Yael Abouhalka wrote an article entitled ‘Are You Still Undecided?' for the Kansas City Star on Thursday, March 30th. I have read most of what he has written over the past couple of weeks and it is very disheartening that anyone in their right mind would listen to this guy. He is in the Opinion section, not the news. I had to keep reminding myself of this as I read his drivel. I kept wondering why his ‘facts' were not being backed up, but I had to remember what section I was reading. It is kind of bad when I read the local paper and cannot tell the difference between the Opinion section and actual news. At any rate, let's take a look at Yael's latest insult to his readership.

His article begins with a shot at websites like savekc.com. He chooses words like mocking and defamatory to describe opposition sites. I am not sure what he is implying, but look at the facts Yael, the truth hurts when it is true. Jackson County failed at their job, Mayor Barnes is taking steps backwards, and the Kansas City Star has proven to be unreasonably biased with the stadium tax hike. Sure, all of these points may sound defamatory, but each party has done its' part to deserve it.

From here on out I will use his quotes in italics and then answer them.

"A 'yes" vote on Question 1 would provide $30 million a year from a three-eighths-cent sales tax to upgrade and maintain the stadiums. A 'yes" vote — which I support — would keep the Chiefs and Royals in Kansas City for 25 more years."

Given the new information of the county not only paying the $425 Million, but the additional $780 Million in interest, this simply does not add up. $30 Million multiplied by 25 years is $750 Million or $455 Million short of the $1.2 Billion required for Yael's ‘yes' vote. Yael talks about the Chiefs and Royals staying here for 25 years. The tax plan is also 25 years. It becomes painfully obvious that once we pay off Yael's ‘yes' vote, the teams could leave the, what will then be, 60 year old stadiums.

"It would create a certain and positive outcome. It would create a certain and positive outcome.
The reasonable deals on the table limit taxpayer costs for improvements of a conveniently located sports complex. They require teams to pay cost overruns, include user fees, and contain an agreement to boost women and minority hiring for construction.
It's unfortunate that the plans do not contain higher contributions from the clubs. But these were negotiated deals, with give and take for all sides."

He calls a $455 Million shortfall positive? Well, he is right about one thing, it is definitely certain what this plan and his opinion offer. He calls the deals on the table reasonable, and here I thought the whole idea was to become an extraordinary community. You know, a league of our own, not just good enough, a synonym for reasonable. I do not know about others, but given the choice, I would have taken the cost overruns over the interest payments too. Yael then goes on and says 'with give and take for all sides." I would be very interested to see him list, and quantify, these gives and takes. It will probably never happen.

"Now what would happen if Jackson County voters say 'no" next Tuesday?
Uncertainty would reign.
Would another election be held? Would the teams move? Would the status quo last a few more years? Would it be amusing to watch champions of a costly downtown ballpark actually have to explain how they would finance it? (Answer: Yes) How expensive would the next deal be — if there were a next deal?
Elsewhere across the country, voters in recent years have decided to pay what it takes to remain major-league cities. Next Tuesday, so should Jackson Countians."

Yael continues by saying that a ‘no' vote would cause 'uncertainty would reign". Has he not watched the news, listen to the radio, or read his own paper? Uncertainty is swirling around the save our stadiums campaign. People in Kansas City think the rolling roof is on question 1 and they also are scared to death that our teams are leaving. This issue has been so clouded by political garbage, no one is real certain about the facts surrounding this tax hike. Why does he automatically bring in the whole downtown ballpark deal? Does he not understand that this is a bad deal for the average Jackson Countian that neither supports nor opposes a downtown ballpark? He is just saying the average in Jackson County is not smart enough to see through this and they must have an ulterior motive. Then he goes on to offer the advice to vote like him and remain a major-league. If being major-league is agreeing with Yael, maybe he should apply for the NFL Commissioner job opening up soon.

"Here are three things undecided voters should consider before going to the polls.
1. If Question 1 fails, the next plan to keep pro sports would cost more.
Some critics want to kill Question 1, then ask voters this fall to come up with $100 million or so for basic improvements. This might make sure the county would not default on the current leases at the end of 2006 because it had not made required stadium improvements.
But this stopgap plan is flawed. It would require a quarter-cent sales tax lasting five years. That tax increase is not going to fly with the 'no more money for billionaire owners" crowd.
If passed, the tax would run out in 2011 — just in time for Kansas Citians to face another election or elections to build new stadiums for the Chiefs and Royals. Or to renovate what by then would be a 40-year-old sports complex. The stadium work would be far more expensive by then. The result: More money would be needed from taxpayers.
But what about opponents' assertion that costs for stadiums would go down next time?
A little history helps show why this is illogical.
The basic stadium funding plan rejected by bistate voters in 2004 would have cost $425 million. The 2006 election calls for $575 million in general improvements — not including the $202 million rolling roof. Stadium improvement projects in other cities also became more expensive, not less, as time marched on."

Yael's language is funny. He has decided to use the word kill, as opposed to defeat, beat, or overcome. Yes, I hope this plan fails and will send a message that a better, more balanced proposal should be put together. Is not renovating a 30-year-old stadium a stopgap as well? Then Yael goes on and lays out an assumed plan of ¼ cent sales tax over five years. Wow, maybe he should run for office, since he is now coming up with proposals and all. I do not think for one minute that the costs will go down. I am simply hoping for the public tax burden to go down. That is only fair. He finishes up this section with $575 Million talk and not the total $1.2 Billion real amount. Oh yeah, it is the Opinion section.

"2. Taxpayers do subsidize public facilities.
Opponents harshly criticize Question 1 because it would require $425 million in bonds financed by local taxpayers to upgrade the publicly owned stadiums, which not everyone uses.
Still, at least 2.5 million people a year do use the stadiums. Now compare this example with two other high-profile projects that benefit this community.
For the Kansas City Zoo, voters have approved $100 million in bond funds (in inflation-adjusted dollars) since 1990. The facility attracted 430,000 people last year.
The Liberty Memorial soon will have received $70 million (in inflation-adjusted dollars) approved by voters since 1998. It drew about 100,000 people last year.
Crunch the numbers, and the local public subsidy for users of the sports complex is lower than for users of the zoo and memorial."

I have only one question for Yael on this one. Do the Kansas City Zoo and Liberty Memorial have annual revenues of more than $5 Billion? Come on Yael, putting this into your article was very poor decision.

"3. The teams could leave if voters defeat Question 1.
Sure, some opponents have guaranteed that the teams would stay, at least for a few years.
Truth is, these critics have absolutely no say in whether the Glasses of the Royals or the Hunts with the Chiefs would keep their teams in substandard stadiums with defaulted leases, especially when other suitors exist (especially for the Chiefs).
But what if the clubs do stick around for a few years? They could demand lower or no rent to play here. They could sue the county to fix up the public facility they play in. Or more elections with costlier tax increases could be needed. Passing Question 1 would eliminate these dire possibilities."

I am not guaranteeing that the teams would stay here in Kansas City. I do know that neither team has come out and said that if we do not pay they will leave. I know Yael and the save our stadiums people really enjoy holding this over our heads, but it is wrong of them. Yael is right, we have no say in the future of the teams, but neither does the county. In fact, with Jackson County's negotiating skills, we are all at the mercy of the teams. It is kind of interesting that Yael brings up the rent. Jackson County, did you know that the amount the teams pay to use ‘our' stadiums has not changed since 1990. Everything thing else rises in cost, except for the rent. Did the leaders of Jackson County address this in the new lease? Yes, they addressed it by keeping it the same with the possibility of reducing it for the Royals. So, Yael, it appears the teams have already won the battle of rent.

You know what, if the people in Kansas City want to follow an Opinion writer when it comes to taxing their children, being walked over by professional sports, and allowing our elected officials to continue to ineffectively run this community, then they deserve this plan. The Kansas Citians that I know are better than this and do not deserve this kind of treatment or written nonsense. Jackson County, it is time to stand up and say enough is enough. Please consider the facts when you cast your vote, not some unproven opinions.