The Star’s endorsement on Question 1 for Kansas City Royals and Chiefs stadium tax | Opinion

Jackson County residents should vote no April 2 on Question 1, a proposed 3/8-cent sales tax for stadium construction and improvements.

We take this position firmly, but with some regret. Like most people in the Kansas City region, we are fans of the Kansas City Chiefs and Kansas City Royals. We want to see them succeed.

We understand and agree that the two professional sports franchises are essential to the Kansas City area.

The teams are also essential to the well-being of this newspaper, so when we say, “Vote no,” it is very much against our own narrow personal interest. Still, we are urging a no vote for this reason: They have not earned a yes.

The teams have asked voters to approve a 33-year sales tax extension for stadium proposals that remain far too hazy and unclear. The people who will pay it have every right to ask for facts before making a decision. Instead, for months, the teams and tax supporters have fallen short of the transparency essential for voter approval.

Voters are not being asked to endorse a generic stadium plan, after all, but this specific plan: a new ballpark adjacent to downtown, in the East Crossroads, and improvements to Arrowhead Stadium at the Truman Sports Complex.

Yet consider what we don’t know about the downtown-area baseball stadium. The Royals say it will cost $1 billion to build; the tax will provide roughly $350 million of that.

Where will the other $650 million come from? It isn’t clear. Endorsing such a massively disruptive construction project without firm financing is foolish, and a recipe for controversy later.

Voters don’t know if the state of Missouri will contribute, or when. That’s another piece of missing information.

Leases signed, but questions remain

Just Wednesday, six days before the election, the Royals and the Chiefs signed leases and development agreements with Jackson County. That was crucial — a lease had to be signed for the team to leave Kauffman Stadium before 2031. But, as The Star’s Mike Hendricks reported, the leases still leave unanswered questions.

With some fanfare, the team has unveiled a so-called community benefits agreement that provides funding for a range of city and county projects only indirectly related to the baseball club. We applaud those who worked on the CBA, but not everyone is happy with it.

The Missouri Workers Center, Heartland Center for Jobs and Freedom, MORE2 and Stand Up KC responded to the benefits agreement, calling it a “sham” that “at best maintains the status quo and at worst harms Kansas Citians.”

But whether you agree with it or not, what took so long? Why is this agreement being finalized now, just days before the votes are counted?

The team has promised additional spending for development around the new stadium. We don’t know for sure what this entails, or what additional subsidies and tax breaks the team might seek. City Hall has been strangely silent on this part of the proposal, even though it would mean major changes for downtown.

We are not automatically opposed to city-center baseball. But we don’t fully understand why the Royals, after months of delay, picked a location designed to frustrate dozens of current business and property owners in the Crossroads. The East Village site, just a few blocks to the north and east, would have offered far less resistance — and proved more valuable to the depressed community in the surrounding area.

Finally, we are not fully convinced that Kauffman Stadium is in such a state of disrepair that a new ballpark is required. Kansas City isn’t, and shouldn’t, accept claims of “concrete cancer” at The K while Arrowhead Stadium sits across the parking lot, built at the same time but apparently unaffected by the disease.

Economists: No net benefit to community

The campaign for the tax has relied heavily on fan support for the NFL’s Chiefs, which is understandable. Yet the team’s involvement in this process has been murky for months. It’s clear the Chiefs are content to wait another year or two before beginning the “fan-friendly” improvements they promise.

Sales taxes are regressive, which means they hurt the poor — the very people who can’t afford tickets to Chiefs or Royals games. And we can discount studies that allege millions in “economic impact” from the clubs. Most serious economists say sports spending merely displaces consumer spending for other entertainment items.

To the community’s disappointment, the pro-tax campaign has implicitly said one or both teams might relocate if voters reject this tax. Those statements are regrettable.

Instead, we think the teams should renew efforts to negotiate clear, understandable agreements that deliver benefits for the entire community, while minimizing the impact on taxpayers. The Royals should think again about their preferred location. The state of Missouri should make firm commitments for funding, as should City Hall, if asked.

There is still time for Jackson Countians to calmly consider well-reasoned, transparent proposals for the two franchises that play here. The current leases don’t expire until 2031. We urge county officials, including Jackson County Executive Frank White, to commit to new negotiations if voters say no Tuesday.

We want the Royals and Chiefs to stay here forever. We think that’s possible. But we don’t think voters should hand the teams millions for stadiums without a much clearer understanding of what the money will be used for, where it will come from and why it’s necessary.