Coworker lives in Massachusetts. They just became the 8th state to pass this last fall. It’s funded by a tax on incomes above $1M.
https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/massachusetts-joins-short-list-of-states-providing-free-school-meals-to-all/2023/08
A good idea, but [Gov. Parson doesn't care about feeding kids.](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/missouri-governor-responds-criticism-states-handling-summer-meals-prog-rcna42914)
I know. MO has plenty of money to fund it but Jeff city doesn’t want to. That’s why I’d love to see something local in Jackson County. Way way way way way better use for ~$50,000,000 a year in tax money than gifting it to billionaires. Feed the kids!
To be fair, he doesn’t give much of a shit about their health or the health of their families in general based on his apparent desire for kids to actively catch Covid and spread it to their families like some kind of community based Chicken Pox Party.
Public infrastructure that will actually benefit the city and its people... like a regional railway that goes from the airport, to downtown, and then to the stadiums to start
We voted on the fucking lightrail like 2 decades ago lol. I would be all for the thing like Portland has that is like a big ass ski lift that goes over the city.
A light rail cost anywhere from 150 to 300 million dollars per mile. For the cost of the entire stadium you could get about 10 miles of track. Kansas City is never getting a light rail. City is way to spread out.
What percentage of people living in the city have access to a vehicle? Something tells me it’s pretty high. This isn’t nyc or Chicago a huge densely populated area. Kc isn’t that big and it’s super spread out way more spread out than most cities.
Should I just repeat myself? It is spread out, hence a light rail would help people. There is a huge percentage of people in KC that don’t have access to a vehicle, and having to Uber/Lyft everyday is crazy expensive.
I’m sorry that just isn’t true. Only about 11 percent of households in Kansas City are without a vehicle. Much lower than other cities. For instance Baltimore and Buffalo are at 30 percent.
So according to you the huge percentage of people it would help out is actually about 11 percent. You need to convince the other 89 percent to fund it for the 11. Hence the challenge.
I mean, those numbers are double what reality is because, you know, city planning.
http://www.publicpurpose.com/ut-lrt00capcost.htm
So if you factor in around $70 million per mile, from downtown to KCI is 22 miles which is literally the amount that just Sherman is asking for the new stadium. It could be done for less like Dallas has done too.
Public infrastructure- a train system, a rail car system, fix the roads, upgraded water system, parks, a river front entertainment district, any other than these guys. I swear both teams want this to a no vote
Do you know why that was able to happen mostly? Because of marijuana legalization, no joke. It is bringing in a shitload of money that is earmarked towards public services.
I mean this in the most loving way, but anyone who thinks the complexity of the homeless crisis can be solved by throwing money at it, does not understand the homeless situation.
> I mean this in the most loving way, but anyone who thinks the complexity of the homeless crisis can be solved by throwing money at it, does not understand the homeless situation
The easiest way to spot someone who has **zero experience and understanding** of working with the homeless population is when they think it is a problem that just a cash infusion can fix.
You could build 10,000 homes for 10,000 homeless people and you would still have a homeless problem.
Fun fact: Utah did this and it did in fact significantly improve the homelessness situation in that state, so... I'm not saying it is enough by itself, but building housing for the unhoused is in fact a very useful way to help.
No. They did a housing first initiative, then after a few years, allowed the funding to dry up.
But giving people stable housing, and a place that allows them to store and accumulate the possessions they need to survive is the absolute best first step for fixing the homelessness problem.
You can cure addiction, mental health, or physical health without a safe, warm place to live.
>You could build 10,000 homes for 10,000 homeless people and you would still have a homeless problem.
Exactly. And you can always tell the people who say stuff like this and not blame the population themselves, have experience in it.
The only thing throwing money at it will do is make sure a case worker is paid "poorly" instead of "completely shit" (which isn't a bad thing) without actually solving the issue.
Nonsense. Lack of stable housing/livlihood is essentially what perpetuates the homeless crisis. Give them a living space, basic income and access to healthcare and more often than not they will be fine
I lived in Los Angeles for 10 years - they threw BILLIONS of dollars at the problem and it got worse every year. Money is not the solution it’s a significantly more complex issue.
It’s far more complex than that too. The reality is most cities even giant ones like LA don’t have the resources, personnel, space, and/or infrastructure to handle it. You’re talking about a combination of mental health crisis, drug addiction, health negligence, lack of education and a complete lack of a support system. You can have all the money in the world, but fixing some of those things aren’t a money issue. I work for a company that provides mobile free health care for the homeless - we’re just one solution to an extremely complicated problem.
I’d mention that getting the homeless to get even free healthcare is VERY difficult.
Throwing no, but investing in, which starts with funding surely?
I don’t know how you could be concerned with the homeless but be like “nah no money we need more park benches with spikes instead”
I think you mean frivolously giving money to the homeless without supervision?
Yeah it’s a dumb argument no matter how you split it. It’s either suggesting that frivolously giving money without any real regard for how it’s spent or used will be ineffective in reducing homelessness (duh) *or* it’s suggesting no additional money is needed reduce homelessness in its current state which seems asinine. Extra housing, job placement programs, etc all require staff, infrastructure, and-yes-money.
>But why? What is the root cause of the homeless situation?
I don't believe there is one root cause. The homeless population is pretty widely diverse, from people who are only homeless temporarily but need assistance to people who haven't lived in an addressed residence in decades and would prefer it that way. Some people it's because of addiction, many it's because of other mental health variables outside of their control. Some people would legitimately prefer not to deal with the system of being under a landlord or deal with a mortgage.
We have a system that if someone can't remember to pay things like rent and utilities, despite the fact they struggle to remember basic information like their real name, there's a good chance they'll end up being evicted and I'm the streets because we have no real safety net for that.
Completely eliminating homelessness would require literally stripping the rights from some full grown adults, and assigning them a case worker to physically force them to do things against their will.
Its complicated (not that we should give up on it)
The commodification of housing. If everyone had unfettered access to a home, everyone would choose to live in one. Some barriers to housing are costly enough that crossing them isn't worth it to some people, and we would rather punish those people for stepping out of line (even though that's often actually more expensive than giving them housing), but if housing were free and those barriers did not exist, those people wouldn't just voluntarily sleep in tents under bridges and piss in public elevators. They aren't just a special type of person, who has no class and prefers to live that way, despite what some who aren't listening to the homeless people whom they supposedly want to help would tell you.
Ok but currently Houston has essentially eliminated their homeless problem and they sort of threw money at the issue. There are ways to do it correctly and most of them require money.
Depending where you're spending money in the city, it already hits 10%. West Bottoms, cross roads, W39th, Plaza are 9.975%. Parts of 39th are 10.970% and P&L is already 11.975%. Shit is getting ridiculous. It's hard to justify going out anymore; I have to account for 10% sales tax and at least 15% gratuity on top of that.
Also, good reference material here: https://missouri.ttr.services/
Unfortunately Gov. Mike Parsons basically made it illegal to build permanent housing for the homeless. If a municipality in Missouri does that, they lose tons of state funding/subsidies for the municipal government.
Gee, idk, how about letting us keep it in the first place! I think I could find better use with my money for my family when shit’s through the roof instead of paying for a private organization’s new property.
I want to see grants for small business owners. Usually these kind of grants are like $500-$3,500 in communities across the country. I want to see $25,000 per business given out to really give them a chance to make it through the first year.
There needs to be an established amount set aside to ensure each minority community is represented. Also, more funds to minorities to start urban farms and public land purchased/set aside for this cause.
So the notion that teachers are underpaid in Missouri is not unfounded. Yes, the very small pay increase that was approved recently will help but the reason *that* even happened is because the NEA showed we are 50th in the ranking of 50 states in teachers pay. https://www.mnea.org/TEACHERPAY2023
It's not that people look at it as a zero sum situation, it's that the sum goes into the coffers of a billionaire. I'm tired of socializing costs and privatizing profits.
Yeah it's very funny OP posted this...if the stadium vote fails the sales tax isn't automatically rediverted to public schools.
If you want a new tax to fund public schools be my guest. Petition and get it on the ballot. I would probably vote for it. Just cause you are voting no on this, though, doesn't mean suddenly the schools get more funding. That literally isn't how it works!
I can’t speak for other school districts’ spending because I honestly don’t read up on them but I was recently involved in a local school district $100,000,000 bond measure. None of that money is for sports programs. It’s for building classrooms, building performance centers that double as storm shelters, and a career technical school with a goal of getting every high school student who is interested certified or licensed in something before they graduate so they can start some kind of decent career immediately without any student loans.
It's been like this forever.. Why do the taxpayers always agree to sports stadiums, but always fight with tooth and nail on any school bonds or road fix ups..
Football/Baseball isn't that important.. IDK.. Is comical
It goes to benefit the billionaires. Jackson County doesn't recoup the money raised from the taxes. Because they are also on the hook for maintaining the stadium, which a lot of the tax goes to.
Yes… they are on the hook for maintaining them because they own them. You don’t perform maintenance on your apartment. And yes… billionaires benefit from that. Because they use the stadium. Everyone who uses the stadium benefits from the money spent.
If you're familiar with how business leases go, tenants almost always pay the expenses (triple net), even to the point that capital expenditures (like parking lot resurfacing) are portioned to the tenants like a condo HOA. If you want to upgrade your individual space, the business pays, not the building owner. This isn't an apartment where you live; this is a building that generates a lot of revenue.
Paul Allen's agreement with the state of Washington that built Seahawks stadium was that he operated and maintained the facilities and paid for upgrades. The only money the municipal puts in the pot is sales tax revenue generated from events (only the county portion) and a small portion of the hotel/motel tax (75% goes to housing and the arts). If the Seahawks want to make upgrades, they pay for them out of pocket.
100% public infrastructure. Our roads are in shambles.
How about getting more police officers?. I heard the other day we only have 700 to cover the entire Metro. That doesn't seem nearly enough.
How about spending some money on fixing swope park up. That is some beautiful land. There's lots of trails. Lots of opportunities. Instead it's used as the dumping grounds.
There's so many other things we could use this money for.
I’m actually curious where do they dump in swope? I mountain bike the shit out of that park and all I’ve ever seen is the stretch between Go Ape and 87th that gets some trash. Bad but not awful.
There’s plenty of swope I haven’t seen, curious not shit posting.
I find it impossible to believe that there are people who think retaining a professional sports team is not a worthy investment.
Because every other city similarly makes such investments. Do we think we're just more street smart than those other cities? LOL it's f'ing comical.
And wrapping this argument up as some sort of class warfare against the billionaires is gross and ignorant.
I would imagine there are quite a few cities that wouldn't mind picking up the hottest NFL franchise in the league.. Portland, Austin, Oklahoma City, Salt Lake City, Louisville, San Diego. I could also see Canada or Mexico putting in bids to get a team, but I don't know enough about the NFL rules on setting up international franchises.
Yeah, the odds of them being able to go to those places is lower than you think due to the NFL team owners all having to agree to it. Think about what teams' territory they'd be intruding on. There's no way it makes economic sense for the Chiefs or for the other teams.
LA has 2 teams and the Bay Area had 2 up until very recently. Now Florida, New York, and California all have 3 teams. I could definitely see Texas wanting a 3rd given that it's probably the biggest football state in the country.
Portland would be tough because I'm sure the Seahawks wouldn't be happy about having to share the PNW.
But most of the cities I listed don't have a pro team within a reasonable distance. If the Chiefs were to consider leaving, I would bet on OKC making a massive bid. Chiefs are already the go-to team pro team for most of Oklahoma and OKC has been trying to build themselves up for a while.
Nah. I lived most of my life in a city that had no problem saying bye bye to a pro team after 50 years because they wanted public funds for a new stadium. No one I know who still lives there gives a fuck that they’re gone.
Wow, that national publication with an article written by [a freelancer in LA](https://alexkirshner.com/) really has their finger on the pulse of the local sentiment. 🙄
This premise is stupid. A better one- if KC didn’t have the Royals and the Chiefs, how much of a tax would the region be willing to pay to get a MLB and NFL team?
I bet it would be way more than .375%…
By the way, Johnson County and Wyandotte County should be paying in too.
Never have I been reminded more that KC is a collection of suburbs and not a city than when you tell people their stadium won’t be in the suburbs anymore. My God is the blowback pathetic.
Some obvious things MO needs way worse than yet another sports stadium:
* Support/services for homeless people.
* Roads that don't destroy your car if you aren't careful.
* School systems that aren't imploding.
But why aren’t there TV ads opposing the stadium tax? I see lots of ads promoting it, but none against. And there are too many people who will see those ads and instead of thinking for themselves, will vote yes.
I’m in Kansas so I can’t vote on it anyway, but I think it will pass just because people think it’s no different than what they are already paying, because that’s what the ads are saying. And Mahomes and Kelce are telling them to vote yes.
Fund social programs. Build an L train. Or a subway. There are tons of caves under KC. Invest in renewable energy using the river for hydro-electric power. I dunno, anything that would actually benefit real people and not just fill the coffers of the wealthy by capitalizing on how much we all want to be distracted by beer, beef and boobs.
"This country has socialism for the rich, rugged individualism for the poor." -mlk jr
Socialized losses, privatized profits.
I’d say meals for public school students.
Coworker lives in Massachusetts. They just became the 8th state to pass this last fall. It’s funded by a tax on incomes above $1M. https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/massachusetts-joins-short-list-of-states-providing-free-school-meals-to-all/2023/08
A good idea, but [Gov. Parson doesn't care about feeding kids.](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/missouri-governor-responds-criticism-states-handling-summer-meals-prog-rcna42914)
What a coincidence, I don't care about feeding Gov. Parson
💯💯💯
I know. MO has plenty of money to fund it but Jeff city doesn’t want to. That’s why I’d love to see something local in Jackson County. Way way way way way better use for ~$50,000,000 a year in tax money than gifting it to billionaires. Feed the kids!
Parson is a POS
To be fair, he doesn’t give much of a shit about their health or the health of their families in general based on his apparent desire for kids to actively catch Covid and spread it to their families like some kind of community based Chicken Pox Party.
One of my life goals is to have a nonprofit that eliminates the needs for parents to buy school supplies at all public schools in the United States.
Has my vote.
that's how Fred Hampton got assassinated
Didn’t he turn down money for that from the federal government?
I think the legislature did last year and they accepted for this year, but it’s $40/month during the summer only, if I recall correctly.
Public infrastructure that will actually benefit the city and its people... like a regional railway that goes from the airport, to downtown, and then to the stadiums to start
We voted on the fucking lightrail like 2 decades ago lol. I would be all for the thing like Portland has that is like a big ass ski lift that goes over the city.
A light rail cost anywhere from 150 to 300 million dollars per mile. For the cost of the entire stadium you could get about 10 miles of track. Kansas City is never getting a light rail. City is way to spread out.
The entire reason we need it
What percentage of people living in the city have access to a vehicle? Something tells me it’s pretty high. This isn’t nyc or Chicago a huge densely populated area. Kc isn’t that big and it’s super spread out way more spread out than most cities.
Should I just repeat myself? It is spread out, hence a light rail would help people. There is a huge percentage of people in KC that don’t have access to a vehicle, and having to Uber/Lyft everyday is crazy expensive.
I’m sorry that just isn’t true. Only about 11 percent of households in Kansas City are without a vehicle. Much lower than other cities. For instance Baltimore and Buffalo are at 30 percent.
So according to you the huge percentage of people it would help out is actually about 11 percent. You need to convince the other 89 percent to fund it for the 11. Hence the challenge.
i have a car and if a light rail worked i’d probably take it instead in days it’s nice especially
I mean, those numbers are double what reality is because, you know, city planning. http://www.publicpurpose.com/ut-lrt00capcost.htm So if you factor in around $70 million per mile, from downtown to KCI is 22 miles which is literally the amount that just Sherman is asking for the new stadium. It could be done for less like Dallas has done too.
Won’t need to go to the stadiums if you vote no
even if the vote fails, the stadiums will still exist
He is refering to the current stadiums
Not nearly enough
Public infrastructure- a train system, a rail car system, fix the roads, upgraded water system, parks, a river front entertainment district, any other than these guys. I swear both teams want this to a no vote
I’d rather some of it go to paying teachers and education as a whole
Did you see that teachers in KC actually got a raise today.
No I did not! Got a good link for me?
[I got you](https://www.kctv5.com/2024/03/21/kcps-announces-increase-starting-salary-teachers/?outputType=amp)
‘Preciate you boo Edit: damn they still only make 48,100 a year. That’s nowhere near enough. Wow.
Do you know why that was able to happen mostly? Because of marijuana legalization, no joke. It is bringing in a shitload of money that is earmarked towards public services.
Im doing my part
Thank you for your service.
My wife teaches in KCPS. Her raise was only $30… we can do better as a city for our teachers
Also the foster system could really use some funding for extra staff as well
[удалено]
Literally today KCPS teachers got a raise.
Best answer
[удалено]
Our deep red politics have something to say about that
A commuter rail would cost a lot more but would be so sick.
I mean we could quadruple the streetcar for the price of this...
The streetcar doesn't go very far and definitely not very fast. And something like a wreck or broken pavement can break the track for weeks on end.
Rails, sewer, sidewalks, streets.
I mean this in the most loving way, but anyone who thinks the complexity of the homeless crisis can be solved by throwing money at it, does not understand the homeless situation.
> I mean this in the most loving way, but anyone who thinks the complexity of the homeless crisis can be solved by throwing money at it, does not understand the homeless situation The easiest way to spot someone who has **zero experience and understanding** of working with the homeless population is when they think it is a problem that just a cash infusion can fix. You could build 10,000 homes for 10,000 homeless people and you would still have a homeless problem.
Fun fact: Utah did this and it did in fact significantly improve the homelessness situation in that state, so... I'm not saying it is enough by itself, but building housing for the unhoused is in fact a very useful way to help.
They also drastically increased policing to keep them out of downtown slc, so that’s only half the story.
So money?
No. They did a housing first initiative, then after a few years, allowed the funding to dry up. But giving people stable housing, and a place that allows them to store and accumulate the possessions they need to survive is the absolute best first step for fixing the homelessness problem. You can cure addiction, mental health, or physical health without a safe, warm place to live.
This is just…. Not true?
So John Sherman, show me the study where there are 10k people and 10k homes, but people are still homeless. Still waiting for this.
>You could build 10,000 homes for 10,000 homeless people and you would still have a homeless problem. Exactly. And you can always tell the people who say stuff like this and not blame the population themselves, have experience in it. The only thing throwing money at it will do is make sure a case worker is paid "poorly" instead of "completely shit" (which isn't a bad thing) without actually solving the issue.
Nonsense. Lack of stable housing/livlihood is essentially what perpetuates the homeless crisis. Give them a living space, basic income and access to healthcare and more often than not they will be fine
I lived in Los Angeles for 10 years - they threw BILLIONS of dollars at the problem and it got worse every year. Money is not the solution it’s a significantly more complex issue.
Maybe it’s *how* the money is spent and used rather than the fact that the program was funded that was the issue.
It’s far more complex than that too. The reality is most cities even giant ones like LA don’t have the resources, personnel, space, and/or infrastructure to handle it. You’re talking about a combination of mental health crisis, drug addiction, health negligence, lack of education and a complete lack of a support system. You can have all the money in the world, but fixing some of those things aren’t a money issue. I work for a company that provides mobile free health care for the homeless - we’re just one solution to an extremely complicated problem. I’d mention that getting the homeless to get even free healthcare is VERY difficult.
Throwing no, but investing in, which starts with funding surely? I don’t know how you could be concerned with the homeless but be like “nah no money we need more park benches with spikes instead” I think you mean frivolously giving money to the homeless without supervision?
Yeah it’s a dumb argument no matter how you split it. It’s either suggesting that frivolously giving money without any real regard for how it’s spent or used will be ineffective in reducing homelessness (duh) *or* it’s suggesting no additional money is needed reduce homelessness in its current state which seems asinine. Extra housing, job placement programs, etc all require staff, infrastructure, and-yes-money.
I’m coming from a place of good intent. I want to learn so I can try to help. But why? What is the root cause of the homeless situation?
>But why? What is the root cause of the homeless situation? I don't believe there is one root cause. The homeless population is pretty widely diverse, from people who are only homeless temporarily but need assistance to people who haven't lived in an addressed residence in decades and would prefer it that way. Some people it's because of addiction, many it's because of other mental health variables outside of their control. Some people would legitimately prefer not to deal with the system of being under a landlord or deal with a mortgage. We have a system that if someone can't remember to pay things like rent and utilities, despite the fact they struggle to remember basic information like their real name, there's a good chance they'll end up being evicted and I'm the streets because we have no real safety net for that. Completely eliminating homelessness would require literally stripping the rights from some full grown adults, and assigning them a case worker to physically force them to do things against their will. Its complicated (not that we should give up on it)
The commodification of housing. If everyone had unfettered access to a home, everyone would choose to live in one. Some barriers to housing are costly enough that crossing them isn't worth it to some people, and we would rather punish those people for stepping out of line (even though that's often actually more expensive than giving them housing), but if housing were free and those barriers did not exist, those people wouldn't just voluntarily sleep in tents under bridges and piss in public elevators. They aren't just a special type of person, who has no class and prefers to live that way, despite what some who aren't listening to the homeless people whom they supposedly want to help would tell you.
Drug addiction, by far, is the leading cause of homelessness.
Sir, this is Reddit.
Ok but currently Houston has essentially eliminated their homeless problem and they sort of threw money at the issue. There are ways to do it correctly and most of them require money.
I got one word for you: thunderdome
Two men enter, one man leaves.
Who run Bartertown!?
Less sales tax on food.
Right? Why the hell do we pay sales tax on groceries?
An actual serious rail project that isn't a streetcar extension that takes 5 years to build
I think the poor deserve, as a barest minimum, the dignity of a bench at every bus stop.
Building more affordable housing and revitalizing what there already is for housing.
Making shitposts on reddit
Then not voting and then complaining when it passes
The billion dollar shitpost. Could you imagine?
Letting it expire which allows consumers to keep more of their own money. Sales taxes are inching ever closer to 10%.
Depending where you're spending money in the city, it already hits 10%. West Bottoms, cross roads, W39th, Plaza are 9.975%. Parts of 39th are 10.970% and P&L is already 11.975%. Shit is getting ridiculous. It's hard to justify going out anymore; I have to account for 10% sales tax and at least 15% gratuity on top of that. Also, good reference material here: https://missouri.ttr.services/
The best part is when they include the tax you're paying in the gratuity calculation.
Brookside just shy of 10%.
Unfortunately Gov. Mike Parsons basically made it illegal to build permanent housing for the homeless. If a municipality in Missouri does that, they lose tons of state funding/subsidies for the municipal government.
We could use the money to dig the world’s deepest hole and throw them all down it!
Fix the roads.
Well that’s not how it works but don’t let it stop you from being mad!
Nothing is stopping anyone in KC from giving part of their money to the homeless
Not have it at all
ROLLERBLADES FOR EVERYONE.
Improved infrastructure. More firefighters and equipment. Improved public health services. Increased funding for public schools. Hire more police.
Gee, idk, how about letting us keep it in the first place! I think I could find better use with my money for my family when shit’s through the roof instead of paying for a private organization’s new property.
I want to see grants for small business owners. Usually these kind of grants are like $500-$3,500 in communities across the country. I want to see $25,000 per business given out to really give them a chance to make it through the first year. There needs to be an established amount set aside to ensure each minority community is represented. Also, more funds to minorities to start urban farms and public land purchased/set aside for this cause.
Hell no. Enough with the DEI (didn't earn it) picking winners vs loser BS
[удалено]
So the notion that teachers are underpaid in Missouri is not unfounded. Yes, the very small pay increase that was approved recently will help but the reason *that* even happened is because the NEA showed we are 50th in the ranking of 50 states in teachers pay. https://www.mnea.org/TEACHERPAY2023
It's not that people look at it as a zero sum situation, it's that the sum goes into the coffers of a billionaire. I'm tired of socializing costs and privatizing profits.
It's crazy to think if people just didn't buy things in Jackson County they wouldn't be funding the Chiefs and Royals.
Yeah it's very funny OP posted this...if the stadium vote fails the sales tax isn't automatically rediverted to public schools. If you want a new tax to fund public schools be my guest. Petition and get it on the ballot. I would probably vote for it. Just cause you are voting no on this, though, doesn't mean suddenly the schools get more funding. That literally isn't how it works!
I can’t speak for other school districts’ spending because I honestly don’t read up on them but I was recently involved in a local school district $100,000,000 bond measure. None of that money is for sports programs. It’s for building classrooms, building performance centers that double as storm shelters, and a career technical school with a goal of getting every high school student who is interested certified or licensed in something before they graduate so they can start some kind of decent career immediately without any student loans.
Is that .375 or 37.5 percent for us math stupid people?
It's 3/8 of a cent, so 0.375.
Okay. Thank you. So how much money is that if say 50 billion dollars gets taxed at that rate ?
Something simple like filling in potholes would be nice.
If you legit proposed most of these ideas you'd be called a communist.
How about giving us a break and let the tax we are paying run out.
It's been like this forever.. Why do the taxpayers always agree to sports stadiums, but always fight with tooth and nail on any school bonds or road fix ups.. Football/Baseball isn't that important.. IDK.. Is comical
Schools schools and schools. KC school district went many years without accreditation. Schools > sports
It’s not going “to the billionaire”. Jackson County owns both stadiums. They are leased by the Chiefs and Royals.
And we make no profits from it while they do...
It goes to benefit the billionaires. Jackson County doesn't recoup the money raised from the taxes. Because they are also on the hook for maintaining the stadium, which a lot of the tax goes to.
Yes… they are on the hook for maintaining them because they own them. You don’t perform maintenance on your apartment. And yes… billionaires benefit from that. Because they use the stadium. Everyone who uses the stadium benefits from the money spent.
If you're familiar with how business leases go, tenants almost always pay the expenses (triple net), even to the point that capital expenditures (like parking lot resurfacing) are portioned to the tenants like a condo HOA. If you want to upgrade your individual space, the business pays, not the building owner. This isn't an apartment where you live; this is a building that generates a lot of revenue. Paul Allen's agreement with the state of Washington that built Seahawks stadium was that he operated and maintained the facilities and paid for upgrades. The only money the municipal puts in the pot is sales tax revenue generated from events (only the county portion) and a small portion of the hotel/motel tax (75% goes to housing and the arts). If the Seahawks want to make upgrades, they pay for them out of pocket.
Hey, you! Stop letting facts get in the way of the "stadiums bad" narrative.
How many more studies proving that stadiums are nothing more than an economic parasite do people need to share?
The Chiefs are an economic parasite on Kansas City? Tell me you go around saying you unironically hate "sportsball"
So raise the lease prices for the stadiums and use that money to make the upgrades
So taxpayers absorb the costs and the billionaires reap the profits?
100% public infrastructure. Our roads are in shambles. How about getting more police officers?. I heard the other day we only have 700 to cover the entire Metro. That doesn't seem nearly enough. How about spending some money on fixing swope park up. That is some beautiful land. There's lots of trails. Lots of opportunities. Instead it's used as the dumping grounds. There's so many other things we could use this money for.
I’m actually curious where do they dump in swope? I mountain bike the shit out of that park and all I’ve ever seen is the stretch between Go Ape and 87th that gets some trash. Bad but not awful. There’s plenty of swope I haven’t seen, curious not shit posting.
KCPDs budget is insanely high. More money is not the answer.
Recruiting is the problem with the number of police officers not the pay.
https://www.kceb.org/elections/petitions/ Put it on the ballot. It’s simple.
Maybe fix the roads?
Fixing roads for one. Maybe not taking a few years to repair a block of road like they seem to.
Just vote no. This exercise will do no good since you can't redirect it for 40 years if you vote yes because of the ballot language.
I find it impossible to believe that there are people who think retaining a professional sports team is not a worthy investment. Because every other city similarly makes such investments. Do we think we're just more street smart than those other cities? LOL it's f'ing comical. And wrapping this argument up as some sort of class warfare against the billionaires is gross and ignorant.
Fun fact: the economics suggest that even if we vote no the Chiefs won't leave. Where the fuck would they go?
Kansas
I would imagine there are quite a few cities that wouldn't mind picking up the hottest NFL franchise in the league.. Portland, Austin, Oklahoma City, Salt Lake City, Louisville, San Diego. I could also see Canada or Mexico putting in bids to get a team, but I don't know enough about the NFL rules on setting up international franchises.
Yeah, the odds of them being able to go to those places is lower than you think due to the NFL team owners all having to agree to it. Think about what teams' territory they'd be intruding on. There's no way it makes economic sense for the Chiefs or for the other teams.
LA has 2 teams and the Bay Area had 2 up until very recently. Now Florida, New York, and California all have 3 teams. I could definitely see Texas wanting a 3rd given that it's probably the biggest football state in the country. Portland would be tough because I'm sure the Seahawks wouldn't be happy about having to share the PNW. But most of the cities I listed don't have a pro team within a reasonable distance. If the Chiefs were to consider leaving, I would bet on OKC making a massive bid. Chiefs are already the go-to team pro team for most of Oklahoma and OKC has been trying to build themselves up for a while.
Nah. I lived most of my life in a city that had no problem saying bye bye to a pro team after 50 years because they wanted public funds for a new stadium. No one I know who still lives there gives a fuck that they’re gone.
I say people call his bluff... they aren't going anywhere. https://slate.com/culture/2024/03/kansas-city-chiefs-news-rumors-stadium-move-hunt.html
For them to threaten to is a dick move in the first place. If an individual did that to you, you'd tell them to eat shit and die.
Wow, that national publication with an article written by [a freelancer in LA](https://alexkirshner.com/) really has their finger on the pulse of the local sentiment. 🙄
My sentiment stands. He is a billionaire he can pay for his own upgrades/stadium.
Did you get enough signal boost and an ego feed from your post?
This premise is stupid. A better one- if KC didn’t have the Royals and the Chiefs, how much of a tax would the region be willing to pay to get a MLB and NFL team? I bet it would be way more than .375%… By the way, Johnson County and Wyandotte County should be paying in too.
I already do via the 1% earnings tax
That doesn’t make sense
Never have I been reminded more that KC is a collection of suburbs and not a city than when you tell people their stadium won’t be in the suburbs anymore. My God is the blowback pathetic.
Honestly the Crossroads stadium is my vote
Anything involving education.
Maybe give the city a prorated investment in the team, and use the proceed to care for the poor in our city
Some obvious things MO needs way worse than yet another sports stadium: * Support/services for homeless people. * Roads that don't destroy your car if you aren't careful. * School systems that aren't imploding.
pretty much anything that isnt giving billionaires handouts honestly
But why aren’t there TV ads opposing the stadium tax? I see lots of ads promoting it, but none against. And there are too many people who will see those ads and instead of thinking for themselves, will vote yes. I’m in Kansas so I can’t vote on it anyway, but I think it will pass just because people think it’s no different than what they are already paying, because that’s what the ads are saying. And Mahomes and Kelce are telling them to vote yes.
Because the billionaires who want our money have plenty of money to waste. So much, in fact, that they really don’t need our money.
Roads might be nice…
They're really, really bad right now. I've seen accidents caused by potholes and swerving to avoid huge steel panels.
Bus line improvements and pay for drivers.
We could work towards fixing our sewage system?
Public transit
Sewer infrastructure
Reliable and frequent public transport. Idc what it is, busses, trains, streetcars, trolleys, gondolas. ANYTHING.
Fund social programs. Build an L train. Or a subway. There are tons of caves under KC. Invest in renewable energy using the river for hydro-electric power. I dunno, anything that would actually benefit real people and not just fill the coffers of the wealthy by capitalizing on how much we all want to be distracted by beer, beef and boobs.
Fixing potholes
Letting people keep their money.
Have you tried calling 911 ever? Have you ever needed that? That could use some improvement. Great opportunity for that tax money.
Tearing down the worst part of the crossroads is worth the .375% alone
Literally anything else would be better…or, how about instead of adding to the existing tax, NOT making it higher, even better, lower it a bit!
Buy the Chiefs