Bryan Stalder
Contributor

Just days after Kansas City voters overwhelmingly approved the renewal of the city’s earnings tax—a key funding source for basic services—city leaders unveiled a new proposal to bring a downtown baseball stadium to Washington Square Park.

The proposal, backed by Quinton Lucas, would position the stadium just east of Union Station as the potential home for a new stadium for the Kansas City Royals. This plan is estimated at roughly $1.9 billion and represents the latest turn in a years-long effort to relocate the team’s home from Kauffman Stadium to a downtown site.

Unlike a previous stadium effort—which went before voters and was ultimately rejected—this proposal is structured to move forward without a public vote.

Instead, the financing would rely in part on roughly $600 million assembled by Port KC, along with anticipated support from the state of Missouri and other public financing tools. Because Washington Square Park is already publicly owned land, the city would not need to sell the site outright; it could instead lease the property for stadium use, streamlining the process.

Supporters argue that approach could avoid the uncertainty of an election and accelerate development. But critics say it raises significant questions about transparency, public input, and the use of taxpayer-backed resources.

The announcement also comes after a previous downtown stadium proposal unraveled amid controversy.

Earlier plans initially centered on Kansas City’s East Village before shifting late in the process to the Crossroads Arts District—a change that caught many residents and business owners off guard and sparked intense backlash. That effort was further complicated by visible disagreements among local leaders, creating an impression of disunity that many observers said undermined public confidence.

The new Washington Square Park proposal is already generating its own wave of criticism—from across the political spectrum.

Several members of the Kansas City Council have voiced concerns about the plan and the process behind it.

Councilman Jonathan Duncan criticized the proposal for what he described as a lack of transparency and questioned the use of public resources to support a privately-owned team. “The people have a right to have a say in how their public dollars are spent, especially when we’re using them to incentivize a for-profit business for a for-profit entity owned by a billionaire,” Duncan said. 

Councilman Nathan Willett emphasized the importance of public input, arguing that voters should have a direct say in any major stadium deal. In a press release, Willett stated: “Public feedback is crucial before voting on any stadium proposal,” Willett said. “Any proposal should be approved by the taxpayers of Kansas City.”

Councilwoman Melissa Patterson Hazley joined Duncan and Willett as one of the few council members not to co-sponsor the proposal.

Outside City Hall, opposition has also been swift.

At the neighborhood level, some residents and local observers have expressed frustration with  a rapid succession of proposals, shifting locations, and evolving funding strategies that have made it difficult for the public to keep up.

Even among those open to a downtown stadium, concerns persist about the speed of the announcement and the decision to move forward without a public vote.

The timing has also drawn scrutiny.

The city’s announcement came shortly after voters approved the continuation of the earnings tax, which funds core services like police, fire, and infrastructure. While the two issues are not directly linked, some critics argue the sequencing raises questions about public trust and fiscal priorities.

For now, the Washington Square Park proposal remains in its early stages, with key details—including state participation and final financing mechanisms—still taking shape.

What is clear is that the debate over a downtown stadium in Kansas City is far from settled.

After one failed vote, a contentious process, and now a dramatically different approach, city leaders once again find themselves navigating a familiar question:

How to balance economic development ambitions with transparency, public input, and community trust.

And whether this latest plan will bring consensus—or simply continue the cycle—remains to be seen.