Shouldn't a stadium be secondary to residential and office?WendellOPruitt wrote: Also the NFL is wary of Oakland's Coliseum City.
The point of the development is to keep all three teams (Warriors/Raiders/A's) in Oakland with a Ballpark Village like Development. The problem is none of teams want to stay; Oracle Arena and O.co Coliseum are falling apart because of age. Alameda County is $100 in debt from the last time the Raiders returned. The development is basically political cover for Oakland politicians "We'll we tried." Same thing going on in San Diego with their Task Force.stlien wrote:
Shouldn't a stadium be secondary to residential and office?
Thanks for the response. I think we're on the same page about this being a vague hypothetical, but I was just curious.stlien wrote:...jstriebel wrote:Random question (because I know this isn't actually on the table, and it probably wouldn't be supported).
How much in public subsidy would it take to lure a major corporation to the North Riverfront, or even just downtown? To be fair, let's not talk about luring one from our own suburbs, but instead from outside the region?
I've seen a lot of people say that nobody is going to invest in that area any time soon. And they're right. But just—pure fantasy—what if we gave them a $450 million subsidy. Would that be enough to attract a business to relocate there?
Again, subsidies don't work exactly like this, but you asked a good question and I just wanted to illustrate what I thought the magnitude $450M could have on downtown if it went to attracting a company to relocate here as opposed to building a stadium.
To me its pretty clear that Stan will play by the NFL rules and not just move the team without approval from his fellow owners....if he was just going to move without approval he would have done that by now, makes no sense to wait and give the Chargers/Raiders more time to get their LA plans together. And from what "insiders" are reporting, there is not enough votes for Stan at this point and as long as Peacock keeps making real progress here, that amount of votes keeping going down.1) On Monday, the NFL will provide an update to clubs on LA. The Rams, Chargers and Raiders won't present their respective LA projects.
2) When questions come, clubs will be free to answer. But it's more likely the league will answer LA questions, clubs on their home markets.
3) NFL's dilemma now: The Rams have the strongest project. They're also the least qualified of the 3 to move, by NFL's relocation criteria.
4) At least in the short term, the likely outcome is 2 (not 3) teams in South California. So either 2 in LA, or 1 in San Diego and 1 in LA.
5) NFL is working to set up April visits to San Diego, Oakland and St. Louis. League is doing its own market assessment on those
6) There are about 10-12 possible scenarios that could play out. 1 interesting one: Rams to LA; Raiders to StL; SD stays put for
7) If that scenario played out, Rams would get head start, Raiders get fresh start, Chargers set a deadline for SD to get stadium done.
8.) NFL is in a good spot in regards to LA. Competing projects = Better projects. Good likelihood, as Mara said, there's a team there in '16.
9) Among the things NFL pays attention to -- A club's popularity in LA. Per LA Times polling, Rams win that one http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow ... story.html …
10) We won't get answers this week. But at this point, those involved believe there's a good chance things crystallize on LA in Oct/Nov
My dad spoke to a well known lawyer today who did work for the dome back when it was in its beginning stages of being built. He was recently hired to do some legal work for the new stadium. Anyway, he told him A LOT is happening behind the scenes and there really making a lot of progress towards the new stadium. Obviously, he could not give specifics, but he is definitely in the know. At this point, he would be surprised if the stadium being built does not come to fruition.
He also mentioned two other thing that are not necessarily surprising, but interesting: Kroenke REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, wants to buy the Broncos. Also, if the stadium ends up on track to being built, there is ZERO chance the NFL will allow the Rams to leave, even if that means taking Kroenke to court if he goes rogue. These two things are not his opinion, but are well known inside the inner circle of the people working on the stadium project.
By Patrick Stewart (@stewartfzn)
Andy Banker (@andybankertv) is a news anchor/reporter for Fox 2 news in St. Louis and the stadium announcer at the Edward Jones Dome for the St. Louis Rams. If you follow him on Twitter you will find him to be closely following the stadium situation and willing to discuss it with fans. He was kind enough to answer five questions for me, but did ask that I put in the following disclaimer before we started:
Andy: My answers in this interview are solely my opinions and are in no way reflective of the views of my employers at Fox 2 or the St. Louis Rams.
Patrick: Dave Peacock has been one of the key figures in putting St. Louis in a position to compete with the LA market in keeping the Rams. How has he, along with a few others, been able to get so much accomplished in so little time?
Andy: Dave Peacock certainly has the connections and "know-how" to make him the perfect person for heading the stadium task force. But after speaking with him and getting to know him a bit, I'm most impressed by his passion. You'll meet politicians who claim to love St. Louis and want what's best for our town...so long as whatever they're advocating is in their political interest. Dave loves St. Louis for St. Louis's sake. He's a fan first, a St. Louis fan, a Rams fan. That's contagious. Governor Nixon and Mayor Slay have been won over. He's also very smart; understanding the economics and most importantly, I think, the politics of it all.
He's disposed with the ineffective (actually destructive) "Kroenke, the billionaire enemy of the fans" garbage. All Stan Kroenke has ever done for St. Louis in terms of football is step up to cement the deal to bring a team here when no one else would.
I personally know this to be true: political leadership here adopted a "leverage game" strategy with the Rams. Within the past two years those leaders and StL media experts (except for Bryan Burwell) were still saying the Rams had nowhere to go; LA was years from getting a feasible stadium plan together. The goal was to get Kroenke to finance the bulk of a new stadium or dome renovations if he insisted they were necessary. The CVC's proposal for dome upgrades reflected as much.
The Rams counter proposal was far more realistic. They won arbitration. Political leaders here ignored the ruling -- imagine their reaction had the Rams/Kroenke lost arbitration and ignored the decision. Instead of engaging the Rams in meaningful negotiations, StL leadership kept with the short-sided "leverage" strategy, even heading into this season. They believed there was still nowhere for the Rams to go and they had "leverage" over Kroenke. The "leverage" game is Kroenke's strength.
Peacock recognizes that and is undoing the damage. Prior to his involvement, political leadership here was flailing and failing. He woke them up.
Don't discount Governor Nixon's leadership. StL dumped this in his lap. He wisely hitched the wagon to Peacock.
Patrick: Financing the new stadium has been the biggest question among both fans and local and national media members. How do you think this issue will be handled?
Andy: The showdown is coming. Peacock and company are formulating the winning rationale by putting together a complete deal, so "doable", that it's lunacy to pass it up. He understands how the numbers have to work and how to package this as a political plus.
Here's the pitch:
Question: How often does someone present a project for a billion dollar investment in
St. Louis?
Answer: Never.
Question: How about such an investment that results in an economic gain on a public investment?
Answer: Never, ever!
Question: How about a BILLION DOLLAR deal on derelict property at our city's doorstep between the Arch and our beautiful new bridge that extends downtown and turns an eyesore you hoped no one would ever see -- into something that will beat back the image of St. Louis being a dying city?
Answer: Wow -- that's doable?!
I think it'll be a close vote -- but ultimately this deal will get through the legislature.
Patrick: It’s been said that Kevin Demoff has been at the negotiating table with Peacock, Nixon, and Slay. Do you think this is for show or do you think the Rams are taking a real interest in the design of the new stadium?
Andy: The Rams are very much invested in St. Louis and interested in keeping it that way. What do they gain by being at the table "for show" if they truly want to move at all costs? Under Demoff's leadership, the Rams have done more in terms of community outreach than perhaps any of our teams in StL.
I want everyone every fan to ask themselves: without the threat of moving, how far along do you really think this new stadium plan would be? If Kroenke said, "I love St. Louis...I'll never move this team," do you think we have this stadium proposal? The answers are obvious.
Patrick: Have you heard anything regarding the Rams leaving St. Louis early to stake a claim to the Los Angeles market in 2015?
Andy: I've heard nothing in that regard. From ownership on down, you've never heard anyone say, "We want out of St. Louis" and certainly not in 2015.
Patrick: Finally, do you feel better now than a month ago about the Rams staying here long term? How do you think this will all end?
Andy: I feel far better about the Rams staying than at any time since the arbitration. I'm not a sports talk regular, so my opinion has been muted. But I've feared this showdown for years. Everyone knew the "year to year" lease loophole was approaching. I always felt it would be the driving force and a potential move would materialize quickly. Yet, even during Rams training camp this past summer pundits were saying there was no LA option and wouldn't be for years; that St. Louis had "leverage". Political leadership believed it.
Thanks to Dave Peacock we're recovering quickly from that flawed strategy. Thanks to Stan Kroenke, St. Louis has the Rams. I'm not being naive and I don't think this is just about "leverage" from his standpoint. But he's never said he wants to move the team. If there's a new stadium, I don't think he ever will.
Buy tickets. Pack the dome.
I want to thank Andy for being so open and honest in this interview. He says things that maybe local fans don’t want to hear, but need to understand. Like Andy, I’m hopeful that together we can show the Rams and the league that St. Louis is an NFL city. It’s going to take all of us, from Dave Peacock at the negotiating table to fans like you and me buying tickets and packing the dome. Let’s do this St. Louis! #STLNFL #KeepTheRamsInStl”
parking lots! i mean, just like all the other ones did! i mean, more propaganda and empty promises because FOOTBALL!Question: How about a BILLION DOLLAR deal on derelict property at our city's doorstep between the Arch and our beautiful new bridge that extends downtown and turns an eyesore you hoped no one would ever see -- into something that will beat back the image of St. Louis being a dying city?
Yeah, his hero worship of Stan and Peacock in that exchange is pretty creepy, especially for a reporter. And how dare the CVB/City/County tried to get Stan to pay for the lion's share of a new stadium! Those dastardly villians!jstriebel wrote:Yep. I like Andy Banker a lot, but his view on this stuff has been biased the whole time. I don't claim that it's because of his jobs, I just think it's his passion for the team. And perhaps his lack of understanding of urbanism.
he would be paying $450 + PLS $130roger wyoming II wrote:Yeah, his hero worship of Stan and Peacock in that exchange is pretty creepy, especially for a reporter. And how dare the CVB/City/County tried to get Stan to pay for the lion's share of a new stadium! Those dastardly villians!jstriebel wrote:Yep. I like Andy Banker a lot, but his view on this stuff has been biased the whole time. I don't claim that it's because of his jobs, I just think it's his passion for the team. And perhaps his lack of understanding of urbanism.
quite a rant! I don't think your $350 million figure from the state computes, though. iirc. the bond extension was targeted at contributing about $300 million but half of that would be from city and county. Some extra tax credits like Brownfields would add a few more on the state side, but those would take from other projects under the capped program. I'd love for the state to pick up the whole pubic subsidy side, though, since it will get almost all of the tax return. (Although the chances are pretty good that the state income tax rates will be slashed or eliminated by 2020, so there would go that economic benefit for the state.)dbInSouthCity wrote:another thing- we always complain that st.louis isnt getting its fair share from the state (and it isnt) well here is a chance to get $350 million...
end rant
yeah how weird for people on an urban blog to not want a bunch of buildings razed for another 10,000+ parking spots in a downtown that's already saturated with parking. Have you looked at Google Maps lately? It's nuts. It's embarrassing. oh, it's a little less than our archaic, anti-pedestrian, car-infatuated zoning codes require? Super! It must be a great idea then! what's loony is the lengths to which people will go to rationalize this abortion of a stadium plan because FOOTBALL!dbInSouthCity wrote:parking has been a sticking point to the nextstl loonies for a while
anyway-
Pats owner (who has a lot of sway) said that if St.Louis comes up with a viable plan the nfl is unlikey to approve the Rams move to LA
