ummmm why is this $2 billion for what looks like a 35,000 seat outdoor ballpark? Please tell me the $2 billion includes the development around the stadium - parkades, plazas, offices/residential/hotel buildings, restaurants, road infrastructure. Bills are building a $1.5 billion 65,000 seat outdoor stadium.
Every time the cost is mentioned for stadiums, it usually has a ton of phantom dollars in it: Taxes and rents NOT charged to the team, or the price land isn't sold for. Which would be valid math for a city seeking a team when they have none, but isn't in the equation for existing teams.
My go-to example is the Mets stadium:
The LAND was given by the city to the team for free (X dollar value), and no property taxes would be charged (X dollar value), although the city owns the parking lot and leases them to the team.
But the status of the site before and after is essentially the exact same: The team didn't pay property taxes because the city owned the land; but they didn't pay rent in the last deal (from 1995-onward).
Everything is the same except there's a $450m new stadium and a parking lot instead of a paid for old stadium (that cost $25m to tear down) and a parking lot. It's really a $475m project, not a $800m project.
Now, with Kansas City, the new stadium isn't the same site as the old one. But the principle remains: The $2 billion includes the cost of GIVING the Royals 27 acres of downtown... but completely ignores that they're essentially "Giving back" half of a 220-acre complex where they used to play!