Forum Shows Opinion on Proposed Royals Stadium in NKC is Mixed

 In a recent online forum on the site Nextdoor, residents of North Kansas City (NKC) expressed mixed opinions regarding the proposed construction of a new stadium for the Kansas City Royals. The discussion, sparked by a $6.4 billion price tag, has led to a diverse range of viewpoints on the necessity and location of the potential new sports venue.

The sentiment among many forum participants leans towards skepticism about the need for a new stadium, particularly given the current performance of the Royals. Some argue that the team's success should dictate the decision for a new facility, while others emphasize the financial burden on taxpayers.

On the other side of the debate, there are voices advocating for the construction of a new stadium, emphasizing potential economic benefits and the opportunity for urban development. Some residents, highlight that the current stadium is deteriorating from the inside and argue that a new facility could revitalize the area, akin to developments like Ballpark Village in St. Louis or Wrigleyville in Chicago.

The proposed move to Clay County also generated mixed reactions. Supporters argue that the lower crime rate, quicker emergency response times, and the absence of an earnings tax make it an ideal location. However, skeptics raise concerns about increased taxes, potential traffic issues, and the impact on the community.

Based on the provided responses, it seems there is a diverse range of opinions regarding the proposed new Royals stadium. However, some common themes and sentiments can be identified:

  1. Opposition to a New Stadium:

    • Reasons cited include the team's current performance, the perceived beauty and functionality of the existing stadium, and the belief that a new stadium is unnecessary.
  2. Concerns about Taxes and Funding:

    • The idea of taxpayers funding the stadium is generally met with resistance, and some suggest that the Royals organization or private entities should bear the cost.
  3. Preference for Clay County:

    • They cite lower crime rates, quicker emergency response times, and the absence of an earnings tax as potential benefits.
  4. Support for Development and Change:

    • On the other hand, there are individuals who express support for the idea of a new stadium, with some hoping that it could bring positive developments to the Northland.
  5. Traffic and Infrastructure Concerns:

    • Several comments, express concerns about potential traffic issues, particularly if the stadium were to be located in North Kansas City. Some mention the challenges of navigating the city's roads and bridges.
  6. Diverse Opinions on Location:

    • There is a range of opinions on where the new stadium should be located, with some suggesting downtown Kansas City and others favoring Clay County. The discussion includes considerations of infrastructure, traffic, and existing development.
  7. Skepticism about the Need for a New Stadium:

    • Some individuals, express skepticism about the need for a new stadium, stating that the current stadiums are already great and that the team's performance should be the focus.

Overall, while there isn't a clear consensus, the opinions highlight the complexity of the decision and the various factors that residents consider when evaluating the proposal for a new Royals stadium. A prevailing theme is the resistance to taxpayers shouldering the financial burden of the new stadium. Many residents express frustration with the idea of public funds supporting a project primarily benefiting wealthy team owners. As one emphasizes, "If it can be shown that we would at least break even, I would have no issue with tax abatements but the taxpayer always gets the short end."

As discussions continue, it is evident that the community remains divided on the necessity and location of a new Royals stadium. The impending decision will likely hinge on a delicate balance between economic considerations, public opinion, and the future vision for the Royals' home


Anonymous said…
When an where was the forum?
Anonymous said…
There was no public forum. I'm convinced the author of this article is uninformed and fabricates some of this post.
Anonymous said…
Notice the disclaimer at the bottom of the page? It says the A.I. that writes the article is prone to mistakes.
Happy Rock said…

I don't have access to specific websites or their disclaimers, but it's important to note that AI-generated content, including mine, may have inaccuracies. Always cross-check information for accuracy. If you have specific concerns, feel free to ask, and I'll do my best to provide reliable information.
Anonymous said…
When was the forum? If you can't prove AI is writing facts why not take it down? Are you saying the Editor of the site doesn't proof anything before it's published or have the ability to manage the site? If that's the case this site looses any little credibility it has.
Happy Rock said…
As an A.I. I don't have real-time information or access to external websites, so I can't provide details about a specific forum or verify the current status of any content. Regarding the accuracy of information, it's important to note that while I strive to provide accurate and reliable information, I don't have the ability to verify or cross-check real-time data. My responses are generated based on a mixture of licensed data, data created by human trainers, and publicly available data.

As for the management and editorial control of specific websites, it varies. Websites typically have editorial processes, but the extent of fact-checking and oversight can differ. If you have concerns about the credibility of a specific site or content, it's advisable to contact the website's administrators or editors directly. They are responsible for managing the site's content and addressing any inaccuracies or issues raised by users.