Kansas has drawn a massive new tax district to help finance the Kansas City Chiefs’ stadium. The map raises a bigger question: Why should government give one business special treatment instead of making Kansas a better place for everyone to invest, work, and prosper?
The Kansas Department of Commerce announced the Sales Tax and Revenue (STAR) bond district on October 13. It stretches across portions of six cities: Kansas City, Bonner Springs, Edwardsville, Shawnee, Lenexa, and Olathe.
The district will redirect growth in state sales tax collections above an established base to help repay bonds for the Chiefs’ stadium and related development. Existing STAR bond districts are excluded.
That’s a lot of territory to help finance one private enterprise. It’s also hard to believe legislators, let alone taxpayers, understood the stadium taxing district’s massive scale.
The broader agreement involves about $4 billion in development, with roughly $2.4 billion, or 61 percent, supported by public financing.
Supporters argue the deal will bring jobs, visitors, and economic activity to Kansas. They also emphasize that it requires no new statewide tax.
But no new tax doesn’t mean no taxpayer cost.
Consider a restaurant in Lenexa whose sales grow over the next decade. Some additional state sales tax revenue from that restaurant could help repay stadium debt, even if its success has little to do with the Chiefs. For reference, it’s over 13.5 miles “as the crow flies” from the reported location of the new stadium to the intersection of Renner and College Boulevard in Lenexa; multiple other jurisdictions are in the way, and three major highways must be crossed.
Those dollars could otherwise support general government obligations or provide room for tax relief.
As I’ve explained previously, the Chiefs deal and the costs of subsidies likely won’t improve net economic growth. Spending at football games may simply replace spending elsewhere.
The new district also raises concerns about local control. KSHB reports that Wyandotte County officials have challenged the state’s approach, arguing local communities deserve more say.
So what are Kansas’ alternatives?
One is to prohibit future taxpayer subsidies for professional stadiums and require teams and private investors to finance their projects. Kansas could also phase out broader STAR bond subsidies while honoring existing legal obligations.
That would establish a consistent principle: Government shouldn’t favor businesses because they have greater political influence or promise highly visible projects.
If lawmakers aren’t willing to end these subsidies, another path remains.
Kansas can reduce government spending, lower broad-based income tax rates, and remove unnecessary regulations that make starting and growing businesses more expensive.
The Responsible Kansas Budget offers a framework to restrain spending and create room for tax relief. Simpler permitting, fewer barriers to competition, and stronger property rights would also help entrepreneurs pursue new ideas without needing government favors.
This matters because the next great Kansas business may not have a stadium, lobbyists, or political connections. It may be someone starting a restaurant, developing technology, or expanding a family business.
Those entrepreneurs deserve the same opportunity to succeed.
I want the Chiefs and every Kansas business to thrive. But prosperity comes from people freely investing, working, and serving customers, not government choosing winners and losers.
Kansas doesn’t need more special deals. It needs lower costs and greater opportunity for everyone.
That’s how we let people prosper.
