The last thing this region needs is a costly bidding war over the Kansas City Chiefs.
Chances of just such a taxpayer-gouging battle grew this week when Gov. Mike Parson said Missouri “would compete with any state” that wants to provide a home for Kansas City’s NFL franchise.
How much would that cost? We have no idea. We know this governor opposed expanding Medicaid, and Missouri is still struggling to process applications for the service. For now, we’d prefer he stick to protecting the health, safety and education of Missourians — and providing the funds to do so.
At some point, though, the governor and the Missouri legislature will become more seriously involved in discussions surrounding the Chiefs and the Kansas City Royals, the Major League Baseball club that apparently wants a new downtown stadium. When that time comes, we expect all sides to approach the conversation with a keen eye on what taxpayers can afford, and what the teams can do for themselves.
Stadiums are very, very expensive. The new Buffalo football stadium, smaller than the Chiefs’ current facility, will cost $1.4 billion, with $850 million coming from taxpayers. The new baseball stadium in Arlington, Texas, cost more than $1 billion.
New stadiums for both the Chiefs and Royals could easily cost $1.5 billion to $2 billion.
It isn’t fair to ask Jackson Countians to bear that entire burden. Jackson County has already paid for the 2006 renovations at the Truman Sports Complex. They shouldn’t be asked to come up with more money for new homes for both clubs, particularly since fans come from both sides of the state line.
That’s where Missouri and Kansas can play a role. Missouri provided tax credits for the 2006 renovation, and similar support would be helpful as these discussions continue. Sports teams do help the state’s economy, although the specific impact is more limited than most realize.
Missouri also spends $3 million annually for upkeep at the stadiums.
Kansas is a more interesting matter. Gov. Laura Kelly recently said she was interested in the potential relocation of the club, and lawmakers are mulling a plan to set aside a portion of potential sports gambling revenue for stadium costs.
This is an important idea. Kansans have largely avoided direct subsidies of the Chiefs and the Royals for decades. Now, perhaps, there’s an understanding that they should be on the hook for these community assets in some way.
But that support shouldn’t depend on the physical location of either team. That was and is the idea behind the bistate sales tax, which could still be used as a vehicle for stadium financing. Local leaders on both sides of the state line should give this idea serious consideration.
What they should not do is engage in a costly, meaningless competition to provide even more subsidies for stadiums in either state. Imagine what Kansas and Missouri could accomplish through cooperation, instead of competition.
A regional approach to supporting regional amenities should be a top goal of both states. If that means one stadium in Kansas, and another in Missouri, so be it. If it means both stadiums in Missouri, Kansas should still be willing to help out. And, of course, vice versa.
If it means rehabbing the Truman Sports Complex, both states should be involved.
The future of the Chiefs and Royals will occupy much of the public discussion space for years to come. Let’s set some markers for the outlines of those talks:
