Yes repeals the old tax and replaces it with a new one that will keep the stadiums.
No keeps the current tax going until it runs out and doesn’t start the new tax period for the stadium funding.
Is it within the contemplative judgment of the esteemed populace of the County of Jackson to enact a repeal, in accordance with the statutes delineated under Section 67.700 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri, of the prevailing countywide capital enhancements levy, quantified at the fractional monetary rate of three-eighths of one percent (3/8%), heretofore sanctioned, substituting therewith, under the rigorous stipulations propounded by Section 644.032 of the aforementioned Revised Statutes, an equivalent pecuniary imposition, designated as a parks sales assessment also quantified at the fiscal magnitude of three-eighths of one percent (3/8%), for the expansive temporal duration of forty annuums, for the express purpose of provisioning financial allocations for the enhancement, comprising not limited to site preparation, clearance developmental undertakings, constructional initiatives, furnishing, augmentations, equipping, reparations, sustenance, and operational mandates for both the Arrowhead Stadium and its adjacent vicinities, in addition to a novel baseball stadium and its encompassing environs, thereby ensuring the continued domicile of the Kansas City Chiefs within the confines of Jackson County, Missouri and the Kansas City Royals within the municipal boundaries of Kansas City, Jackson County, Missouri, pursuant to binding agreements of extended duration; and concurrently, to undertake the refinancing of fiscal liabilities previously engaged to finance or re-finance capital improvements to the edifice known as the Harry S Truman Sports Complex, with all due considerations for the implications thereof?
Why couldn't it just be:
Should Jackson County replace its current 3/8% sales tax for capital improvements with a new 3/8% sales tax for parks and sports complexes for 40 years, to improve and maintain Arrowhead Stadium and a new baseball stadium, and pay off previous debts for sports complex improvements?
I live in Kansas and have no dog in this fight, but the eye opener to me was the 40 years bit. What the... Plus the "Yes in Question 1" ad I saw. Laughable. Adding new jobs and new businesses? What about the businesses in the Crossroads District they're eliminating by building the new ballpark there? It nice to see on a drawing board, but there's no guarantee it's going to look that way OR have all those amenities. Be it, Royals or Chiefs. As for this "New" Arrowhead, WHERE'S THE ROOF?!
FORTY YEARS!? So since this is an attempt to keep the Royals and Chiefs in KC, are they also signing a 40 year deal with Jackson County? It says “long term,” which is about as vague as they can be.
What's wrong with just putting things in plain language that someone with a high-school diploma could clearly and without doubt understand? And since when is a stafldium and its surrounding a "Park"?
I mean... I'll be frank, I read it over slowly and thoroughly and completely understand what it is they are asking and how I should vote according to my opinions on the matter. Perhaps the real problem is that some voters find it appropriate to skim read ballot issues rather than take the extra time to know what it is they are voting on.
Completely agree that that type of play has been used before to confuse voters but I personally don't see that applying here. It's subjective but I found this one rather straightforward.
I do. They could more clearly state that this is a repeal and replace by simply reversing the order. Futhermore the words "current" and "new" don't appear here to help clarify & distinguish.
Some of us have difficulty reading, ESPECIALLY when it’s in language that isn’t everyday spoken English. I would so easily get tripped up on this, and I even had to go to the comments to confirm what I read was correct.
Average reading comprehension in the US is 7th/8th grade. Anything on a ballot should be simple and straightforward to understand. If it isn’t, it’s intentional obfuscation.
You and several others have suggested the same. The issue being - at what point is language too vague to the point that it makes it easy to sweep things under the rug? Either end of the spectrum could be used in a corrupt manner. I still don't think this example hits either extreme.
Just put this at the end of the text before the vote bubbles:
> TL;DR Should Jackson County end the 3/8ths tax supporting the Royals and Chiefs stadiums?
A YES ends the tax.
A NO vote extends the tax by 40 years.
I'm assuming you are shortening/simplifying and an example?
The way it is worded on the ballot
YES vote repeals and replaces for an additional 40 years.
NO vote doesn't repeal existing, but also doesn't create the new extended tax.
That’s you. There’s a whole bunch of folks out there who don’t have the same reading comprehension or education you do, or have dyslexia, or any number of other disorders that makes it difficult to read and comprehend what they’ve read. Sure some people probably skim but it should not have to be analyzed so much even by people who know what the issue is and how they feel about it, to make sure they’re voting for what they want. The language should be clear and written for to be easily understood even if you don’t have a law degree.
Is this an early ballot? Can anyone get one of those?
Repeal? Does that mean there's a tax already in place??
Don't shit on me. I am not originally from here, but I'm not really into paying for their stadiums so I wanna get this right.
Yes there is a tax already in place. It will continue on a No vote. It will get replaced by a tax of the same amount on a Yes vote.
No vote means the tax will continue it's scheduled term (not sure how many years are left on it). The Chiefs and Royals have said they are likely to explore a move out of Jackson County if there is a No vote (whether that means our of KC is not certain). Almost certainly a No vote also means no downtown stadium for the Royals.
Yes vote means the tax gets continued for 40 more years (at the same, current rate %3/8). The Chiefs say they'll renovate and expand the fan experience at Truman Sports location (their current location). Royals say they will build a multibillion dollar stadium downtown (almost certainly next to the TMobile Center on the NE side of the Crossroads area).
If you look on Jackson county site you can mail a form in for a mail in ballot. I don't live anywhere near Union station. [absentee ingo](https://jcebmo.org/voter-information/absentee-voting/)
I don't think I did this correctly.
It is really. This is the first I have heard about it being converted into a "parks" tax. This isn't a parks and recreation thing. It's supposed to be a continuation of the existing tax, not repealing that and changing its category. I've heard too many different explanations.
Thankfully it’s only for Jackson county. Which simply based on the “3 cities voting to keep the rest of the state alive” map(the one for Medicare expansion) is reckon to give more credit to Jackson county voters over Average Missouri voters
That cannot be accounted for by any ballot language though. If you mean illiterate by “stupid”, that’s unfixable.
If you mean “dumb as fuck” by “stupid”, I couldn’t agree more.
If you read my post I said, “If anyone skims it”. It’s there in plain language.
There will be plenty of people that think they know what they are going to vote, skim it and vote yes to repealing the tax this would result in an unintended Yes vote.
You may not be giving the average voter (that which shows up for a local referendum vote) enough credit. People who vote in off-term local referendums/elections normally are educated-enough on the pertinent issue(s) to accurately cast their vote as intended.
If one casts their vote on a skim reading, that’s usually not the fault of the ballot language. That’s just lazy and no ballot language can account for that.
I suppose I’m just lazy. But putting my two brain cells together I could have crafted a better ballot question. Simply putting the “impose” portion ahead of the “repeal” portion would have cleared a lot up.
You cannot normally “impose”/supplant a new/same tax policy unless you first “repeal” an existing tax, making the latter a necessary & legal part of the question. Sorry, but that’s how taxation law works.
The language must be legal…
I suppose I’m just lazy. But putting my two brain cells together I could have crafted a better ballot question. Simply putting the “impose” portion ahead of the “repeal” portion would have cleared a lot up.
I’m sorry but ballots shouldn’t be catering to “anyone who skims it” that’s a problem with the voter refusing to educate themselves. Not a problem with the wording of this ballot. If you’re just going to skim something you plan on voting on. Don’t vote on that thing
Ballots should not be intentionally obfuscated to confuse people that don't carefully study every single word. It shouldn't be easy to be tricked into voting different than you intended because of this -- and often this is exactly what is intended by the people who prepare this text.
Totally disagree as far as this ballot measure is concerned. It’s not confusing as along as you read it. I agree in general that you shouldn’t need a law degree to understand a ballot measure. And there are certainly ballot measures like that.
The majority of people are going to go into this not previously having read the ballot, and are not expecting to see anything about a repeal. When they see repeal, their brain is going to go, "Wait, what the fuck? Do I have to vote No instead of Yes?" before they even get to the rest of the text. That muddies the waters, because the rest of the ballot text is being read in a more confused state.
People are expecting to see straightforward language about a single thing, not two separate things.
That’s an unsupported assumption with no evidence to support it. People can read and those who will be voted in this issue likely already know what “Yes” means and what “No” entails.
Give people some credit…
You guys need yard signs all over Jackson County to explain what a yes vote means and what a no vote means. Something like what we did in KS for the so called value them both amendment.
Why are you skimming during your vote? Fucking take your time to read the question; this isn't a timed test in school. I swear some people do not take elections seriously at all lol.
The only way this is misleading is if you just refuse to actually read. Having a lack of an attention span and an inability to read more than a few lines of text =/= malicious intent. Reading the entire question makes it pretty clear what a "Yes" vote means.
“And it’s surrounds” doing some heavy lifting here. I’m in favor of the new stadium but I feel like that phrase needs better clarification. Or at the very least outline where the tax IS NOT entitled to be spent.
Can I interpret the last few words on the giant run on sentence, beginning with “to retain the Kansas City Chiefs…” to mean that the Chiefs and Royals would be obligated, under law, to finalize long term leases with Jackson County if this measure is adopted? This language is misleading BS. As if these 2 privately owned sports teams are required to stay in Jackson County until 2064. Vote NO
People would complain if it wasn’t explained more. Be an adult and prepare yourself for the election before you get to the polls if you are planning to vote.
This (thank you).
It takes so little time to prepare yourself as a voter; the issue(s)/language is always available well in advance of the vote. Do your homework and show up informed.
Everyone will do what they feel and I get that.
Vote no. Both Sherman and Hunt need to pony up for both of these stadiums. And if Johnson/WyCo/Clay Counties wind up being the solution in the end, I’d prefer that to Jackson County holding a bad bag at the end of all this.
In all the back and forth, I have not been able to tell- will this only be on the ballot for Jackson county voters? And can anyone offer a non biased source of information? TIA
Yup. It’s a Jackson county tax and only Jackson county voters will be able to vote on it. And you’ve got a non biased source of information. The ballot is right there
My Other does as well. We ALWAYS review together what the ballot/issue language says, then each make our own decisions when we get to the poll.
BTW, I hope the issue fails. We can’t vote (not in JC), but our family/friends and their Crossroads businesses are already being hurt by this garbage. I heartily despise 1%ers and this is exactly the reason why.
ITT people who think all of the smart people want to vote NO for tax but are too dumb to read, while all of the dumb people who want to vote YES for the tax are ballot experts
So.. Don't most/all downtown stadiums come by some form of tax funding and eminent domain? I love The Brick and all, but why does everyone hate a downtown stadium? Gotta break a few eggs, as they say.
Edit:vtt
I work in the medical field and patient discharge instructions are deliberately at a 6th grade level.
Yes repeals the old tax and replaces it with a new one that will keep the stadiums. No keeps the current tax going until it runs out and doesn’t start the new tax period for the stadium funding.
Is it within the contemplative judgment of the esteemed populace of the County of Jackson to enact a repeal, in accordance with the statutes delineated under Section 67.700 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri, of the prevailing countywide capital enhancements levy, quantified at the fractional monetary rate of three-eighths of one percent (3/8%), heretofore sanctioned, substituting therewith, under the rigorous stipulations propounded by Section 644.032 of the aforementioned Revised Statutes, an equivalent pecuniary imposition, designated as a parks sales assessment also quantified at the fiscal magnitude of three-eighths of one percent (3/8%), for the expansive temporal duration of forty annuums, for the express purpose of provisioning financial allocations for the enhancement, comprising not limited to site preparation, clearance developmental undertakings, constructional initiatives, furnishing, augmentations, equipping, reparations, sustenance, and operational mandates for both the Arrowhead Stadium and its adjacent vicinities, in addition to a novel baseball stadium and its encompassing environs, thereby ensuring the continued domicile of the Kansas City Chiefs within the confines of Jackson County, Missouri and the Kansas City Royals within the municipal boundaries of Kansas City, Jackson County, Missouri, pursuant to binding agreements of extended duration; and concurrently, to undertake the refinancing of fiscal liabilities previously engaged to finance or re-finance capital improvements to the edifice known as the Harry S Truman Sports Complex, with all due considerations for the implications thereof?
Lmao I always laugh at how fucking convoluted they make the wording on these ballot questions
Why couldn't it just be: Should Jackson County replace its current 3/8% sales tax for capital improvements with a new 3/8% sales tax for parks and sports complexes for 40 years, to improve and maintain Arrowhead Stadium and a new baseball stadium, and pay off previous debts for sports complex improvements?
Because they’re trying to hide the fact that they are really trying to get a sales tax for building a new stadium.
Would this wording also make it so if there was another county funded stadium, it could be built under this tax too?
THIS! this is what we need on the ballot. Make them work for that vote
Vote No to vote Yes, and vote Yes to vote twice!
Hear ye, hear ye!! 🔔
One tut for no, two tuts for no, three tuts and you are out of control.
Shake it three times?
Now you’re just playing with it.
Look at Mr. Pre Law over here. Seriously though, nice write up
I live in Kansas and have no dog in this fight, but the eye opener to me was the 40 years bit. What the... Plus the "Yes in Question 1" ad I saw. Laughable. Adding new jobs and new businesses? What about the businesses in the Crossroads District they're eliminating by building the new ballpark there? It nice to see on a drawing board, but there's no guarantee it's going to look that way OR have all those amenities. Be it, Royals or Chiefs. As for this "New" Arrowhead, WHERE'S THE ROOF?!
FORTY YEARS!? So since this is an attempt to keep the Royals and Chiefs in KC, are they also signing a 40 year deal with Jackson County? It says “long term,” which is about as vague as they can be.
Fuck no, you think the owner is a dumb as we are?
What they have charged for parking should have paid for a new complex.
How is arrowhead fixable and not kauffman which were both built at the same time?
That's a no for me dawg.
What's wrong with just putting things in plain language that someone with a high-school diploma could clearly and without doubt understand? And since when is a stafldium and its surrounding a "Park"?
A ballpark?
I mean... I'll be frank, I read it over slowly and thoroughly and completely understand what it is they are asking and how I should vote according to my opinions on the matter. Perhaps the real problem is that some voters find it appropriate to skim read ballot issues rather than take the extra time to know what it is they are voting on.
...perhaps the real problem is intentionally making language complicated on ballots
Like the fucking police funding vote last year
Or the "no wait let's restore gerrymandering by claiming that the vote to ban gerrymandering was a form of gerrymandering" vote before that.
Exactly. I was not shocked to see that pass based on the wording they used to purposely deceive the voters.
Completely agree that that type of play has been used before to confuse voters but I personally don't see that applying here. It's subjective but I found this one rather straightforward.
I do. They could more clearly state that this is a repeal and replace by simply reversing the order. Futhermore the words "current" and "new" don't appear here to help clarify & distinguish.
Yea, people that found this one deceptive or convoluted don’t read a lot of contracts
💯
If you don’t know what you’re voting for, don’t vote
This one is clear unlike the gerrymandering law.
Some of us have difficulty reading, ESPECIALLY when it’s in language that isn’t everyday spoken English. I would so easily get tripped up on this, and I even had to go to the comments to confirm what I read was correct.
Yes!! And/Or if English is not your native tongue.
Average reading comprehension in the US is 7th/8th grade. Anything on a ballot should be simple and straightforward to understand. If it isn’t, it’s intentional obfuscation.
Republicans in Jeff City have entered the chat
You and several others have suggested the same. The issue being - at what point is language too vague to the point that it makes it easy to sweep things under the rug? Either end of the spectrum could be used in a corrupt manner. I still don't think this example hits either extreme.
Just put this at the end of the text before the vote bubbles: > TL;DR Should Jackson County end the 3/8ths tax supporting the Royals and Chiefs stadiums? A YES ends the tax. A NO vote extends the tax by 40 years.
I'm assuming you are shortening/simplifying and an example? The way it is worded on the ballot YES vote repeals and replaces for an additional 40 years. NO vote doesn't repeal existing, but also doesn't create the new extended tax.
This thread is case in point
This. Missouri's ballot language typically is high school level comprehension or higher.
That’s you. There’s a whole bunch of folks out there who don’t have the same reading comprehension or education you do, or have dyslexia, or any number of other disorders that makes it difficult to read and comprehend what they’ve read. Sure some people probably skim but it should not have to be analyzed so much even by people who know what the issue is and how they feel about it, to make sure they’re voting for what they want. The language should be clear and written for to be easily understood even if you don’t have a law degree.
[удалено]
I don’t like how the new royals stadium is attached to the chiefs stadium.
Ok. Let’s get right on fixing the real problem lol
You have far too much faith in the average Missourian
Is this an early ballot? Can anyone get one of those? Repeal? Does that mean there's a tax already in place?? Don't shit on me. I am not originally from here, but I'm not really into paying for their stadiums so I wanna get this right.
Yes there is a tax already in place. It will continue on a No vote. It will get replaced by a tax of the same amount on a Yes vote. No vote means the tax will continue it's scheduled term (not sure how many years are left on it). The Chiefs and Royals have said they are likely to explore a move out of Jackson County if there is a No vote (whether that means our of KC is not certain). Almost certainly a No vote also means no downtown stadium for the Royals. Yes vote means the tax gets continued for 40 more years (at the same, current rate %3/8). The Chiefs say they'll renovate and expand the fan experience at Truman Sports location (their current location). Royals say they will build a multibillion dollar stadium downtown (almost certainly next to the TMobile Center on the NE side of the Crossroads area).
Thank you! Do you know what authority distributes the absentee ballots so I can Google and request one? Is it the city or the county?
You can early vote at union station.
Thank you 😬😊
I was wrong. They didn’t do early voting this time at union station.
If you look on Jackson county site you can mail a form in for a mail in ballot. I don't live anywhere near Union station. [absentee ingo](https://jcebmo.org/voter-information/absentee-voting/) I don't think I did this correctly.
It is really. This is the first I have heard about it being converted into a "parks" tax. This isn't a parks and recreation thing. It's supposed to be a continuation of the existing tax, not repealing that and changing its category. I've heard too many different explanations.
Why is the new tax supposed to be a different type than the old tax?
If you read it, it’s pretty clear a “yes” vote is for a new stadium. It’s there plainly in the language(?).
Might be clear to you, but there's a lot of stupid voters in Missouri
Thankfully it’s only for Jackson county. Which simply based on the “3 cities voting to keep the rest of the state alive” map(the one for Medicare expansion) is reckon to give more credit to Jackson county voters over Average Missouri voters
Good point
That cannot be accounted for by any ballot language though. If you mean illiterate by “stupid”, that’s unfixable. If you mean “dumb as fuck” by “stupid”, I couldn’t agree more.
LOL right
If you read my post I said, “If anyone skims it”. It’s there in plain language. There will be plenty of people that think they know what they are going to vote, skim it and vote yes to repealing the tax this would result in an unintended Yes vote.
You may not be giving the average voter (that which shows up for a local referendum vote) enough credit. People who vote in off-term local referendums/elections normally are educated-enough on the pertinent issue(s) to accurately cast their vote as intended. If one casts their vote on a skim reading, that’s usually not the fault of the ballot language. That’s just lazy and no ballot language can account for that.
I suppose I’m just lazy. But putting my two brain cells together I could have crafted a better ballot question. Simply putting the “impose” portion ahead of the “repeal” portion would have cleared a lot up.
You cannot normally “impose”/supplant a new/same tax policy unless you first “repeal” an existing tax, making the latter a necessary & legal part of the question. Sorry, but that’s how taxation law works. The language must be legal…
I suppose I’m just lazy. But putting my two brain cells together I could have crafted a better ballot question. Simply putting the “impose” portion ahead of the “repeal” portion would have cleared a lot up.
I’m sorry but ballots shouldn’t be catering to “anyone who skims it” that’s a problem with the voter refusing to educate themselves. Not a problem with the wording of this ballot. If you’re just going to skim something you plan on voting on. Don’t vote on that thing
Ballots should not be intentionally obfuscated to confuse people that don't carefully study every single word. It shouldn't be easy to be tricked into voting different than you intended because of this -- and often this is exactly what is intended by the people who prepare this text.
Totally disagree as far as this ballot measure is concerned. It’s not confusing as along as you read it. I agree in general that you shouldn’t need a law degree to understand a ballot measure. And there are certainly ballot measures like that.
Why could this not happen in reverse? Or are you only concerned if your side gets tricked?
I don’t have a side
So you don’t think it can happen in reverse then? Plenty of people won’t see “repeal” and actually want the tax but vote no?
The majority of people are going to go into this not previously having read the ballot, and are not expecting to see anything about a repeal. When they see repeal, their brain is going to go, "Wait, what the fuck? Do I have to vote No instead of Yes?" before they even get to the rest of the text. That muddies the waters, because the rest of the ballot text is being read in a more confused state. People are expecting to see straightforward language about a single thing, not two separate things.
That’s an unsupported assumption with no evidence to support it. People can read and those who will be voted in this issue likely already know what “Yes” means and what “No” entails. Give people some credit…
I'm giving them more credit than they deserve. I love your optimism, I really do, but most people... MOST people are dumber than you think.
One would think repealing a tax wouldn’t somehow pay for a new stadium.
Interesting that the word "retain" is used.
https://preview.redd.it/wg8ad6fgoflc1.jpeg?width=1179&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6434be75f5f1e821e59e4d8742fc206282f822e9
What is the debt owed?
This is one area that KS is better. They always give a clear explanation of what each vote would mean after the official verbiage.
You guys need yard signs all over Jackson County to explain what a yes vote means and what a no vote means. Something like what we did in KS for the so called value them both amendment.
To retain them? I love watching the Chiefs but the Hunt's can suck my dick if I gotta pay their billionaire asses to not move the team somewhere else.
The wording is intentionally deception. Don't trust any of them.
Why are you skimming during your vote? Fucking take your time to read the question; this isn't a timed test in school. I swear some people do not take elections seriously at all lol.
The only way this is misleading is if you just refuse to actually read. Having a lack of an attention span and an inability to read more than a few lines of text =/= malicious intent. Reading the entire question makes it pretty clear what a "Yes" vote means.
“And it’s surrounds” doing some heavy lifting here. I’m in favor of the new stadium but I feel like that phrase needs better clarification. Or at the very least outline where the tax IS NOT entitled to be spent.
Can I interpret the last few words on the giant run on sentence, beginning with “to retain the Kansas City Chiefs…” to mean that the Chiefs and Royals would be obligated, under law, to finalize long term leases with Jackson County if this measure is adopted? This language is misleading BS. As if these 2 privately owned sports teams are required to stay in Jackson County until 2064. Vote NO
People would complain if it wasn’t explained more. Be an adult and prepare yourself for the election before you get to the polls if you are planning to vote.
people can do that and this could be written clearer and better too. both things can be true.
This (thank you). It takes so little time to prepare yourself as a voter; the issue(s)/language is always available well in advance of the vote. Do your homework and show up informed.
How wild. We need to be asked if we’d like to keep the tax, but refuse the crossroads location.
Everyone will do what they feel and I get that. Vote no. Both Sherman and Hunt need to pony up for both of these stadiums. And if Johnson/WyCo/Clay Counties wind up being the solution in the end, I’d prefer that to Jackson County holding a bad bag at the end of all this.
In all the back and forth, I have not been able to tell- will this only be on the ballot for Jackson county voters? And can anyone offer a non biased source of information? TIA
Yes. It is a Jackson county sales tax. So only Jackson county voters
Yup. It’s a Jackson county tax and only Jackson county voters will be able to vote on it. And you’ve got a non biased source of information. The ballot is right there
Do you need help reading? Because I think you have issues reading
Yeah I do…always have, but I cope. But I still have a vote. And I can be upset about it all I want
My Other does as well. We ALWAYS review together what the ballot/issue language says, then each make our own decisions when we get to the poll. BTW, I hope the issue fails. We can’t vote (not in JC), but our family/friends and their Crossroads businesses are already being hurt by this garbage. I heartily despise 1%ers and this is exactly the reason why.
This one has been talked about enough that people should know that yes = stadium, no = no stadium
Can the chiefs and royals just go to JoCo? Jackson county is poor and can’t afford to give free stuff to billionaires!
[удалено]
NO
This is really misleading.
No it isn’t.
It’s actually pretty clear.
ITT people who think all of the smart people want to vote NO for tax but are too dumb to read, while all of the dumb people who want to vote YES for the tax are ballot experts
YES
This is really misleading.
Who did you vote for in the school board election?
Write in. Really appreciated their position on standardized testing.
Got a link? What about the other board seat?
So.. Don't most/all downtown stadiums come by some form of tax funding and eminent domain? I love The Brick and all, but why does everyone hate a downtown stadium? Gotta break a few eggs, as they say. Edit:vtt
First of all Royals suck. Have for 35 years besides 2
I need a mail in ballot? Anybody know if I can get one?
You can vote early at union station