The last time Missouri was in danger of losing an NFL franchise, deep disagreements between the governor and lawmakers over whether the state should pay for a new stadium led to litigation and the threat of a constitutional showdown.
It was 10 years ago when then-Gov. Jay Nixon and the legislature quarreled over a $1 billion plan to build a new St. Louis stadium for the Rams.
Expecting GOP resistance, Nixon, a Democrat, came up with a strategy that didn’t involve the legislature. That sparked a group of legislators to file a lawsuit to block Nixon’s plan and threaten to refuse to allocate money the governor committed to the stadium when the General Assembly reconvened in January 2016.
But that looming clash fizzled when the Rams announced an intention to move to Los Angeles two days before the 2016 session began. NFL owners overwhelmingly agreed to let them do it soon after.
A decade later, Republican Gov. Mike Kehoe is pushing a plan for the state to pay up to half the costs of a new stadium for the Kansas City Royals and renovations to Arrowhead Stadium for the Kansas City Chiefs.
Both teams have expressed interest in leaving Missouri when the lease on their current stadiums expire in 2030, and Kansas lawmakers have put a deal on the table that would use state incentives to pay for up to 70% of the costs of new stadiums.
Kehoe has one advantage Nixon didn’t — a legislature dominated by his own party. But while the governor successfully convinced the Missouri House to sign off on a stadium funding plan earlier this month in the final days of the session, the Senate was in no mood to play ball.
House Speaker Jon Patterson, a Lee’s Summit Republican, alerted his colleagues on Friday that the governor is expected to call the legislature back into session as early as next week to debate stadium funding. The governor may also include a $500 million construction package on the special session agenda, a move seen as vital to winning over support in the Senate for any stadium plan.
But with partisan tensions running high after a tumultuous end to the regular legislative session, and serious heartburn among Republicans over the idea of spending hundreds of millions to subsidize sports franchises, the outcome is anything but certain.
“I love the Kansas City Chiefs. I’m obnoxious during football season,” state Rep. Darin Chappell, a Republican from Rogersville, said in a recent interview with KSGF. “… But I’ve got constituents trying to pay their rent and feed themselves, and they’re struggling. And I’m going to take their money and give it to billionaires so multimillionaires can play in a prettier place? That’s obscene.”
Senate President Pro Tem Cindy O’Laughlin, a Shelbina Republican, said state funding for stadiums is “an easy demagogue topic.” But losing the teams to Kansas, she contends, would cost much more than the proposal put forth by the governor.
“My personal belief is both the direct and indirect dollars accruing to Missouri businesses from the Chiefs and Royals being located here far exceeds what they are asking,” she wrote on social media. “I also believe if they left the state it would tear out the heart of Missouri, leaving two big concrete structures as a forever reminder of what might have been.”
The Chiefs and the Royals face a deadline at the end of June on whether they will accept the offer from Kansas.
The proposal floated by Kehoe and set to be debated next week would pay up to half the cost — estimated to be up to $3 billion — as well as up to $50 million in tax credits for any direct investments made by the teams.
The stadium plan died in the regular session when the Senate twice used a rare procedural rule to end debate on controversial bills on abortion and paid sick leave. The move infuriated Democrats, who vowed the Senate will not function normally until they feel they can trust the GOP to work towards compromise.
There is also lingering bipartisan anger over the projects that were lost when the House sunk a capital improvements bill. The $513 million would have paid for projects at eight hospitals around the state, supported a new nuclear reactor at the University of Missouri to make cancer treatments and a new mental health hospital in Kansas City.
The rollout of Kehoe’s plan didn’t help soothe the tensions.
Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle complained that the governor kept the legislature in the dark on stadium funding plans, then demanded it sign off on the proposal with little debate and no details on the cost.
The lack of legislative involvement echoes 2015, when lawmakers took umbrage at Nixon’s efforts to work around them by trying to use existing incentive programs to help fund a new St. Louis stadium. Republicans and Democrats demanded Nixon either submit a proposal to the legislature or put it on the ballot for a vote.
“We will not stand idly by as the people of this state are committed to millions of dollars in debt without proper legislative approval or a public vote,” a group of House members said in a letter to Nixon at the time.
Lawmakers will get their wish this time around to have a say on whether Missouri taxpayers should help subsidize Kansas City stadiums.
Kehoe is optimistic, arguing that keeping the teams in Missouri “is a critical piece of economic development. And I’d like to see us make sure we can solidify our offer with legislative approval.”
