spent the past 18 months<\/a> fighting over the right to host the Chiefs and Royals. While both states passed sweeping stadium-funding incentives plans to secure the teams, the future home of the Royals has remained unclear.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
A Royals spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Three potential locations have been floated publicly: downtown Kansas City at Washington Square Park, North Kansas City in Clay County and Overland Park in Kansas. After a key Kansas deadline lapsed last week, Missouri officials have expressed renewed confidence they can keep the Royals in Missouri.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
That new confidence, however, also brought fresh attention to the looming question of whether the team is interested in building a new stadium downtown or in the Northland. House Speaker Jonathan Patterson touted both sites as appealing in an interview with The Star last week.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
But the top Republican from Lee\u2019s Summit also said there was one element in particular that made the downtown Kansas City site attractive.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
\u201cThe attractive thing about a Kansas City, Missouri, downtown location would be that it would not be subject to a vote,\u201d said Patterson. \u201cAnd I think the vote would be one of the things that we would have to overcome.\u201d<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Patterson said he did not believe the Royals or Jackson County wanted to go before voters again after the failed 2024 vote.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
For the Royals to tap Missouri\u2019s stadium funding money, local governments have to prove to the state they can provide \u201csufficient public investment.\u201d When asked about Patterson\u2019s comments, Mayor Quinton Lucas appeared to echo the argument that Kansas City already had available tools in place to make an offer to the team.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
\u201cAs the largest city in our region, the City of Kansas City has access to tools to support transformational development, like sports and entertainment venues, that can be approved by our elected and appointed bodies,\u201d Lucas said. \u201cWe will develop any facilities in a fiscally responsible manner supporting the success of our teams, our taxpayers, and our community.\u201d<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
A spokesperson for Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe, a Republican whose administration would be in charge of approving any stadium deal that uses state funds, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Trends across U.S.<\/h2>\n
<\/p>\n
Matheson, the economics professor, said stadium deals without public votes are becoming increasingly common, pointing to a minor league baseball stadium project in his hometown of Worcester, Massachusetts and a 2002-2003 renovation of Soldier Field in Chicago. That\u2019s largely because the chances of a stadium-funding project passing voters at the ballot box is about 50-50, he said.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
\u201cWhen you go into the backrooms \u2014 in the smoke-filled backrooms of lore, right \u2014 the stadium deal always gets done,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Geoffrey Propheter, a professor at the University of Colorado-Denver who studies sports and urban affairs, said the tensions between direct and representative democracy can create conflict for public officials who are weighing stadium-funding decisions.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
\u201cThe one conflict is a lawmaker, whether it\u2019s the mayor, city council, or whomever, they believe this to be a good thing, but they have evidence that voters don\u2019t like it,\u201d said Propheter. \u201cSo how do they convince themselves that this is still good policy, even if voters said they don\u2019t like it?\u201d<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
In the wake of failures at the ballot box on issues they care about, Propheter said he\u2019s found that officials tend to cherry-pick reasons for the failed vote that match their policy objectives.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Missouri officials respond<\/h2>\n
<\/p>\n
In a follow-up interview with The Star this week, both Patterson and Lucas rejected the notion that Kansas City was trying to avoid a public vote on a new stadium downtown. Patterson said leaders were simply saying there are existing programs in place to secure the Royals.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
\u201cWe\u2019re not trying to get around anything, but hopefully use\u2026the tools that we have and not require any new burdens on taxpayers,\u201d Patterson said.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Lucas, in a phone interview, echoed that idea that administrative tools for stadiums are becoming more common in cities as opposed to tax votes. He added that Kansas City\u2019s plan would rely on funds from \u201cusers of the venue\u201d and the surrounding development and would not require the entire city to back the project.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
\u201cI don\u2019t think any of Kansas City\u2019s efforts have been aligned with trying to avoid the people,\u201d he said. \u201cI talk to the people all the time. I look forward to hearing from them and the people, you know, obviously, fill up any number of public bodies as well in terms of how we get things done.\u201d<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Lucas added that he did not think the entire county needed to vote on a stadium project in Kansas City proper, saying that the tool the city is weighing was the result of finding the \u201cbest tools to get something done.\u201d<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
\u201cI would disagree with the viewpoint that in some way, by using representative democracy, we are not actually listening to the voice of people, something we do every day,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
When asked for more specifics about Kansas City\u2019s offer to the team, Lucas reiterated that the plan would involve tools that are based on users of the stadium and surrounding development \u201cthat help us finance this transaction long term.\u201d<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
\u201cI think we\u2019re going to come to a robust package that looks to outstanding, additional tools that come from the state of Missouri and Jackson County,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Matheson questioned the argument that taxpayers would not feel a burden from a new Royals stadium \u2014 even if it was paid through administrative tools outside of a new tax vote.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
\u201cOne of the famous quotes in economics is \u2018to spend, is to tax\u2019 \u2014 and there\u2019s no getting around that,\u201d he said. \u201cIf you\u2019re going to say, \u2018hey, here\u2019s a bunch of money that we\u2019re going to spend out of government coffers to build a new stadium,\u2019 to spend is to tax.\u201d<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Nace, the critic of the 2024 vote, echoed that argument, saying that whatever plan Kansas City presents is \u201cgoing to cost somebody a lot of money.\u201d She said it appears that the goal is to move forward without a public vote.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
\u201cThere are various ways they can find funding,\u201d Nace said. \u201cWe\u2019ll have to see what they come up with and see how the public responds to their funding sources.\u201d<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n