I really wish I didn’t feel the need to write another article about the drama surrounding the future location of Royals stadium. I looked back through my notes and realized I first wrote about this topic nearly four years ago. But because the issue remains far from resolved, and because it may ultimately affect the pocketbooks of many of you, I felt it was appropriate to broach the subject once again.
Recently, Kansas City authorized negotiations for up to $600 million in city financing, primarily through city-backed bonds that would be repaid with sales, earnings, and other tax revenues.
Remember that in 2024, Jackson County voters overwhelmingly rejected the previous stadium tax proposal. Perhaps that is why the new financing structure has been designed in a way that does not require another public vote.
Advocacy groups who are opposed to this plan have gathered approximately 4,500 signatures, more than twice the 2,068-signature requirement, for an initiative that would require voter approval to use city funds to assist in building the stadium. But that does not mean an up-or-down vote on the stadium project itself is guaranteed.
Last week, two major Royals stadium ordinances related to the funding of the project were scheduled to be considered by the Kansas City Council’s Finance, Governance and Public Safety Committee, but were pulled from the agenda just before the meeting began. What makes the last-minute postponement noteworthy is that council members apparently only received the detailed agreements hours before they were expected to begin considering them. Councilman Johnathan Duncan has accused the city of rushing this proposal so they can be signed before the pending voter initiative can affect them.
Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas has described this funding as “an investment into our city’s workers, our businesses, and our downtown.” He argues that the stadium and surrounding development could generate thousands of jobs and ultimately produce far more economic activity and tax revenue than the city is being asked to contribute. My response is simple: If we are all essentially shareholders in this investment, shouldn’t we all have a say in how this money is used?
One of the fundamental rights of owning stock in a public company is the right to vote on certain major corporate matters. Public companies also regularly ask shareholders to weigh in on issues such as executive compensation and shareholder proposals. Most investors never attend an annual meeting in person. Instead, they exercise those rights through proxy voting, allowing them to cast their votes electronically, by mail, or through their brokerage firm.
That creates an interesting contrast when government officials describe taxpayer-supported projects as investments. If I invest $10,000 in a publicly traded company, I may own only an infinitesimal percentage of the business, yet I am still given a mechanism to vote on important matters affecting my investment. The same is not always true for government.
Whether the new stadium ultimately proves to be a great economic investment or an expensive mistake remains to be seen. But if public officials are going to continue describing hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars as an investment, I believe the people providing that capital deserve more than a seat in the stands. They deserve a meaningful voice in the decision.
(Past performance is no guarantee of future results. The advice is general in nature and not intended for specific situations)