KeydGV21
Registered User
- Jul 25, 2006
- 1,883
- 297
It's common sense. YOU want something, YOU pay for it.
Not really. It's common sense to get something as cheaply as possible.
Instead let's place a tax on people coming to visit for whatever reason.
It's not like people are going to boycott KC because of the tax, so people just end up paying a tax they shouldn't have to.
Whis is why it's so ****ing brilliant. It's like a sin tax on alcohol; it's not going to stop anyone but it's going to bring in additional income.
Some of you say it is a small thing, but really it is indicative of how pathetic Kansas City is: they can't even pay for their own sh**.
Without knowing about Kansas City's exact situation, my guess is they could pay for it. They are just smart enough to get someone else to
And it is more than just "if I don't like it, I don't have to go to KC."
I avoid KC. KC sucks big time. It's not like it is a tourist hot-spot anyways.
Why is it more then just avoiding Kansas City? You don't want to pay the tax, don't go there. Simple as that.
The point is, it is absolutely ridiculous to have non-residents pay for your crap.
Again, this is brilliant. Why make your tax payers pay for something they don't have to? Should Canada not charge me sales tax when I go across the border?
Consider this: For the Chiefs, Jackson County, MO residents get priority on buying Chiefs tickets. If the Pens move there, they better not do this with Pens tickets. Otherwise you'd have out of towners paying for an arena, but locals getting first dibs on tickets.
As someone in upstate New York I'm going to help pay for the new stadiums in New York City. Why is it ok again for me to pay for the stadiums in NYC, while never going there (well I connected at an airport at 2) but it's wrong for someone visiting Kansas City to have to help out?
So not only will the NHL not work in KC (I've seen people in KC say they want NBA, not NHL), but they don't deserve with stupid antics like:
1.) Having visitors pay for YOUR arena
2.) Having turned down lightrail proposals EIGHT times (they finally passed one in 2006, but if they had passed one ten years ago, and if the Pens move, they would have already had more than just bus transportation to the games).
You don't know that the NHL won't work. And as for visitors, what about people who live in Kansas City but won't use the arena? Is it ok for them to pay for it but not visitors?
Someone said STL was another city that built an arena without a team. That doesn't surprise me, it's the Missouri IDIOTS, regardless of which side of the state we are talking about.
Seems to me it's the people in Missouri that are ahead of the curve here. They get a free arena and they are idiots?
With regards to the NFL in STL, they never deserved to get the Rams, because STL was such a pathetic sports city that they ran their NFL team all the way to Arizona due to lack of support.
The Cardinals of football might be the worst run team in all of sports. BTW, how does an NFL team in ST. Louis relate at all to an NHL or NBA team in Kansas City?
If you say the Rams prove that STL is a viable sports town, I say that Missouri proves to be a state full of bandwagon fans.
You can state that all you want, but can I argue that Kansas City and St. Louis aren't the same city... and unlike your statement mine can be proven.