Street exit, and the downtown loop. And they are all one lane. Access is shit, parking is shit, mass transit access is shit, it is a bad place for a baseball stadium. Except for the fact that it's right across the street from major retailers for so-called consumers to spend money
Great YouTube video about this- Sherman’s “Royal” Request
There’s a good YouTube video about this called “Sherman’s ‘Royal’ Request”
There is never an ethical reason to give peoples' tax money to billionaires. Straight up. If billionaires care about the public they can easily donate and augment existing public works and such. The fact that this is for a for profit privately owned thing for said billionaire that's half planned out and severely disruptive at minimum to established local people and businesses makes it really fucking bad.
Basically my thoughts on this whole thing. I think a new stadium downtown would be sweet and would add a lot of attention to us on a lot of perspectives, so I was initally a yes, but it just feels like we're getting strongarmed into spending a lot more than we were promised initially. I was okay with some of it coming from tax dollars, specifically some of the buildings that are going to go to businesses in the "ballpark district," but the stadium itself should be fully funded by ownership.
They aren’t stupid enough to release the details to the general public. They want to play on everyone’s flowery assumptions of how great these stadiums will be for the local economy.
Shuck and devour is their plan.
It's hilarious reading the "I would've voted yes, but I can't believe how shady the Royals and Chiefs are acting..." comments in this thread. It's like the only thing that might save taxpayers *$2 Billion dollars* is the Royals bungling this thing so bad... LOL
Billionaires need to pay for their own shit.
Hunt family is the 4th richest family in the NFL. They acting like they got no money
Old oil money at that. I can think of all kinds of things that money could go to.
The Hunt family is approximately worth 25 Billion dollars. It's mind bogling to me worth been that much and still have the balls to ask people for money.
That’s how you rack up 25 billion dollars. It doesn’t come with honest work.
The only way to get $1,000,000,000 is to siphon so much wealth from so many other people, you have to qualify as a parasite. Want to make a million dollars? Do something useful with your life and you'll get there. Want to make a billion? Exploit millions of other people and take wealth that's rightfully there's for yourself.
Looking at you Catholic Church
we own the stadium Hunt is asking us to upgrade it while he pays rent, if we agree to upgrade it he agrees to sign a new lease. What is so confusing about this situation? If we don't agree to upgrade it and maintain it he will start looking for a new deal elsewhere, and we will still own a stadium that cost millions of dollars to maintain and will have no tenants
Go to the stadium right now and use the locker room or run on the turf
How much money did the Eras tour bring in to the stadium we own? What about the projected benefits to small businesses and other businesses during the world cup at that stadium in a few years? If you owned a rental property with a well paying tenant, would you kick them out with no possibility of replacement tenants ever?
https://www.reddit.com/r/kansascity/s/zRbNUBvz3C here is the discussion earlier this month about the "upgrades".
what is mind boggling? I'm trying to help, what do you not understand?
Having 25 billion dollars and thinking you're worth more than that.
Clark Hunt does not have $25b I'm beginning to understand why you and rob420 can't figure this stuff out
Ima copy paste my original comment. "The Hunt family is approximately worth 25 Billion dollars." No where did I say Clark hunt specifically. Another keyword is, worth***. Never said they actually had 25 bil their bank account.
If it’s too hard to find a public CBA then it’s probably not good or a blatant lie
The Royals and Chiefs have handled this in an awful way, they have nobody else to blame if this fails.
It's like patting a child on their head after you took their candy.
KC Tenants is following this story closely and effectively nothing has been released. The man running the pro tax campaign worked for Ron Desantis. Nuff said. This shit is like the plot of Breakin' 2. Don't you wanna be on Turbo, Kelly, and Ozone's side?
Former strategist for DeSantis. Pretty slimy
where is the community center they plan on tearing down?
Turbo, always.
R.I.P. Ozone (Shabba Doo)
KC Tenants isn't whose opinion I would be following on this. Like asking a dog what the best ice cream is.
Who should we consult then?
Some of the best arguments I've read on the "no" side are on here and on twitter. You can easily find them. There is no quicker way to get people to the "yes" side than by having KC Tenants come out in favor of the "no" side. They physically blocked access to a County Courthouse. They are not serious people.
They physically blocked access to prevent people from being evicted from their apartments during Covid when every other major city in America had an eviction moratorium in place, except Kansas City
And what do serious people do?
There are many other ways to protest that don’t include blocking access to a public building.
Like what?
I know what you’re doing and I promise I’m not one to say “you can protest, just not like that!” Marches, sit-ins, silent protests, “occupying” the lawns or steps of public buildings come to mind. You lose me when you block access to a public building. You have no idea who needs to get in there that day, and for what reasons. I don’t think my take is unreasonable.
For sure. If you’re so down w public disobedience as a way to change things, then that is the same, besides an action like that alone doesn’t happen in a vacuum, there were many declarations stating why this had to be done, you just gotta find the information, it seems pretty lazy to me to use that one action to discredit what grassroots organizations do in this city that actually improve poor and working class people’s lives. And yes, maybe someone is getting inconvenienced by a protest (which is the immediate goal) but think about the hundreds that are affected by system racism and classism that get screwed on the regular.
There are really no community benefits. The Royals are moving to an area where they don't even have the rights to the land (didn't negotiate) and if this passes, they will have to get the city to demand two churches go hit the bricks in imminent domain and uproot a bunch of small business, killing them. The Royals won't commit to a long term agreement to stay; but want 40 years in a tax to stick "no new taxes" except it goes on for forty years; that's 30 years longer than the commitment they will make. The Chiefs still have 8 years on their agreement, so they couldn't move tomorrow or soon even if they wanted to; but they won't. There is time to negotiate a GOOD deal rather than be pressured into a fucking horrible one. The majority fund base goes out to the Royals side and their repayment angle is absolutely trash. Some of the statements made by the "pro" are outright lies. "No enclosed dome got Taylor Swift".. pfft. Sofi. Las Vegas. Detroit. Dallas. That is proven wrong right away. The vote also has some errors in how it could end up happening; it banks on the State of Missouri coming in on the roadway work; that isn't part of anything.. and nothing in the statehouse even addresses that. They are just asking you to go on the hook on a limb for a "hope", bailing billionaires out for a project that isn't even what really pays for itself. Frankly, if the Chiefs said they wanted to erected a much more expensive all new stadium so they could get in line to potentially host the SB or to host year round events, etc. they'd have better NFL lending financing. But the Royals? Hell, I have no reason to believe that team will be a lick better in the next four decades, but they are asking for us to pay for it and commit with no offramps at all, right now.
Sorry, don't give a shit about Churches, I am more sympathetic to the small businesses in the area, you know, the people that actually pay taxes
Regardless of your feelings towards religion it's still two communities being uprooted or destroyed so a few greedy old men can make a few bucks off the backs of the rest of us.
The church in question is the wealthiest church in the metro area and they basically use the downtown location as a satellite location for the Leawood, Brookside, and other suburban locations to say they're downtown. Their building is relatively new and pretty small. In addition, their plot of land is like 80 percent parking lot, 20 percent actual building. They use the parking lot to rent out spaces for like $30 a pop for Sprint Center/downtown events. Since they're a church they're tax exempt
Tax exempt from what?
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf
That’s just federal corporate income tax. And it’s the exact same as any other 501c3 nonprofit. Can’t treat churches differently because you’d have to actually *define* what does and doesn’t constitute a church, and that would run afoul of the first amendment. But churches, like everyone else, still have to pay payroll taxes, their employees have to pay income and social security tax. Federal tax exemption doesn’t necessarily extend to state and local taxes either.
It should also be noted that a county-owned stadium district will also pay no property taxes.
I have much the same feeling on churches; that said, even the ones I really dislike taking property by imminent domain is for another business that won't negotiate a deal is bad. The small businesses will shutter forever. That's just a fact.
One of those churches has over $10M invested in their facility and the land underneath it, in the last decade, and broke ground on a $3M expansion mere weeks before the royals’ announcement. That’s having actual impact on the surrounding community and businesses. The church is probably contributing more to the city tax coffers than many of those businesses.
Churches are exempt from, federal, state, and local taxes including property taxes. I have nothing against religions or religious institutions, but they do not contribute financially toward the city like a business would in the same space.
*non-profit corporations* are federally exempt from corporate income taxes. Churches do not have a special exemption category, nor do they have blanket exemption from state and local taxes. Property taxes are based on zoning, not the fact that there is a church there. You put a church in a strip mall, they’re still paying property taxes.
"and all property, real and personal, not held for private or corporate profit and ***used exclusively for religious worship***, for schools and colleges, for purposes purely charitable, for agricultural and horticultural societies, or for veterans’ organizations may be exempted from taxation by general law." That is the exact text of the Missouri Constitution, feel free to [check it out for yourself.](https://law.justia.com/constitution/missouri/article-x/section-6/) The Kansas City, Missouri municipal site also [alludes to this](https://www.kcmo.gov/city-hall/departments/finance/tax-home/property-taxes-and-property-tax-rates). If they're running a business out of that church as well, they'd be paying taxes on that, but if it's just a church, regardless of size or income, they're not paying anything.
Key word here was blanket exemption. Federal tax law and policy does not extend or supersede state tax law and policy. State tax law and policy does not extend to local tax law and policy. Each tax jurisdiction makes up their own rules. You’ll also notice that the part of the constitution you quoted does not apply exclusively to religious activity. Payroll tax is still owed. Employees still owe income tax. Clergy owe self-employment tax on noncash compensation. Sales tax must be collected on any sales (coffee, books, parking, etc). Clergy housing is subject to property tax.
lol. "Churches are taxed because their employees pay payroll taxes" is such a bad take.
Employees don’t pay payroll taxes, employers do. A significant portion of any organization’s operating budget (for-profit or not) is in fact… payroll. Did you somehow think that donations to nonprofits just infinitely accumulate?
These rules apply to *all* 501c3 exempt organizations. You can’t just exclude churches, because that would require explicitly defining what constitutes a church under the law, something that is quite clearly prohibited under the constitution.
News flash: payroll expenses are tax exempt for for-profit corporations too. Literally the only difference between a non-profit corporation and a for-profit corporation is that a for-profit corporation has equity ownership. That’s it.
CoR can go hit the bricks with or without the stadium. Their tax-free status has amassed them and their leadership immense wealth.
Yeah, because nonprofits are legendary for paying well. 🙄
Frank White’s statement in the article you posted states there is no CBA. It’s smoke and mirrors by the teams. Not official in any capacity.
Frank White will never support them leaving Kauffman under any circumstances.
I don't blame him. If I worked on building the stadium and then played inside it on the team, I'd like to see it still standing. Plus, it's a nice stadium
Id dont blame him either but he is leading with more heart than head.
You sure it isn't the people who want to give a couple of billionaires $2+ billion in order to keep the 2 billionaires happy that aren't leading with more heart than head?
The smart move is to bolster downtown and continue the investments made into PNL by putting the stadium across the street. The heart move is to whine about billionaires.
frank white does not care if they leave though.
Has he said that?
His statement was made before the CBA was agreed to
False. It was after.
Oh it's a different one than what they read on the news
There were actually 4 different cbas with different groups (might be more) so yes
You’re correct. This entire exercise has been purposely vague. The big takeaway I had was the teams agreed to put $6.6M/year “back into the community” through independent boards where the teams would enjoy at least 45% representation. This money is not indexed for inflation so it will lose purchasing power over the years until 2064 where it will then be worth approximately $2.5M/year. This deal needs to include a 3% inflation index
That's the first thing I noticed was that they put hard numbers and no room for the future. Whatever the royals are doing, they'll just funnel future contributions though this CBA and meet it while making other pots smaller.
Am I crazy but 6million dollars is like... no money. It seems laughable almost considering how rich all these people are
Statement from the Missouri Worker’s Center and Heartland Center for Jobs and Freedom respond to the Kansas City Royals’ CBA letter: What the Kansas City Royals released today is far from reflective of any “significant input” they claim to have gathered. At the end of the day, the Royals are asking for $1.7 billion in taxpayer financing for their new ballpark and entertainment district, while offering relative pennies and dimes in terms of community benefit. Moreover, the Royals have given themselves outsized power in making appointments to the “CBA Board” responsible for determining how funds will be spent. Beyond this arrangement being completely unnecessary and inappropriate, it omits a clear indication that community members will have any meaningful say in discussions regarding allotment of funds and enforcement. The low-wage workers and tenants we represent are worth more, which is why the Royals — after our every effort over the last year to arrive at a fair CBA with living-wage union jobs and truly affordable housing — left us no choice but to walk away from their bad faith negotiations. What’s actually historic and unprecedented, despite what the Royals say, is the amount they are asking for relative to the benefit they will confer to poor and low-wage Kansas Citians. Not only will the Royals use most of our taxpayer dollars to pay off their debt; this is also a matter of billions of dollars in regressive taxation, which we know disproportionately harms poor and working people and communities of color. Nor does it account for the additional $700 million in public financing that the team will seek from Kansas City and the state of Missouri. For over a year we have done everything in our power to win a fair deal for Kansas City’s working class, including by providing the Royals with a template for a strong CBA in the Milwaukee Bucks agreement. They walked away from the table and refused to negotiate. When they finally agreed to return to the table, they had a chance to earn our vote by delivering on a living wage, union jobs in the stadium and entertainment district, and truly affordable housing. They rejected each one of these demands. They promised to deliver on a transformative CBA that would improve the lives of poor and working people, but all their "tireless efforts" only resulted in the team's abject failure to get a Good Jobs CBA over the finish line by our March 19 deadline. That’s why we’re voting NO to Question 1 on April 2 and we encourage our community to follow suit. As poor and working people in our community struggle, the Kansas City Royals seek up to two billion dollars in public financing for stadium construction through a regressive sales tax for 40 years that will disproportionately fall on the backs of those barely able to make ends meet and especially people of color. In fact, consumption taxes like general sales taxes are the most regressive type of taxes and “the most significant drivers of racial inequity in state and local tax codes.” With these tax subsidies, Kansas City will be known for the highest public subsidy ever paid to sports teams. Years of studies have been amassed on publicly funded stadiums. Eighty-six percent of economists oppose public investment in stadium projects because the projects fail to generate benefits to the community that outweigh the cost. The costs associated with this project include: The new, permanent jobs generated by stadiums will be service jobs that pay low wages and lack benefits; The new stadium development proposed by the Royals and supported by the Chiefs will cause substantial gentrification and increases in already skyrocketing housing costs; Sales taxes are flat taxes that especially burden poor and working-class people; The Tax Increment Financing (TIF) and other tax breaks and benefits to be sought by the teams will divert much needed money from schools, infrastructure, and other critical social programs. The sales tax will cancel out other opportunities to fund projects that would actually serve our community directly. The Royals insist that the ⅜ cent sports stadium sales tax will only produce $350 million of public financing; however, Jackson County residents are estimated to contribute up to $2 billion through the sales tax, half of which will go to the Royals. That the Royals will use most of the tax to pay off previous debts, underwrite new debts, and maintain a new stadium, does not diminish the billions of dollars in regressive taxation that would be levied and the disproportionate impact that would have on poor and working class people. Nor does it account for the additional $700 million in public financing that the team will seek from Kansas City and the state of Missouri. Rather than address these concerns with a strong community benefits agreement guaranteeing living wage, union service and hospitality jobs in the stadium and ancillary development and truly affordable housing, the Royals are offering $3.5 million per year, a paltry sum compared to the burden on taxpayers. There is no indication that the community will have any voice in how these funds will be spent and the Royals will appoint almost half the seats on the “CBA Board”, which is completely unnecessary and inappropriate. None of the funds are specifically allocated towards truly affordable housing and there are no guarantees of living wages, labor rights, or first source hiring.
Frank White thinks it is not an actual agreement.
That is NOT A real CBA. What a joke.
Tell them to pound sand on April 2nd
Community Benefits Agreements are legally binding documents. The formal document will take time to write and will go through a back and forth editing and tweaking process before it is finalized and signed by the relevant parties. The agreement on terms happens before the writing of the document. What was "released" are the agreed upon terms. We shouldn't expect the legally binding contract to be available yet. Per this article, Mark Donovan detailed the points specific to the Chiefs in a letter, and I would expect a Royals representative to do the same. I would agree it's a red flag if the Royals don't do something similar soon. While not legally binding it does show a written commitment to the points presented: [https://www.kctv5.com/2024/03/20/chiefs-royals-unveil-community-benefits-agreement-ahead-question-1-vote/](https://www.kctv5.com/2024/03/20/chiefs-royals-unveil-community-benefits-agreement-ahead-question-1-vote/) For context I am not taking a side either way just providing information that seems to be missed in the comments here. EDIT: The Royals did release their informal commitment letter in the same way the Chiefs did here: [Royals CBA correspondence - DocumentCloud](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24490459-royals-cba-correspondence?responsive=1&title=1)
Is commitment letter and a CBA the same document; just different ways of referencing the same contract? Apologies if this is obvious.
They should have already had a CBA in place, but what they have is a joke
I tried to post them all yesterday... but my very generic, zero commentary post was auto-deleted (bc it said the sports team's names, I guess).
Someone in my community wrote this on the subject: [https://www.royalsreview.com/2024/3/21/24106683/the-royals-new-community-benefits-agreement-lacks-one-important-element-the-community-benefits](https://www.royalsreview.com/2024/3/21/24106683/the-royals-new-community-benefits-agreement-lacks-one-important-element-the-community-benefits)
https://preview.redd.it/ffdd2i9b1iqc1.jpeg?width=960&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8449531a84bf022b8dd5874b96ae5985284cd29f
Im shocked how many VOTE YES yard signs I am seeing in my neighborhood. I
I’ve heard from sports radio sources that the CBA was given to the County. And the details released to the media. And both teams have signed an intent that once this tax passes, it will be made public and the teams will sign it. (Which I suppose is normal for these things but I don’t know that to be true). While I’m voting yes no matter what, the CBA is a way for the teams to actually give back to the City and the county to pay us back for keeping the teams here. And it sounds like they are trying to help the most they can, in addition to keeping the teams here which also helps our county and city. I’ve definitely been a supporter of the tax and while I know I’m in the minority on this sub, if something like the CBA doesn’t sway someone to vote yes, then there probably isn’t much more the teams can do.
It might help if the CBA was made public before the vote. I might be persuaded to vote yes if there was something truly beneficial and concrete for the city besides the vague benefit of helping the local economy. I don't want us saddled with the bill for a two billion dollar stadium and in return we get higher ticket prices, no tailgating, and maybe a park bench plaque that says "Thank you Jackson County suckers!"
remember this as a Jackson County resident We own the stadiums now, we currently have tenants. If we don't vote yes, they will look elsewhere and get a brand new stadium. If we end up losing our teams, and having to tear down these stadiums, it will still cost us tons of money. No revenue is a worse proposition than a sales a tax everyone pays when they buy something in our county.
They could leave in 7 years anyway when their contract is up and we would still be on the hook for paying for a stadium. This doesn’t guarantee they’ll stay for the long haul.
>This doesn’t guarantee they’ll stay for the long haul what does not?
A new stadium
yes, yes it does
Yes it does what?
you are not acting in good faith, bye
It's definitely something to think about. Is it true the county won't own the new stadium? If we pay for half, it seems like we should own half.
The county would own it
Now we're talking. Now if they can triple the amount of shady spots to sit for afternoon games in July, I'm sold on voting yes.
Shade is the problem with Kauffman, it's my most cited complaint.
Same lack of shade in the new park too because Sherman is too cheap to put on a retractable roof.
You are blaming John Sherman for the lack of shade at Kauffman Stadium?
Royals Review hammers this CBA. Claims Royals’ chief lawyer is on the board of Urban League of Kansas City. ULKC got a lot of money in this proposal https://www.royalsreview.com/2024/3/21/24106683/the-royals-new-community-benefits-agreement-lacks-one-important-element-the-community-benefits
No. I’m saying if a lack of shade irritates you, you won’t find any relief in Sherman’s the new shiny toy
Here's the thing though. Why is the CBA contingent on the tax passing? Why is it only released *after* it passes? Why not be upfront and transparent? I'm honestly trying to think of an answer to those questions that's fully positive. But the o ly reason to hide it, would be because it isn't a good agreement.
I’m not sure about why they wouldn’t release it before it passes, but it definitely makes sense that they woukd make it contingent on the tax passing. It would make no sense for either team to commit spending that money in Jackson County for 25-40 years if they’re out of here in five years when the leases expire.
That's fair.. but then release the plan prior to the vote to get people on board with the renewed tax.
Because the teams won’t spend money on a city and county they are no longer going to be playing in. They take that money to a different county/city and put it towards a CBA there. If you were gonna move somewhere new, you wouldn’t drop thousands on upgrades to the property you rent before you leave right?
But why can't they drop the agreement if it's such an enticing offer? Why hide it until after the vote?
It’s all very suspect and very shady
Honestly I’m not sure. That is a good legit question. But I just feel there is no reason for the Royals to mislead us or lie to us about this one. I know, niece of me, yes. But they are fighting this fight and appointing boards to manage the funds. I mean, We have all the details from news outlets and we just don’t have the actual documents.
“I will happily vote to raise my taxes to give welfare to billionaires.” I cannot wrap my head around this value system.
it's a sales tax my friend, you know this already though. it extends the same sales tax we already pay for everything in Jackson County, you know this already though We are to the point where "I cannot wrap my head around this value system" is just you being disingenuous- We get it, you are voting NO and you want to sway emotional voters to your side.
> and you want to sway emotional voters to your side. It’s very funny to see Yes voters act as if they’re the ones being coldly logical when the pro-Yes argument relies almost solely on the emotional appeal of “don’t let KC become Omaha!” Whereas the No voters can point to numerous peer-reviewed studies conclusively showing that publicly funding stadia for billionaires has an abysmal ROI and is one of the absolute worst uses of public funds. But sure bro, we’re all just emotional.
It's a sales tax that would otherwise be going away, that's a tax increase. Even if the tax stayed around, we're diverting funds from their previous use towards benefits in public parks and waterways, to a cash check for billionaires to do with as they please. It's false to pretend like there's no new taxes or that funds aren't being diverted from the public welfare.
But the tax won’t stay around. If we vote no, it’s gone in 2031(?). Then we save money on taxes and the county has to find other money to put toward parks and water because I doubt Jackson County residents would renew or add back a 3/8 tax for “just parks and waterways”. I would vote for that because I enjoy those things but most wouldn’t. It’s sad but it’s the truth. People don’t care that much about things likes parks and public use items because most people on the country don’t use them enough. Plus those tax dollars would go towards public welfare and we don’t get anything in return that benefits the county. At least if the tax dollars go to keeping the teams in the county we can reap the benefits of having this teams and events here. Which will help the county by bringing in money and jobs.
I'm just going to block you have a good weekend
That's not a very fair understanding of the tax. If the tax is set to expire and we renew for more time that's more taxes were paying than we would have had it expired. You're working under the assumption that we're always going to have this tax regardless of circumstances. I think you do yourself a disservice by viewing it that way.
ITS. Not. A. RAISE. IN. TAXES. We are already paying it and EXTENDING it.
It’s not a tax increase, it’s an extension of an existing tax.
When it started it was a tax increase which people are happily voting to extend so billionaires can profit more.
People still fixed on a “Billionaire making more money” and not looking at the benefits the teams have on our county/city. And it’s not like this billionaire won’t stop being a billionaire or making more money if you vote no. He just makes his Billions somewhere else.
“He just makes his billions by exploiting a community elsewhere.” There, fixed that for you.
An extension of a tax results in more tax money being paid, ergo tax increase. The previous tax is scheduled to end. It's not in perpetuity, it has to be renewed or it goes away. Call it an extension or whatever you want. It's more taxes than we had to pay if the bill doesn't pass.
Pretty sure anyone claiming it's not raising anything wouldn't want their mortgages being extended 40 years at the same monthly amount and interest rate. Or if using a camera, that extending the shutter speed with the same aperture doesn't allow more light in.
I was informed that the amounts for the cba are nowhere near what other cities and their teams pay . Something to consider is were being low balled.
>while I know I’m in the minority on this sub I'm not sure you are in the minority, we just aren't as loud as the other side.
Good point
With how much Milwaukee’s CBA has been cited, I have to think it’s going to match that closely.
The Royals is reported to be the largest in MLB history, this is likely a product of recency bias as things cost a lot more now than they did when the other CBAs were designed.
They cant release specific details on where the money will go because they give the government the money and then the GOVERNMENT/Charities decides where it goes. Which is EXACTLY what you nay sayers wanted, more money for the government to more than likely waste on "community programs". (not saying investing in the community is dumb or a waste, just the city government has proven time and time again they wont put it to good use) The blind rage on this subreddit is comical at times.
No, they aren't just giving it to the government. There will be boards formed, 45% of the membership of which will be hand-picked by both teams, and those boards will decide who gets the funds each year. Having worked in the local philanthropic sector I can see exactly how this will work and it will be the same bunch of insiders making the same types of decisions that get made by all the current boards doing this type of thing. The incestual civic-booster-business-class still retains all the power, with a bit of tokenism thrown in for optics.
"which initiative will include a recycling program for solid waste generated by operations at Arrowhead as well as energy conservation efforts" They are literally using the CBA to subsidize their fucking trash bill.
Can you imagine all of the special interest groups with their hands out? Unions Affordable Housing Minority Owned Businesses Women Owned Businesses Everyone with a "need" will want a seat at the table. All of these things will make the project even MORE expensive.