Almost every week for the last few years, three guys who love Kansas City and have been around here for decades have met almost weekly to talk about the state of the nation and the city.
I’m very happy to say I’m part of the group. The two others are Dan Margolies, who recently retired as a reporter and editor at KCUR, and Lonnie Shalton, a retired partner with the the Polsinelli law firm.
Lonnie, who publishes a weekly email newsletter called “Hot Stove” (usually about baseball) brought us together.
We suffered mightily through the Trump administration, with Dan threatening to move to Portugal if Trump was re-elected, but we pulled through. Now we are feeling a lot more optimistic about the national situation, believing that Trump’s winning days are behind him and that Biden, or whoever the Democratic nominee turns out to be, will prevail in 2024. (The Senate remains a major source of concern.)
The last few months, one of our biggest topics on the local front has been Kansas City Royals’ owner John Sherman’s proposal to construct a downtown stadium and retail/office/entertainment district.
Initially, like most people I spoke with, I was adamantly opposed to a downtown stadium. The biggest question to me and many others has been, “Who’s going to pay for it?” — with the implication that it would require a new and significant sales tax, either city- or countywide.
In addition — again like most people I spoke with — I’ve always been very fond of the Truman Sports Complex and think it has a lot of good, serviceable years left. (It might have been the best deal in the history of stadium construction: two stadiums, acres and acres of accessible parking, plus access roads, all for the unbelievable price (back in the early 1970s) of $100 million.
Now, Dan isn’t a sports fan and the downtown-stadium issue doesn’t stir him one way or the other. But Lonnie…that’s a different story.
He’s a huge baseball fan, a downtown advocate, and he knows John Sherman.
Several months ago, when the downtown-stadium issue first came up at one of our weekly meetings, Lonnie said something that, I believe, will turn out to be incredibly prescient.
“I think there’s a sense of inevitability to it,” he said.
As much as I chafed against the Sherman proposal, I grasped immediately what he meant. Unlike the previous Royals’ owner, David Glass, Sherman is a Kansas Citian. In addition, he’s rich and powerful, and he’s the majority owner of one of Kansas City’s two major sports franchises. That combination of factors, in and of itself, guarantees a significant amount of momentum to almost any semi-reasonable-sounding initiative he would propose.
Lonnie then added something else that stuck with me. “I think he (Sherman) wants to do something good for Kansas City.”
…As the weeks have gone by — and with three public sounding-board meetings having been held by Sherman and the Royals — things seem to be unfolding just as Lonnie had predicted.
Here are the first dominoes that have fallen into place…
:: After first announcing it would be a $2 billion project, which set people’s hair on fire about public-side funding, Sherman came back and said the stadium would be $1 billion and a retail, office and entertainment district would account for the other $1 billion.
:: Then, splashing water on the burning scalps, Sherman said the team would not ask any more from Jackson County taxpayers than continuation of the existing (since 2006) three-eighths-cent sales tax that has been financing hundreds of millions of dollars of improvements that took place at the Sports Complex.
:: On Wednesday night, at the third and final public meeting, Royals’ officials said that only union labor, led by the powerful Heavy Constructors Association, would be used in construction of the side-by-side projects. Moreover, The Star’s Kevin Hardy reported, “It’s likely that labor unions will aid any public persuasion campaign, particularly if the team sticks to its commitment to hire union crews.”
**
Interestingly, Hardy began his story with wording that aligned with Lonnie’s supposition that a downtown stadium is almost inevitable.
“Union labor,” Hardy’s lead paragraph began, “will construct a new downtown stadium for the Kansas City Royals, team officials said at a community meeting Wednesday evening.”
If Hardy did not think it was inevitable, he would have said, “Union labor would construct a new downtown stadium…”
Speaking as an objective observer, Hardy should have used the word “would” because, after all, it’s not a certainty that Kansas City will proceed with a downtown stadium.
But Hardy let slip, probably inadvertently, where he thinks the project stands. And that’s right where Lonnie said it stood soon after Sherman first proposed it.
Get ready for downtown baseball, Kansas Citians. It’s rolling our way.
And, by the way, I’m now on board — assuming Sherman is not playing games when he says the project won’t require a new tax. If, on the other hand, it turns out to be a bait-and-switch deal, the perception of Sherman as an honest broker who wants to do “something good for Kansas City” falls apart.
JimmyCsays: At the juncture of journalism and daily life in KC 
Gee, we are so lucky that John Sherman is such a great KC guy. He is only going to fleece taxpayers for $1 billion. Of course, he will want eminent domain so he and his banking/development buddies can grab all the surrounding property. Folks, that is where the “real” money is made in this scheme. Perhaps, that’s why Sherman seems to only give passing interest to the Royals team itself, just a means to a greater end. I’m not against a downtown stadium if we actually made a billionaire owner pay for it.
Unlike Saint Louis, Kansas City does not have highway systems to handle high speed access into or out of the downtown area. A stadium would only add to the long-term traffic congestion Kansas City has had to endure too many years. Unfortunately, wealth fools rush in where wise men would never invest. People will avoid a new stadium like it became a global plague. Wait-and-see.
Jim, I am pleased you are keeping an open mind about a downtown stadium for the Royals. So much good is currently happening downtown KC, I think a stadium would be a further catalyst to economic development and fan enjoyment of the whole game-day experience. A number of your followers have expressed concern about traffic etc. Unlike the current Truman Sports Complex, many fans would walk to a game either from their home or office. Others, (and don’t forget game-day employees) might choose the bus or streetcar depending on final location. St. Louis has great game-day transit ridership. I am sure downtown KC parking garages would be delighted to have game-day customers filling unused spaces after work hours. Plus, with a nearby entertainment district, other fans without tickets often go to that venue to hang out and watch the game on large screen TVs. Two StL friends have homes in a high rise that overlooks a portion of the Busch playing field. Finally, a source told me that the Royals are already in conversation with a highly regarded developer to make sure the affordable housing aspect of a new downtown stadium is a strategic part of the project.
It would be easier to accept if they were putting as much effort in building a winning team.
If you don’t build it, they can’t steal from it. This is sheer stupidity. We have a wonderful sports complex with the roads around it designed specifically for traffic flow at those events. It’s in a safe area with plenty of parking with little risk of theft or damage to patrons’ vehicles, but all of that isn’t good enough because there are no new avenues of revenue for the local developers.
Agree with the first post. This is about making a killing off not only building a new stadium, but the acquisition of land itself. Read the legislative post audit report on the process for the NASCAR track in KCK. A large parcel of land was acquired through condemnation for a few thousand an acre, then declared to be excess property and sold off for millions plus an interest in the new businesses by RED Development.
I know it’s irrelevant, but I have yet to hear one fan say they think it’s a good idea.
Hmmmm. Sounds as if this downtown stadium might be a Dunn deal. Fortune favors the bold.
Isn’t the Dunn family one of the minority owners of the Royals? So much for competitive bidding on construction.
Just as Lonnie predicted, the comments are very interesting. Thanks for weighing in, everyone.
On the Dunn comment, I don’t think Dunn would have a lock on the contract. This is so big it probably would take a consortium, as was the case on new KCI and the original Sports Complex.
The Sports Complex was built by a trio called Sharp-Kidde-Webb, with Sharp being the primary local participant. The firm was led by a hard-as-nails contractor named Don Sharp. He and the late Bill Clarkson Sr., the equally hard-as-nails chairman of the Sports Complex Authority, clashed mightily at least once during construction. Even with a work stoppage because of a union strike, all turned out well in the end.
I have nothing against a new baseball stadium in downtown Kansas City. However, I have always objected to putting taxpayers on the hook for a private for profit venture. On the other hand, I understand there can be occassions where the public can benefit from incentivizing the initial phase of a project to get it started. But providing a subsidy over the life of a for profit venture is. In my opinion, excessive, particularly when the tax burden is borne by the entire tax base. It would seem to me far more reasonable to limit any tax subsidy to an initial period, say 5 years, to allow the project to reach completion and full operation.
Jimmy, the 3/8 sales tax funds both stadiums at the Truman Sports complex. Would half then go to the Royals downtown and half to the Chiefs at Arrowhead? My sense is that the Royals are saying they’ll use the entire 3/8 sales tax for their new stadium. It’s pretty hard to get to a billion dollars otherwise. Is this a hint the Chiefs are looking for a new location also?
That’s an even greater issue. If the Royals get to continue with the 3/8 sales tax and build a new stadium, then why wouldn’t the Chiefs expect if not demand the same? After all, they actually put a winning team on the field consistently unlike the Royals. It’s all about owner greed and holding the city hostage just ask St. Louis Rams fans.
That’s an excellent point, Kevin (and welcome to the Comments Dept.); I hadn’t thought about that. I agree with you, though, that it sounds reasonable that they’d need the entire 3/8 and for many years. The Chiefs, of course, are the other shoe in this deal. I would hope that with the possibility of having the Sports Complex to themselves, the Chiefs would stay put. Of course, they would want even more improvements and amenities.
My wife and I were talking just a while ago about what the Chiefs might do with the extra space, if they stay and after Kauffman Stadium is razed. I was speculating they might seek to develop an entertainment/office/retail complex of their own. Maybe they would want an area where people could gather — and drink and eat — before and after games.
That entertainment/office/retail complex would have to survive 350 days a year with no gameday fans. I guess there’s concerts occasionally, but without the Royals, it’s pretty lonely out there. The Chiefs really need to make their intentions known before we can truly judge the Royals proposal. The fact that they haven’t spoken makes me suspicious.
And then of course we have Mayor Lucas on perpetual voice loop repeating the same old idea that a new stadium will help the black community. Really? Well, it might provide a few jobs for 1-3 years but we all know who is really going to be helped, namely the white power brokers. Guess that’s why these same folks have pumped his campaign with countless dollars so he can keep a lid on any meaningful dissent.
The money does not work. Even if the rest of Jackson County would extend the 3/8th cent sales tax to build a stadium harder for them to use than Kauffman, it is tied to one-half going to Arrowhead. The bonds will not float on only 3/16 cent. Remember: A downtown stadium is LESS convenient for well over half the fans — and would require another BILLION in roadways and parking lots to accommodate even that lower number.
Of course — like invading Vietnam or Iraq — sometimes nothing is as powerful as a BAD idea whose time has come.
Phil: Thanks for the insight — the 3/8 tax is divided evenly — and the laugh — the bad idea whose time has come.
Has anyone figured out how to get Sports Illustrated, The Street and Money.com via KC Star? They are promoting it as a benefit in the print edition but I see nothing of it at Kansas City.com. Typical I’d have to say.
BTW, I’m not sure the Star has a dedicated Royals beat reporter anymore. For instance the Zack Grienke signing was covered only by the columnists.
Sports Illustrated content is part of the Sports Extra and Football Extra sections of the Extra editions on line.
Going to miss you buddy. You were one of the last of your generation. Thanks!
So long Fitz! I’m sure gonna miss you.
RIP Fitz. I’m gonna miss you badly. And I’ll miss Jimmy C Says. It was informative and insightful.
Fitz, your final post will always stand as a monument to the same pragmatism you brought to your work: Start examining an issue with one set of suppositions, and reaching a different conclusion after a thorough exploration of the facts. May the road indeed rise to meet you, sir.
Here’s a good retort from a reliable source in the know about the boondoggle for billionaires that new sports stadiums are. Robert Reich:
Please, a bottom dweller team and a automobile oriented city funneling downtown in a tax payer financed new stadium. What gets me is the airheaded media going rah rah for this jive.