Missouri approves stadium aid for Kansas City Chiefs and Royals
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
Advertisement
The Chiefs and Royals currently play football and baseball in side-by-side stadiums in Jackson County, Missouri, under leases that expire in January 2031. Jackson County voters last year defeated a sales tax extension that would have helped finance an $800 million renovation of the Chiefs' Arrowhead Stadium and a $2 billion ballpark district for the Royals in downtown Kansas City.
That prompted lawmakers in neighboring Kansas last year to authorize bonds for up to 70 percent of the cost of new stadiums in Kansas to lure the teams to their state. The Royals have bought a mortgage for property in Kansas, though the team also has continued to pursue other possible sites in Missouri.
Advertisement
Kauffman Stadium is almost as old as Arrowhead, opening at the start of the 1973 season.
Jamie Squire/Getty
The Kansas offer is scheduled to expire June 30, creating urgency for Missouri to approve a counter-offer.
Missouri's legislation authorizes bonds covering up to 50 percent of the cost of new or renovated stadiums, plus up to $50 million of tax credits for each stadium and unspecified aid from local governments. If they choose to stay in Missouri, the Chiefs plan a $1.15 billion renovation of Arrowhead Stadium.
Though they have no specific plans in the works, the St. Louis Cardinals also would be eligible for stadium aid if they undertake a project of at least $500 million.
Many economists contend public funding for stadiums isn't worth it, because sports tend to divert discretionary spending away from other forms of entertainment rather than generate new income.
But supporters said Missouri stands to lose millions of dollars of tax revenue if Kansas City's most prominent professional sports teams move to Kansas. They said Missouri's reputation also would take a hit, particularly if it loses the Chiefs, which have won three of the past six Super Bowls.
'We have the chance to maybe save what is the symbol of this state,' Rep. Jim Murphy, a Republican from St. Louis County, said while illustrating cross-state support for the measure.
The legislation faced some bipartisan pushback from those who described it as a subsidy for wealthy sports team owners. Others raised concerns that a property tax break for homeowners, which was added in the Senate to gain votes, violates the state constitution by providing different levels of tax relief in various counties while excluding others entirely.
'This bill is unconstitutional, it's fiscally reckless, it's morally wrong,' said Republican state Rep. Bryant Wolfin.
Advertisement
The disaster relief had widespread support. Lawmakers approved $100 million of open-ended aid for St. Louis and $25 million for emergency housing assistance in any areas covered under requests for presidential disaster declarations. They also authorized a $5,000 income tax credit to offset insurance policy deductibles for homeowners and renters hit by this year's storms — a provision that state budget director Dan Haug said could eventually cost up to $600 million.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
16 minutes ago
- The Hill
The plot to destroy Black political power
Get ready for the rage: The conservative majority on the Supreme Court looks likely to gut the last remaining parts of the Voting Rights Act. Prompted by a Black conservative, Justice Clarence Thomas, the high court will consider in October a question that answers itself — whether it is wrong to stop openly racist tactics in drawing congressional districts. Even if the right-wing justices manage to close their eyes to the racial politics involved, they will feel the heat and hear the explosive impact of the backlash to a one-sided ruling. The fuse will be lit in several Republican-controlled states, largely in the South, as white politicians begin diluting votes in Black-majority districts to silence Black voices in Congress. Deep-red state legislatures — think of South Carolina, Alabama and Mississippi — will be free to demolish their Black-majority congressional districts. Those white-majority, Trump-backing state legislatures aim to bring an end to the careers of several Black Democrats in Congress, such as Reps. Cleo Fields (D-La.), Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.), Terri Sewell (D-Ala.) and Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.). As a purely political exercise, Trump and his Republican allies have wanted to eliminate these districts for years, because Black voters are key to the Democratic Party's congressional strength. The Voting Rights Act allows for federal courts to look for racial damage done by gerrymandering districts. In the case now before the high court, involving redistricting in Louisiana, the state was forced to add a second Black-majority district. A federal court ruled that, with 33 percent of the state being Black, it was wrong for only one of its six congressional districts to be majority Black. But that led to a lawsuit over the new map. Along the lines of Thomas's recent call for a total end to the Voting Rights Act, the challengers contend that the law — which was created to protect equal voting rights for Black Americans — now prohibits the court from stopping white Republicans from playing politics and crushing Black power as a proportional representation of a state's racial makeup. Thomas makes the case that attention to 'race-based' construction of congressional districts is out of touch with recent history. He argues that 'specific identified instances' of racial bias, including violent voter suppression, are now distant and amount to relics of the nation's past. Last week, a federal appeals court disagreed. The Fifth Circuit ruled that Louisiana's congressional district map 'packed' and 'cracked' Black populations to limit their political power. The ruling stated there are 'decades of binding precedent' under the 15th Amendment allowing Congress to contest racial bias in redistricting. The 1965 Voting Rights Act was written in response to the nation's long history of keeping political power in white hands. Even after Black men gained the right to vote, it was common for that vote to be suppressed through violence. For perspective, South Carolina is 26 percent Black and 67 percent white. But white-majority Republican congressional districts are 86 percent of South Carolina's seven congressional districts. Only one of seven districts has a majority of Democrats and Black voters — Clyburn's district. The Supreme Court plans to hear arguments on racial redistricting on Oct. 15 — early enough for a decision that could affect the 2026 midterms. If the Black vote is diluted, the Democratic Party's ability to win seats in Congress shrinks, increasing Republican chances of retaining majorities in the House and Senate in 2026. That would keep Trump from becoming a lame duck facing a divided Congress. The Republicans' goal is to maintain majorities in Congress for Trump's last two years in the White House. Then Republicans can appoint more judges to issue more rulings that further weaken Democrats. The downward spiral for Black political power will go on and on. Trump is not hiding his interest in the outcome of gerrymandering efforts in Texas. 'We have an opportunity in Texas to pick up five seats,' Trump told CNBC earlier this month. 'We have a really good governor, and we have good people in Texas. I got the highest vote in the history of Texas … and we are entitled to five more seats.' Excuse me, Mr. President? Neither you nor the Republican Party is entitled to any seats. Those seats belong to Americans of all colors and parties. Texas Republicans' threats to send law enforcement to forcibly return Texas Democratic legislators to the state capitol to provide a quorum for passing gerrymandered maps are a sideshow. They distract from the real effect that racially-designed gerrymandering can have on race relations and politics for decades to come. Comedian Dave Chappelle famously called Trump 'an honest liar.' In the fight over Texas redistricting, the 'honest liar' is saying that the people looking at redistricting's racial impact are themselves racist. Don't let Trump or his partisans on the high court fool you. Racial justice in Congress is at stake. Democrats will have to fight fire with fire to prevent Trump from diminishing Black voting power. Democrats owe that much to Black voters, who have carried them to electoral victories over the last 60 years. They owe it to the memory of the brave people who marched, were beaten and even died to demand voting rights only 60 years ago.
Boston Globe
16 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Texas Republicans set to resume push for redrawn US House maps
Advertisement The Texas House was scheduled to try convening a quorum again Monday. Abbott put redistricting on the agenda at the urging of President Donald Trump, who wants to shore up Republicans' narrow U.S. House majority to avoid losing control of the chamber, and with it, prospects for Trump's conservative agenda in the later part of his term. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up It is unusual for redistricting to take place in the middle of the decade and typically occurs once at the beginning of each decade to coincide with the census. Many states, including Texas, give legislators the power to draw maps. California is among those that empower independent commissions with the task. The nation's two most populous states have been at the forefront of the resulting battle, which has reached into multiple courtrooms and statehouses controlled by both parties. Advertisement On a national level, the partisan makeup of existing district lines puts Democrats within three seats of a majority. Of the 435 total House seats, only several dozen districts are competitive. So even slight changes in a few states could affect which party wins control. Texas' maps would aim to give the GOP five more winnable seats there. California Democrats, who hold supermajorities in both chambers — enough to act without any Republican votes — on Friday unveiled a proposal that could give Democrats there an additional five U.S. House seats. But any changes would first need the approval of state lawmakers and voters. Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom has said that his state will hold a Nov. 4 special referendum on the redrawn districts.
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The 'Pelosi Act' is a step closer to law — but some politicians say it goes too far. Here's the risk to you
A U.S. Senate committee has voted to advance a bill aimed at banning federal lawmakers, presidents and vice presidents from trading individual stocks. The move comes after years of outrage over potential conflicts of interest on Capitol Hill, where some members of Congress appear to have made timely trades ahead of market-moving events. Don't miss Thanks to Jeff Bezos, you can now become a landlord for as little as $100 — and no, you don't have to deal with tenants or fix freezers. Here's how I'm 49 years old and have nothing saved for retirement — what should I do? Don't panic. Here are 6 of the easiest ways you can catch up (and fast) Want an extra $1,300,000 when you retire? Dave Ramsey says this 7-step plan 'works every single time' to kill debt, get rich in America — and that 'anyone' can do it But while supporters call it a long-overdue accountability measure, the bill is already facing pushback, including from the White House. Here's what exactly is in the PELOSI Act — renamed to the HONEST Act — and why it's controversial. Plus, how stock trading among politicians could be impacting your 401(k) without you realizing it. What's in the act, and why is it making headlines now? Originally named as a dig against Democrat Rep. Nancy Pelosi for her husband's heavy stock trading, Republican Sen. Josh Hawley's proposed PELOSI (Preventing Elected Leaders from Owning Securities and Investments) Act would ban trading for officials previously mentioned, along with their spouses and dependents. While there is no evidence that Pelosi had insider information that influenced her husband's trading, Hawley has stood fast that it's too risky for any congressional member to be involved in stocks. 'We have an opportunity here today to do something that the public has wanted us to do for decades, and that is to ban members of Congress from profiting on information that, frankly, only members of Congress have,' Hawley said during a Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing on July 30. Notably, Pelosi herself has thrown her support behind the act. 'We must have strong transparency, robust accountability and tough enforcement for financial conduct in office because the American people deserve confidence that their elected leaders are serving the public interest — not their personal portfolios,' she said in a statement. 'If legislation is advanced to help restore trust in government and ensure that those in power are held to the highest ethical standards, then I am proud to support it — no matter what they decide to name it.' Read more: Nervous about the stock market? Gain potential quarterly income through this $1B private real estate fund — even if you're not a millionaire. After intense scrutiny from fellow members of Congress, Hawley and Michigan Democrat Gary Peters altered the bill to change the contentious name to the HONEST (Halting Ownership and Non-Ethical Stock Transactions) Act and allow President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance to maintain their holdings during the current administration but prohibit future trading. All future administrations would be subject to enforcement. The bipartisan bill was advanced by the committee, but not after criticism from Hawley's fellow Republicans, who claim the bill was unnecessarily strict, since the STOCK (Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge) Act already prohibits lawmakers and their spouses and dependents from trading on material, nonpublic information. The STOCK Act also requires transparency and public disclosure on many transactions. 'I don't know when in this country it became a negative to make money,' Republican Sen. Rick Scott said at the hearing. 'How many of you don't want to make money? Anybody want to be poor?' Trump later offered his own scathing rebuke, calling Hawley a 'pawn' and a 'second-tier' senator in a post on Truth Social. He also complained that Hawley had sided with Democrats to block a review of stock trading by Pelosi and her family. The dangers of congressional insider trading Insider trading can pose serious risks to the security of average American investors, especially if elected leaders use privileged knowledge to enrich themselves. If lawmakers gain insider information before trading, the fear is they might use it to not only influence policy, but that decisions will influence the market. For instance, a lawmaker who knows a coal restriction bill is about to pass might suddenly sell his shares in energy companies. This puts the everyday individual investor at a disadvantage, potentially leading to poorer stock decisions or unexpected losses. Your retirement account may be especially vulnerable to insider trading moves. Suppose your account is part of a large pension fund. In that case, you may be invested in industry-based stocks, which may be highly sensitive to insider trading if they're subject to new laws affecting entire market sectors. The same goes for 401(k)s or IRAs that use mutual funds or exchange-traded funds that invest in large market sectors influenced by legislation related to health care, technology, utilities or energy. Insider trading scandals can cause portfolio volatility, which is why it's important to implement a lasting solution to prevent long-term underperformance. What to read next Robert Kiyosaki warns of a 'Greater Depression' coming to the US — with millions of Americans going poor. But he says these 2 'easy-money' assets will bring in 'great wealth'. How to get in now Here are 5 simple ways to grow rich with real estate if you don't want to play landlord. And you can even start with as little as $10 Rich, young Americans are ditching the stormy stock market — here are the alternative assets they're banking on instead Here are 5 'must have' items that Americans (almost) always overpay for — and very quickly regret. How many are hurting you? Stay in the know. Join 200,000+ readers and get the best of Moneywise sent straight to your inbox every week for free. This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind.
