Listen to the full show: www.kcmotalkradio.com/

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Interview Transcript

Patrick Tuohey (00:00)
Good morning, Kansas City. This is Patrick Tuohey, Kansas City’s second favorite Patrick, sitting in on the Pete Mundo Show for the whole morning. If you have read anything in the Kansas City papers about either the Royals Stadium or the Chiefs Stadium, the chances are that you are familiar with my next guest. J.C. Bradbury, a professor of economics at Kennesaw State University, has been studying the economic impacts of building stadiums, tearing down stadiums, getting teams, and losing teams. He’s got a book coming out at the end of next month called This One Will Be Different. I’ll get to the book in a second, JC, but my first question is: why do you hate baseball?

J.C. Bradbury (00:43)
Hi Patrick, thanks for having me on. I get that question a lot because I bring a lot of bad news, or uncomfortable truths, let’s say, about baseball. But I study these things because I love baseball. I’m a huge fan. I grew up an Atlanta Braves fan, but I follow baseball generally and all sorts of sports. I was an Atlanta United season ticket holder for many years. That’s why I do this — because I enjoy it.

Patrick Tuohey (01:09)
It’s funny — years ago somebody recommended Moneyball. It’s a fantastic book. The movie is just as good. I rewatched it the other day, and if you haven’t seen it or haven’t seen it in years, it really holds up. I think of that because baseball claims to be so statistics driven that you’d think fans would be more amenable to the kind of economic analysis you’re doing. But maybe it’s just love of the game and fandom that clouds their reason.

J.C. Bradbury (01:44)
There’s some of that. There are many people who are baseball fans, sports fans, who understand what I’m arguing — and I’d argue it’s more than you’d realize. But most of the people vocally speaking out about stadium issues and public finance are largely blinded by their own fandom. I deal with people on social media all the time who respond to things I say about stadiums and tell me I don’t understand the public finance — and they’re just totally incorrect. They don’t even bother to check it. It’s religion to some people. I say most people would give up their religion before they’d give up their subsidies to their sports teams.

Patrick Tuohey (02:27)
If you don’t already follow J.C. Bradbury on Twitter, I recommend it — JC underscore Bradbury. If you’re a fan of baseball, economics, or The Simpsons, you’ll love his account. So JC, tell me about your book, This One Will Be Different, which comes out at the end of July.

J.C. Bradbury (02:44)
I’ve been studying stadium subsidies and publicly funded stadiums for a very long time. I fell into it accidentally because the Atlanta Braves Stadium opened in Cobb County, a few miles from where I live — just outside Atlanta, where my family has been for generations. I had a lot of interest in how the stadium was built and funded, with three hundred million dollars in subsidies. I was familiar with a lot of the economics behind stadiums, and when I tried to share this research with other people, I was heavily rebuffed. So I began to study the issue more, and before I knew it, I had a very long book about the economics of stadiums. My idea was to explain public finance issues in stadiums using simpler methods. I use sound research methods, but I try to explain it through the narrative story of the Braves coming to Cobb County — here’s what happened, here’s what people argued, here’s what actually happened, let’s look at some of the financial numbers, and let’s understand the general intuition of why stadiums get built even though economists say they’re a bad deal. I look at the politics of it too. And one of the things I find is that these stadiums are mostly built by insider coalitions — chamber of commerce types, folks who are going to sit in the owner’s box and enjoy cocktails, or people with season tickets. They’re the large beneficiaries of the subsidy. They push these advocacy campaigns and try to get them passed as quickly as possible without going to voters if they can. That’s why we get these deals.

Patrick Tuohey (04:35)
One of the things that frustrates me about this whole issue — and I’d be curious if you agree, though I hate when TV and radio hosts make a statement and then ask the guest if they agree, and here I am — is that when St. Louis was considering funding a Major League Soccer stadium, or here in Kansas City with the Royals or the Chiefs, what I wish they would do is just say, “Hey everybody, we are a sports town. We think it’s important to have a sports team here, so we’re going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to build something.” And just leave it at that. It would be a defensible argument. You could argue whether it’s worth the expenditure, but at least everybody would be honest. But they don’t do that. They go the extra step and say, “And we’re going to make money doing it.” That’s where they mess everything up. That’s where they get the numbers wrong. Is it as simple as that, or am I missing something?

J.C. Bradbury (05:31)
Absolutely. I wish there was some honesty in these debates. The reality is that a lot of people who argue these things don’t actually believe the phony economic impact studies they put out. They do it for a couple of reasons. Number one, politically, it’s a winning issue — if you tell someone it’s good for them economically, they’re more likely to support it. But also, if you just argue it’s good for the community and we’re a sports town — okay, how much does it cost? A billion dollars. How much does that increase taxes? Three hundred dollars. Well, hold on, we’re not that much of a sports town. Think about how you make your own decisions. What kind of car do you want to drive? I want a Ferrari. Great. But to drive a Ferrari, you’d need to move into a two-bedroom apartment, never travel again, and eat ramen noodles. You know what — I’ll get the base model sedan. People make those kinds of decisions, and that’s one of the reasons they use false economic benefits — because once you start talking about social benefits, people look at the costs more closely, and it makes a lot less sense.

Patrick Tuohey (06:40)
I had your colleague Victor Matheson on a few weeks ago and we talked about this, specifically with the World Cup. I’ve also asked Neil Damas this question. In your experience, how good are journalists at reaching out to you and your colleagues to vet the numbers they’re being told by chambers of commerce or the city? Where are we now, and are we getting better?

J.C. Bradbury (07:14)
I think the situation is getting worse, and a lot of it is accidental. Newsrooms have gotten smaller and younger, so there’s less institutional knowledge. People don’t remember the last stadium being built, and they’re told to go cover this stadium story. They call a few local sources — who of course are members of the local chamber — and those people say it’s great. At best, they call a local economist who says it’s bad, and it ends up being a tie. But often they don’t even call the economist. That’s part of the nature of the news business, which is one of the reasons I think it’s so important to use social media and other mediums to get the word out. Even journalists trying to do their best often fall short. And journalists deserve some blame here — when I reach out to try to help them, they often get very defensive, and I think that needs to stop. I’m not just angry at journalists. Both my parents were journalists, and my first job was in a newsroom. I understand what’s going on.

Patrick Tuohey (08:19)
The previous segment, I talked about World Cup reporting. Local people put out outrageous economic development claims a year and a half ago, nobody questioned them, and journalists just repeated them — even though past experience hadn’t lived up to those claims. So what can we do to encourage journalists to reach out, or maybe just give them a primer on what economic impact studies look like and where the flaws are? Whether I’m looking in St. Louis, Kansas City, or around the country, they are all flawed in the same way.

J.C. Bradbury (08:56)
It’s important to always speak up. It’s easy to get tired and think you can’t keep doing it. When someone asks me to look through one of these studies, I tell them it’s not a real study — it’s a fake study. I try to spread that message. Part of the problem is that the big number is the story, and that’s what they want out there. The fact that it’s wrong later doesn’t matter. And sometimes people get mad at me because I’ll call out bad reporting. I do it not because I dislike journalists, but every time I’ve tried to be nice about it, I get told I don’t know what I’m talking about or that they don’t want to tell their boss they need a correction. I think it’s important for journalists to know that if they get it wrong, they’re going to get called on it — not to be mean, but to set the standard.

Patrick Tuohey (09:54)
And do a better job because policymakers and business owners are making decisions based on the numbers you’re putting out there. We see this with the World Cup — people were expecting much bigger crowds than they got. It’s not just a matter of being right. It’s a matter of being right so that people make decisions based on real information, not just projections. JC, I’m grateful for your time this morning. Thank you so much. We’ve been talking to J.C. Bradbury of Kennesaw State University. His book, This One Will Be Different, comes out at the end of July. We’ll be right back.

The post Why Stadium Deals Don’t Add Up with J.C. Bradbury appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Missouri House Speaker Jonathan Patterson suggested to Fox4 news in Kansas City that Missouri’s contribution to a Royals stadium could reach around $700 to $900 million. Patterson said:

“I think if you look at the numbers, and there was an audit in 2023, the teams generate almost $60 million, and so if you take half of that, then it would be $30 million, then times 30 years, it could be that number. I think those are good estimates that you’re working with.”

That number is way off.

In 2025, during a special legislative session, the House and Senate passed, and the governor signed, Senate Bill (SB) 3, the Show-Me Sports Investment Act. While the bill does not specify a bonding formula, it does set limits: that state spending “shall be no greater than . . . baseline year state tax revenues,” that appropriations may “not exceed thirty years” and that “the net bond proceeds . . . shall not exceed fifty percent of the total costs of the project.” In setting those boundaries, the bill also limits revenue to that “derived directly from the facility.”

Patterson’s estimate of stadium revenue is from a 2023 Jackson County Sports Complex audit, which reports $55 million in tax revenue generated by both teams (the Chiefs and the Royals). But that figure includes all tax revenue collected by state, county, and local jurisdictions. Of that $55 million, only $34,929,233 went to the state—which is what SB 3 covers.

But SB 3 further limits potential support for the Royals to revenue generated only at Kauffman Stadium. Let’s assume half that number, $17 million, is from the Royals’ Kauffman Stadium,* which aligns with estimates provided by Governor Mike Kehoe. If that entire amount were bonded at 6% interest over 30 years, Missouri would be able to give the Royals $234 million.

Another news outlet assumed a 4.5% interest rate over 30 years and concluded the state would be able to give the Royals about $274 million.

Either way, it’s a far cry from $900 million.

There is a lot more to learn about this deal, but SB 3 provides real constraints on what can be counted and borrowed against. Based on the legislation, the 2023 Jackson County audit, and different interest rates, Missouri could contribute roughly $234 to $274 million toward a downtown ballpark. That’s a lot, but only a small portion of what many believe to be a nearly $2 billion project.

*Note: Although the Royals play more games at their stadium than the Chiefs, Arrowhead Stadium has a larger capacity and also hosts concerts for musicians such as Taylor Swift.

The post By the Numbers: What Missouri Might Give the Royals appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

The post Does the Math Work on Kansas STAR Bonds for the Chiefs Stadium? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

On April 2, 2024, Jackson County voters will be asked to approve a new 3/8 percent sales tax to support improvements to “funding for park improvements consisting of Arrowhead Stadium and its surrounds, and a new Major League Baseball stadium in Jackson County.”

Learn more here.

The post KC Stadium Tax: The Opportunity Cost appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

On March 27, Sports Radio 810 WHB in Kansas City hosted a roundtable with Senior Fellow at the Show-Me Institute Patrick Tuohey, former KC Mayor Sly James, and Executive Director of the Jackson County Jim Rowland to discuss the upcoming vote on a new 3/8 percent sales tax to support “funding for park improvements consisting of Arrowhead Stadium and its surrounds, and a new Major League Baseball stadium in Jackson County.”

The post KC Stadium Tax Debate with Patrick Tuohey, Sly James and Jim Rowland appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

On March 20, Patrick Tuohey joined Mundo in the Morning on KCMO to discuss the recent debate held on the new 3/8 percent sales tax being proposed to support “funding for park improvements consisting of Arrowhead Stadium and its surrounds, and a new Major League Baseball stadium in Jackson County.”

The vote will be on April 2.

The post KC Stadium Tax: “They Are Asking Us to Give Them $2 Billion” appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Chiefs are putting in a relatively small amount of money for renovations. According to Kansas City PBS affiliate KCUR:

The total cost of the proposed renovations is estimated at $800 million. Chiefs Chairman Clark Hunt says the Hunt family would pay $300 million of that total. Jackson County taxpayers would be on the hook for the remainder . . .

Got that? Taxpayers are putting up the lion’s share of the renovations to a stadium owned by billionaires. It gets worse. As if learning that taxpayers will fund the majority of the Chiefs’ plans isn’t bad enough, Chiefs President Mark Donovan chose to insult voters’ intelligence. Again, according to KCUR:

Unlike the Royals, who last year cited structural concerns at Kauffman Stadium as one of the main reasons for building a new downtown facility, the Chiefs intend to stay in the same arena bowl over the long haul. Arrowhead opened in 1972, one year before Kauffman Stadium.

Donovan chalked the contrast up to construction differences.

“Believe it or not,” Donovan said, “One team got a good batch of concrete, one team didn’t.”

This is more ridiculous than it sounds because we already know, thanks to KMBC News, that Kauffman Stadium is perfectly fine:

The Royals have repeatedly said the concrete has an issue, but a study reveals that Kauffman Stadium is in “satisfactory condition,” consistent with a “first-class” MLB baseball stadium.

Jackson County voters are being asked to support a new tax because John Sherman, the billionaire owner of the Royals, wants a new stadium in downtown Kansas City. The Chiefs don’t need a new tax. The existing Royals stadium isn’t falling apart. The deal won’t add value to downtown or be good for residents. This press conference made it fair to wonder how much of this is just a power play for personal gain.

The post Arguments for a New Stadium Fall Apart Like Bad Concrete appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

On April 2, 2024, Jackson County voters will be asked to approve a new 3/8 percent sales tax to support improvements to “funding for park improvements consisting of Arrowhead Stadium and its surrounds, and a new Major League Baseball stadium in Jackson County.”

Learn more here: https://bit.ly/3SPIAGQ

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post Spin vs. Reality: The Jackson County Stadium Tax Proposal appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Chiefs President Mark Donovan committed such a gaffe when he spoke at a press conference to unveil planned renovations at Arrowhead Stadium. He was asked why the Chiefs aren’t planning to build any retail developments if the Royals leave the complex to move their stadium downtown. He responded: “Right now in this market, this is not a location that is worthy of developing. As harsh as that sounds, it’s just the reality from a business standpoint.”

At the very least, this was an impolitic thing to say about the region. Located between Kansas City and Independence on Interstate 70, the location would seem to have a lot of potential. More importantly, Donovan concedes what many economists conclude and what Show-Me Institute researchers have been pointing out for years: stadiums do not generate economic growth.

Rest assured, I will be adding Donovan’s comment to my PowerPoint deck on the many false claims of economic development impact statements.

The post Chiefs Team President Accidentally Speaks Truth appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

On February 28, Patrick Tuohey joined Mundo in the Morning on KCMO to discuss a new 3/8 percent sales tax being proposed to support “funding for park improvements consisting of Arrowhead Stadium and its surrounds, and a new Major League Baseball stadium in Jackson County.”

The vote will be on April 2.

The post Listen: The Latest on the New KC Stadium Tax appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Patrick Tuohey is senior fellow at the Show-Me Institute and co-founder and policy director of the Better Cities Project. Both organizations aim to deliver the best in public policy research from around the country to local leaders, communities and voters. He works to foster understanding of the consequences — often unintended — of policies regarding economic development, taxation, education, policing, and transportation. In 2021, Patrick served as a fellow of the Robert J. Dole Institute of Politics at the University of Kansas. He is currently a visiting fellow at the Yorktown Foundation for Public Policy in Virginia and also a regular opinion columnist for The Kansas City Star.

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post A New Ballpark Could Cost KC Taxpayers Billions with Patrick Tuohey appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Proponents present this as an extension of that tax and not a new tax.

They are wrong. It is a new tax.

First, think of this logically. If the county legislature did not act—or if the voters reject the measure—the current sales tax would expire on September 30, 2031. The legislature is seeking voter approval exactly because this is a new legislative action to impose a new tax.

Second, let’s examine the original tax approved by voters in 2006. The legislation does not contemplate an extension. It does not set up any mechanism by which the tax could be extended. It simply imposes the tax and states that it will expire after 25 years.

Third, the legislative language Jackson County voters are being asked to approve this time around would sunset the existing tax (the original tax would end—the two taxes would not run concurrently) and explicitly states this is a new tax. Per Section 2: “Subject to the approval of the voters of the County, the new levy will begin upon the date first imposed and continue for a term of 40 years . . . ” (emphasis added)

Even the title of the ordinance confirms that we are being asked to impose a new tax:

AN ORDINANCE submitting to the qualified voters of Jackson County, Missouri, at a special election to be held on April 2, 2024, a question authorizing Jackson County to impose a countywide sales tax of three-eighths of one percent for a period of forty years for the purpose of retaining the Kansas City Royals and Kansas City Chiefs sports teams in Jackson County, Missouri. (emphasis added)

Perhaps supporters of the measure believe that voters are more likely to extend a tax than they are to vote on a new tax. But that is a political concern. Their claim is campaign messaging, not the facts of the measure on the ballot.

Journalists covering this issue should resist parroting talking points and stick to the basic facts: Jackson County residents are being asked to impose a new levy on themselves. It’s that simple.

The post Let’s Be Honest about the New Stadium Tax in Jackson County appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Kansas City Royals and Kansas City Chiefs released a joint statement Friday to stay in Jackson County, pending voters’ approval of a sales tax extension.

The statement comes amid the Royals’ plans to build a new $2 billion ballpark district as they look at locations in both Jackson County and Clay County.

The teams said Friday they are committed to staying in Jackson County — and provid[ing] over $200 million in economic benefits — if voters approve a 40-year extension of the 3/8th-cent sales tax in April.

The sales tax extension will help the Chiefs renovate Arrowhead Stadium at the Truman Sports Complex and assist with the Royals’ new stadium in downtown Kansas City.

It wasn’t news that the Chiefs planned to stay put. Driven in part by the Royals’ public relations disaster, the Chiefs had confirmed months ago they indeed intend to remain at Arrowhead (despite flirting with Kansas two years ago), and it was clear the football team was only waiting on the baseball team to make its decision. The Chiefs’ involvement at this juncture also puts a more popular brand in front. Frankly, the baseball team is probably better off with Chiefs superstar and Royals co-owner Patrick Mahomes leading the final charge to the ballot box rather than majority owner John Sherman, who’s helmed the Royals’ push to this point. I’m sure Sherman would agree.

Will taxpayers accept this rose? It won’t come for free. Now that the Royals have decided on Jackson County as their first choice, it will now (likely) be up to voters to decide in April whether to continue subsidizing not one, but two sports teams into 2071—that is, nearly to the 22nd century. Where will that baseball stadium be? Unlikely at its current site, where the taxpayer-financed and recently upgraded Kauffman Stadium seems destined for the wrecking ball. At least two new Jackson County sites are in contention, and a final site announcement may be weeks or months away, if it comes before the vote at all. In the meantime, we wait.

In the interest of balance, I will say that the Royals’ behavior—though misguided and wrongheaded—is consistent with the behavior of countless other private businesses, in and outside the professional sports industry, when it comes to tax incentives and public financial support. The Royals want something for free, regardless of whether they’re owed it. That’s their prerogative, and it’s up to taxpayers to finally say, “No, our tax dollars should go to legitimate public services and not to a private entertainment operation.”

But odds are that Jackson County taxpayers won’t say no—they’ll likely approve the tax extension for the Royals’ (and Chiefs’) benefit, even as other notable local challenges, like murder, remain unaddressed. Taxpayers can do better. I hope they do.

The post Royals Officially Probably Staying in Jackson County appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

While the team appreciates its history with Arrowhead, Chiefs president Mark Donovan acknowledged on Tuesday that the franchise has considered other options for when their lease expires in 2031. Donovan said that the team has specifically considered options in Kansas, as it has been pitched stadium offers [by] developers in the state, via Kevin Clark of The Ringer.

Upon seeing what Donovan said, Kansas City mayor Quinton Lucas quickly issued a response via Twitter.

“Kansas City has proudly hosted the Chiefs since the early 1960s,” Lucas said. “We look forward to working with the Chiefs, our state of Missouri partners, and local officials to ensure the Chiefs remain home in Kansas City and Missouri for generations to come.”

As a Chiefs fan, the idea of the team leaving the place they’ve called home for 50 years is disappointing. While only Lambeau Field and Soldier Field are older, Arrowhead Stadium is nonetheless an updated and modern (publicly owned) facility that could easily serve fans and the region for many decades to come. But that may be my sentimentality speaking. I was also aghast when the New York Yankees tore down the House That Ruth Built in 2010 and replaced it with the new Yankee Stadium. Old habits die hard.

The good news for Chiefs fans is that the alternate site being discussed is also in the region, albeit across the state line in Kansas. And while public money and tax incentives didn’t come up in the original story, you can rest assured that if the Chiefs made such a move, the package from Kansas would be worth billions. Like I told Pete Mundo the other day, teams wouldn’t threaten to leave if threats didn’t get them more money from taxpayers. It’s certainly the Chiefs’ right to try to get as much money from the public as they can get.

But that doesn’t mean the Kansas City and Missouri governments need to acquiesce. Even if the Chiefs moved to Kansas, the team would continue to be a regional asset and, likely, would still be easily accessible by Interstate 70—in this case, 15 minutes west of downtown in Kansas rather than 15 minutes east of downtown in Missouri. Simultaneously, the Royals have also started talking about a stadium in downtown Kansas City—a good business idea and a bad tax incentive idea! If that’s coming and it gets taxpayer support, it’d put the city on the hook for potentially two new stadiums in the span of about a decade should it keep the Chiefs on Missouri soil, too.

If Kansas wants to spend money to help carry the cost of the region’s professional sports franchises, more power to them. It’s bad policy, of course, but my focus is on Missouri policy and decision making.

As far as Missouri policy is concerned, my perspective for the Chiefs is straightforward: if you want a new stadium in Missouri, build it yourself, as any other business would. I’ll be cheering the Chiefs on wherever they are in the region, and even for a traditionalist like me, I’ll admit that a new stadium may add some excitement to an already exciting team. But there’s no reason to force single moms paying the earnings tax, or frankly any city taxpayer paying any tax, to underwrite such an amenity.

Hail to the Chiefs . . . but with all due respect, pay for the stadium yourself.

The post Hail to the Chiefs! And Pay for Your Own Stadium appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

But that hasn’t kept Kansas City and other local government from bah-humbugging it, flying the banner of coronavirus prevention as it dumps coal in the stockings of local proprietors in the food service industry. In November, city officials shut down The Corner Bar and Grill in the historic 18th & Vine District during a Chiefs game when a “field supervisor noted multiple violations of the mask and social distancing rules” set out by the mayor. In fact, until relatively recently, Kansas City proper was requiring all bars and restaurants to not only close by 10 p.m. to mitigate the spread of COVID-19—because it’s, what, not communicable during the day?—but force all of the patrons out by that time, or else be sanctioned by the city.

The Corner Bar’s closure and the city’s draconian time restrictions meant that when the Chiefs played the Denver Broncos for the league’s Sunday night game on Dec. 6, Kansas City bars were forced to turn patrons away due to capacity limitations and to warn patrons who were allowed inside that they’d be kicked out of the bar before the late game had finished. This isn’t hearsay either; this happened to me. However, not all places of imbibing and engorging for the game were closed. I eventually found myself at, of all places, a local casino that is not only open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, but whose social distancing norms are, shall we say, necessarily loose.

Having the right to leisurely eat, drink, smoke and gamble at 10:30 p.m. on a Sunday from the comfort of a barstool in the middle of a pandemic would feel a lot more liberating if you do these things at any establishment of one’s choosing, pandemic or not. But on this Sunday night, the patrons of the Argosy Casino had acquired an immunity to coronavirus (or, rather, to government-imposed coronavirus restrictions) that the small businesses and patrons in downtown Kansas City had not yet achieved. Shortly after that weekend, Kansas City officials “clarified” that the city’s bar and restaurant patrons could now remain in their seats and finish their meals, even past 10 p.m., but couldn’t order food or drink after that hour and had to be out of the building by 11 p.m.

It’s tempting to accept the clarification of mandated closure times as an improvement, and in technical terms, it is. After all, requiring establishments to close in the middle of a sports event is bad for business. But local officials are merely returning rights to taxpayers that I believe should never have been taken to begin with and where in other local businesses like casinos, the same rules aren’t being applied. That’s before addressing whether these new rules should be applied at all, and on what actual scientific basis they’re being pursued.

But I’ve said this before and I must say it again, especially now that we’re close to the 2021 legislative session: If a rule is good enough for big businesses, it’s good enough for the small ones too. That applies to all of “Chiefs Kingdom,” both in Kansas City itself and outside it. If casino patrons can live it up safely and watch the Chiefs beat the hated Broncos late at night, so too can supporters of local bars. If Chiefs fans can socially distance at Arrowhead, so too can fans of Blue Springs High School. And in the coming weeks, state legislators must start the process of reining in the excesses of local governments. Kansas Citians may live in Chiefs Kingdom, but they aren’t the subjects of their elected officials.

The post Living in Chiefs Kingdom Doesn’t Make You Kansas City’s Peasant appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Blue Springs School District, a school district in Jackson County, sued the Jackson County Health Department after it was issued a notice of non-compliance with capacity limitation rules for its home opening football game.

What did Blue Springs do wrong? Attendance at the game exceeded the 100-person fan limit set by the county for outdoor events. The county is adamant Blue Springs cannot do that, threatening to ban all fans for the season and force the team to quarantine for two weeks if it happens again.

Blue Springs simply wants to allow for home football players, cheerleaders, and dance team members to give four tickets to their family members and two tickets to visiting team players—totaling 550 fans and 11 percent normal capacity. Yes, this exceeds the 100-person limit, but is the 100-person rule being enforced everywhere throughout the county?

Let’s compare this to the Thursday night opener for the Kansas City Chiefs. The county allowed roughly 16,000 fans, or 22 percent of Arrowhead’s normal capacity to attend.

Double standard? Absolutely. When the order was issued, the county intentionally exempted Kansas City, the city with the highest COVID case numbers in the county. Jackson County wants Blue Springs held at less than 2 percent of its stadium’s capacity while the Chiefs can have 22 percent. Shouldn’t Blue Springs be allowed to have the same percent capacity applied to its stadium?

Due to the limit set by the health department, Blue Springs decided that no visitor fans can attend games going forward. Even worse, with roughly 100 students on the active roster, each player/cheerleader/dance team member gets one ticket to give to their parents or guardians. Imagine a senior who has to choose between their mother, father, or grandparent attending their game. If one person from a “household” can attend, why can’t one or two more?

Jackson County defended the 100 person limit (2 percent capacity) for Blue Springs and 15,895 fan limit (22 percent capacity) for the Chiefs by saying, “Just because the Chiefs have the resources to do this in a relatively safe matter doesn’t mean that a high school stadium does.” But is this true? Blue Springs and the Jackson County Health Department developed a plan that health officials deemed safe for the school district to teach thousands of students each day indoors and in-person. The health department said Blue Springs has enough resources for that.

Wouldn’t the school district have enough resources to take a fraction of the people compared to the current school day and place them in a less risky area outdoors? I think so. The Jackson County Health Department should assist Blue Springs in implementing an 11 percent capacity plan instead of threatening to quarantine the players and ban its fans.

The post Local Kansas City Area School District Sues Jackson County Health Department – for Good Reason? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Hail to the Chiefs? City Includes Arrowhead on List of Urban Core Successes appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

For those who may be wondering what exactly “first-tier” means, the Edward Jones Dome must be in the top 25 percent of all NFL facilities regarding some established criteria, such as: Fan amenities (box suites, club seats, lounges, etc.), technical areas (scoreboards, lighting, sound, etc.), and revenue-generating facilities (shops and concession stands). Considering that stadiums qualifying as top-tier include the newly-built Cowboys Stadium (price tag: $1.2 billion, with the Dallas Cowboys football team paying $875 million) and MetLife Stadium (price tag: $1.6 billion), the Edward Jones Dome has a long way to go to qualify. In fact, according to Patrick Rishe of Webster University, the cost of upgrading the Dome to “first-tier” status would be, at a minimum, $200 million-300 million (the cost of construction for the Edward Jones Dome was $280,000,000 in 1992 dollars). That is significantly more than the estimated $124 million in the CVC’s proposal.

Thus, officials for Saint Louis City, Saint Louis County, and Missouri have a decision on whether to pay up or face the prospect of the Rams leaving Saint Louis. I would urge the city, county, and state to forgo the use of any public money for upgrades to the Dome for several reasons. The first reason is on principle; the Rams are privately-owned and yet want public money for one of their facilities. If the Rams want a first-tier stadium, they should make a first-tier investment (and put a first-rate team on the field).

Second, even if city, county, and state officials wanted to pay for the upgrades, where are they going to get the money? The state is not exactly awash in cash, and the situation in the county is not much better. Both Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon and the state legislature have ruled out tax increases to help close the budget gap and I highly doubt they will go back on that in order to keep the Rams in Saint Louis. The city, county, and state could issue bonds (the state, at least, has a great credit rating), but they are still paying off ($12 million for the state and $6 million each for the city and county every year until 2021) the bonds issued to build the Edward Jones Dome. Does it make sense for the city, county, and/or state to go further into debt to keep the Rams in Saint Louis for another 10 years? Besides, when Kansas City and Jackson County helped fund renovations to Arrowhead Stadium, Jackson County struggled to keep up with the debt payments. Why put Saint Louis City and/or Saint Louis County in that kind of risky position?

Finally, even if the city, state, and/or county had the money, the use of public funds for sports stadiums does not generate much economic activity. According to a St. Louis Federal Reserve publication, the weight of economic evidence shows that the taxpayers do not get much of a return on their investment. In fact, the Federal Reserve study referred to another study:

Baade found that of the 30 metro areas where the stadium or arena was built or refurbished in the previous 10 years, only three areas showed a significant relationship between the presence of a stadium and real per-capita personal income growth. And in all three cases—St. Louis, San Francisco/Oakland and Washington, D.C.—the relationship was negative.

Considering these reasons, what justification can officials for the city, county, and/or state give for further expenditures on behalf of the Edward Jones Dome?

The post Dough for the Dome appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, “The professional football team’s owners are seeking the new subsidy to upgrade Arrowhead Stadium in Kansas City and finance an indoor training arena in St. Joseph.”

Given the financial climate of our state, money is tight. Plus, our governor-elect is already having trouble in his search for money to fund future projects. While the working poor and retirees can barely afford tickets to go to a game, we are asking them to pay the tab for building new restaurants and luxury suites in the stadium. I think this is terrible. It’s also economically unjustified. Despite the development arguments of those who support government funding for stadiums, the theory and practical research both demonstrate that this type of appropriation is a net loss to society:

Households face budget constraints; they must meet their unlimited wants with a limited amount of income. The arrival of a professional sports team in a city provides households with a new entertainment option. Households that choose to attend games will spend less on other things, perhaps going out to dinner, bowling, or the movies. If the impact of each dollar spent on these forgone alternatives has a larger effect on the local economy than the impact of each dollar spent on professional sporting events, the local economy will contract and income will be lower. Why would the impact of each dollar spent going to a professional basketball game be smaller than the impact of each dollar spent on bowling?

But this is what happens when government throws out tax credits like rice in a wedding.

Come on, Chiefs — time to draw up another play. If you were at least .500, maybe we could talk.

The post Chiefs Miss the Extra Point … appeared first on Show-Me Institute.