Before driving home from the 3A KSHSAA Golf Championship in Topeka Wednesday, I had an urge to drive east on I-70 to check out the future home of the Kansas City Chiefs. I had better things to do, and it had been a long day, but I wanted to see what I am paying for.
I understand the situation. Missouri wanted a better deal, and Kansas had a generational opportunity. The alternative was letting the Chiefs relocate, and there are other cities in the market for an NFL team. Given the choice of relocation or the deal Kansas got, the deal with Kansas is better. But at whose expense?
It’s here I propose a new rule of thumb for society. If a person or group’s elite status relies on poor people subsidizing their wealth, then society should no longer recognize them as elite.
Chiefs owners Clark and Dan Hunt wear nice suits and donate to charities, but their operations simply would not be possible without the tax dollars of citizens, the same people who may get denied at the grocery store after coming up 10 cents short.
The Hunts are not alone. Many businesses offer low wages, which are balanced by government subsidies, or shelter their profits tax-free. Federal, state and local governments steer advertising dollars out of their communities and into the hands of behemoth social media companies based in tax havens. Just like wealth accrued via death, founding a fortune from the labor of poor people should be equally shunned.
Considering the cost-prohibitive nature of attending a Chiefs game, there is something especially galling about public funds helping pay for a stadium a slim minority of people will ever use. It’s the Chiefs Kingdom, but do we really have to pay for their castle?
The Hunts and company can keep their suits and all the accoutrements of wealthy living. But if it’s done at the expense of working folk, that should be a part of the recognition as well. I’m not asking for a uniform or anything. Maybe just a letter. And wouldn’t you know it, it kind of matches the Chiefs’ colors — scarlet.
