^ this situation is a tad bit different then previously researched stadium deals...for one, its frees up the Dome for more business which everyone would say is a great benefit to the city and downtown hotels and business' , it potentially adds another major league sport (soccer), could spur more development along with the bridge you mention since they would be walking distance of each other and we would have $350M from the state and $450-600m (depending on PSL pricing) of private money...
- 1,868
Freeing up the Dome happens either way, doesn't it?
- 3,433
I don't hear football fans saying there will be any additional economic development. We're saying the deal stands on its own. Opponents to the stadium have said they do not want it even if it's totally free. So take the emotion out of it -- your hatred for Kroenke or whatever -- and just look at the numbers and whether this helps St Louis compared to the alternative -- no team. The Missouri Economic Development Dept has issued their report on the impact to state government resources, and no credible organization has found an error in the calculations in that analysis. Similar dispassionate number crunching needs to be done for the rest of the funding. I believe it is becoming clear that the NFL will pay for half of the stadium, and PSLs for $130M. So is it worth it to get all this free private money, and also keep the current funds generated by keeping a team? How much revenue will be generated for the city to use for city needs with this, or lost if the the team leaves.? I used to just assume the Rams were gone and, like Kroenke, assumed St Louis didn't have the money or leadership to keep them. But since Peacock stepped up, and now we see that nearly all the funding can come from the NFL and team revenue and taxes on them, it looks like a good deal for the city. But trust the numbers, not the emotion.urban_dilettante wrote: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: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.
http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news ... twt&page=4
- 8,155
^ It may or may not be a good deal for the City.... we'll have to await final details of what is proposed. For example, now that the County appears out, does a $6 million annual contribution from the city become $9 million? (For the state, does a $12 million contribution become $15 million? How does that impact the benefits?)
But going back to the city ordinance, it calls for a fiscal analysis to be released at least 20 days prior to a vote and a public hearing 10 days before. Again, a very solid and practical process that needs to be followed. (Although I wouldn't mind adjusting the language to allow for some limited funding to go towards efforts w/o a voting requirement... similar for that ordinance that was passed by voters a few years back on the city parks.)
But going back to the city ordinance, it calls for a fiscal analysis to be released at least 20 days prior to a vote and a public hearing 10 days before. Again, a very solid and practical process that needs to be followed. (Although I wouldn't mind adjusting the language to allow for some limited funding to go towards efforts w/o a voting requirement... similar for that ordinance that was passed by voters a few years back on the city parks.)
- 9,571
Jim Thomas is reporting that all the land on the site has been secured. 
i remember the clown show over at nextstl said this would be nearly impossible to do...
i remember the clown show over at nextstl said this would be nearly impossible to do...- 641
Well, those NEXTSTL opinions are coming from emotional heart-bleeders and not a guy who was President of a Fortune 200 company at age 41.
- 271
dbInSouthCity wrote:Jim Thomas is reporting that all the land on the site has been secured.
Yep. I seem to recall the same types rambling about how impossible it would be to develop the selected site with the electrical and rail lines in the way... another concern that was also put to bed in a matter of a few short weeks.sirshankalot wrote:Well, those NEXTSTL opinions are coming from emotional heart-bleeders and not a guy who was President of a Fortune 200 company at age 41.
The governor, mayor, unions and business community are all fully unified behind this thing now. Looks like the only thing left is squaring away financing. Let's see what happens.
- 8,155
It'd be great to go further and get the land up to the bridge.... I'd love to see a comprehensive "Bridge to Bridge" plan that greatly invigorates our riverfront from the MacArthur to the Stan.
Also, even if the stadium effort fails, it still may be fruitful to get some of the properties into the hands of say the Port Authority to move redevelopment ahead.
Also, even if the stadium effort fails, it still may be fruitful to get some of the properties into the hands of say the Port Authority to move redevelopment ahead.
Would be curious what property was secured? stadium footprint, footprint plus a portion of the proposed parking area, etc.
Does anybody have a link to whatever Jim Thomas said? Was it on the radio? Twitter? Online? I don't doubt it, just curious.
- 271
http://sports.live.stltoday.com/Event/R ... _85?Page=1jstriebel wrote:Does anybody have a link to whatever Jim Thomas said? Was it on the radio? Twitter? Online? I don't doubt it, just curious.
Has there been any progress updates from Dave Peacock on stadium progress?
by Robert April 7 at 1:47 PM
Nothing lately, although I believe Peacock & Blitz are close to having all the land assembled at the stadium site.
by jthomas April 7 at 1:48 PM
Does Kroenke know he's a member?Greatest St. Louis wrote:http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metr ... 4f431.html
Civic Progress, Regional Business Council weigh in on new NFL stadium
Interestingly enough, Kevin Demoff is a member of the Regional Business Council, and Stan Kroenke is a member of Civic Progress.The region’s two largest and most influential business associations are throwing their weight behind the proposal to build a new football stadium downtown.
http://www.civicprogressstl.org/our-org ... Membership
http://www.stlrbc.org/complist.htm
- 8,155
Looks like the legal issues regarding a public vote are coming to a head:
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metr ... 7974a.html
Good that this is being done sooner than later and I think the SLU clinic effort agrees.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metr ... 7974a.html
Good that this is being done sooner than later and I think the SLU clinic effort agrees.
- 271
Interesting. The Plaintiffs are suing to block the public vote. The Defendant in this lawsuit is the City of St. Louis. But the City of St. Louis (vis-a-vis the Mayor) is on board with the stadium plan, claims no new taxes, and does not want a public vote.roger wyoming II wrote:Looks like the legal issues regarding a public vote are coming to a head:
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metr ... 7974a.html
Good that this is being done sooner than later and I think the SLU clinic effort agrees.
It might just depend on whichever judge to which this case is assigned, but might this lawsuit be over before it even begins?
- 8,155
^ Basically the People of Saint Louis City are being sued by the Dome Authority, Slay, Peacock, Nixon, etc. The legal issues probably won't be sorted out for at least a few months but again the whole thing could be put to rest with an agreement to put the thing to a November vote and thus putting a stamp of approval on the plan ahead of the final NFL decision.
- 271
Which legal team represents The People of Saint Louis City?roger wyoming II wrote:^ Basically the People of Saint Louis City are being sued by the Dome Authority, Slay, Peacock, Nixon, etc. The legal issues probably won't be sorted out for at least a few months but again the whole thing could be put to rest with an agreement to put the thing to a November vote and thus putting a stamp of approval on the plan ahead of the final NFL decision.
- 8,155
We'll have to see how City law department defends this, but I assume that city residents who want to see the ordinance enforced will be granted a right to intervene. Also, I know a fair number of the Board of Alderman want to see a vote. And even if the vote is struck down, that doesn't mean it can't be put to a vote voluntarily.... this should be what happens.
- 271
Or the court could come back and side with the Plaintiffs.
Which is what I want to happen.
Either way, this is gonna be really interesting to see.
Which is what I want to happen.
Either way, this is gonna be really interesting to see.
- 8,155
^ Definitely will be fun to watch.... personally I want to see a vote with a good plan presented to the public and which ultimately passes. It is good public policy. And pushing this thing through without a vote of the people and overriding the process that the citizens wanted will only intensify acrimony and division in the City. The only legitimate reason for no vote imo is simply if there is no time for it, but that doesn't appear to be the case.
- 271
I actually agree with you that it would be better public policy for there to be a vote. Just as one who doesn't want to see the team leave, and wants the new stadium, I'd rather the path be clear for its construction with as little uncertainty as possible.
Either way, at least we'll be getting resolution to all of this sooner than later.
Either way, at least we'll be getting resolution to all of this sooner than later.
- 9,571
Peacock said no vote required, the suit is to clear up things so it doesnt become an issue going forward....these people are good, this is a very smart move.
From RSA
“Our counsel has advised that because the proposed stadium involves a significant private financial commitment and no additional tax increase, another vote by the public is not needed. However, given the threat of protracted litigation, the RSA is asking the court to provide legal certainty on this matter now so that we can continue to move forward within the timeframe established by the NFL"
From Task Force
"Our stadium proposal is gaining significant support throughout the region because it is sensible and it will work. Our financing model relies on a balance of private investment, from the St. Louis Rams and the National Football League, as well as revenue sources that have been approved by the voters. A public vote is not required. However, to finalize our proposal in the accelerated timeframe required by the NFL, it’s important to obtain legal clarity quickly. I have briefed the NFL on today’s action and we will remain in close contact with the league, and the Rams, throughout the process."
from a random RamsTalkStl poster
Let me walk you through this. There is an article on the front page about this. The Dome Authority has sued the City of St. Louis. The City will be forced to defend a law that they (the Mayor's Office) want no part of protecting. The lawsuit was filed in State Court and will be administered by the judge hand selected by the plaintiff. So a Nixon appointee will be the judge. The City attorney (Slay appointee) will argue for the ordinance.
Here is how it will go. Dome authority will make their case while the City attorney makes balloon animals. Once the Dome authority rests the City attorney will say "sounds good to me." The judge will rule the ordinance is arbitrary and capricious and therefore set it aside.
From RSA
“Our counsel has advised that because the proposed stadium involves a significant private financial commitment and no additional tax increase, another vote by the public is not needed. However, given the threat of protracted litigation, the RSA is asking the court to provide legal certainty on this matter now so that we can continue to move forward within the timeframe established by the NFL"
From Task Force
"Our stadium proposal is gaining significant support throughout the region because it is sensible and it will work. Our financing model relies on a balance of private investment, from the St. Louis Rams and the National Football League, as well as revenue sources that have been approved by the voters. A public vote is not required. However, to finalize our proposal in the accelerated timeframe required by the NFL, it’s important to obtain legal clarity quickly. I have briefed the NFL on today’s action and we will remain in close contact with the league, and the Rams, throughout the process."
from a random RamsTalkStl poster
Let me walk you through this. There is an article on the front page about this. The Dome Authority has sued the City of St. Louis. The City will be forced to defend a law that they (the Mayor's Office) want no part of protecting. The lawsuit was filed in State Court and will be administered by the judge hand selected by the plaintiff. So a Nixon appointee will be the judge. The City attorney (Slay appointee) will argue for the ordinance.
Here is how it will go. Dome authority will make their case while the City attorney makes balloon animals. Once the Dome authority rests the City attorney will say "sounds good to me." The judge will rule the ordinance is arbitrary and capricious and therefore set it aside.
- 8,155
^ but that isn't how things work.... taxpayer rights groups will intervene in the case and will go to appeals process.
Also, the issue isn't whether there are new taxes or not, but whether there is financial assistance provided for the project, which there clearly is. I suspect if the ordinance is struck down it will be for the reasons of being overly broad, too vague or unconstitutional (as mentioned in the article) and not because no new taxes are assessed.
Also, the issue isn't whether there are new taxes or not, but whether there is financial assistance provided for the project, which there clearly is. I suspect if the ordinance is struck down it will be for the reasons of being overly broad, too vague or unconstitutional (as mentioned in the article) and not because no new taxes are assessed.
- 271
Yeah, seems like they're going with the "overly broad/too vague" attack. The "no new taxes" thing is just politi-speak.roger wyoming II wrote:^ but that isn't how things work.... taxpayer rights groups will intervene in the case and will go to appeals process.
Also, the issue isn't whether there are new taxes or not, but whether there is financial assistance provided for the project, which there clearly is. I suspect if the ordinance is struck down it will be for the reasons of being overly broad, too vague or unconstitutional (as mentioned in the article) and not because no new taxes are assessed.
- 8,155
^ right... this is the same with the hole "extending the bonds" mumbo jumbo that never made sense.... you have to issue new bonds to get new revenue. But it sounds good!
- 3,433
We do live in a representative democracy. In purchasing decisions, I normally trust elected leaders to study the issues and vote in a manner they believe is best for the city. Otherwise, why not have the public just vote on all expenditures directly?
I happen to believe that the police should get out on the street more and out of their cars. So next time the Police Department wants to spend money on fleet upgrade, should I get the chance to vote it down to force more police to walk the streets? I may not have all the information that we pay our representatives to digest to make this decision.
By the way, here is a report I ran across discussing the impact of professional sports facilities on housing values.
http://www.thecyberhood.net/documents/papers/sports.pdf
And here's a Huffington Post piece on positive and negative business impact of the Thunder NBA team move on OKC and Seattle respectively.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/1 ... 94729.html
I happen to believe that the police should get out on the street more and out of their cars. So next time the Police Department wants to spend money on fleet upgrade, should I get the chance to vote it down to force more police to walk the streets? I may not have all the information that we pay our representatives to digest to make this decision.
By the way, here is a report I ran across discussing the impact of professional sports facilities on housing values.
http://www.thecyberhood.net/documents/papers/sports.pdf
And here's a Huffington Post piece on positive and negative business impact of the Thunder NBA team move on OKC and Seattle respectively.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/1 ... 94729.html