logo
Missouri approves stadium aid for Kansas City Chiefs and Royals and disaster relief for St. Louis

Missouri approves stadium aid for Kansas City Chiefs and Royals and disaster relief for St. Louis

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — Missouri lawmakers on Wednesday approved hundreds of millions of dollars of financial aid to try to persuade the Kansas City Chiefs and Royals to remain in the state and help the St. Louis area recover from a devastating tornado.
House passage sends the legislative package to Republican Gov. Mike Kehoe, who called lawmakers into special session with a plea for urgent action. Kehoe is expected to sign the measures into law.
Missouri's session paired two otherwise unrelated national trends — a movement for new taxpayer-funded sports stadiums and a reevaluation of states' roles in natural disasters as President Donald Trump's administration reassess federal aid programs.
The stadium subsidies already were a top concern in Missouri when a deadly tornado struck St. Louis on May 16, causing an estimated $1.6 billion of damage a day after lawmakers had wrapped up work in their annual regular session.
The disaster relief had widespread support. Lawmakers listened attentively on Wednesday as Democratic state Rep. Kimberly-Ann Collins described with a cracking voice how she witnessed the tornado rip the roof off her house and damage her St. Louis neighborhood. Collins said she has no home insurance, slept in her car for days and has accepted food from others.
'Homes are crumbled and leveled,' said Collins, adding: 'It hurts me to my core to see the families that have worked so hard, the businesses that have worked so hard, to see them ripped apart.'
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.
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% 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.
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% 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.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Former Chiefs employee sues team for racial discrimination, wrongful termination
Former Chiefs employee sues team for racial discrimination, wrongful termination

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Former Chiefs employee sues team for racial discrimination, wrongful termination

KANSAS CITY, Mo. — A former employee of the Kansas City Chiefs is suing the organization, claiming he was fired because he is Black. The lawsuit was filed by Ramzee Robinson in the Western District of Missouri on Sunday. Robinson served as the Chiefs' Director of Player Engagement until February. Second suspect charged in 2023 fentanyl death of mother, unborn baby Along with race discrimination, Robinson's lawsuit also makes claims of retaliation and tortious interference with business expectancy. The Chiefs referred FOX4 to a statement provided to Pro Football Talk on Wednesday. 'We can't comment because it's an active legal matter,' Brad Gee, Chiefs vice president of football communications, told Pro Football Talk via text message.'But to be clear, the Chiefs do not tolerate discrimination of any kind. We look forward to the facts of this case coming to light.' The lawsuit says Robinson worked for the Chiefs from 2016 to 2025, most recently serving as the team's Director of Player Engagement. Robinson's suit says he made an annual salary of $125,000, nearly $47,000 less (on average) than others in similar roles, before his termination. Robinson claims his requests for salary increases were denied by Chiefs President Mark Donovan because they had 'previously given him raises.' 'As compared to other NFL franchises and/or teams, [Robinson] was paid the lowest salary,' the lawsuit says, 'KC Chiefs paid African-American business employees less than their white counterparts.' Robinson cites an example of a Black woman who held a management position, making $50,000 per year. But when she asked the Chiefs for a raise and was denied, the lawsuit says she resigned and was replaced by a white woman, who the Chiefs paid $80,000 per year. Download WDAF+ for Roku, Fire TV, Apple TV The lawsuit says Robinson reported to Vice President of Administration Kristen Krug. He says Krug 'consistently advised [Robinson] to 'stay out of the way' or 'less is more.'' On February 15, 2025, the lawsuit says Krug called Robinson into her office, claiming that he had engaged in 'conduct detrimental to the league.' Krug accused Robinson of attacking his white female coworker and claimed to have seen the incident on security cameras, but refused to show Robinson the video. Following Robinson's firing, the woman he was accused of attacking took over his former role. The lawsuit also claims the Chiefs denied Robinson a job opportunity with another team, the Houston Texans, which would have also been more pay. Months before he was fired, the lawsuit says Robinson was pressured into renewing his contract with the Chiefs. But after he agreed to sign a contract renewal, the Houston Texans asked Chiefs management to interview Robinson. The suit claims the Chiefs refused, saying an interview would 'violate his contract'. Robinson claims he discovered this information after someone from the Texans organization called him personally and asked about it. Robinson is seeking monetary relief and a jury trial in the case. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Supreme Court backs Missouri, Kansas ban on gender transitions for children
Supreme Court backs Missouri, Kansas ban on gender transitions for children

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Supreme Court backs Missouri, Kansas ban on gender transitions for children

KANSAS CITY, Mo. — On Wednesday, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of Missouri, Kansas and other states seeking to ban gender transition procedures. The ruling in United States v. Skrmetti reflects Missouri's law banning what Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey calls 'gender mutilation' procedures for minors. Bailey says that the state played a pivotal role in the ruling. 16-year-old boy killed in Basehor, Kansas crash: KHP In February, Kansas became the 27th state to ban or restrict such care when after barring federal support for gender-affirming care for youth under 19. Kelly vetoed the bill on Feb. 11, saying it's inappropriate for politicians to infringe on parental rights. One week later, on Feb. 18, the veto was reversed. 'My office has been on the front lines of the fight to stop the mutilation of children in the name of radical gender ideology,' Bailey said. 'Missouri was the first state in the nation to win on this issue, and the Supreme Court's decision affirms what we've said all along: states have both the right and the duty to protect children from these irreversible and experimental procedures.' Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach also released a statement on Wednesday, saying 'This decision is a big win for those of us who want to protect the original meaning of the Constitution. The 14th Amendment equal protection clause in no way prevents states from protecting minors in this contest. The decision also strengthens the state's position regarding Kansas's law. The Kansas equal protection clause must be interpreted in the same fashion as the U.S. equal protection clause. I look forward to defending the law in court.' Suspect dead, trooper injured after shooting in Saline County In the Skrmetti case, Bailey's office says that Missouri led 19 other states in asking the Supreme Court to allow states to ban gender transition practices. 'This is a victory not just for Missouri, but for every state fighting to shield children from irreversible harm disguised as medical care,' concluded Bailey. 'We are proud that the Supreme Court has now adopted the same position we've led on from day one: children deserve protection, not permanent damage. As a father and as Attorney General, I will not rest until every entity harming kids is shut down, every bad actor is held accountable, and Missouri remains the safest state in the nation for children.' Other local leaders joined in as well. U.S. Senator Roger Marshall, R-Kan., shared a statement praising the decision. 'Today was not just a win for basic biology and common sense, but for human decency, sound medicine, and the dignity and safety of children everywhere,' Marshall said. 'As a doctor for over 25 years, I understand the gravity of these harmful so-called treatments radical activists have been pushing on children. They leave permanent scarring, sterilization, and other horrible side effects. Make no mistake, there's more work to do, and I remain committed to eliminating taxpayer-funded transgender procedures on both minors and adults.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Jackson County to reclassify short-term rentals in new ordinance
Jackson County to reclassify short-term rentals in new ordinance

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Jackson County to reclassify short-term rentals in new ordinance

KANSAS CITY, Mo. — Jackson County Executive Frank White Jr. said Wednesday that the county will be implementing a new short-term rental ordinance for tax assessments. Ordinance 5987 provides direction for how short-term rentals are assessed for property taxes. The City of Kansas City defines a short-term rental as 'a dwelling unit or portion thereof for a period of less than 30 consecutive days.' The properties are usually Airbnb or VRBO properties. However, the city excludes lodging or bed and breakfast properties. Supreme Court backs Missouri's ban on gender transitions for children Executive White said the ordinance will ensure properties classified as commercial due to their short-term use will now be classified as residential. just days before the announcement was made. White said in a news release that the ordinance comes as families are being forced out of their properties financially. While the ordinance is a step in the right direction, he said the legislature should continue to look into the issue. Former Chiefs employee sues team for racial discrimination, wrongful termination 'Families are being priced out,' he said. 'Longtime neighbors are being replaced by turnover and disruption, and local governments are left to manage the consequences without the tools they need to address them. 'For these reasons, I respectfully urge the County Legislature to revisit this issue before the 2026 tax year. Additionally, I call on the Missouri General Assembly to act immediately to fix this gap in state law by clearly distinguishing between residents who live in and occasionally rent their homes, and corporations using residential properties to run commercial operations at scale.' To read Executive White's full statement, click here. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store