Quote:
Originally Posted by DaFace
Sure, but this implies that it wouldn't have been a blank check even if they'd presented you with the best plan you ever could have hoped for. Nothing in their designs was binding - they could have gotten the vote and then done something entirely different.
They gave designs to give people an idea of what they were hoping for, but THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU VOTED ON. You voted on a tax that would go into place if they signed a contract to stay in the county - that's it. And you voted against it. Period.
|
That's not exactly true. The local groups negotiating with the Royals/Chiefs and their proposed Community Benefits Agreement were actually very clearly detailed with regards to financial commitments in specific areas. This was discussed locally a great deal, although for some reason it didn't get much media attention. They Royals/Chiefs and these local groups went round and round over this for a long time but never could come to much agreement. The Royals/Chiefs finally made an official proposal at the very last minute, only days before the vote. But it was still drastically lacking in any actual detail.
If you're curious, here's a good article about it:
The Royals’ new Community Benefits Agreement lacks one important element: the community benefits
The CBA is exactly the vessel that should provide the binding details that voters needed. It's a vital component of any successful publicly funded stadium. The Royals simply failed to commit to the requests of the community.