Kansas City seems to be a good fit for a certain type of stubbornness. Voters in Jackson County rejected a ballpark financed by sales taxes by a significant margin two years ago. It seemed like a clear message. And yet here we are, with the Kansas City City Council voting 11-1 to proceed with the Royals’ new downtown stadium, this time at Crown Center, along with a collaboration with Hallmark Cards that, to be honest, no one had anticipated even a year ago.
It’s important to take a moment to comprehend how this situation differs from the typical stadium subsidy disputes that have occurred in places like Oakland and Cincinnati.
This time, tax-increment financing, or TIF, is used as the funding source instead of a direct county sales tax. The distinction is more important than it may seem. In order to pay off a $600 million city-backed bond, the city is proposing to leverage new sales and earnings tax revenue generated within a designated stadium district rather than collecting money from every Jackson County shopper and giving it to the teams. The Royals and the state of Missouri will pay the remaining $1.9 billion of the project’s total cost. Mario Vasquez, the city manager, has been cautious to characterize this as an initial step—opening the door to negotiations rather than writing a check.
The Hallmark layer is what truly sets the Crown Center site apart. The new complex would be constructed at the intersection of Pershing Road and Gillham Road, close to East 25th Street, where Hallmark currently has its corporate headquarters. The stadium would return the iconic Royals crown to its birthplace, according to Don Hall Jr., executive chairman of Hallmark. That’s either excellent marketing or a lovely example of civic storytelling. Maybe both. Washington Square Park is incorporated into the design of the 85-acre development, which is centered around a park-like central square with fountains.
According to sources, the deal was completed in a few weeks following months of more subdued preparation between Hall and Royals CEO John Sherman, who have been acquainted for many years. One of those minor but crucial details that seldom makes the news but frequently determines whether a deal like this occurs at all is that personal relationship.
However, the opposition is organized and genuine. The same organizations that opposed the 2024 ballot measure, KC Tenants, the Missouri Workers Center, and Stand Up KC, are vigorously resisting. Johnathan Duncan, a council member, has suggested using petition signatures to compel a citywide referendum. Although the political landscape isn’t ideal, it’s still unclear if that endeavor would succeed.
Both Kauffman Stadium’s lease and the previous arrangement, a 3/8-cent Jackson County sales tax that was approved in 2006 and divided between the Chiefs and the Royals, expire in 2031. There is a deadline. The Royals are facing the actual end of an era, not just something new.
It seems like Kansas City is attempting to do something it hasn’t done well in the past: create a stadium agreement that feels more rooted in the city’s real future than just the team’s short-term requirements. Unresolved details will determine whether the TIF structure fulfills that promise. Before taking any further action, the Tax Increment Financing Commission still demands 45 days of public notice. Many things are subject to change.
As this develops, it’s difficult to ignore the fact that Kansas City’s efforts are situated at a truly unique nexus of financial risk, corporate legacy, and civic identity. The majority of stadium debates in the United States are essentially repetitions of the same argument. This one has a greeting card business, a historic neighborhood, a recent ballot measure that was rejected, and a city that continues to grow.
