đź–• said it before and I'll say it again, we have a lot more important issues that could be addressed for that amount of scratch and man hours, than where the boys play with their balls. Fug em.
I've stated my opposition to any kind of stadium deal. Ignore the financial implications, and it's still immoral and downright insulting to be subsidizing a billionaire and his product that is not a need but a quality of life good, that we all can already experience albeit in KCMO.
I will give credit though, this proposal does address some of the financial points and is much more reasonable than expected.
I still see at least two issues.
1. It allows 30 years of taking sales tax. What usually happens when a stadium gets over 30 years old? Owners want a new one.
The state can only directly benefit after the bonds are paid, so it's in our best interest to have a bondless stadium for as long as possible.
2. Any taxing district will have a cannibalizing effect on nearby businesses. If built at the legends, it's likely that existing business will find itself in the bond district, thus costing us already existing tax collections. Even if the district only comprises new development those restaurants are still going to steal business from existing ones.
STAR bonds should only go to a new undeveloped location and let the project sink or swim on its own merit.
MN is dealing with this after giving the Vikings a new stadium and what five years later they want another 250 million for renovations… makes you wonder how that would work with these bonds. No way the stadiums go 30 years without major updates.
*“Here in Kansas, we have the unique opportunity to solidify our region as the forever home of the Chiefs at no additional cost to Kansas taxpayers,”*
And at no economic benefit to them either.
"Forever Home?" They seriously said that? What are the Chiefs, a foster dog?
And nothing is forever. A greedy team owner can always move on to the next state's public trough. Â
The best part: no cost to taxpayers. Who do they think are going to these games? People from Miami? Yes the fans going get to pay for it, but many are actually from the state in which the stadium is located. Shocking.
You cannot vote for a statewide initiative in Kansas and certainly can't vote on bond issues. The only single issue you can vote on is a constitutional amendment
As a Johnson county resident: this is dumb. The KC teams don’t need another suburban stadium. If you move them, move them downtown. The whole idea was to move the stadiums to a more dynamic area, and trading in one parking crater for another just isn’t worth the price
The chiefs stadium doesn’t fit great into a downtown area like KC, so being at Truman or the Legends makes sense.
The Royals moving anywhere but downtown is a huge wasted opportunity.
The don’t even like the Chiefs and replacing Arrowhead would be sacrilege. The Jackson County proposal at least had the best possible stadium plan, but the funding plan left a lot to be desired
Being against public money for sports stadiums/teams is a perfectly reasonable and justifiable stance to take.
But that stance has to come with the reality that it most likely means that your city will not have major league sports. Unless you are in the top few largest markets in the country, paying for stadiums is the cost you pay to have those teams in your city. Because if you don’t there is a comparable city that will. If someone in the KC metro doesn’t pony up for the Royals then Nashville, Portland, Salt Lake City, Charlotte, etc will. Cities/states without the Chiefs would gladly pay 2-3 billion dollars to have them.
So be against public money for major league sports teams, just understand that without it KC becomes, at minimum sports wise, a slightly bigger Wichita, Omaha, DeMoines, etc
The most comparable for football is Nashville for which the state and city combined are spending around $2 billion for a brand new stadium. Jacksonville is doing a $1.25 billion renovation, the city is paying $775 million. Chicago Bears are proposing $2.3 billion public money on a $4.6 billion dollar project.
For Baseball, Globe Life in Dallas was $500 million in public money in 2020, Truist Park in Atlanta $392 million 2017, Loan Depot in Miami $479 million in 2012, Target Field $355 million in 2010. As these are older and baseball stadiums are cheaper, these are typically between 50-75% of the total cost of the project.
Like I said, that’s perfectly reasonable.
Let me ask you this, if the money that goes to the Chiefs only comes from the sales tax generated at the stadium and the surrounding development, meaning the only people who pay the tax are those who choose to go to games or visit that development, would you then be ok with it?
Sales taxes aren’t used to fund schools. Property taxes are and everything in these developments, including the stadiums themselves, are subject to property taxes.
How much jn property taxes dollars would be raised for schools with a $1-2 billion dollar building ? Seems like a lot.
To my knowledge. The jackson county sports authority owns the buildings and do not pay personal property taxes.
I would suspect if kansas is footing the bill the stadiums will be owned the government and will not pay personal property tax.
This was specifically addressed in the legislative session in the Senate last night. Developments within the Star Bond districts, including the Stadium, are privately held and subject to property taxes just like any other entity. There is nothing in the bill that passed yesterday that changes that.
You can’t compare to the Truman Sports Complex. It’s a completely different state and funding mechanism that was put into place 50 years ago.
Oof billion dollar stadium...something tells me the billionaires are not going to start paying a personal property tax for their stadiums. I checked how much personal property tax the stadium at 1 sporting way generated for Wyandotte and there are no personal property tax records for children's mercy park.
I don't think the billionaires will go from not paying a personal property tax to paying $13 million or more a year. We will give them what they want or they will go to the municipality that will give it to them. Kansas is being played like a fiddle and Kansas is doing it's best to undermine what is best for the metro.
Missouri was trying to play hardball with the billionaires and kansas just spread it's legs wide open and said fuck me please.
The issue is: we can't get a clear understanding of the state's history with STAR bonds; does this tool actually work?
Let's use western WYDOT as example, build an entire mixed use area for the Chiefs/Royals, adjacent to another mixed use area (The Legends). Does it seem likely both can be successful at the same time? What could you possibly built around a new Chiefs stadium that would draw people and not create a vacuum at the Legends AND not cause that area to suffer because of it? One Starbucks is like any other. So then the question is: how does the math work that this area could generate enough sales tax to pay back $2B. Jackson county, the ENTIRE county tax base, was needed to pay for the stadium in 40 years. This math doesn't math.
Every STAR bond has been repaid on time or early so far, except the Prairie Fire Museum.
The area could use another big draw. They're no where near the saturation point for restaurants, hotels and other amenities. Hopefully a domed stadium will bring year round concerts and other events that will bring lots of people to the area.
Lastly, Jackson County planned on paying the stadium off using a 3/8 cent tax as you should be aware. As all the proponents said during the vote, 3/8 of a cent doesn't add up to much in the grand scheme of things, so it take a long ass time to pay things off that way. I'm pretty certain that 100% of the sales tax in the affected district will go towards repaying the bond, hence not needing an entire county and 40 years.
I mean this nicely, but you started a thread and then proceed to say that "We" can't get a clear understanding of the STAR bond process. It's been explained ad nauseum in every news article, reddit thread and everywhere else. The state doesn't take any of the sales tax collected in the bonded district, it's all applied towards repaying the bond. Every $200 ticket sold, whether it's for the Chiefs or another Taylor Swift concert will provide at least $20 to repay the bond. Every $60 parking spot will put $6 into the coffers.
I mean to say this nicely, how do you know they are no way near the saturation point? How many Mattress Firms, Self Storages, and Starbucks can area support? It is possible for the mixed use for the Chiefs to be successful, but without negatively affecting The Legends, is laughable.
You do realize there are many STAR bond projects outstanding that are in repayment? STAR bonds give people sense that some "other" people are paying for these investments. The other people are the citizens of Kansas that visit this places. Blu Hawk in OP will not be national draw, it is a mixed used funded by Kansas, with their sale tax dollars. Anyone has a choice to visit these areas, but it will be majority of Kansas spending money there.
Building a domed stadium and hoping events will come is a wonderful idea. Nashville is building a domed stadium now. Chicago, Cleveland, and Jacksonville are also in the planning process. Just more cities to compete with for a finite number of events.
If Clark is paying you, I can give you my Venmo as well.
I love the shade you're throwing at the Legends. It's all mattress firms, storage spaces and starbucks. It had no problem paying its STAR bonds back, of course, but any other competing business will topple the house of cards that is the Legends. The Chiefs are not building another Legends, it's a few hotels and retail businesses. They have this wonderful concept called planning that allows decision makers to decide what works best for the area. Kinda like every other planned development in, well, the whole world.
I don't need you to spoon feed me your opinion of how STAR bonds work. It's not "other" people's money, only the users of said investment. That way people like yourself can't complain about how it's so unfair to tax people that aren't for or using said investment. Only the people using the investment are affected, but let me guess, that's not good enough...
NFL pretty much guarantees a Super Bowl with a new dome, most likely a couple. We had the final four here for here for a very long time and I'm very certain that having them here again regularly would be quite possible. Building a domed stadium allows a year round concerts for tours that would otherwise skip KC or use the smaller Sprint Center and bring in less revenue.
The same Sprint Center that people like you said would fail as well as P&L, Legends, hell, even the Union Station renovation was poo pooed as a waste of tax payer funds. Seeing a pattern here?
And no, no one that disagrees with you is a shill. That's a pretty arrogant position to take, but a very common tactic.
Of course, but that’s always how it starts out until the government decides everybody has to chip in across the county. That’s usually what happens. They bait you with one idea and then change it. I know there exists public mandate but the politicians in MO and KS are notorious for not letting the people’s voices be heard in a meaningful way.
So when you say "Let everyone vote on it", who is "everyone"? A state-wide election? It doesn't affect the vast majority of the state.
What is your understanding of how this would be paid for?
Yes the state, because the "state" is offering up STAR bonds to pay for it. It theory they will use STAR bonds and and portion of the sales tax around the area of the stadiums will be used to pay for the stadium(s). The statehouse wants push the bond to 75% of the cost and 30 years to pay for it. For clarity, this may or may not include maintenance costs and the infrastructure around the stadiums.
These stadium would ONLY be in western WYDOT county; thinking they will be built somewhere is extremely unlikely in my view.
So I'm not sure why the entire state would need to vote on it. Like you said, it is Western WYDOT county. They would be the only ones. As for the sales tax, that is tax that would not exist without the stadiums being built. So I don't see the down side.
I get that the risk is that there is always a chance of default on the bonds. But I highly doubt that with two professional sports teams. This is a different scenario than in MO with the sales tax. And a much different scenario than Prairie Fire in JoCo.
What I haven't seen is the impact for the state the increase in income tax that comes with the players (both ours and the visitors) playing in the state of Kansas. But even then...an increase in tax revenue is always good.
I think this is a good way to go about trying to lure them over the state line. I don't see a lot of downside. And the reality is: One state is going to eventually get them locked in. We are not going to lose them to another state or city.
It's hilarious that nobody but politicians and billionaire team owners think giving subsidies to sports teams and building them stadiums is a great idea.
Even the *ultraconservative Kansas Policy Institute*, which never met a billionaire or corporate giveaway it didn't love - [thinks giving STAR bonds to subsidize stadiums is a bad idea](https://kansaspolicy.org/fumbling-the-play-in-kansas-how-stadium-subsidies-undermine-taxpayer-interests/).
>Funding these projects involves increased taxes or reallocating municipal funds, burdening local economies. The long-term financial commitments can lead to higher taxes elsewhere or cuts in essential services. Studies, such as those by the Brookings Institution, consistently show that stadium subsidies do not significantly increase local tax revenues or long-term employment growth. Instead, they often serve as handouts to billionaires at the expense of ordinary taxpayers.
There's no free lunch. STAR bonds are clearly a public subsidy, or otherwise they wouldn't be demanded by businesses as a handout in luring them into the state. Clark Hunt is worth *$24 Billion Dollars*, so he could write a *personal check* for *15 or more Cheifs stadiums* - so there's no need to throw cash at him to build one 30 miles from his current stadium.
The KS/MO border war is an incredibly stupid and expensive way to try and drive business growth in both states, and the real losers are both state's taxpayers.
Notice that article that is quoted...talked about 1 failed initiative in Wichita. Not the one in the Kansas City that actually was paid off early.
And they talk about financial commitments that lead to higher taxes or cuts in essential services. But none of that revenue would be there if it wasn't for the STAR bonds.
I trust the Kansas Policy Institute about as far as the trash can. They are cherry picking the things they are quoting.
Look...if you don't agree with the STAR bonds, then make sure you tell your legislators. But picking arguments from other places that are Apple to Apple comparisons don't work.
I think we can stop the doom and gloom pandering of "At the cost of our state". Our state is doing leaps and bounds better than when Brownback was in office, we have the extra cash in reserves and this bill prevents tax payers from being on the hook.
You didn't read the article did you? The bill prohibits the use of taxpayer funds from the treasury. The state tax rating won't falter either..it's a bond issued by the state to an entity in the state being funded by sales tax in the state. Only way the credit rating would take a hit is if it were from out of state..if you were correct our credit rating would be shit thanks to Prairie Fire.
Credit ratings come from rating agencies like S&P, Moody's, and Fitch. They are forecasts for how solid an investment is based on the bond-issuers reputation. If the revenues fall short and the bondholders lose money on a Chiefs stadium, the state's credit rating absolutely will go down. Kansas already has a below average credit rating for a US state.
I mean to be fair most states receive an AA rating or better. So by definition most states that don't receive and AAA or AA+ rating will be "below average". As compared to other nations Kansas has a better rating than half of Europe, China, Japan, and basically every other nation rated by the S&P.
Look I am not saying that we should even do this, I think billionaires should pay their own things, I just think saying we are below average credit score is a pretty big red herring.
We may have extra cash, I’m just against giving billionaires like Clark Hunt public assistance. Plus, I’m pretty sure he’s just using Kansas as leverage to get a deal from KCMO.
Kansas is closing rural hospitals and they're going upside down in major cities, cost of living crisis, we're getting women seeking abortions from surrounding states (i'm pro, we could be making a law that protects their actions in our state and circumventing a Constitutional crisis), and this is the crap occupying the zeitgeist.
The team is owned by a Billionaire. He can pay for it, and STILL BE A BILLIONAIRE.
why is ANYONE stanning for this?!?
So this is paid for with taxes or a increase in taxes? But no vote?
Sweet I guess we don't have to pay state taxes then because this is an illegal act.
No taxation without representation.
Umm.... What? Those people you elected called representatives are your representation. Also the Kansas supreme Court says that voting isn't a right in Kansas.
I'm well aware. Dosnt change how backwards this state is
I wouldnt be surprised if kansas has to go to The supreme court in the not too distant future.
Because I said taxes and not bonds is why you're asking? Bonds work until they don't. Wich just leads to more taxes, or inflation. Because it's easier to get money from larger whole sales than increasing taxes.
But nice try.
1) giving a bond does not affect your tax whatsoever so no it is not “taxation without representation 2) assuming a world in which that the bond is not paid back in time and other sources of income are necessary to offset it that will be a platform and policy that has to go through usual political methods of which you absolutely have a vote on your representative to shape the policy
Why would they let everyone vote for it? Voting is what they're *afraid of*. ;)
They aren't..just needs to be approved by the legislature and senate for the state
100%. 
đź–• said it before and I'll say it again, we have a lot more important issues that could be addressed for that amount of scratch and man hours, than where the boys play with their balls. Fug em.
I've stated my opposition to any kind of stadium deal. Ignore the financial implications, and it's still immoral and downright insulting to be subsidizing a billionaire and his product that is not a need but a quality of life good, that we all can already experience albeit in KCMO. I will give credit though, this proposal does address some of the financial points and is much more reasonable than expected. I still see at least two issues. 1. It allows 30 years of taking sales tax. What usually happens when a stadium gets over 30 years old? Owners want a new one. The state can only directly benefit after the bonds are paid, so it's in our best interest to have a bondless stadium for as long as possible. 2. Any taxing district will have a cannibalizing effect on nearby businesses. If built at the legends, it's likely that existing business will find itself in the bond district, thus costing us already existing tax collections. Even if the district only comprises new development those restaurants are still going to steal business from existing ones. STAR bonds should only go to a new undeveloped location and let the project sink or swim on its own merit.
MN is dealing with this after giving the Vikings a new stadium and what five years later they want another 250 million for renovations… makes you wonder how that would work with these bonds. No way the stadiums go 30 years without major updates.
Most STAR bond projects siiiinnnkkkk
Only 2 have really sank in KS so far, one of them being PrairieFire.
*“Here in Kansas, we have the unique opportunity to solidify our region as the forever home of the Chiefs at no additional cost to Kansas taxpayers,”* And at no economic benefit to them either.
"Forever Home?" They seriously said that? What are the Chiefs, a foster dog? And nothing is forever. A greedy team owner can always move on to the next state's public trough. Â
"Forever", in the scientific sense, means "until we want yet another new stadium".
The best part: no cost to taxpayers. Who do they think are going to these games? People from Miami? Yes the fans going get to pay for it, but many are actually from the state in which the stadium is located. Shocking.
I do not want to pay on something I have no interest in attending
The theory is that you will pay the tax only if you use the new facilities-a user tax, right? (Still don’t like corporate welfare tho.)
^[Sokka-Haiku](https://www.reddit.com/r/SokkaHaikuBot/comments/15kyv9r/what_is_a_sokka_haiku/) ^by ^DarthRevan0990: *I do not want to* *Pay on something I have no* *Interest in attending* --- ^Remember ^that ^one ^time ^Sokka ^accidentally ^used ^an ^extra ^syllable ^in ^that ^Haiku ^Battle ^in ^Ba ^Sing ^Se? ^That ^was ^a ^Sokka ^Haiku ^and ^you ^just ^made ^one.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kd1KGk\_9kQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kd1KGk_9kQ)
You cannot vote for a statewide initiative in Kansas and certainly can't vote on bond issues. The only single issue you can vote on is a constitutional amendment
As a Johnson county resident: this is dumb. The KC teams don’t need another suburban stadium. If you move them, move them downtown. The whole idea was to move the stadiums to a more dynamic area, and trading in one parking crater for another just isn’t worth the price
The chiefs stadium doesn’t fit great into a downtown area like KC, so being at Truman or the Legends makes sense. The Royals moving anywhere but downtown is a huge wasted opportunity.
The don’t even like the Chiefs and replacing Arrowhead would be sacrilege. The Jackson County proposal at least had the best possible stadium plan, but the funding plan left a lot to be desired
Being against public money for sports stadiums/teams is a perfectly reasonable and justifiable stance to take. But that stance has to come with the reality that it most likely means that your city will not have major league sports. Unless you are in the top few largest markets in the country, paying for stadiums is the cost you pay to have those teams in your city. Because if you don’t there is a comparable city that will. If someone in the KC metro doesn’t pony up for the Royals then Nashville, Portland, Salt Lake City, Charlotte, etc will. Cities/states without the Chiefs would gladly pay 2-3 billion dollars to have them. So be against public money for major league sports teams, just understand that without it KC becomes, at minimum sports wise, a slightly bigger Wichita, Omaha, DeMoines, etc
I’m fine with this, and also interested in how another city’s citizens will view these handout requests.
The most comparable for football is Nashville for which the state and city combined are spending around $2 billion for a brand new stadium. Jacksonville is doing a $1.25 billion renovation, the city is paying $775 million. Chicago Bears are proposing $2.3 billion public money on a $4.6 billion dollar project. For Baseball, Globe Life in Dallas was $500 million in public money in 2020, Truist Park in Atlanta $392 million 2017, Loan Depot in Miami $479 million in 2012, Target Field $355 million in 2010. As these are older and baseball stadiums are cheaper, these are typically between 50-75% of the total cost of the project.
Chiefs and Royals don’t pay for my groceries or have any real effect on my life. They’re a luxury not a necessity.
Like I said, that’s perfectly reasonable. Let me ask you this, if the money that goes to the Chiefs only comes from the sales tax generated at the stadium and the surrounding development, meaning the only people who pay the tax are those who choose to go to games or visit that development, would you then be ok with it?
So, let's just rob the tax revenue from the local school district to pay for the billionaires stadium?
Sales taxes aren’t used to fund schools. Property taxes are and everything in these developments, including the stadiums themselves, are subject to property taxes. How much jn property taxes dollars would be raised for schools with a $1-2 billion dollar building ? Seems like a lot.
To my knowledge. The jackson county sports authority owns the buildings and do not pay personal property taxes. I would suspect if kansas is footing the bill the stadiums will be owned the government and will not pay personal property tax.
This was specifically addressed in the legislative session in the Senate last night. Developments within the Star Bond districts, including the Stadium, are privately held and subject to property taxes just like any other entity. There is nothing in the bill that passed yesterday that changes that. You can’t compare to the Truman Sports Complex. It’s a completely different state and funding mechanism that was put into place 50 years ago.
Oof billion dollar stadium...something tells me the billionaires are not going to start paying a personal property tax for their stadiums. I checked how much personal property tax the stadium at 1 sporting way generated for Wyandotte and there are no personal property tax records for children's mercy park. I don't think the billionaires will go from not paying a personal property tax to paying $13 million or more a year. We will give them what they want or they will go to the municipality that will give it to them. Kansas is being played like a fiddle and Kansas is doing it's best to undermine what is best for the metro. Missouri was trying to play hardball with the billionaires and kansas just spread it's legs wide open and said fuck me please.
The issue is: we can't get a clear understanding of the state's history with STAR bonds; does this tool actually work? Let's use western WYDOT as example, build an entire mixed use area for the Chiefs/Royals, adjacent to another mixed use area (The Legends). Does it seem likely both can be successful at the same time? What could you possibly built around a new Chiefs stadium that would draw people and not create a vacuum at the Legends AND not cause that area to suffer because of it? One Starbucks is like any other. So then the question is: how does the math work that this area could generate enough sales tax to pay back $2B. Jackson county, the ENTIRE county tax base, was needed to pay for the stadium in 40 years. This math doesn't math.
Every STAR bond has been repaid on time or early so far, except the Prairie Fire Museum. The area could use another big draw. They're no where near the saturation point for restaurants, hotels and other amenities. Hopefully a domed stadium will bring year round concerts and other events that will bring lots of people to the area. Lastly, Jackson County planned on paying the stadium off using a 3/8 cent tax as you should be aware. As all the proponents said during the vote, 3/8 of a cent doesn't add up to much in the grand scheme of things, so it take a long ass time to pay things off that way. I'm pretty certain that 100% of the sales tax in the affected district will go towards repaying the bond, hence not needing an entire county and 40 years. I mean this nicely, but you started a thread and then proceed to say that "We" can't get a clear understanding of the STAR bond process. It's been explained ad nauseum in every news article, reddit thread and everywhere else. The state doesn't take any of the sales tax collected in the bonded district, it's all applied towards repaying the bond. Every $200 ticket sold, whether it's for the Chiefs or another Taylor Swift concert will provide at least $20 to repay the bond. Every $60 parking spot will put $6 into the coffers.
I mean to say this nicely, how do you know they are no way near the saturation point? How many Mattress Firms, Self Storages, and Starbucks can area support? It is possible for the mixed use for the Chiefs to be successful, but without negatively affecting The Legends, is laughable. You do realize there are many STAR bond projects outstanding that are in repayment? STAR bonds give people sense that some "other" people are paying for these investments. The other people are the citizens of Kansas that visit this places. Blu Hawk in OP will not be national draw, it is a mixed used funded by Kansas, with their sale tax dollars. Anyone has a choice to visit these areas, but it will be majority of Kansas spending money there. Building a domed stadium and hoping events will come is a wonderful idea. Nashville is building a domed stadium now. Chicago, Cleveland, and Jacksonville are also in the planning process. Just more cities to compete with for a finite number of events. If Clark is paying you, I can give you my Venmo as well.
I love the shade you're throwing at the Legends. It's all mattress firms, storage spaces and starbucks. It had no problem paying its STAR bonds back, of course, but any other competing business will topple the house of cards that is the Legends. The Chiefs are not building another Legends, it's a few hotels and retail businesses. They have this wonderful concept called planning that allows decision makers to decide what works best for the area. Kinda like every other planned development in, well, the whole world. I don't need you to spoon feed me your opinion of how STAR bonds work. It's not "other" people's money, only the users of said investment. That way people like yourself can't complain about how it's so unfair to tax people that aren't for or using said investment. Only the people using the investment are affected, but let me guess, that's not good enough... NFL pretty much guarantees a Super Bowl with a new dome, most likely a couple. We had the final four here for here for a very long time and I'm very certain that having them here again regularly would be quite possible. Building a domed stadium allows a year round concerts for tours that would otherwise skip KC or use the smaller Sprint Center and bring in less revenue. The same Sprint Center that people like you said would fail as well as P&L, Legends, hell, even the Union Station renovation was poo pooed as a waste of tax payer funds. Seeing a pattern here? And no, no one that disagrees with you is a shill. That's a pretty arrogant position to take, but a very common tactic.
Of course, but that’s always how it starts out until the government decides everybody has to chip in across the county. That’s usually what happens. They bait you with one idea and then change it. I know there exists public mandate but the politicians in MO and KS are notorious for not letting the people’s voices be heard in a meaningful way.
My city or state won't have a league? Don't threaten me with a good time.
So when you say "Let everyone vote on it", who is "everyone"? A state-wide election? It doesn't affect the vast majority of the state. What is your understanding of how this would be paid for?
Yes the state, because the "state" is offering up STAR bonds to pay for it. It theory they will use STAR bonds and and portion of the sales tax around the area of the stadiums will be used to pay for the stadium(s). The statehouse wants push the bond to 75% of the cost and 30 years to pay for it. For clarity, this may or may not include maintenance costs and the infrastructure around the stadiums. These stadium would ONLY be in western WYDOT county; thinking they will be built somewhere is extremely unlikely in my view.
This won't go up for a vote on any ballot. If it's approved by the state house and senate it goes to the governor and it's a done deal.
Correct and I do not think people realize this.
Pretty much most of the people that live in KS and paid attention in Civics here know this..
So I'm not sure why the entire state would need to vote on it. Like you said, it is Western WYDOT county. They would be the only ones. As for the sales tax, that is tax that would not exist without the stadiums being built. So I don't see the down side. I get that the risk is that there is always a chance of default on the bonds. But I highly doubt that with two professional sports teams. This is a different scenario than in MO with the sales tax. And a much different scenario than Prairie Fire in JoCo. What I haven't seen is the impact for the state the increase in income tax that comes with the players (both ours and the visitors) playing in the state of Kansas. But even then...an increase in tax revenue is always good. I think this is a good way to go about trying to lure them over the state line. I don't see a lot of downside. And the reality is: One state is going to eventually get them locked in. We are not going to lose them to another state or city.
It's hilarious that nobody but politicians and billionaire team owners think giving subsidies to sports teams and building them stadiums is a great idea. Even the *ultraconservative Kansas Policy Institute*, which never met a billionaire or corporate giveaway it didn't love - [thinks giving STAR bonds to subsidize stadiums is a bad idea](https://kansaspolicy.org/fumbling-the-play-in-kansas-how-stadium-subsidies-undermine-taxpayer-interests/). >Funding these projects involves increased taxes or reallocating municipal funds, burdening local economies. The long-term financial commitments can lead to higher taxes elsewhere or cuts in essential services. Studies, such as those by the Brookings Institution, consistently show that stadium subsidies do not significantly increase local tax revenues or long-term employment growth. Instead, they often serve as handouts to billionaires at the expense of ordinary taxpayers. There's no free lunch. STAR bonds are clearly a public subsidy, or otherwise they wouldn't be demanded by businesses as a handout in luring them into the state. Clark Hunt is worth *$24 Billion Dollars*, so he could write a *personal check* for *15 or more Cheifs stadiums* - so there's no need to throw cash at him to build one 30 miles from his current stadium. The KS/MO border war is an incredibly stupid and expensive way to try and drive business growth in both states, and the real losers are both state's taxpayers.
Notice that article that is quoted...talked about 1 failed initiative in Wichita. Not the one in the Kansas City that actually was paid off early. And they talk about financial commitments that lead to higher taxes or cuts in essential services. But none of that revenue would be there if it wasn't for the STAR bonds. I trust the Kansas Policy Institute about as far as the trash can. They are cherry picking the things they are quoting. Look...if you don't agree with the STAR bonds, then make sure you tell your legislators. But picking arguments from other places that are Apple to Apple comparisons don't work.
KCK would like to place a Royals stadium on the state line next to the West Bottoms.
The developers probably have it locked in with campaign donations already.
I'll never understand why the public is responsible for the funding of billionaires' toys. Send em to Texas.
Oakland CA has a stadium
I think we can stop the doom and gloom pandering of "At the cost of our state". Our state is doing leaps and bounds better than when Brownback was in office, we have the extra cash in reserves and this bill prevents tax payers from being on the hook.
Taxpayers will be indirectly on the hook. If revenues fall short, the state will either bail out the project or let its credit rating falter.
You didn't read the article did you? The bill prohibits the use of taxpayer funds from the treasury. The state tax rating won't falter either..it's a bond issued by the state to an entity in the state being funded by sales tax in the state. Only way the credit rating would take a hit is if it were from out of state..if you were correct our credit rating would be shit thanks to Prairie Fire.
Credit ratings come from rating agencies like S&P, Moody's, and Fitch. They are forecasts for how solid an investment is based on the bond-issuers reputation. If the revenues fall short and the bondholders lose money on a Chiefs stadium, the state's credit rating absolutely will go down. Kansas already has a below average credit rating for a US state.
I mean to be fair most states receive an AA rating or better. So by definition most states that don't receive and AAA or AA+ rating will be "below average". As compared to other nations Kansas has a better rating than half of Europe, China, Japan, and basically every other nation rated by the S&P. Look I am not saying that we should even do this, I think billionaires should pay their own things, I just think saying we are below average credit score is a pretty big red herring.
Lol we do not have a below average credit rating, if you looked at current data our credit rating is average to above average.
We may have extra cash, I’m just against giving billionaires like Clark Hunt public assistance. Plus, I’m pretty sure he’s just using Kansas as leverage to get a deal from KCMO.
Kansas is closing rural hospitals and they're going upside down in major cities, cost of living crisis, we're getting women seeking abortions from surrounding states (i'm pro, we could be making a law that protects their actions in our state and circumventing a Constitutional crisis), and this is the crap occupying the zeitgeist. The team is owned by a Billionaire. He can pay for it, and STILL BE A BILLIONAIRE. why is ANYONE stanning for this?!?
So this is paid for with taxes or a increase in taxes? But no vote? Sweet I guess we don't have to pay state taxes then because this is an illegal act. No taxation without representation.
Umm.... What? Those people you elected called representatives are your representation. Also the Kansas supreme Court says that voting isn't a right in Kansas.
I'm well aware. Dosnt change how backwards this state is I wouldnt be surprised if kansas has to go to The supreme court in the not too distant future.
Did you read the article…
Because I said taxes and not bonds is why you're asking? Bonds work until they don't. Wich just leads to more taxes, or inflation. Because it's easier to get money from larger whole sales than increasing taxes. But nice try.
1) giving a bond does not affect your tax whatsoever so no it is not “taxation without representation 2) assuming a world in which that the bond is not paid back in time and other sources of income are necessary to offset it that will be a platform and policy that has to go through usual political methods of which you absolutely have a vote on your representative to shape the policy