• Publications and Model Policy
    • Blueprint for Missouri
    • Model Policy
    • MOGE
    • Report
      • Case Study
      • Policy Study
      • Essay
    • The Missouri School Rankings Project
    • Testimony
    • Newsletter
  • Blog
    • Daily Blog
    • Podcasts and Radio
    • Video
    • Infographics
    • Commentary / Op-Eds
    • Events
  • Events
  • Donate
  • About
    • Our Team
    • Show-Me Institute Board of Directors
    • Fellows and Scholars
    • Our Authors
    • Jobs
  • Contact
  • Explore Topics
    • Education
      • Accountability
      • Education Finance
      • Performance
      • School Choice
      • The Missouri School Rankings Project
    • Health Care
      • Free-Market Reform
      • Medicaid
    • Corporate Welfare
      • Special Taxing Districts
      • Subsidies
      • Tax Credits
    • Labor
      • Government Unions
      • Public Pensions
    • State and Local Government
      • Budget and Spending
      • Courts
      • Criminal Justice
      • Municipal Policy
      • Property Rights
      • Transparency
      • Transportation
    • Economy
      • Business Climate
      • Energy
      • Minimum Wage
      • Privatization
      • Regulation
      • Taxes
      • Welfare
      • Workforce
Show Me InstituteShow Me Institute
Show Me InstituteShow Me Institute
Support the Show-Me Institute
  • Publications and Model Policy
    • Blueprint for Missouri
    • Model Policy
    • MOGE
    • Report
      • Case Study
      • Policy Study
      • Essay
    • The Missouri School Rankings Project
    • Testimony
    • Newsletter
  • Blog
    • Daily Blog
    • Podcasts and Radio
    • Video
    • Infographics
    • Commentary / Op-Eds
    • Events
  • Events
  • Donate
  • About
    • Our Team
    • Show-Me Institute Board of Directors
    • Fellows and Scholars
    • Our Authors
    • Jobs
  • Contact
  • Explore Topics
    • Education
      • Accountability
      • Education Finance
      • Performance
      • School Choice
      • The Missouri School Rankings Project
    • Health Care
      • Free-Market Reform
      • Medicaid
    • Corporate Welfare
      • Special Taxing Districts
      • Subsidies
      • Tax Credits
    • Labor
      • Government Unions
      • Public Pensions
    • State and Local Government
      • Budget and Spending
      • Courts
      • Criminal Justice
      • Municipal Policy
      • Property Rights
      • Transparency
      • Transportation
    • Economy
      • Business Climate
      • Energy
      • Minimum Wage
      • Privatization
      • Regulation
      • Taxes
      • Welfare
      • Workforce
×

Corporate Welfare / Subsidies

Fact Checking That Stadium Tax Event

By Patrick Tuohey on Mar 26, 2024
Kauffman Stadium
David Peterlin / Shutterestock

Proponents of the new stadium tax in Jackson County, which the Royals would use to build a new downtown stadium in Kansas City, made some questionable assertions at a recent panel discussion at the Kansas City Library.

I wrote previously about Mayor Sly James’s assertion that “there’s more flights all the time” from KCI Airport (there aren’t). There are three more claims that I want to address.

  • James referenced a study of the 49ers’ Levi Stadium that concluded the stadium had all sorts of positive economic benefits. Unfortunately for the mayor, this study has already been debunked by journalists and economists who have reviewed it.
  • James said that we’d see the community benefits agreement (a contract between developers and community organizations for a project) “tomorrow.” That was on Tuesday, March 19. What was actually produced amounts to a “press release” according to one Kansas City Star As of this writing, March 26, the Royals have still not finalized an actual agreement.
  • Sarah Tourville, representing the Royals, denied responsibility for the April 2 vote: “We didn’t put it on the ballot, they [county officials] chose to put it on the ballot.” That’s misleading. Of course county legislators are the only ones who can put a measure before the voters. But recall that the Jackson County Executive initially vetoed the legislation, claiming that the county needed more time to negotiate agreements. Several legislators indicated they would support his veto. But the Royals campaign ran ads urging voters to contact their legislators and urge a veto override. Two legislators then changed their position and the veto was overridden—one of them noted the “escalating political pressure—and the measure was then placed on the April 2 ballot. The April 2 election is premature. Not only do we not have the community benefits agreement in place, we also don’t know the state and city contributions, and we also don’t have rigorous cost estimates or lease agreements. All of this information should be available for voters to make an informed decision.

What we do know is that public funds aren’t necessary for owners to build whatever they want and that stadia don’t drive economic development.

  • Share
  • Tweet
  • Share
  • Email
  • Print
About the author

Patrick Tuohey

Senior Fellow

More about this author >
Footer Logo
Support the Show-Me-Institute
Showmeinstitute.org is brought to you by Show-Me Institute and Show-Me Opportunity.
  • Publications
  • Blog
  • Events
  • Donate
  • About
  • Contact

Reprint permission for Show-Me Institute publications and commentaries is hereby granted, provided that proper credit is given to the author. We request, but do not require, that those who reprint our material notify us of publication for our records: [email protected].

Mission Statement
Advancing liberty with responsibility by promoting market solutions for Missouri public policy.

© Copyright 2025 All Rights Reserved