Kansas Crimson

Shirley wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2024 7:27 am

pdub wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2024 6:22 am If I was a KC resident, because of the way the ownership has subtly threatened a move, I’d probably vote no on the extended ( is it increased or just extended ) tax.

I was surprised to read that there's not a list of alternative cities waiting on the sidelines ready to leap in instantly to make the Hunt'$ dreams come true, should KC balk.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2024 7:13 am

Shirley wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2024 7:27 am

pdub wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2024 6:22 am If I was a KC resident, because of the way the ownership has subtly threatened a move, I’d probably vote no on the extended ( is it increased or just extended ) tax.

I was surprised to read that there's not a list of alternative cities waiting on the sidelines ready to leap in instantly to make the Hunt'$ dreams come true, should KC balk.

It is well-understood that Kansas would give the Chiefs whatever it asks for on that side of the line.

Royals are a different story.

Which is why, in jointly asking for the 3/8% sales tax to be extended, the Royals put forward (in the end) a much more serious proposal than the Chiefs did.

KUTradition wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2024 10:14 am it’s an extension of an existing tax?

what’s that revenue been used for up to this point?

Back2Lawrence wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2024 9:58 am

jfish26 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2024 7:13 am

Shirley wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2024 7:27 am

I was surprised to read that there's not a list of alternative cities waiting on the sidelines ready to leap in instantly to make the Hunt'$ dreams come true, should KC balk.

It is well-understood that Kansas would give the Chiefs whatever it asks for on that side of the line.

Royals are a different story.

Which is why, in jointly asking for the 3/8% sales tax to be extended, the Royals put forward (in the end) a much more serious proposal than the Chiefs did.

Public monies for stadiums are gross. Let’s ask the masses to be double taxed (or triple) while we use every resource to avoid such things.

Blech. The stadium needs to come downtown, for sure, but eff this tax.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2024 10:25 am

Back2Lawrence wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2024 9:58 am

jfish26 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2024 7:13 am

It is well-understood that Kansas would give the Chiefs whatever it asks for on that side of the line.

Royals are a different story.

Which is why, in jointly asking for the 3/8% sales tax to be extended, the Royals put forward (in the end) a much more serious proposal than the Chiefs did.

Public monies for stadiums are gross. Let’s ask the masses to be double taxed (or triple) while we use every resource to avoid such things.

Blech. The stadium needs to come downtown, for sure, but eff this tax.

I would vote no for billionaire subsidies. But I have no issue with someone who would vote yes - it’s not unreasonable or wrong to choose to pay for “luxury” things, and that’s basically what this is.

What I have an issue with is the insulting, glossy attempts to convince people that this is something BUT a billionaire subsidy.

KUTradition wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2024 10:28 am this reminds me a bit of the controversy here with the proposed gondola, except it’s not a county tax, but rather a state-wide tax for a “luxury” relatively few will use directly

Shirley wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2024 12:07 pm It's complicated.

I'm not for subsidizing billionaires either, but the games do generate business that creates employment opportunities not connected to the Chiefs/stadium, that might not do as well or exist, otherwise. How much would that cost the city?

KUTradition wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2024 10:14 am it’s an extension of an existing tax?

what’s that revenue been used for up to this point?

Sparko wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2024 12:10 pm

Shirley wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2024 12:07 pm It's complicated.

I'm not for subsidizing billionaires either, but the games do generate business that creates employment opportunities not connected to the Chiefs/stadium, that might not do as well or exist, otherwise. How much would that cost the city?

If Hunt sells the team tomorrow to San Antonio for Billions, how much goes to Kansas City? These investments, if they lock in value for the community, are okay. Billionaires are not like you and me, as Fitzgerald posited. They got that way stealing money and value.

Shirley wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2024 12:09 pm

KUTradition wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2024 10:28 am this reminds me a bit of the controversy here with the proposed gondola, except it’s not a county tax, but rather a state-wide tax for a “luxury” relatively few will use directly

I can imagine that might be a hard sell.

Where will the Gondola be? From SLC to Park City?

KUTradition wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2024 12:24 pm

Shirley wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2024 12:09 pm

KUTradition wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2024 10:28 am this reminds me a bit of the controversy here with the proposed gondola, except it’s not a county tax, but rather a state-wide tax for a “luxury” relatively few will use directly

I can imagine that might be a hard sell.

Where will the Gondola be? From SLC to Park City?

Little Cottonwood Canyon, and that’s it

the proposal would make it the largest/longest/biggest free-standing gondola in the world

legislators and DoT officials apparently visited one in Europe and were bowled over

not surprising, the owners of Alta and Snowbird (Snowbird in particular), are the major backers. the owner of Snowbird just so happened to buy up one of the last remaining chunks of undeveloped land at the mouth of the canyon, which is exactly where the base station of gondola would have to be

edit:

it’s all so silly. “they” think that the gondola will reduce auto traffic and relieve congestion…why? it seems much more likely that, barring formal restrictions on autos in the canyon (which isn’t on the board as i’m aware), the result will just be more people in the canyon

pdub wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2024 9:40 am I dunno.
I’d rather have kept him if all we are going to sign is Donovan Smith or a different vet tackle.