Politics
Jackson County voters reject sports stadiums tax measure

[ad_1]
Jackson County voters handed the Kansas City Royals and Chiefs a major setback on Tuesday, rejecting a stadium sales tax extension that would fund a new downtown baseball stadium and renovations at Arrowhead Stadium.
Question 1 would have repealed Jackson County’s existing 3/8th-cent sales tax and replaced it with a tax at the same level that extends until 2064. The results mean that sales tax will end in 2031, when the Royals and Chiefs’ leases expire, and can only be used on the existing Truman Sports Complex properties.
“No” prevailed with 58% of the vote, compared to 42% “yes” votes.
Tuesday’s results followed months of intense campaigning from the city’s premier sports teams, which poured $3 million into the “yes” campaign.
But they came up short against concerted opposition from community groups that included citywide housing union KC Tenants, workers’ rights groups like Stand Up KC and small businesses in the Crossroads. Many of them argued that Jackson County taxpayers should not publicly subsidize private development.
“We feel so encouraged that more and more people are realizing poor and working class folks don’t have to subsidize a billionaire’s private profits,” said KC Tenants organizer Magda Werkmeister.
Royals owner John Sherman said in a statement that he respects Tuesday’s results.
“We’re deeply disappointed as we are steadfast in our belief that Jackson County is far better off with the Chiefs and the Royals,” he said. “We will take some time to reflect on and process the outcome and find a path forward that works for the Royals and our fans.”
The sales tax would have generated an estimated $2 billion over its 40-year lifespan. The Royals said their half of the sales tax revenue would go toward building a $1 billion ballpark in Kansas City’s Crossroads neighborhood. The Chiefs said they would use their half for an $800 million renovation at Arrowhead Stadium.
Both teams have repeatedly said that renewal of the 3/8th-cent sales tax is crucial for them to stay in Jackson County.
The “vote yes” campaign leaned on that messaging in the weeks leading up to the April election, with ads and mailers heavily touting the success of the Chiefs’ back-to-back Super Bowl wins and urging voters to “Keep the Royals and Chiefs in Jackson County.”
Savannah Hawley-Bates
/
KCUR 89.3 The Missouri Workers Center and Heartland Center for Jobs and Freedom left the Jackson County negotiations after saying the Royals didn’t meet their housing and labor demands. A private community benefits agreement covering wage and labor topics for ballpark district workers that the groups and their allies had been working towards for over a year also fell through.
In return for the public’s support on the sales tax, the teams had made some commitments to support affordable housing, public transit and other programs in Jackson County. They’ve also pursued benefits agreements with organizations like Kansas City Public Schools and the Crossroads Community Association.
But voters like Nathan Young, who lives in downtown Kansas City and went to the polls Tuesday, were not swayed by those appeals.
“I don’t know what else you could bring to a baseball stadium that would improve the Kansas City area,” Young said. “But doing that, they’d already be taking down already established businesses, homes. Also, I don’t trust the state to put money to the right things going through the Royals.”
Eli Handwork lives in the Power and Light district and voted no. He said he doesn’t think a stadium would work logistically downtown, and that it’s unfair to use public funding.
“I don’t think we have the infrastructure to support all the parking and stuff they need, and I think all the construction and tearing down (of) the small businesses that are there — I don’t really like that,” Handwork said. “I think as a larger principle, I don’t like the idea of handing out a bunch of taxpayer money to billionaires who don’t need it.”
Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas said in a statement on X Tuesday night, as votes rolled in and “no” votes pulled out ahead, “the people of Kansas City and Jackson County love the Chiefs and Royals.”
“Today, they rejected plans and processes they found inadequate. Over the months ahead, I look forward to working with the Chiefs and Royals to build a stronger, more open, and collaborative process that will ensure the teams, their events and investments remain in Kansas City for generations to come,” he said.
Stadium vote reveals dissent
The vote on the stadium sales tax has exposed deep divides in Kansas City that do not fall along traditional partisan lines.
Opponents of the tax included the citywide tenant union KC Tenants, which in recent elections has flexed its political influence, and the newly-created Committee Against New Royals Stadium Taxes. That group formed soon after the Royals publicized their stadium plans.
Workers rights groups like Stand Up KC criticized the Royals for not making enough assurances to low-wage workers and residents.
“We showed that when we come together — community, low wage workers, tenants and allies — and we go to the ballot box, we have the power to impact decisions that are made that affect our everyday living conditions, and our everyday quality of lives,” said Stand Up KC member Terrence Wise in a statement.
Carlos Moreno
/
KCUR 89.3 The Royals said they will alter their ballpark plan to keep Oak Street open to traffic. The team plans to continue with their development plans for that part of the stadium district — including a hotel, entertainment venue, and corporate offices. With Oak Street staying open, the fate of the pictured small businesses in the footprint remains uncertain.
Small business owners spoke out against a Crossroads stadium displacing existing local businesses — the Royals proposal could require demolishing several blocks of buildings — while some patrons believed a ballpark was a mismatch for the longtime arts district.
Other Royals fans simply said they don’t want the teams to leave Kauffman Stadium.
Over months of negotiations, community groups criticized the Royals for a lack of transparency around the ballpark plans, including their months-long delay in choosing a site. The team surprised many residents in February by selecting the Crossroads location over the two options they had previously advertised: Kansas City’s East Village or North Kansas City.
The Royals announced their lease and development agreements with Jackson County just last week. Neither of those documents are finalized yet.
The “vote yes” campaign vastly outspent KC Tenants and the Committee Against New Royals Stadium Taxes. KC Tenants spent $75,000 on TV ads and $30,000 on mailers. The Committee Against New Royals Stadium Taxes raised $11,511.
Werkmeister likened the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ campaigns to a battle between David and Goliath.
“There’s a lot of folks in the vote no campaign who love our sports team, but we don’t love being threatened,” she said. “I really think this is a new era of people power and tenant union power in not only Kansas City, but also Jackson County.”
The “vote yes” campaign received support from local building trades unions who would benefit from the construction of a new stadium. Other endorsements included the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 1, which represents current Kauffman Stadium workers, and Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas.
Some local property owners also supported the Crossroads stadium.
Chiefs president Mark Donovan said the team is disappointed.
“We feel we put forth the best offer for Jackson County and we were ready to extend the long standing partnership that the teams have enjoyed with this county,” he said.
Carlos Moreno
/
KCUR 89.3A sign near the Power and Light District on March 25, 2024 advocates for a 3/8-cent stadium tax.
Independence resident Gay Lynn voted yes on the ballot measure. She said she was hopeful the team would give money back to the community.
“Whether we like it or not, I just want businesses to succeed from that,” Lynn said on Tuesday. “I don’t want it to just benefit a football or a baseball team, I want all of us to benefit from it.”
In the days leading up to the vote, some messaging made a clear negative turn.
One mailer included images of KC Tenants and said, “Don’t let the radical left take the Chiefs from us.” The mailer was paid for by Cornerstone 1791, a Missouri nonprofit that owns Liberty Alliance USA, a group representing Missouri conservatives. KC Tenants called the mailer racist.
What’s next
The failure of Tuesday’s ballot measure could send the Royals back to the drawing board.
Despite the teams’ messaging, the results don’t mean the Royals and Chiefs are packing up and leaving Kansas City tomorrow, or even next month.
Both of their current leases at the Truman Sports Complex end in 2031. Jackson County’s existing 3/8th-cent stadium sales tax expires the same year.
Donovan said the team will “look to do what is in the best interest of our fans our organization as we move on.”
The Royals said in a statement on X that the team will “take some time to reflect on and process the outcome and find a path forward that works for the Royals and our fans.”
Wise with Stand Up KC said the group offered the Royals another opportunity to return to the negotiating table and discuss an agreement that supports living wage jobs and affordable housing. The group left negotiations with the team in March.
The teams could put the stadium sales tax on a future ballot, but that will depend on approval from the Jackson County Legislature. Current County Executive Frank White publicly opposed the April ballot measure and initially vetoed it, before the Legislature overrode his veto.
The teams could also privately fund a new Royals stadium and renovations to Arrowhead.
Isabella Luu contributed reporting.
[ad_2]
Source link
Politics
Poll: Support for Missouri abortion rights amendment growing

[ad_1]
A proposed constitutional amendment legalizing abortion in Missouri received support from more than half of respondents in a new poll from St. Louis University and YouGov.That’s a boost from a poll earlier this year, which could mean what’s known as Amendment 3 is in a solid position to pass in November.SLU/YouGov’s poll of 900 likely Missouri voters from Aug. 8-16 found that 52% of respondents would vote for Amendment 3, which would place constitutional protections for abortion up to fetal viability. Thirty-four percent would vote against the measure, while 14% aren’t sure.By comparison, the SLU/YouGov poll from February found that 44% of voters would back the abortion legalization amendment.St. Louis University political science professor Steven Rogers said 32% of Republicans and 53% of independents would vote for the amendment. That’s in addition to nearly 80% of Democratic respondents who would approve the measure. In the previous poll, 24% of Republicans supported the amendment.Rogers noted that neither Amendment 3 nor a separate ballot item raising the state’s minimum wage is helping Democratic candidates. GOP contenders for U.S. Senate, governor, lieutenant governor, treasurer and secretary of state all hold comfortable leads.“We are seeing this kind of crossover voting, a little bit, where there are voters who are basically saying, ‘I am going to the polls and I’m going to support a Republican candidate, but I’m also going to go to the polls and then I’m also going to try to expand abortion access and then raise the minimum wage,’” Rogers said.Republican gubernatorial nominee Mike Kehoe has a 51%-41% lead over Democrat Crystal Quade. And U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley is leading Democrat Lucas Kunce by 53% to 42%. Some GOP candidates for attorney general, secretary of state and treasurer have even larger leads over their Democratic rivals.
Brian Munoz
/
St. Louis Public RadioHundreds of demonstrators pack into a parking lot at Planned Parenthood of St. Louis and Southwest Missouri on June 24, 2022, during a demonstration following the Supreme Court’s reversal of a case that guaranteed the constitutional right to an abortion.
One of the biggest challenges for foes of Amendment 3 could be financial.Typically, Missouri ballot initiatives with well-funded and well-organized campaigns have a better chance of passing — especially if the opposition is underfunded and disorganized. Since the end of July, the campaign committee formed to pass Amendment 3 received more than $3 million in donations of $5,000 or more.That money could be used for television advertisements to improve the proposal’s standing further, Rogers said, as well as point out that Missouri’s current abortion ban doesn’t allow the procedure in the case of rape or incest.“Meanwhile, the anti side won’t have those resources to kind of try to make that counter argument as strongly, and they don’t have public opinion as strongly on their side,” Rogers said.There is precedent of a well-funded initiative almost failing due to opposition from socially conservative voters.In 2006, a measure providing constitutional protections for embryonic stem cell research nearly failed — even though a campaign committee aimed at passing it had a commanding financial advantage.Former state Sen. Bob Onder was part of the opposition campaign to that measure. He said earlier this month it is possible to create a similar dynamic in 2024 against Amendment 3, if social conservatives who oppose abortion rights can band together.“This is not about reproductive rights or care for miscarriages or IVF or anything else,” said Onder, the GOP nominee for Missouri’s 3rd Congressional District seat. “Missourians will learn that out-of-state special interests and dark money from out of state is lying to them and they will reject this amendment.”Quade said earlier this month that Missourians of all political ideologies are ready to roll back the state’s abortion ban.“Regardless of political party, we hear from folks who are tired of politicians being in their doctor’s offices,” Quade said. “They want politicians to mind their own business. So this is going to excite folks all across the political spectrum.”
[ad_2]
Source link
Politics
Democrat Mark Osmack makes his case for Missouri treasurer

[ad_1]
Mark Osmack has been out of the electoral fray for awhile, but he never completely abandoned his passion for Missouri politics.Osmack, a Valley Park native and U.S. Army veteran, previously ran for Missouri’s 2nd Congressional District seat and for state Senate. Now he’s the Democratic nominee for state treasurer after receiving a phone call from Missouri Democratic Party Chairman Russ Carnahan asking him to run.“There’s a lot of decision making and processing and evaluation that goes into it, which is something I am very passionate and interested in,” Osmack said this week on an episode of Politically Speaking.Osmack is squaring off against state Treasurer Vivek Malek, who was able to easily win a crowded GOP primary against several veteran lawmakers including House Budget Chairman Cody Smith and state Sen. Andrew Koenig.While Malek was able to attract big donations to his political action committee and pour his own money into the campaign, Osmack isn’t worried that he won’t be able to compete in November. Since Malek was appointed to his post, Osmack contends he hasn’t proven that he’s a formidable opponent in a general election.“His actions and his decision making so far in his roughly two year tenure in that office have been questionable,” Osmack said.Among other things, Osmack was critical of Malek for placing unclaimed property notices on video gaming machines which are usually found in gas stations or convenience stores. The legality of the machines has been questioned for some time.As Malek explained on his own episode of Politically Speaking, he wanted to make sure the unclaimed property program was as widely advertised as possible. But he acknowledged it was a mistake to put the decals close to the machines and ultimately decided to remove them.Osmack said: “This doesn’t even pass the common sense sniff test of, ‘Hey, should I put state stickers claiming you might have a billion dollars on a gambling machine that is not registered with the state of Missouri?’ If we’re gonna give kudos for him acknowledging the wrong thing, it never should have been done in the first place.”Osmack’s platform includes supporting programs providing school meals using Missouri agriculture products and making child care more accessible for the working class.He said the fact that Missouri has such a large surplus shows that it’s possible to create programs to make child care within reach for parents.“It is quite audacious for [Republicans] to brag about $8 billion, with a B, dollars in state surplus, while we offer next to no social services to include pre-K, daycare, or child care,” Osmack said.Here’s are some other topics Osmack discussed on the show:How he would handle managing the state’s pension systems and approving low-income housing tax credits. The state treasurer’s office is on boards overseeing both of those programs.Malek’s decision to cut off investments from Chinese companies. Osmack said that Missouri needs to be cautious about abandoning China as a business partner, especially since they’re a major consumer of the state’s agriculture products. “There’s a way to make this work where we are not supporting communist nations to the detriment of the United States or our allies, while also maintaining strong economic ties that benefit Missouri farmers,” he said.What it was like to witness the skirmish at the Missouri State Fair between U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley and Democratic challenger Lucas Kunce.Whether Kunce can get the support of influential groups like the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which often channels money and staff to states with competitive Senate elections.
[ad_2]
Source link
Politics
As Illinois receives praise for its cannabis equity efforts, stakeholders work on system’s flaws

[ad_1]
Medical marijuana patients can now purchase cannabis grown by small businesses as part of their allotment, Illinois’ top cannabis regulator said, but smaller, newly licensed cannabis growers are still seeking greater access to the state’s medical marijuana customers.Illinois legalized medicinal marijuana beginning in 2014, then legalized it for recreational use in 2020. While the 2020 law legalized cannabis use for any adult age 21 or older, it did not expand licensing for medical dispensaries.Patients can purchase marijuana as part of the medical cannabis program at dual-purpose dispensaries, which are licensed to serve both medical and recreational customers. But dual-purpose dispensaries are greatly outnumbered by dispensaries only licensed to sell recreationally, and there are no medical-only dispensaries in the state.As another part of the adult-use legalization law, lawmakers created a “craft grow” license category that was designed to give more opportunities to Illinoisans hoping to legally grow and sell marijuana. The smaller-scale grow operations were part of the 2020 law’s efforts to diversify the cannabis industry in Illinois.Prior to that, all cultivation centers in Illinois were large-scale operations dominated by large multi-state operators. The existing cultivators, mostly in operation since 2014, were allowed to grow recreational cannabis beginning in 2019.Until recently, dual-purpose dispensaries have been unsure as to whether craft-grown products, made by social equity licensees — those who have lived in a disproportionately impacted area or have been historically impacted by the war on drugs — can be sold medicinally as part of a patient’s medical allotment.Erin Johnson, the state’s cannabis regulation oversight officer, told Capitol News Illinois last month that her office has “been telling dispensaries, as they have been asking us” they can now sell craft-grown products to medical patients.“There was just a track and trace issue on our end, but never anything statutorily,” she said.
Dilpreet Raju
/
Capitol News IllinoisThe graphic shows how cannabis grown in Illinois gets from cultivation centers to customers.
No notice has been posted, but Johnson’s verbal guidance comes almost two years after the first craft grow business went online in Illinois.It allows roughly 150,000 medical patients, who dispensary owners say are the most consistent purchasers of marijuana, to buy products made by social equity businesses without paying recreational taxes. However — even as more dispensaries open — the number available to medical patients has not increased since 2018, something the Cannabis Regulation Oversight Office “desperately” wants to see changed. Johnson said Illinois is a limited license state, meaning “there are caps on everything” to help control the relatively new market.Berwyn Thompkins, who operates two cannabis businesses, said the rules limited options for patients and small businesses.“It’s about access,” Thompkins said. “Why wouldn’t we want all the patients — which the (adult-use) program was initially built around — why wouldn’t we want them to have access? They should have access to any dispensary.”Customers with a medical marijuana card pay a 1% tax on all marijuana products, whereas recreational customers pay retail taxes between roughly 20 and 40% on a given cannabis product, when accounting for local taxes.While Illinois has received praise for its equity-focused cannabis law, including through an independent study that showed more people of color own cannabis licenses than in any other state, some industry operators say they’ve experienced many unnecessary hurdles getting their businesses up and running.The state, in fact, announced last month that it had opened its 100th social equity dispensary.But Steve Olson, purchasing manager at a pair of dispensaries (including one dual-purpose dispensary) near Rockford, said small specialty license holders have been left in the lurch since the first craft grower opened in October 2022.“You would think that this would be something they’re (the government) trying to help out these social equity companies with, but they’re putting handcuffs on them in so many different spots,” he said. “One of them being this medical thing.”Olson said he contacted state agencies, including the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, months ago about whether craft products can be sold to medical patients at their retail tax rate, but only heard one response: “They all say it was an oversight.”This potentially hurt social equity companies because they sell wholesale to dispensaries and may have been missing out on a consistent customer base through those medical dispensaries.Olson said the state’s attempts to provide licensees with a path to a successful business over the years, such as with corrective lotteries that granted more social equity licenses, have come up short.“It’s like they almost set up the social equity thing to fail so the big guys could come in and swoop up all these licenses,” Olson said. “I hate to feel like that but, if you look at it, it’s pretty black and white.”Olson said craft companies benefit from any type of retail sale.“If we sell it to medical patients or not, it’s a matter of, ‘Are we collecting the proper taxes?’ That’s all it is,” he said.State revenue from cannabis taxes, licensing costs and other fees goes into the Cannabis Regulation Fund, which is used to fund a host of programs, including cannabis offense expungement, the general revenue fund, and the R3 campaign aiming to uplift disinvested communities.For fiscal year 2024, nearly $256 million was paid out from Cannabis Regulation Fund for related initiatives, which includes almost $89 million transferred to the state’s general revenue fund and more than $20 million distributed to local governments, according to the Illinois Department of Revenue.Medical access still limitedThe state’s 55 medical dispensaries that predate the 2020 legalization law, mostly owned by publicly traded multistate operators that had been operating in Illinois since 2014 under the state’s medical marijuana program, were automatically granted a right to licenses to sell recreationally in January 2020. That gave them a dual-purpose license that no new entrants into the market can receive under current law.Since expanding their clientele in 2020, Illinois dispensaries have sold more than $6 billion worth of cannabis products through recreational transactions alone.Nearly two-thirds of dispensaries licensed to sell to medical patients are in the northeast counties of Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake and Will. Dual-purpose dispensaries only represent about 20 percent of the state’s dispensaries.While the state began offering recreational dispensary licenses since the adult-use legalization law passed, it has not granted a new medical dispensary license since 2018. That has allowed the established players to continue to corner the market on the state’s nearly 150,000 medical marijuana patients.But social equity licensees and advocates say there are more ways to level the playing field, including expanding access to medical sales.Johnson, who became the state’s top cannabis regulator in late 2022, expressed hope for movement during the fall veto session on House Bill 2911, which would expand medical access to all Illinois dispensaries.“We would like every single dispensary in Illinois to be able to serve medical patients,” Johnson said. “It’s something that medical patients have been asking for, for years.”Johnson said the bill would benefit patients and small businesses.“It’s something we desperately want to happen as a state system, because we want to make sure that medical patients are able to easily access what they need,” she said. “We also think it’s good for our social equity dispensaries, as they’re opening, to be able to serve medical patients.”Rep. Bob Morgan, D-Deerfield, who was the first statewide project coordinator for Illinois’ medical cannabis program prior to joining the legislature, wrote in an email to Capitol News Illinois that the state needs to be doing more for its patients.“Illinois is failing the state’s 150,000 medical cannabis patients with debilitating conditions. Too many are still denied the patient protections they deserve, including access to their medicine,” Morgan wrote, adding he would continue to work with stakeholders on further legislation.Capitol News Illinois is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news service covering state government. It is distributed to hundreds of newspapers, radio and TV stations statewide. It is funded primarily by the Illinois Press Foundation and the Robert R. McCormick Foundation, along with major contributions from the Illinois Broadcasters Foundation and Southern Illinois Editorial Association.
[ad_2]
Source link
-
Politics2 years ago
Prenzler ‘reconsidered’ campaign donors, accepts vendor funds
-
Board Bills1 year ago
2024-2025 Board Bill 80 — Prohibiting Street Takeovers
-
Business3 years ago
Fields Foods to open new grocery in Pagedale in March
-
Board Bills3 years ago
2022-2023 Board Bill 168 — City’s Capital Fund
-
Business3 years ago
We Live Here Auténtico! | The Hispanic Chamber | Community and Connection Central
-
Entertainment1 year ago
OK, That New Cardinals/Nelly City Connect Collab Is Kind of Great
-
Entertainment3 years ago
St.Louis Man Sounds Just Like Whitley Hewsten, Plans on Performing At The Shayfitz Arena.
-
Politics1 year ago
Illinois residents can submit designs for the state’s new flag