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.

According to The Kansas City Star, the city has not yet formally applied for funding under Missouri’s Show-Me Sports Investment Act. State participation is a central piece of the financing plan, and city officials are already considering ways to secure up to $600 million in local support.

Negotiations of this scale are complicated. City, state, and team officials may simply still be working through the details. But the delay raises an obvious question. If the public financing package is as straightforward as supporters suggest, why are the numbers still unavailable? (The same could be asked of the Chiefs deal in Kansas.)

One possibility is that the arithmetic is becoming more difficult as officials move from press announcement to actual financing plans.

When the stadium was announced, the Royals indicated that roughly 60% of the project’s estimated $1.9 billion cost would come from public sources. That implies well over $1 billion in taxpayer support. Yet the Show-Me Sports Investment Act places meaningful limits on state assistance. As I noted previously, available estimates suggest the state’s contribution may be closer to $250 million than the much larger figures that have circulated publicly.

If state support is lower than hoped, the remaining public contribution would need to come from Kansas City taxpayers through various tax diversions and subsidies. It won’t be cheap.

The political environment may become even more challenging if voters get a chance to weigh in. Opponents of the project have submitted signatures seeking a public vote on the city’s participation. That effort remains uncertain, but financing proposals acceptable to elected officials may not be acceptable to the public—as we learned in 2024.

To make matters more confusing, the Star previously reported:

Mayor Quinton Lucas told reporters that the city has projections for how much tax revenue a new stadium could generate based on what Kauffman Stadium in the Truman Sports Complex produces now — which city officials say is roughly $5 million a year.

That $5 million is currently going into the city’s coffers and used to fund police, infrastructure, and other public goods. Moving the team downtown and then returning that money to the Royals is not a wash—it’s a $5 million hit to the budget each year. And that does not include the cost to the city if the stadium fails to generate enough money to cover the bond payments—because the city will issue the bonds and back them up.

This project is bad for taxpayers and bad for the city. The delay from the city and the state in providing financing details suggests that elected leaders are beginning to understand exactly how bad it will be.

The post Kansas City Mum on Royals Ransom 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.

The Royals, who have spent more than three years insisting they will vacate the K after their lease expires in 2030, face a conundrum: they have no new stadium site selected, no clear funding source, and no legislative momentum. Missouri lawmakers are on track to adjourn without approving any stadium funding bills. Kansas, meanwhile, has not yet extended the STAR bonds meant to lure the team across the border.

The Royals’ 2024 pitch for an East Crossroads stadium fell apart when Jackson County voters overwhelmingly rejected a new 40-year sales tax. Since then, the team has gone quiet. They have options—North Kansas City, Washington Square Park, and previously Overland Park—but each presents new complications. Land assembly, tax votes, and public skepticism loom large.

According to Friestad, the Royals do have the option to extend their lease at Kauffman for up to 10 additional years, through 2041. The provision, part of their 2006 lease, only requires 12 months’ notice and a clean track record with the Jackson County Sports Complex Authority.

That means the team isn’t nearly as cornered as some may think. And as experts in Friestad’s piece explain, the ticking clock shouldn’t pressure local officials into bad deals.

“This point just means your current agreement ends,” said Geoffrey Propheter, a University of Colorado-Denver professor who studies sports economics. “Nothing bad happens at this point.”

Indeed, Propheter compares it to a standard lease renewal in the housing market—if both parties want to keep the arrangement, they’ll find a way. That’s an important reminder in Kansas City, where both major sports franchises have long benefited from generous public terms. Royals critics, such as former City Councilwoman Becky Nace, argue that the team already enjoys the best deal they’re likely to get: a dedicated sales tax for stadium maintenance and operations, covering hundreds of millions in costs. Proposals in Kansas and downtown Kansas City would cover only construction, not ongoing upkeep.

The article also touches on the broader context. MLB relocations are rare and messy. Nashville, Salt Lake City, and Las Vegas are often floated as threats, but relocating to any of those locations would involve significant political or financial headwinds. Economist Victor Matheson called such leverage “overstated,” pointing to the Oakland A’s relocation saga—the team is now stranded in a minor league stadium with uncertain funding for a Vegas move.

What emerges is a portrait of slow-motion bargaining. The Royals’ ownership may still prefer a new stadium, but they’re learning what voters and lawmakers have long suspected: urgency doesn’t equal necessity, and options, while limited, do exist.

Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas has floated a revised package between $1.2 billion and $1.4 billion for either a new stadium or a Kauffman renovation, though specifics remain scarce. Meanwhile, voter fatigue and fiscal realism continue to grow.

The takeaway is clear: a looming lease expiration should not be confused with a deadline for action. Kansas Citians rejected a rushed deal last year. If there’s a better one to be had, it will take time, transparency, and trust to get there.

The post Royals May Stay at Kauffman Amid Stadium Inertia appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Populous slide deck (available here) is dedicated to the problems facing Kauffman Stadium, including the infamous Alkali-Silica Reaction (ASR) or “concrete cancer.” The deck indicates that when this appears, it must be replaced. The report also highlights problems facing several parts of the stadium and concludes “the age of the building systems and outdated technology will force replacement of major mechanical, plumbing and electrical systems as their service life expires.”

The final slide lists the renovation cost estimate as $1.072 billion. That is more than the new ballpark cost estimate of $1.005 billion. These estimates suggest that a financially prudent decision would be to build a new park.

But wait . . .

On page 9 of the term sheet the Royals presented to Clay County on September 28, 2023, the cost of a new ballpark in North Kansas City is listed at $1.277 billion. That’s 27 percent higher than the Populous estimate of $1.005 billion. That increase may be due to inflation, which would also affect the cost of repairing the K. We don’t know the projected costs of the plan to build a stadium in the Crossroads district that voters rejected on April 2 because no one will tell us. We also don’t know the cost estimates of building in the East Village.

Unfortunately, there is so much we don’t know about these proposals. The Star reports that the city manager is now in talks with both the Chiefs and the Royals and that a public vote may not be necessary. It would be a shame if the lesson that new stadium proponents learn from the April 2 vote is that the public should be even less informed and involved in how the city spends tax dollars.

The post Documents Give Conflicting Numbers on the Cost of a New Stadium appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

According to a report released by Populous in 2022, a stadium design firm that’s done work for nearly all MLB teams, The K suffers from severe structural issues that would cost more to fix than a new stadium would be to build.

The link included in that text, however, is no longer available. It now defaults to a splashy artists’ rendering of a downtown ballpark.

That report became an issue again when the Royals announced they wanted to leave Kauffman Stadium. The findings from the Populous report run counter to another publicly available engineering report that found Kauffman to be in satisfactory condition, with no mention of any significant concrete issues.  According to a January 31 story in The Kansas City Star:

When The Star asked a team spokesman about the discrepancy, the Royals issued a statement that said those annual assessment reports and the one Populous produced for the team are not comparable.

“The shortest and simplest answer is that these are two very different reports aimed at very different objectives. One is an annual repair plan and the other is about long-term viability,” the Royals said. “The study referenced in the public meeting came from a leading structural engineer of sports facilities. This firm knows our building well after working on the 2008 renovation. We asked them to evaluate long-term structural issues and the feasibility of extending the existing structure for 40 more years.”

Jackson County Executive Frank White asked the Jackson County Sports Complex Authority, which oversees the Chiefs and Royals stadia, to conduct an investigation. It declined.

At the March 19 library event, Mayor James held up a stack of paper when referring to a study of Kauffman Stadium. I asked for and received what he held up. Ms. Tourville, a spokeswoman for the Royals, previously referred to a report from 2007 “that has shown significant deterioration and concrete cancer.” Indeed, what Mayor James handed me are two reports dated 2007. (The scanned document is available here.)

But what about that Populous report mentioned in the media?

When Mayor James handed me the report, there were two brightly colored sticky notes on the report. On each was written “Populous studies.” (Photographs available here and here.) But the documents themselves were not the Populous study.

The Royals seemed to drop the claims of faulty concrete pretty quickly. On a March 27 discussion on Sports Radio 810, Royals President Brooks Sherman said, “We need a new stadium to be competitive with our peers” (found at 38:26 in the audio here). Later on that same program, Executive Director of the Jackson County Sports Complex Authority Jim Rowland said, of the teams, “They’ve kept the buildings in first class condition” (found at 1:13:35).

Hopefully the Royals will release whatever study Populous conducted on Kauffman in the name of transparency. If it found “severe structural issues” with Kauffman Stadium as claimed, it would be a significant development. Otherwise, this episode seems to be one of many examples of a poorly conceived and poorly run effort to get Jackson County voters to part with their money.

The post Where Is That Populous Report on Kauffman Stadium? 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.

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.

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.

That said, I should make and reiterate a few points about the Royals’ stadium issue, now that it’s back in the news.

• The stadium renderings are cool. It’s easy to poo-poo big-dollar construction proposals as being sales jobs of dubious eventual reality, but that doesn’t make the prospect of something new any less interesting. The eventual financing plan for the stadium will likely be bad policy, but it’s understandable why people might get excited at what a future ballpark might look like. That’s obviously why they had the press conference this week: to stoke support and excitement.
• But cool renderings don’t change the fact that taxpayers shouldn’t pay for professional sports stadia. The renderings for these stadia could have put a helicopter port on the roof, a rocket ship in the parking lot, and a theme park in center field, but a cool drawing doesn’t make giving tax dollars to rich baseball tycoons an appropriate “investment” by the public. Developments like this generally do not expand the pie of disposable income in a region; instead, they tend to redirect spending that was previously being spent by consumers at other restaurants and entertainment options in the region. Ask bar owners in Westport what they think the immediate impact of the Power & Light District was on their traffic and you’ll get a sense of the potential risks of subsidizing new competition to existing businesses this time around.
• The “$2.8 billion” construction impact figure presented by the Royals is not a game changer. As I told KMBC 9, I believe that the Royals believe their numbers and that stadium construction would create “$2.8 billion” in economic activity in and around the ballpark. But what’s that really mean, other than to repeat the obvious? When the team is promising $1 billion in private financing to go along with $1 billion in public support, yeah, those are two giant wheelbarrows of cash being dumped into one spot that get you pretty close to the headline number. But that doesn’t change the fact that half of the spending would be coming from the public to create a district that would compete with other entertainment districts, including Westport and the Power & Light District.
• And speaking of the taxpayer-subsidized Power & Light District, it hasn’t and won’t ever pay for itself. One of the biggest public spending projects in the last couple of decades was the Power & Light District in Kansas City’s downtown. From the beginning, the city was on the hook to pay off the bonds for the property if tax revenue from the district wasn’t high enough. The result? Over the last 16 years, Kansas City taxpayers paid the nearly $170 million gap between what the district costs and what the district generates in tax revenue to pay the bonds. It’s easy to make promises of success when the cost of failure is borne by someone else, and there’s no guarantee taxpayers—whether in Jackson County or Clay County—won’t get soaked this go-around, too.

There is a bit of deja vu here, of course; about this time in 2022, I was talking about a potential move for the Chiefs, whose lease at the Truman Sports Complex ends when the Royals does. But the takeaway now with the Royals is the same as it was with the Chiefs—sports teams should pay for their playthings themselves. The Royals may be the kings of Kauffman, but when it comes to sovereign action in the real world, public officials should reject spending tax dollars on anything but legitimate responsibilities of government. Subsidizing sports teams isn’t one of those responsibilities.

The post Hey! Hey! Hey! Hey! Pay for Your Own Stadium appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Kansas City Mayor Quentin Lucas declared that “Kansas City will not now engage in an intrastate regional race to the bottom that ultimately does little more than fleecing our taxpayers”—which is the right policy position to take! Meanwhile, Jackson County executive and former Royal Frank White echoed similar sentiments, suggesting county taxpayers deserved “loyalty” from the Royals.

In relationship terms, the snap response by Kansas City civic leaders had the tone of a bad breakup and a badly spurned partner. But that tone shifted in recent weeks, after the Royals’ management team confirmed that a second site was also under consideration just east of Kansas City’s downtown, within KC’s city limits.

For a moment, it seemed like a longshot attempt at making up was afoot. Yet, the Royals haven’t said much more to the public about the potential Kansas City plan . . . and apparently they haven’t said much to city leadership about it, either:

Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas said Friday the Kansas City Royals need to flesh out details for a downtown ballpark.

Lucas said to KMBC’s Micheal Mahoney on Friday that no one is hearing enough details about the Royals’ downtown plans.

“Here are the things that need to be shared with the citizens of Kansas City — and in my view — today,” Lucas said. “Why the need for a move? What’s the plan for, perhaps, wherever they’re going? And what’s the funding idea?”

Lucas said the longer those questions are unanswered, the more challenging it becomes for the plans to be successful.

The fact that Mayor Lucas suggests that the Royals should stay in Kauffman Stadium is itself somewhat jarring if you know what direction the team was heading in the last few years and what the mayor himself was supporting. From a story in November:

Kansas City, Missouri, Mayor Quinton Lucas predicts a new Royals stadium will be in and near downtown Kansas City. (emphasis mine)

Lucas spoke with reporters minutes after Royals owner John Sherman announced plans to move the team from Kauffman Stadium.

“The Royals will be somewhere, I’m predicting, between the river,” Lucas said. “North of 31st Street, but let’s be even clearer, probably north of the train tracks that are about at 22nd Street. And then probably somewhere between the state line and of course, I would say Woodland (Avenue).”

Take from that what you will. The Royals should pay for their own stadium wherever they go, and if they stay in the Truman Sports Complex, they should pay their way there, too. But for the last year, the Royals staying put has not been what the city has been preparing for. Quite the opposite, in fact.

But while city leaders have every right to ask what a professional sports team is going to want from the public, the public has every right to ask its elected officials what taxpayer resources they’re willing to give away. And that definitely applies here, where city and county representations in private to the team have, to date, not been made public.

Here are some questions Kansas City’s (and Jackson County’s) leaders need to answer about their plans for the stadium:

• How much could subsidizing a new stadium for the Royals cost taxpayers?
• Are the city and county committed to massive new spending on both the Kansas City Royals and the Kansas City Chiefs, or are there fiscal limitations that city and county leaders won’t violate?
• What are those limitations?
• What city services will be affected by these tax expenditure choices?
• And why should Kansas City and Jackson County taxpayers continue to be on the hook for an amenity that the entire region enjoys?

To reiterate, no public money should go to a project like this, but if money is being spent on private sports teams, Kansas City and Jackson County taxpayers deserve respect and transparency. Taxpayer money spent on sports stadiums is a waste, and it also takes away from other vital public services such as policing

Maybe Kansas City and the Royals will kiss and make up, or maybe the team and the city are in an uncanny valley before an inevitable break up. But whether it’s a make up or a break up, billions of taxpayer dollars are at stake.

Update: Royals owner John Sherman told media today: “No one is waiting on us. We are the urging party.”

The post Kansas City’s Courtship of the Royals Is Getting Awkward appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Exactly what does it mean to have the conversation? It will doubtlessly require money spent on consultants to draft options, hold meetings, and the like. And what will those plans drive toward? Probably an expensive public finance project to buy a new stadium for a billionaire.

We’re spending money so we can spend money. It’s absurd.

It gets worse. The Star’s editorial board included this nugget:

City Manager Troy Schulte said his conversations with [Royals owner David] Glass associates have left the door open to that possibility.

“He (Glass) is saying, “Give us some options,” Schulte said. “He has not said no.”

In other words, the team owner isn’t even asking for any of this, he just didn’t refuse. And why should he? He’d be a fool to stop the city from offering him the same type of taxpayer subsidies that cities make all the time. As a result, city leaders, including the Star, are eager to start spending money on it.

Wait, there’s more. The Star makes clear there is additional cost beyond the taxpayer outlay of funds on consultants and construction subsidies:

Other possibilities remain east of City Hall and near the 18th & Vine Jazz District. “You’ve got to reserve it, or you’re losing development sites,” Schulte said.

Schulte is saying the city would intervene in the market to “reserve” sites, effectively stopping anyone else who might have a better, unsubsidized, idea for development. (One can imagine that at the time of construction, the then-mayor and council members will point to the lot they have kept vacant and say, “look at this lot no one has developed, we need this downtown stadium to address blight.”)

If Kansas City’s wealthy sports team owners want to consider other locations for their stadiums, and spend their own money doing so, they are free and welcome to do so. But the idea that taxpayers should take the initiative and spend money now so we can maybe spend money later is completely wrong.

The post Downtown Baseball? A Swing and a Miss appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Patrick Tuohey on KCPT Ruckus discusses the possibility of moving Kansas City Royals to a downtown stadium. Is that a good idea? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

According to some, ending competition for convention catering business would increase quality:

An exclusive food provider, according to O’Neal, would help the convention center ensure quality control because “with one vendor, the building can control quality better, and that’s what people remember about a building.”

City Manager Troy Schulte agrees. Even if the city weren’t negotiating with Hyatt, Schulte said, he was thinking about moving toward a single caterer. He said the city has received some complaints about catering, which he declined to specify. Schulte said a single provider would make quality control better.

You read that right. Some Kansas City leaders apparently think that reducing choice increases quality. (By the way, Aramark has an exclusive catering agreement at Kauffman Stadium, and they haven’t been doing so well regarding quality.)

This flawed thinking isn’t limited to the catering contract, according to the Memorandum of Understanding. Neither the initial award of catering nor the award of the construction contract for the hotel are to be competitively bid. The city apparently just plans to give those contracts to Hyatt and J.E. Dunn respectively without making sure their bids are the best or the cheapest.

Is it any wonder that city finances are such a mess when even the most basic economic principles of choice and competition are disregarded?

The post Back in the USSR appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

But census data paints a different picture of the metropolitan area and the city itself; a picture of falling income, rising poverty, and slow population growth. Kansas City was hit hard by the recent recession, and simply put, the city has not seen a recovery in terms of income.

Census data shows that employment is increasing in Kansas City since the recession, but total employment is still significantly below prerecession levels. That may be partially explained by lower labor force participation and fewer households. The income data is more troubling. The median household income from 2010 to 2013 is still almost $3,000 lower than it was from 2007 to 2009, not accounting for inflation. When that adjustment is made, real income has been on a continuous decline in the city since 2009.

A similar trend exists in Johnson County and the metropolitan area as a whole.

The recession caused poverty levels in Kansas City and surrounding areas to spike, and they have yet to significantly recede. Poverty levels were actually higher from 2011 to 2013 than they were from 2009 to 2011 (which includes the recession). As with income, Kansas City has yet to see anything that could be described as a healthy recovery. The following chart demonstrates recent trends:

There’s plenty of excitement and optimism in Kansas City, and that’s no bad thing. But much of the excitement seems to be for prestige projects, entertainment venues, and young people in the downtown area. If that attitude allows people to forget that for most people in Kansas City there really has not been a recovery, much less a renaissance, then the optimism may be counterproductive.

The post Where Is Kansas City’s Recovery? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

That said, why do government officials put taxpayers in this position of their money possibly being misspent? Well, cities usually put up taxpayer monies in order to prevent their local sports teams from leaving town. The justifications for doing so can range from a city striving to create an economic boom or just for a sense of civic pride. Kansas City got an All-Star Game after it helped fund renovations to Kauffman Stadium. Yet combined with the fact that public financing of sports stadiums cannot be justified economically, taxpayers have to go through headaches like the one mentioned here.

Sports stadiums should not be subsidized with public money. If a sports franchise wants a new stadium, it should pay for the stadium with its own money. Not only would it prevent public money from being spent on activities that would not benefit the local economy, it would avoid creating such issues in the first place.

The post Stadium Subsidy Surprise appeared first on Show-Me Institute.