urbanSTL

^Has the task force actually checked any boxes since that May date was floated, though?

jstriebel wrote:^Has the task force actually checked any boxes since that May date was floated, though?

there is A LOT going on thats not public yet and Grubman commented yesterday that he was happy with the progress and pace in St.Louis and said nothing to see in oakland and SD yet.

^ Right, but nothing we really know about yet, yeah?

roger wyoming II wrote:Lawsuit threatened if no city vote on city finding for new stadium. Not in the least surprising.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metr ... e452c.html

yawn

^ I think it's pretty sad that we live in an environment where lawsuit threats like that are shrugged off. The idea being that a football stadium project is too big of machine to stop.

I don't even think you're wrong.

I just think it's sad.

its not too big of a machine to stop, its non sense lawsuit...just because its a football project or you name it project doesn't mean there should be a lawsuit because x person doesn't like the project. if thats the case we wouldnt get anything done...MoDOT built a $550m 10 mile section of I-64 no vote, no lawsuits...

dbInSouthCity wrote:its not too big of a machine to stop, its non sense lawsuit...just because its a football project or you name it project doesn't mean there should be a lawsuit because x person doesn't like the project. if thats the case we wouldnt get anything done...MoDOT built a $550m 10 mile section of I-64 no vote, no lawsuits...

Not the best analogy, considering there's no standing law specifically requiring MoDOT's expenditures to be put to a public vote, the way there is clearly a standing law requiring City expenditures on new stadiums where pro sports teams would be scheduled to play be put to a public vote.

Seems to me like a vote is where this thing is headed, one way or another.

Having said that, Mayor Slay just intimated that City money would likely come in the form of taxes on receipts for things like tickets for events at the new stadium, event parking at the new stadium, concessions, etc.

If that's the case, then a) I think a public vote is totally pointless anyway, because you're voting on whether or not the city will fund the stadium with money that would otherwise not exist but for construction of the new stadium, and b) theoretically, such a vote should therefore pass quite easily, no?

^^ On its face, city funding for the stadium without public vote is a violation of city ordinance approved by voter initiative in 2004. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that a lawsuit seeking fidelity to the law is somehow frivolous or unjustified. Completely different than building I-64.

roger wyoming II wrote:

Greatest St. Louis wrote: Mayor Slay just intimated that City money would likely come in the form of taxes on receipts for things like tickets for events at the new stadium, event parking at the new stadium, concessions, etc.

If that's the case, then a) I think a public vote is totally pointless anyway, because you're voting on whether or not the city will fund the stadium with money that would otherwise not exist but for construction of the new stadium, and b) theoretically, such a vote should therefore pass quite easily, no?

Details will matter, but I think city voters would pass funding for a stadium if it is mostly backed by gameday revenues and the owner has committed to staying with a strong, guaranteed lease.

I would like to think you're right, but I've seen so many common-sense ballot measures lose (and some rather abysmally bad ones succeed) solely on the strength or weakness of the PR campaigns that support or go against them. If a public vote truly is inevitable, then I sincerely hope, as a Rams fan, that Fleishman-Hillard brings its A-game.

then lets have a vote...the low-informed voter won't turn out so we'll get this thing passed.....

The idea of this lawsuit is ludicrous. A formerly homeless man (who I would bet has been the recipient of more city tax-payer funds than he has come close to contributing) is using a non-profit organization to sue the city over how taxpayer money is allocated. The non-profit being SLU Law clinic who's parent organization, SLU, continues to destroy our urban fabric and erode the very tax base they are threatening the lawsuit over.

Additionally, it's highly likely Mr. White only came to the city because his municipality in the county didn't have the homeless services he needed.

I think my head is going to explode.

roger wyoming II wrote:Here is the City ordinance that was enacted into law by the 2004 ballot initiative:

https://www.municode.com/library/mo/st. ... 3.91PRSPFA

The simple three-step process laid out is 1) Comptroller prepares a fiscal note beforehand 2) a public hearing is then held. And then finally 3) a public vote. Extraordinarily reasonable.

On the surface, but the bonds already exist so one could easily argue that this ordinance does not apply. It's all in the interpretation.

Regardless, the premise and parties behind this potential lawsuit are too much to handle. I happily pay more than my fair share in property and income taxes to the city in the hope that my dedication to it benefits the overall health of the city/region. The idea of the city being forced to spend that money to defend the potential expenditures of that money against a non-profit in the city and a former homeless man who misguided ideals want that money spent on more homeless services in the city is infuriating.

Agreed. This particular lawsuit seems to have questionable motives.

But the lawsuit itself has plenty of legal grounds to stand on. And someone with less questionable motives will likely come forward to file a similar one anyways.

Roger, it's a state bond that would be extended and the city is already obligated to pay its share, if that's for 6 more years or 30.

dbInSouthCity wrote:Roger, it's a state bond that would be extended and the city is already obligated to pay its share, if that's for 6 more years or 30.

I fully expect if a lawsuit is filed that the City will get it dismissed on those grounds. Mayor Slay, Governor Nixon and his task force (as well as their respective legal teams) knew about that law when they got to work, they've known about it all along, and I trust that they're ready for any legal challenges that might arise.

Greatest St. Louis wrote:

dbInSouthCity wrote:Roger, it's a state bond that would be extended and the city is already obligated to pay its share, if that's for 6 more years or 30.

I fully expect if a lawsuit is filed that the City will get it dismissed on those grounds. Mayor Slay, Governor Nixon and his task force (as well as their respective legal teams) knew about that law when they got to work, they've known about it all along, and I trust that they're ready for any legal challenges that might arise.

Because Slay and Nixon are always one step ahead of everyone else? I've yet to see that play out in reality.

In all likelihood, whether this goes to a public vote will depend entirely on the judge that receives the challenge when a legitimate lawsuit is brought forth, not how "smart" Slay and Nixon are. And a public vote doesn't necessarily mean a death sentence for getting things in place to build the stadium. Just have to get it done this fall I'd think. Because if the City's portion can be paid off mainly through gameday receipts, even I, who've been opposed to financing a new football stadium all along, would be in favor of it.

I'd just like to think that a freaking lawsuit filed by disgruntled taxpayers isn't going to be what topples the momentum on this new riverfront project. I guess we'll see. And if it winds up having to go to a vote, like I said, Fleishman-Hillard better bring their A-game with a PR blitz to get the measure passed in the City.

Doesn't the vote arise from the fact that a new tax may be needed to pay off an extended bond?