^As PG an insult as "loonies" is its hardly fair. The NextStl crowd has a position they support with facts and reasoning.
In fact MOST are fine with either, a Stadium of urban charachter (read parking garages and historic preservation), OR a suburban style stadium in a suburban local. IF this is the stadium that people want why is it so important for it to be built in that spot? It's hardly crazy.
STLEnginerd wrote:^As PG an insult as "loonies" is its hardly fair. The NextStl crowd has a position they support with facts and reasoning.
In fact MOST are fine with either, a Stadium of urban charachter (read parking garages and historic preservation), OR a suburban style stadium in a suburban local. IF this is the stadium that people want why is it so important for it to be built in that spot? It's hardly crazy.
sure maybe not fair but "has a position they support with facts and reasoning" is not always true
and again we are not a city that can pick and choose which billion dollar developments we want, and since nobody has any better or any ideas or plans for that site...its this or nothing and no nothing is not better then billion dollar stadium and 10,000 parking spots.
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
Reading and hearing more of Kraft's comments, they're very murky and I think supportive of the scenario that Kroenke is off to LA and Saint Louis is playing for another team. As one poster on this morning's column by Jim Thomas put it, at the beginning they were rosy with optimism but by the end they reverted to doom and gloom!
dbInSouthCity wrote:Wake up and smell the coffee man, even in a transit centric city like NYC 65% drive to work. If we were to get i to top 5 of cities where people use transit to get to work we would still have 85% drive. Heck even Cortex is building 3000 spot parking structure.
Not to get off topic (though on the subject of commuting/parking lots that's already occurring), but where did you find that number? Though the data are a few years old, the US Census Bureau's survey has the % of New Yorkers that use public transportation pegged at 54.2%, meaning those that drive to work are fewer than half, and this doesn't even account for those that walk or bike to work.
dbInSouthCity wrote:Wake up and smell the coffee man, even in a transit centric city like NYC 65% drive to work. If we were to get i to top 5 of cities where people use transit to get to work we would still have 85% drive. Heck even Cortex is building 3000 spot parking structure.
Not to get off topic (though on the subject of commuting/parking lots that's already occurring), but where did you find that number? Though the data are a few years old, the US Census Bureau's survey has the % of New Yorkers that use public transportation pegged at 54.2%, meaning those that drive to work are fewer than half, and this doesn't even account for those that walk or bike to work.
In the notes above those tables, EW Gateway is using MSAs. When I see "NYC" I don't necessarily think of Stamford, CT or Pike County PA, but their numbers are included in those tables above, whereas the link I provided (amongst others I found) used core city data only (hence the big disparity).
But the STL MSA, and not just the core city, will (hopefully) support any NFL team we have, so that probably would be a better comparative measurement for this topic.
1%, that's nothing! Except for it's $17 million saved on transportation for every 1% of St. Louis City and County working age people* that are able to save $2,000 every year by not having to drive as much. Increase the share to 10% we're talking $170 million annual that working folk could spend on other stuff than just getting to and from places. That's a lot of purchasing power put back into communities.
*I took ballparks of two thirds being working age of 1.3 million St. Louis City and County residents.
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
Reading and hearing more of Kraft's comments, they're very murky and I think supportive of the scenario that Kroenke is off to LA and Saint Louis is playing for another team. As one poster on this morning's column by Jim Thomas put it, at the beginning they were rosy with optimism but by the end they reverted to doom and gloom!
^I would advocate for the Rams name staying in STL, if the franchise moves. That is assuming, another franchise is coming or would come down the road. I do not want a team (Raiders, Chargers, Jags/other(down the road), coming here and keeping their name. I like the name the Gunners, not only for historical reasons, but also because it is a cool name. I know it will likely be nixed because of the gun crime issue in STL. I think it would be hard for a fanbase, to get behind another team with TONS of tradition elsewhere. I would have liked to see the Rams name change when they came. The NFL should require names stay in a city. I hate that we lost the Big Red (Cardinals) name. That was unique and cool, to have the baseball and football teams with the same name.
If we get a new team, how about a new name related to the area. Raiders doesn't apply here (or anywhere). Explorers, Rivers, Voyagers, Archers, Catsonahottinroof -- only if they play in the dome, Route 66ers, Twainers, Cahokians -- wait, no Native American names, Discovery.
JNOnSTL wrote: But the STL MSA, and not just the core city, will (hopefully) support any NFL team we have, so that probably would be a better comparative measurement for this topic.
Kinda got sidetracked on the transit issue so I'm not quite sure what the topic is. But if it is whether the Near North Riverfront is a wise choice to plant an NFL stadium if thousands of dedicated surface parking spots are required for it, then I'd say no. If we had more heavily trafficked attractions and mixed-use -- something like the Cincinnati riverfront with the 2 stadiums and arena and other museums and the Banks project -- then more parking infrastructure would be appropriate for the site as it would be supporting much more productivity.
That has been one of my main issues with the site plan is that so far (granted it is early) there has been no real attention paid to this end of things -- I don't think that should take up too much of Peacock's personal focus as his should remain on the stadium issues themselves -- but part of the team being assembled needs to work with economic development and Landing leaders on developing reasonable mixed-use plans in the vicinity. So far its hey, trust us, the stadium will energize this area when in fact we know such thing will happen on its own.
gary kreie wrote:If we get a new team, how about a new name related to the area. Raiders doesn't apply here (or anywhere). Explorers, Rivers, Voyagers, Archers, Catsonahottinroof -- only if they play in the dome, Route 66ers, Twainers, Cahokians -- wait, no Native American names, Discovery.
I like Archers.
Or the Stallions name (from the missed 1993 expansion) is still trademarked, owned by the league and available. Though their color scheme ended up with the Baltimore Ravens.
sorry db, it's just the facts that it's hard to justify the region and state spending over $700million to pay back the bonds for a new football stadium when it will have no significant economic impact for the region or state outside of a couple years of construction jobs. and the fiscal analysis from the state economic director is a fairy tale. Maybe, just maybe, if NFL salary inflation grows and the Missouri legislature doesn't eliminate or severely cut the state income tax (which they will within the next 5 years), the state may get its portion of its annual bond payments back from income tax revenue. And that is if the current structure remains in place that shares the burden of the bond payments evenly between the state and city/county. If the convoluted plan in which the state takes on the entire burden of the annual bond payments is put in place, then there is no chance whatsoever that the state makes back what they will have to pay in annual bond payments. Under the current structure, there will be little to no fiscal return for the City and County in exchange for their $12M annual payments. The possibility of breaking even fiscally is not a good enough return to justify tying up that much of the state and region's bonding capacity to build a stadium that will have no impact on anyone's economic well being in the region.
Besides, those absurd findings on public revenue generation from a new stadium only focus on supposed fiscal impact. They are not actually talking about economic development. No economic growth for the city, region, or state occurs when our $700M+ is going to subsidize the jobs of billionaires and millionaires. Very little public benefit that occurs from actual economic development would touch down to affect the economic well-being of nearly anyone else within the region. A few jobs will be created for low end service people, marketing, and back office type of jobs longterm. That's not good enough for the amount of investment that is being called for. It's nice to say that we are getting a $1 billion project from this investment, but this $1billion project is not equal to a $1billion project from a corporate relocation or expansion in St. Louis that would be generating tens of thousands of jobs and millions of dollars in product or service value to the region. With the stadium, we'll get actually $1billion spent very quickly in two years, and then we might as well blow up what that $1billion was spent to build because it won't have any economic impact after those two years.
All of these economic arguments are good ones, but that portends that you could go to all 31 other NFL cities and list a series of airtight arguments as to how they would be better off financially to trade their NFL team for some other venture. Guess how many would take the trade? My guess-none.
I think this boils down to people who care enough about an NFL team to make some sacrifices, and people who don't. Because of the emotional ties (and intangible value that naysayers attribute no credit) of sports-related themes and negotiation, it is pointless to try to sway one side or the other.
Why would someone as capable as Peacock be promoting this if it were truly as financially detrimental to our region as critics would make it out to be?
^ I don't know that critics say that sports entertainment funding in general (some stadium and arena deals are more subsidized than others) is a serious fiscal detriment to a region, just that it really doesn't have much of a regional impact either way. So most cities pursue it for vanity reasons... for the same reasons the Romans built the Coliseum. Sure its fun to have gladiator fights or flood it and have ship battles, but that doesn't mean you're addressing the real needs of your countrymen. (Although it may distract discontented plebes.)
So yes, an NFL team provides a city with a bit of a civic boost and feelings of importance, and it probably won't doom other civic expenditures if a decent deal is arranged, but if economic development for the city and county is the real goal, with downtown as a primary target, there clearly are better ways to spend those substantial local tax dollars than contributing to an NFL stadium.
^ We've been over this before, but the clear assumption is that the City and County each would continue to contribute about $6 million annually. If no stadium is built, those local taxes will continue to be collected and will go to other things. (If the state pays it all, god bless it.)
Perhaps the local reps and corporate interests would not be able to get the legislature to support other things in the region as a bit of a replacement, if even a lesser amount, so maybe the region would lose out on that $12 million from the state a year. And while I do believe that the City does benefit a bit by having the County and State provide 3/4 of the bonding for something located in the city, it is not efficient economic development... I believe it is possible that the city could see a better return on a wise investment of $6 million annually from its own tax revenue than by contributing that amount to a $24 million pot that provides modest results.
$650 million in private investment? Where is that number coming from? The public is going to be on the hook for at least $400 million and the stadium costs less than $1 billion.
Anyways, it's not about the amount of the private investments, it's about what it's going towards. And the fact that the stadium is less than the parking requirements is also a pretty terrible defense.
"If you spend a ton of public money on a project that would have some really bad consequences, we'll also spend a ton of private money on it, and we'll make the consequences a tiny bit less bad."
That's essentially what those two points are.
Now, you can defend the stadium. You can say it has positive impacts. We'll continue to have back and forth on how much and what outweighs what.
But the amount of money being invested—when it's not in the things we typically are looking to get investment for—and the fact that they're only building 10,000 parking spaces in a downtown that already has too many parking spaces are not good justifications for this stadium.
It doesn't matter how many people drive in this area. We already have more than enough parking downtown, and they play 8 games a year in this stadium. The only way to defend the parking element to this plan is "yeah, but I like football."
Send the Raiders to Jacksonville.
Bring the Jaguars here; pay Arizona to get the Cardinals name back while Arizona changes their name to a desert moniker. The same way New Orleans gave back the Hornets name to the Bobcats last year.
Now the St. Louis Football Cardinals will be back who all ready have a history here.
Jacksonville will be better for the Raiders as Kahn has updated the stadium and its 30 years younger than O.co Coliseum.
Kahn has Deep connection to St. Louis and is serious about loyalty.
NFL team brands are so complex. You've got many that have elaborate and storied histories despite playing in multiple markets. St. Louis can't lay claim to the Cardinals name.
It's been in Phoenix for as long as it was in St. Louis (28 years a piece, I think). And they went to a Super Bowl while in Phoenix. Plus that's where it currently is.
Meanwhile, the Rams have history in three cities, including the most years in the one they'd be going back to. We don't deserve to to lose our Rams history, but I also have trouble claiming that the Rams team name and history belongs here.
This stuff got screwed up so long ago, and it's been handled so inconsistently (see the way the Browns were handled vs. the Rams) that there's just no good solution any more.
If we lose the Rams and get the Raiders, my preference would be to rebrand the Raiders something new and wholly St. Louis. However, I suspect the Raiders brand carries too much value to the league for that to happen. Especially if the Davis family is still involved.
The MO economic development report is not fantasy. It assumes NFL guarantees a team for 30 years or you build nothing. It assumes just 3% increase in player salaries and taxes -- well below actual. It assumes nothing about potential spin-off developments, including MLS. It does assume MOLEG will keep the current income tax. But it is a little circular for MOLEG to declare the plan can't work because MOLEG may pass legislation some day to make sure the plan can't work.
You declare that this is a fantasy because MOLEG is going to eliminate income tax. But MOLEG will replace it with something -- and if they don't replace it with something that still gets that $12M out of the football operations one way or another -- higher ticket tax, entertainment tax, player tax, whatever -- they are idiots and intentionally damaging our state.
How often does someone from outside the region come in and give us half the cost of a $1B civic asset project in downtown St. Louis in exchange for extending the current $12M per year payments for 30 years, when it is paid off? And, if you do it, the players themselves will stay and pay the $12M per year and then some via state income tax (unless MOLEG turns down the money.) The rest comes from visitors and Rams ticket buyers.
Other cities of our size found it economically worthwhile to do what it takes to keep their NFL teams. I get it that you don't like giving money to Stan. Me either. But get over it. The economy of the region will be better off with the infusion of the new money for the stadium than without it.
