Latest news with #Schaefer
New York Times
3 days ago
- Sport
- New York Times
2025 NHL Draft comparables: Which NHL players do top prospects resemble?
You've finally broken me, loyal (and sick) readers. After years of protesting player comps or begrudgingly including them in my final column before the draft, the pressure to do them reached a critical mass. So fine, I've decided to provide them for the top 20 players on my list this year. I've also tried fleshing them out more so that you're not just getting a one-to-one name, and I can offer the comps the appropriate cloudiness. Note, as a general rule, that these comps are meant to be more stylistic (similar look, attributes or profile) than projection. If you want to understand why I've always been so reluctant to use them in my work, it's fully explained in my guide to scouting. And if you're just a sucker for a quick one-to-one mental image and you want to browse through the names and skip the explainer, then I suppose I can't stop you. Either way, consider this my final gift to you before the draft. I don't always agree with the default, common comp, but when people draw a line between Heiskanen and Schaefer, I can absolutely see it. I've heard others use Jake Sanderson, but I think Schaefer and Sanderson defend differently, and I think Schaefer has more natural offense and gets even higher grades for his skating and smarts (two attributes which were Sanderson's calling card). Advertisement Misa was the player I had the toughest time with in this exercise. I think there's a little Dylan Larkin in his profile. I think there's a little Sam Reinhart in his profile (though he's a much better skater than Reinhart was). I think there's some early years Paul Stastny to him when Stastny was a 70-plus point guy, but again, he's a better skater and will have a better career and a high peak in all likelihood. I think there's some Logan Couture, but again, I didn't love it. And then I started going back in time and arrived at Hossa, which felt too lofty as a Hall of Famer but fit for me as a player type. Both are 6-foot-1 and are skilled, but can play in different ways. I've always admired Hossa's career for the different chapters it had and the different players he was over time. I think Misa could become different things depending on his linemates, his role and his usage. It's still not perfect, but it was the closest I came. Hagens uses the middle Hughes brother, and that's a comp you heard people use about him early on at the program. But despite the similarities in the way they handle the puck and their skating style, I think Hughes is more gifted/talented as a game-breaker, and I think Hagens has shown a more competitive spirit at the same age, which aligns him closer to Cooley's style of play. I think Cooley's a pretty close comp, though I do think Hagens has room to produce a little bit more if he reaches his ceiling. Martone uses the Tkachuk brothers and Corey Perry as his comps, and I've had other people use each of those as well, but those guys run hotter than he does. I've often thought about Scheifele — the No. 7 pick in his draft year — with his 6-foot-3, 200-pound listing, his 35-40 goals and 70-80 points per season, and his combination of skill, size and leadership with average skating. The position is the difference there. Some have used Jonathan Toews, and while I get it, I'm not going to position Desnoyers as a future Hall of Famer here. The names above feel more natural and likely comps. All are around 6-1 and are two-way centers who understand the details, the little things that contribute to winning and have provided legit offense (though in Monahan's case, it's been more inconsistent). Monahan was taken sixth and Lindholm was taken fifth. I think Desnoyers probably has a better career than Monahan and Lindholm and is a better prospect at the same age, but there are a lot of lines to draw between him and them. Hischier is within reach as well, though I don't think they fit together quite as well stylistically. I've had people toss around Aleksander Barkov and Anze Kopitar, but I don't think we're talking about that level of defensive conscience/impact. They're perennial Selke favorites and two of the best two-way centers in the history of the game. I thought about Sean Couturier, but that didn't feel like a fit either. I think Lundell or Schenn with a bigger shot and a little more offense (Schenn has been a high-50s guy who broke 60 twice and hit 70 once, and I think Frondell can be a consistent 60s guy) feels closer. Advertisement There aren't many players of Mrtka's size in the NHL, and I don't think he has the hardness that guys such as Colton Parayko, Aaron Ekblad, Nikita Zadorov and Erik Cernak do, or the offensive ceiling that we've seen Dougie Hamilton get to. I see some Power and Simon Edvinsson in his length, skating and poise, but Power had more pedigree at the same age, and Edvinsson is more physical (the same goes for Moritz Seider). Dobson isn't a perfect one-to-one, but I think there are some similarities there as well. Both of those names feel a little too high-end for Mrtka, but I don't think they're unreasonable. Eklund's comp for himself is Konecny because of his motor, but I don't think Eklund quite has that level of rat. I thought about Conor Garland and Brendan Gallagher for the same reasons, but his game isn't as muddy and chippy as theirs either. He has the non-stop hunting and tracking, but it's more direct from one battle to the next, and he's not trying to hold and pin guys down in quite the same way to be effective on the forecheck. He wants to get in and out of his battles quicker, and there's more smarts and execution in between, which brought me to Marchessault. There are a lot of parallels between O'Brien and Johnston. Both are 6-foot-1 and will play at about the same weight (a lean 180-something pounds). They impact the game primarily through their offensive and defensive IQs, are above-average skaters and played in the OHL. They're both from Toronto and have almost the same birthdays. Johnston's a little more well-rounded, I think. O'Brien has shown more puck skill/playmaking at the same age, but Johnston's pre-draft profile was obviously impacted by the pandemic, and I think O'Brien should be reaching for the 124-point post-draft campaign that Johnston had in Windsor. Richards and Bennett were two of the comps I arrived at most easily. They're both ultimate competitors who were/are the heart and soul of their teams, elevated in tough moments, and played with an undying intensity and physical edge despite their average size. I think Martin can be that guy for a team. McQueen gave Ryan Getzlaf to teams and the media, but I'm not sure I see him as a captain or the competitive center of a team in the same way Getzlaf was. He also doesn't fit the Tage Thompson or Mikko Rantanen comp that all of the tall forwards in every class seem to give now, and Aliaksei Protas is 240-plus pounds. Vilardi, Hayes and Wheeler are the three I kept coming back to (and not because of Vilardi's back history, but because of the player). Wheeler also had some of the Getzlaf intensity that I'm not quite sure McQueen has, but all three are really smart offensive thinkers of the game for their size who made a career of having great poise and feel on the puck. I think McQueen's got a higher ceiling than Vilardi and Hayes, but those guys feel like his floor. Advertisement Carbonneau was one of the tougher players to come up with a proper comp for. I thought about Jake DeBrusk and Rakell, but Carbonneau has more pure puck skill than those two did at the same age. I think there's a little J.T. Miller or Alex Tuch to his game, but those guys have a couple of inches on him. Ultimately, Rakell felt the closest. He has broken 60 points three times and 70 points once, and has been a consistent 45-50-point guy in between. He has also scored 30-plus goals three times. I think Carbonneau can have a career like that. Aitcheson uses Charlie McAvoy as his comp, but I don't think he rises to that No. 1 level. In terms of his physicality and hardness, he actually reminds me of players such as Radko Gudas and Tyler Tucker, but Aitcheson's ceiling is way higher than those two, and he has shown much more offense than they ever did in junior. The two I've gone to are Montour and Dumba, two 6-foot-1ish D who play staunch and competitive styles (Montour has really leaned into his physical nature more in the last few years) and play firm on both sides of the puck. They have each had very productive seasons over the course of their careers, but can also just give you 30-40 points and focus on defending hard. I think Aitcheson will have a better, more consistent career than Dumba, but probably never reach the heights that Montour did when he had 70-plus points that one year in Florida. He's meaner than Montour, even today, too. I see a little Rasmus Andersson and Bowen Byram as well. Holloway had more strength/power at the same age, but otherwise, there are some similarities in their games, toolkits, style of play and approach. They're also obviously both left-handed wingers. I think Bear has a little more sense/skill than Holloway did at the same age, but Holloway had a bit more pop to his shot/stride. They play driven, competitive, physical, straight-line games. This is one of a couple of comps that I actually used in my reports this year. I see some similarities between Reschny and Jarvis at the same age as 5-foot-10 WHL centers who produced 90-plus points in their draft years. They were among the best two-way forwards in their class, earning high marks for their work ethic, competitiveness, defensive commitment and smarts on both sides of it, and were real drivers for their teams at an early age. Jarvis would be a best-case outcome for Reschny and has become a top two-way forward in the NHL while still providing skill and offense, but I think that's what Reschny should be reaching for/who he should be studying. I don't think Nazar or Skinner are perfect. Nazar's a little more competitive/interior driven than Potter, but Nazar went 13th, and Potter is going to go later than that. There are similarities in size, skating and handling (Potter might actually be even faster than Nazar, which is saying something). Thomas Harley has been a common comp for Smith, and while there are similarities in the athletic profile and the decision-making learning that both needed at the same age, Harley was much more active/ambitious in transition at the same age. Chychrun's a more natural comp for me. They're really strong, well-built, athletic players who faced questions about their reads/decision-making, but have clear tools and ability. The big thing teams have wanted to see out of Lakovic is just more consistency and competitiveness shift to shift and game to game. He's big and has all of the tools of skill, skating, scoring, etc. That has been Dubois throughout his career. I think there's a little bit of that in Jason Robertson, Tomas Hertl and Drake Batherson as well, but I think Dubois' play style/tools are closer to Lakovic's. Advertisement I had someone float Josh Morrissey with me, but I don't think Reid has that level of offense in his projection. Mateychuk is actually a player comp I used in my Reid draft profile throughout the year (which is normally something I try to avoid). I think it's a very close comp. Mateychuk had more pedigree at the same age, but he also went 12th, and Reid is going to go in the mid-teens. They're 5-foot-11/6-foot D who are plus-level skaters and thinkers of the game, excel on offense and in defending and are very well-regarded for the way they carry themselves and lead. I'm really comfortable with this comp. I think Skjei and Severson both work. They're 6-2/6-3 and play between 200-210 pounds (which is where I think Hensler will get, though more likely around 200). They have good tools (skating, passing, carrying, etc.). But they're also the classic what I like to call 'in-between defensemen' who can give you 30-40 points, have played in the top four on their teams and can contribute on both special teams but have never elevated to true PP1/PK1/first-pairing studs and are paid accordingly (Severson made around $4.17 million per year and then $6.25 million on his two big contracts, and Skjei made $5.25 million and then $7 million on his). (Photos of Matthew Schaefer, Miro Heiskanen: Michael Miller / ISI Photos / Getty Images, Steph Chambers / Getty Images)
Yahoo
13-06-2025
- Sport
- Yahoo
Otters' Schaefer awarded with CHL top draft prospect award
Otters defenseman Matthew Schaefer was recognized by the CHL as the league's top draft prospect award winner. The 17-year-old, Schaefer, is the second Otter to receive that recognition with Connor McDavid being the other back in 2015. Schaefer, a former number one overall pick in the OHL priority selection back in 2023 who had his season cut short after suffering a broken collarbone in December, totaled 22 points in 17 games this past season. Currently ranked as the #1 North American Skater by NHL Central Scouting and projected to go first overall in the NHL Entry Draft in Los Angeles on June 27, this award adds to the list of accolades for Schaefer. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
13-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Franklin Electric Announces Repurchase of Company Shares
FORT WAYNE, Ind., June 13, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Franklin Electric Co., Inc. (NASDAQ: FELE) is pleased to announce the successful completion of a stock purchase transaction involving shares held within the Patricia Schaefer Settlement Trust, a trust established by the late Patricia Schaefer. The purchase transaction involved the acquisition of 1,200,000 shares of the Company's common stock at a price equal to $86.78 per share, which was the volume-weighted average price of the stock on NASDAQ for the five trading days preceding today's closing. Joe Ruzynski, Chief Executive Officer of Franklin Electric, commented on the transaction, stating, 'We were saddened to learn of the passing of Patricia Schaefer, a pillar of her community and the daughter of our founder. As we had the option to repurchase shares, we were pleased to be able to provide a source of liquidity for Ms. Schaefer's estate to satisfy its tax obligations. This purchase also reflects our confidence in Franklin Electric's strong balance sheet, cash flow generation, our strategic plans, and our future. We are proud to demonstrate our belief in the company's enduring prospects while simultaneously supporting the needs of the Schaefer estate.' In connection with the purchase transaction, the Company's Board of Directors approved an increase to the Company's share repurchase authorization of 1,200,000 shares of common stock, such that after the transaction described herein, the Company will continue to be authorized to repurchase up to an aggregate 1,126,635 shares of its common stock. Franklin Electric is a global leader in the production and marketing of systems and components for the movement of water and energy. Recognized as a technical leader in its products and services, Franklin Electric serves customers worldwide in residential, commercial, agricultural, industrial, municipal, and fueling applications. Franklin Electric is proud to be recognized in Newsweek's lists of America's Most Responsible Companies 2024, Most Trustworthy Companies 2024, and Greenest Companies 2025; Best Places to Work in Indiana 2024; and America's Climate Leaders 2024 by USA Today. 'Safe Harbor' Statement under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Any forward-looking statements contained herein, including those relating to market conditions or the Company's financial results, costs, expenses or expense reductions, profit margins, inventory levels, foreign currency translation rates, liquidity expectations, business goals and sales growth, involve risks and uncertainties, including but not limited to, risks and uncertainties with respect to general economic and currency conditions, various conditions specific to the Company's business and industry, weather conditions, new housing starts, market demand, competitive factors, changes in distribution channels, supply constraints, effect of price increases, raw material costs, technology factors, integration of acquisitions, litigation, government and regulatory actions, the Company's accounting policies, future trends, epidemics and pandemics, and other risks which are detailed in the Company's Securities and Exchange Commission filings, included in Item 1A of Part I of the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2024, Exhibit 99.1 attached thereto and in Item 1A of Part II of the Company's Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q. These risks and uncertainties may cause actual results to differ materially from those indicated by the forward-looking statements. All forward-looking statements made herein are based on information currently available, and the Company assumes no obligation to update any forward-looking statements. Contact: Russ Fleeger Franklin Electric Co., Inc. 260.824.2900Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
13-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
What is NIL Go, and why is it the latest subject of debate among college sports leaders?
ORLANDO, Fla. — The man steps onto a raised platform, walks behind a podium and leans toward the microphone. Before him, more than 200 college athletic administrators shift to the front of their seats. For months now, they've been waiting for this moment. Advertisement 'I'm Karl,' the man says, 'with Deloitte.' Karl Schaefer is a young man with perfectly cropped hair, a sharp grin and slender frame. He is here to lead a 40-minute presentation on the single most talked-about concept of college athletics' new revenue-sharing era: the Deloitte-run clearinghouse dubbed 'NIL Go.' Though it remains unsaid by those in power, the goal of NIL Go is quite clear: prevent booster payments to athletes that, for four years now, have been masquerading as commercial and endorsement deals. As Schaefer flips through slides of the NIL Go software system, for the first time revealed publicly, whispers within the room build to murmurs. Attendees capture slides with photos. Some video the entire event. Others scribble notes on a pad. How Deloitte and the new enforcement entity, the College Sports Commission, plan to prevent booster pay is the target of much criticism and fascination — plenty of it shrouded in secrecy for the last many months. Advertisement In central Florida, at an annual conference of administrators this week, the shroud was at least partially lifted. Not only was the platform's interface shown on a giant projection screen during Schaefer's presentation — including the six-step submission and approval process — but, in interviews with Yahoo Sports or during other public presentations, college sports executives who helped craft the system answered questions that, up to this point, had remained unanswered. While many doubt that the clearinghouse will withstand inevitable legal challenges, administrators here provided legitimate reasons for why they believe in its long-term survival. Most notable of those, says NCAA president Charlie Baker, is that the clearinghouse's appeals process — arbitration — is equipped with subpoena powers. 'They do have that power,' Baker told Yahoo Sports this week. 'Arbitration typically has subpoena power and I'm pretty sure since this one sits inside an injunction, they will have it.' Officials at the power conferences confirmed that 'significant subpoena powers' exist under the arbitration appeals process, but those powers are less expansive than subpoena authority within a courtroom. The decision to use subpoena powers and how exactly to use them — limited or broad — is expected to rest with the arbitrator presiding over the appeals process. Advertisement A subpoena compels individuals or entities to produce evidence under penalty of law, such as turning over text messages, emails and phone call logs as well as testifying before investigators. It is one of the more important tools for officers of the law, such as police investigators — and something that was never available to the NCAA enforcement staff. 'We won't have complete subpoena power, but if an athlete goes into arbitration … those records, you can get access to some of those records,' said Ohio State athletic director Ross Bjork, who is a member of a settlement implementation committee that helped construct the new enforcement entity. 'It's going to be a new day.' The algorithm Back in the Deloitte presentation room, Schaefer is explaining the submission process for NIL Go. Athletes are required to submit third-party NIL deals of $600 or more using a web-based submission system, not unlike an online registration system for, say, a passport. Advertisement Shaefer explains, gesturing toward a giant projection screen, that the clearinghouse makes three determinations once a deal is submitted: Is the third party an 'associated entity' with the university, such as a booster, or a business contracted with a school like a university sponsor or apparel brand? If so, more intense scrutiny is applied in the vetting process. Public companies can, and many of them will, be deemed as associated entities. Is the deal for a 'valid business purpose?" The third-party business, brand or individual must be receiving true value from the activities, such as an autograph session, television commercial or speaking engagement. Is the deal within Deloitte's 'range of compensation' paid to similarly situated individuals? This is perhaps the most criticized of the concepts. Deloitte created 'the range of compensation' through an algorithm using fair market value analysis, comparing similar types of NIL deals struck between an athlete and the third party. More is now known about that algorithm. Clemson athletic director Graham Neff, one of the implementation committee members, details the factors used to form a compensation range: 'Athletic performance is a big part of it. Your social media reach and following. Market — where schools are at. The reach of your school within said market.' This will vary by school. Neff offers an example. 'The reach of Georgia Tech in Atlanta is different than the reach of Georgia State,' he says. Advertisement Neff believes that a 'majority' of NIL deals will derive from 'associated companies,' as school sponsors, multi-media rights partners and individual alumni and boosters work to provide universities with additional compensation so they can exceed the $20.5 million revenue sharing cap that each school is afforded. Third-party NIL compensation that passes the clearinghouse does not count against the cap. Even those who helped craft the new enforcement entity acknowledge that the system is attempting to do a very difficult thing: bring regulation to an enterprise that has, for four years now, seen little to no regulation or enforcement of athlete compensation. 'There's some toothpaste back in the tube a little bit given the environment,' Neff said. For example, Deloitte officials claim that 70% of past deals from booster collectives would have been denied in their algorithm, while 90% of past deals from public companies would have been approved. Deloitte has also shared with officials that about 80% of NIL deals with public companies were valued at less than $10,000 and 99% of those deals were valued at less than $100,000. Advertisement These figures suggest that the clearinghouse threatens to significantly curtail the millions of dollars that school-affiliated, booster-backed collectives are distributing to athletes. 'No one is trying to restrict someone's earning potential, but what we're trying to say is, 'What is the real market?'' Bjork says. 'Everybody you talk to about the pro market will tell you that NIL deals for pro athletes are really small. In the collective world, we created a false market.' Denial, approval and arbitration Displayed on the giant screen before hundreds of athletic administrators is the six-step clearinghouse submission and approval process. Advertisement Step 6 lays out the process for a player if his or her deal is denied by the clearinghouse because it either is not struck for a valid business purpose or it does not meet the compensation range. (1) Revise and resubmit the deal so that the compensation amount falls within the algorithm's range. For instance, if the clearinghouse deems that a submitted $1 million deal should be $500,000, the athlete can resubmit for $500,000 and the school, if it so chooses, can compensate the athlete for the other $500,000 through its revenue-share pool. (2) Cancel the deal completely. (3) Request arbitration as an appeals process. Advertisement (4) Accept the rejected deal as is. In this case, the athlete 'may face enforcement consequences (e.g., loss of eligibility),' the Deloitte presentation slide reads. According to settlement terms, attorneys for the plaintiffs (the suing athletes) and defendants (NCAA and power conferences) will work together to select a neutral arbitrator or arbitrators to preside over these cases. Individual arbitration processes are expected to last no more than 45 days. In an interview last fall, plaintiff lawyer Jeffrey Kessler described the arbitration as a trial-like set of hearings in front of an arbitrator — the new enforcement entity on one side (NCAA and power conferences) and the athlete on the other side. NCAA president Charlie Baker says the new NIL enforcement process will add accountability to the system, as long as athletes and schools follow the rules. (Photo by) (Kevin Dietsch via Getty Images) How an arbitrator rules may 'depend on what evidence' each side produces, Kessler said. As Baker and others have noted, that evidence may now be generated through limited subpoena power. Advertisement But one lingering question remains: Will an athlete's school fight alongside him or her in the case? 'I expect that if the athlete pursues it, the school will support the athlete and help provide the athlete with counsel to help represent them in that challenge,' Kessler said. Penalties for NIL violations Implementation committee members say they are finalizing a 'menu' of penalties for those found to commit violations within this new revenue-sharing era, most notably those found to have (1) circumvented the cap with old-fashioned cheating or intentional or accidental miscalculations; and (2) tampered with another college athlete or prospect who is under contract. Officials decided against using a set penalty matrix as the NCAA currently does (Level I, Level II, etc.). Instead, they are providing the new College Sports Commission CEO, Brian Seeley, with the flexibility to choose penalties from a wide range of options, depending on the individual circumstance. Advertisement 'Those penalties being worked through are going to be significant and are going to be different than any penalties we've had previously,' said new Michigan State athletic director J Batt, a member of the implementation committee. An example of a new kind of penalty is a reduction in transfers that a school can acquire from the portal, Bjork says. But there are others. A postseason ban remains among the penalties, said Desiree Reed-Francois, the Arizona athletic director and implementation committee member. There are also stiff fines — multi-million dollars in value — that may be levied against schools, administrators and coaches. Suspensions, for coaches and administrators, are on the penalty menu as well. 'The fines are substantive,' Reed-Francois says. Advertisement One penalty is off the table. Administrators say that reducing a school's revenue-share pool for subsequent years is not permitted. The settlement guarantees that schools are afforded the same revenue share pool. Pushback The clearinghouse has made its way to the U.S. Capitol. During a congressional hearing over college sports on Thursday, Rep. Lori Trahan, a Democrat from Massachusetts, chided college leaders for instituting a new enforcement process that 'guarantees people in power always win and the athletes who fuel this multi-billion dollar industry always lose.' One of the witnesses in that hearing, Ramogi Huma, the executive director of the National College Players Association, chimed in as well, accusing the NCAA and conference leadership as wanting to 'shut down boosters' ability to pay players just to monopolize it' themselves. Advertisement College executives reject these notions and consider all of these elements — even the new enforcement process — as protected by a legally binding settlement. The new enforcement entity was not created by committee members in some 'backroom,' Bjork says. The implementation committee only provided structure to an enforcement piece that is 'codified' within the settlement. 'There are processes here that have been approved by the court and the plaintiffs and the defendants that people are going to be expected to follow,' Baker told Yahoo Sports. 'Given so much of what's been going on in the third-party space hasn't been accountable or transparent, and has made a lot of people outside of college athletics a lot of money, I can understand why there might be some grumpiness about this.' Soon, power conference schools — and others opting into the settlement — are expected to sign an affiliation or membership agreement. With this binding document, schools waive their right to sue over enforcement decisions and commit to settlement terms, even if their state laws contradict them. The agreement — itself the subject of legal concerns, even from some schools — is an indictment on an industry of stakeholders that, for competitive reasons, are constantly scrambling to bend, break and shatter rules to gain even the slightest edge. Advertisement Earlier this week in Orlando, members of the implementation committee publicly implored schools to follow rules. 'This has to be a mindset change,' Bjork told the audience. 'We see all the reports and naysayers, that 'we're going to go back to old-school cheating and all these things and that this is not going to work.' This has to work.' 'This will work if we make it work,' Reed-Francois said. 'We need to shift our mindset and make this work.' Can it be done? But what if athletes decide not to submit any of their third-party deals at all? 'People will be turning in people,' Reed-Francois said. 'There's a lot more `transparency now.' Advertisement Back in the convention hall, Schaefer, from Deloitte, is winding down his presentation. He thanks the crowd before beginning to walk off the stage. From among the crowd, a few raised hands emerge. Folks have questions. Others in the audience remind the hand-raisers of something announced before the presentation began: The Deloitte employees are not taking questions.
Yahoo
13-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
'It's going to be very, very good for Springfield': Kearney Street Redevelopment Plan announced by City of Springfield
SPRINGFIELD, Mo. — The City of Springfield announced it plans to reestablish the Kearney Street Corridor Redevelopment Plan. According to the City of Springfield, the redevelopment area is a 3.5-mile section of Kearney Street, from North Albertha Avenue just west of Kansas Expressway Avenue to a point approximately 900 feet east of North Glenstone Avenue, generally extending 300 feet north and south of the street. Registered neighborhoods adjacent to the corridor are Tom Watkins, Woodland Heights, Robberson and Doling. The plan was initially established in 2018 but expired in 2023 due to sunset provisions requiring City Council approval every five years. 'It is our intention to re-adopt the redevelopment plan so that we can once again have that incentive in place along the Kearney Street Corridor,' says Senior Planner, Matt Schaefer. 'We would like to use this as an opportunity also to make necessary adjustments or modifications to the redevelopment plan so that it more closely aligns with the recently adopted forward STF Comprehensive Plan and the New Development Code.' Schaefer continues, stating that the plan will promote engagement and revitalization. 'The idea is that it would improve the quality of life within the neighborhoods that are adjacent to the corridor as well as provide additional shopping and restaurant opportunities on the north side of Springfield,' said Schaefer. I spoke to London Evans, whose family owns Another Comic Shop on Kearney. She tells me that this project could bring more people towards their store. 'I think it's going to bring a lot more people,' says Evans, 'both from the older people who used to drive down and some of the newer who've been here for a few years. And every change, no matter how small, has brought in a number of new people.' Steven Deskins, another local business owner in the community, is hopeful that the plan will help to get people to invest in the area again. 'I think it's going to be very, very good for Springfield. There's a lot of cool things in this area on the north side.' Deskins continues, 'And, you know, Kearney Street used to be the busiest street in Springfield. So, to be able to bring that back, there's a lot of history here. I think it's really cool.' The City of Springfield is hosting a public input meeting on June 24 from 6 to 7 p.m., where residents and businesses can help shape and improve the plan. 'I think feedback from the community is very important,' adds Deskins. 'So, you know, we can communicate to the people that are making the decisions on what actually needs to be done in our community. So, I think that's very, very important. And, you know, maybe something I attend.' For more information, please visit the City of Springfield website. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
