urbanSTL

Nice! If the city tries to (illegally) ram this through, it should absolutely be challenged in court.

Stop with the shady bullsh*t and have the people you are sticking the tab on get to speak their mind.

The city ordinance could be repealed by duly elected representatives.

gary kreie wrote:The public would vote to repeal the bill of rights if we put it on the ballot and said it is supported by our Democratic governor.

. . . . . .

I can't help but think that Peacock/Gov. Nixon would have packed up and call it day if they truly felt that it came down to a city wide vote. As Gary noted, alderman just vote on a new ordinance or repeal an old ordinance. It is all within their ability and legal right to do. That is why it government by representation.
.
But I find it out ironic that governance by vote which is the norm out here in California might willingly be embraced by the city. Their is good points but also makes building things very difficult, time consuming and expensive out here when things actually do happen. However, I think a more accurate description for city is governance by litigation. Whether you agree or not with Northside, litigation resulted in three years of a judge feeling important, a lot of yibberish from lawyers and not much else other than the state supreme court throwing out the case and confirming that the city alderman were working within the legal framework. The SLU professor threatening the lawsuit probably understand this better than anyone else.

dredger wrote:I can't help but think that Peacock/Gov. Nixon would have packed up and call it day if they truly felt that it came down to a city wide vote. As Gary noted, alderman just vote on a new ordinance or repeal an old ordinance. It is all within their ability and legal right to do. That is why it government by representation.
.
But I find it out ironic that governance by vote which is the norm out here in California might willingly be embraced by the city. Their is good points but also makes building things very difficult, time consuming and expensive out here when things actually do happen. However, I think a more accurate description for city is governance by litigation. Whether you agree or not with Northside, litigation resulted in three years of a judge feeling important, a lot of yibberish from lawyers and not much else other than the state supreme court throwing out the case and confirming that the city alderman were working within the legal framework. The SLU professor threatening the lawsuit probably understand this better than anyone else.

The Northside Regeneration lawsuit was the first thing I thought about when I saw the headline.

This lawsuit (and any other like it) needs to be dismissed quickly if we're not going to be giving up our NFL franchise. Either that, or the City needs to put it to a vote, like, very soon... and just hope that the city passes it, I guess.

People will vote it down even if it just extends the current tax on visitors through hotel taxes, because they think they are voting against Kroenke. Actually, he is betting big time that St Louis will fail in its bid, and he needs it to fail to show the NFL he had no choice but to move to the riches of LA. I'm sure we'll prove him to be a genius.

Can we all agree that we really dont know anything until the financial plan is public....but lets be honest here with each other, if they dont want a vote there will be no vote, there are many ways around any vote...if polling is favorable, they'll have a vote of sorts for something

robertn42 wrote: 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.

You should think about what you're saying here, because the notion that poor people shouldn't have a say in public affairs is distasteful to some of us.

I think its pretty clear a vote is required if they want to extend the bonds. I think the confusion is whether there has to be a vote for a project that affects public streets, ROW, etc. That's what this potential lawsuit is claiming I believe.

I don't know what specific ordinance this professor is citing in regards to that. But I think its pretty common that a municipality has the right to vacate streets, blight areas, use eminent domain as necessary if the project in questions provides a common public good and compensates those folks in the affected area.

If the lawsuit is claiming there needs to be a vote because of the infrastructure this project affects, I think its BS. We can't expect a city vote for every project that affects infrastructure. Nothing would get done.

I dont know vacating a street would require any vote, its not spending tax payer money...its actually saving it by no longer having to maintain the road. Now one thing the city could do is turn over all the roads on the stadium site to modot and modot vacates them...see there are plenty of workarounds.

One thing I get tired of hearing is sports talk show hosts repeating that this stadium is "progress" for the city (as Doug Vaughn continues to state) or that the Rams are one of the only assets for St. Louis (as Randy Karraker puts it).

Maybe I shouldn't get worked up about some radio personalities preaching on the radio. But this stadium isn't some new asset to help solve the city's problems or move it forward drastically. Its a way to keep a large business in town, provide some social entertainment value to citizens, and take better advantage of our convention center. That's it. Quit putting some emotional spin on the project.

To say that the city will continue to spiral down if it doesn't happen is hyperbole and so is the opposite . Drives me nuts that its continually put in that light. It has a net upside. Keep it simple.

If the mayor and the majority of the BoA don't believe voters would vote for a good plan for financing the City's portion of the bond debt, what would make them think it'd be a good political decision to repeal the ordinance that requires a city vote in the first place? This spring saw incumbents and insider candidates for the BoA lose or come very close to losing.

I don't think many individual aldermen would be interested in forcing an unwanted deal on their constituents when they know they could be in a tough re-election fight the next time around. Because they know every time they will have to tell a resident for the next few years that there isn't enough money in the budget to fix x pothole or streetlight or alley, that their residents will throw the Rams deal back at them.

I just don't think the BoA is going to repeal the ordinance. Nor do I think this will be the last lawsuit challenging the legality of putting new money into a new stadium without a public vote.

The mayor should just make sure a good deal is put in place that puts a significant portion of the city's contribution on gameday receipts and agree to holding a public vote in the fall. Voters would pass that. I don't even like the stadium idea, but I would vote for that.

Right. Peacock's team has made great (and quick) strides in securing a 24-hour shift strategy with unions and track relocation with the railroad association. As it relates to the geography of the stadium site, the important thing now is to finalize the plan -- what buildings stay, what buildings go and agreements with the property owners to assure there's no hold-up when/if we hit the 'Go' button. Financially, I think the hope is that a private backer comes in to share the cost/ownership of the stadium with the City, thus reducing the total bill for citizens of St. Louis/Missouri.

On the City side, it really needs to figure out exactly what this new stadium means for the future of the City, and develop its own plans and secure its own agreements to support it. Obviously, this would significantly increase the definition of the St. Louis riverfront. A highrise plan for the Bottle District further connects and improves this portion of the near north and we can go from there, improving the bridge corridor, better connecting Old North and (maybe) getting encouraging growth/movement in the Northside project.

MarkHaversham wrote:

robertn42 wrote: 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.

You should think about what you're saying here, because the notion that poor people shouldn't have a say in public affairs is distasteful to some of us.

I understand and I'm aware that my opinions often differ from others. I also stand by my comments. I lived next to the NLEC for 7 years and I'm somewhat jaded. I have enough self-awareness to accept that.

I don't have an anti-homeless or class-ist agenda. I just don't understand how the stadium issue is related to homelessness. I also don't think SLU as a non-profit (who takes support from the city) should have a say in this either. Personal opinion. On a larger scale the city already unfairly takes on the lionshare of the homeless issues in the region because the surrounding counties refuse to put their own support systems in place. So I have an even bigger issue with SLU and a former homeless man, who took advantage of the city's services, asking the city to do more than it is already doing for the homeless. The whole thing is misguided and frankly ignorant to the real issues.

arch city wrote:Already perceived as a dying and troubled city/region, it's unfortunate that there are some (and seemingly many) people in St. Louis who cannot see the value of keeping the Rams in St. Louis.

These are going to be the same naysayers who will say within a few years of the Rams' departure, "We don't even have an NFL team" when discussing how "bad" St. Louis is. To boot, chances are they are not sports fans - let alone football enthusiasts.

With this type of anti-Rams/anti-stadium tomfoolery coupled with inept local leadership, I think it is safe to say the Rams are gone. As usual, St. Louis just doesn't have its sh*t together.

The two teams to play in Kroneke's new LA stadium will be the Rams and Raiders.

Although he's fighting hard for St. Louis, Peacock is wasting his time.

This is an emotional, raw post with little fact...Talk about "wasting his time."

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metr ... 4f431.html

Civic Progress, Regional Business Council weigh in on new NFL stadium

The region’s two largest and most influential business associations are throwing their weight behind the proposal to build a new football stadium downtown.

Interestingly enough, Kevin Demoff is a member of the Regional Business Council, and Stan Kroenke is a member of Civic Progress.

http://www.civicprogressstl.org/our-org ... Membership
http://www.stlrbc.org/complist.htm

sirshankalot wrote:This is an emotional, raw post with little fact...Talk about "wasting his time."

And your response to my comment wasn't "emotional and raw"?

Very interesting....and who said that my comment was rooted in fact?

It's MY STRONG opinion. One that I am sticking to - at least for now.

arch city wrote:Already perceived as a dying and troubled city/region, it's unfortunate that there are some (and seemingly many) people in St. Louis who cannot see the value of keeping the Rams in St. Louis.

similarly i would like for all the football fans to stop overstating the team's value, given that the vast majority of research suggests little to no economic benefit for the region. and for those who keep shouting "NO INVESTMENT THERE UNLESS FOOTBALL STADIUM!!!" here's an article that disagrees:

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news ... twt&page=4