John Sherman wrote a letter about a downtown stadium, but didn't say anything new

Nancy Howser, Bo Jackson bobbleheads and Game 6 of the 1985 World Series are mentioned, though! Along with what are the now-usual vague details. Specifics must be for another time.

When it comes to drumming up interest or excitement for a new stadium, the Royals are losing the PR battle. Badly.

A new stadium for the Royals is always going to be a difficult sell. Kauffman is beloved and a fine place to watch a ballgame. Could the stadium be better? Would it be cool if the amenities around the ballpark were more than a Taco Bell and a BP station? For sure! But I think—and I feel fairly certain that most Royals fans would agree—any criticism of The K is just picking at nits.

Combine a positive sentiment to the current home with a season that has been just absolutely abysmal in the win-loss column with no hope for improvement on the immediate horizon, along with an organization that can’t (or won’t) provide specific details for their new stadium such as location and the exact amount of funding they will be hitting up the taxpayers for, and it’s understandable how this has gained next to no traction among supporters of the team.

If the Royals are going to get the public support necessary to move downtown (or to Clay County…lol), they’re going to need to step up the effort. Since this is looking like it will land on the ballot in April, they need to start generating some kind of enthusiasm immediately.

Perhaps that was the impetus behind Chairman and CEO of the Royals, John Sherman’s open letter released on Tuesday, which other than a couple of vague timetables, said nothing new.

If you were reading that letter and looking for details such as location or specific amounts of funding, you were sorely disappointed. The entire first page was mostly a waste of time where Sherman mentions meeting Nancy Howser, the widow of manager Dick Howser, and then goes on to name-check some of the recent civic achievements such as the new airport terminal, being a World Cup host city in 2026 and the new stadium under construction for the Current. Overall, the letter was just another reminder that, other than a public wishlist that is hazy at best, most details remain sketchy at this point. Although, there were a couple of details worth noting. He gets down to business at the bottom of the first page, fifth paragraph. Emphasis on the following quotes from the letter is Sherman’s.

Many of you have expressed that you would like to hear more information on our new ballpark district vision. In the next 30 days, we plan to share an overview of the ballpark district, including the broad benefits of the two sites under consideration - one in Jackson County and one in Clay County. We are putting both sites through an equally rigorous process. We look forward to unveiling detailed renderings and many other components that will help us compare the broad benefits of both sites.

So sometime in August the Royals will sketch out their vision for the ballpark district.

This doesn’t really interest me. Sherman has said that the “village” will be financed by the ownership group, which is the way it should be. They’re the ones who will profit. Let them build it on their dime.

“Broad benefits” being mentioned twice just makes me think this is the new buzzword surrounding this project.

The whole Clay County thing has a real Pittsburgh Penguins talking to The Sprint Center vibe. If you’re going to put a ballpark in a flat expanse of concrete, why wouldn’t you just keep it where Interstates 70 and 435 intersect? You know, a place that people can actually reach. I just have my doubts Clay County has the means to build out what Sherman and the Royals want. But they do provide a nice local threat to Jackson County. That is their role in this play.

Since Sherman and the ownership group are expecting taxpayers to foot part of the bill (the details on exactly how much remain murky), I’m more interested in his vision for the stadium. And you can’t build a new stadium without selling the alleged benefits.

We will create a world-class ballpark that keeps pace with our peers nationwide, brings to Kansas Citians a dynamic and energized ballpark experience, and is woven into the fabric of our region. Anchored by the new ballpark, the construction project alone is expected to generate over 20,000 jobs, $1.4 billion in labor income and $2.8 billion in total economic output from construction and labor income during the 3-plus years it will take to build it.

The bold part is interesting because it may, in fact, be true. There is some restraint on the part of the Royals and Sherman here. They have resisted the words that normally pepper these releases, such as “new” or “additional.” They are not claiming that they are creating new jobs, because that would be blatantly false. They are talking about estimated employment numbers and the money that will be spent on labor and material. Clever. They write this knowing local media will breathlessly take this word salad and quote these as something they’re not. Sure enough…

According to Sherman's letter, the $2 billion ballpark and entertainment district is set to generate more than 20,000 jobs, $2.8 billion in total economic output, $1.4 in labor income and $185 million more in regional economic output in its first year than Kauffman Stadium produces.

So close! The write-up from the KSHB website forgot to read beyond the bold text. That’s $2.8 billion from construction and labor income. That’s not the same as just “total economic output.” As far as I can tell, this is merely the real cost of building the stadium and entertainment district. You know, construction and labor, which is noted in the letter. It’s just not in that bold font that catches the eye. The jobs that will be generated are likewise for the construction project. From that text, it sounds like those jobs will be from the finished product. Do better, KSHB.

The Star likewise got it wrong.

In the letter, Sherman shared his financial projections for the ballpark district. He believes the project will create more than 20,000 jobs, $1.4 billion in labor income and $2.8 billion in total economic output from construction and labor income.

I read “create” different from “generate.” Create is to make something new. In this context, it sounds like the jobs will be new jobs that otherwise wouldn’t exist. That’s not the case. An electrician may work on the project for a few months. If the ballpark build didn’t exist that electrician just wouldn’t be sitting around, doing nothing. They would find other work. It also sounds like “the project” that will “create” these jobs entails the finished product. As in, these are the jobs that will happen once everything is built. Again, this is the media carrying the water for the Royals.

I mean, would it have killed them to cut and paste like I just did? You know, for journalistic accuracy?

About that “$185 million more in regional economic output in its first year” that is quoted from the KSHB story above…Here’s where they got that from in Sherman’s letter:

This project will be a huge economic boost for the region. It will spur meaningful development around the ballpark and adjacent neighborhoods, both in the short and long-term. We anticipate that the inaugural year of the new ballpark is expected to generate some $185 million more in regional economic output than The K does today.

Uhhhhh…no.

First off, these developments don’t provide a “huge economic boost” for the region. This is just a simple economic fact. The “boost” is money that would have been spent elsewhere in the region that is diverted to the new ballpark. For example, maybe you’d spend a little more going to the ballgame than you would catching a Barbie/Oppenheimer double feature, but the real economic impact is far from the number Sherman is throwing around. Are you going to have a few drinks and apps in the new “ballpark village” before heading into the game? You’re probably going to grab dinner before you go to that movie.

Simply put, the suggestion that the ballpark would generate $185 million more in economic output is fanciful. Without attribution, it’s unreliable. Even with attribution, it would be suspect, given that the numbers teams provide come from organizations on their payroll. You know, to convince you the stadium is good economics.

From economist J.C. Bradbury last November in The Center Square:

"The economic impact claims made by Kansas City's owner are not credible, and no one should take them seriously. They are nothing more than propaganda intended to support requests for taxpayer assistance."

"Economists have studied the economic effects of stadiums extensively finding little to no impacts on host economies. There is universal agreement among economists that stadiums are not economic development catalysts. It's why stadium subsidy supporters have to pay consultants to concoct these bogus numbers."

Would there be a bump in economic output? I would say yes, there would be some. Would it be anywhere near what Sherman claims it will be? I would say most assuredly no.

Do you know who would truly benefit from a “huge economic boost” should a new stadium be built? The owners.

Don’t forget, the Royals believe that not only is The K no longer “state of the art,” whatever that means, it’s falling apart. From The Star last January:

To reinforce that argument, the team’s consultants have emphasized the need to fix or replace whole sections of The K if the team were to stay put for decades to come. A number of cracks have developed and over time up to 70 percent of the stadium would have to be rebuilt, the team says.

According to experts at the Kansas City-based sports architecture firm Populous, the structure suffers from something called alkali silica reaction, or ASR. Moisture absorbed by the concrete causes the material to swell, crack and crumble, which is called spalling. “This is typically known as cancer of the concrete,” Sarah Dempster, a principal at Populous, said at a public meeting last month.

“Getting another 30 years of life out of the concrete could require major removal and replacement of the concrete that is affected by the ASR.”

Wow. Concrete cancer! That sounds really bad. Like a huge crumbling chunk of concrete could break off and smash into my section.

However as The Star pointed out, the concrete being in poor shape was news to the Jackson County Sports Authority, which conducts annual inspections of the facility. They recently graded the concrete at both The K and Arrowhead as “satisfactory.”

Speaking of Arrowhead, here’s Chiefs team president Mark Donovan to Sports Illustrated last week:

…if everything plays out the way we think it’s going to play out, our preference is to upgrade and renovate the stadium and make GEHA Field at Arrowhead even better. We’ve gone through the process and made some progress there. There are still three viable options on the table and we’ve got to do the due diligence on: renovate/upgrade, build new on-site, or build new somewhere else. All three of those options are still part of our dialogue.

“We’ve learned a lot in this process. The good news is we think the building itself is actually, structurally, pretty sound, which gives us the opportunity [to renovate]. Having said that, we’ve learned that it’s going to take a significant annual investment to keep that building structurally sound. And the other thing we’ve learned on the good and the bad is, just like any project, there’s certain days where you get that phone call; it’s like, ‘Hey, we just found this. Might be an issue.’ And we’re talking about core samples of cement that was poured in 1970, those issues could be significant and they could factor into the decision.”

Did you catch that? Donovan says Arrowhead is “actually, structurally, pretty sound.” Weird! Given that both stadiums were constructed at the same time, by the same companies, using the same materials, at the same location, you would maybe think that if one stadium is spalling, the other one would have the same issue.

Yes, the concrete is over 50 years old. Yes, at some point it will start to degrade. I’m just not certain based on one study from Populus, who would I’m sure really like to be involved in a stadium project for the Royals, is enough evidence to write the whole stadium off as imminently doomed.

If the Chiefs believe can renovate Arrowhead, and are happy to do so, moving the Royals from The K becomes a much tougher sell.

Remember that vote back in 2006 that got the Royals $250 million in taxpayer funding to renovate The K? And remember how those renovations were completed prior to the 2010 season. Say…that was around 13 years ago. Apparently, that wasn’t enough because now we need a whole new stadium.

I’ve been on the record saying that I don’t care where the Royals play. I understand the affinity some hold toward Kauffman, and even though I practically grew up in section 117 in the 1970s, it’s just a building to me. I can’t get romantic or nostalgic about a building. Anyway, it’s a different place from when I was younger. There are ads all over the place. There are more fountains. The bullpens are different. You can walk around the entire stadium. Hell, section 117 isn’t even in the same place.

The stadium has evolved and changed because voters agreed to fund renovations that were finished just 14 years ago. Now Sherman says the money you spent wasn’t good enough and he’s going to hit you up again. And months (or years) into this exploratory process, the details such as how much money they will be asking taxpayers to provide remain elusive.

If Sherman and his ownership group want a new stadium and entertainment district to surround it, that’s fine. Just let them pay for all of it.