Share
271
Full MemberFull Member
271

PostApr 10, 2015#1576

gary kreie wrote: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?
Regardless of whether or not your point is a good one, in this case there is a clearly-written law that was passed by voters to put financial assistance to a public vote.

Guess we'll see if it's just too vague/overbroad to be enforceable.
8,155
Life MemberLife Member
8,155

PostApr 10, 2015#1577

gary kreie wrote: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.
This makes little sense.... the people specifically chose to not trust their representatives on the issues of stadium funding and thus the 2004 vote. Especially after the disaster of the deal to bring the Rams to town, public scrutiny and a vote is especially important on these matters. You can't say "well what about representative democracy" when the democracy said it wanted a direct vote on the issue. (Also, if the City PD wants a new fleet of automobiles we will be voting on it through a bond issue.)
3,433
Life MemberLife Member
3,433

PostApr 10, 2015#1578

I'm glad to hear that you believe the public will be studying the economic pluses and minuses in detail, and won't just show up to vote no on emotion, whether it is in their own economic interest or not -- all 12% of the them that bother to show up at the poles.
8,155
Life MemberLife Member
8,155

PostApr 10, 2015#1579

^ Yes, I do trust the people to make an informed decision. Glad you live in the city, btw.
3,433
Life MemberLife Member
3,433

PostApr 10, 2015#1580

Glad to hear you voted on Tuesday.
3,762
Life MemberLife Member
3,762

PostApr 10, 2015#1581

it's not different.
dbInSouthCity wrote: ...for one, its frees up the Dome for more business...
for the billionth time, this happens regardless. please stop saying that it's contingent upon a new stadium.
dbInSouthCity wrote: ...it potentially adds another major league sport (soccer)…
yeah? how close is that to happening?
dbInSouthCity wrote: ...could spur more development along with the bridge you mention since they would be walking distance of each other...
walking distance my ass. you've seen the renderings. nobody is going to be walking anywhere if this thing gets built as planned. not only that, but it's going to wipe out a good part of the investment that's already been made.
dbInSouthCity wrote:$350M from the state and $450-600m (depending on PSL pricing) of private money...
none of which will be used for anything other than the stadium and maybe some landscaping in an futile attempt to hide a square mile of parking.
8,155
Life MemberLife Member
8,155

PostApr 10, 2015#1582

Slay came out with a statement that outlined the general city commitment (no more bond payments greater than current Dome's $6 million + land donation of a couple million + gameday revenue).

Peacock isn't planning on presenting until the October meeting so its becoming clearer that a decision won't be made until after the regular season is over.... so a November 3 vote shouldn't be a problem.
9,570
Life MemberLife Member
9,570

PostApr 10, 2015#1583

there will be no vote there will be no vote there will be no vote. :D
283
Full MemberFull Member
283

PostApr 10, 2015#1584

Yes, lets be giddy about denying people the right to have a more direct say in how their money is used.

Really have to wonder, if as Peacock says, there is increasing support for this, what's the problem with having a vote? If anything, sue to have one now.

The lengths you stadium backers are willing to go to in order to keep the NFL's carpetbagger franchise in town. It reeks of desperation.
1,067
Expert MemberExpert Member
1,067

PostApr 10, 2015#1585

You're darn right it's desperation, but given Stan's actions, how else are we to proceed? Ambivalence will get us nothing. We have been challenged to do this and we are responding (to date in a more expedient and impressive way than the other 2 markets charged with the same task). Peacock has only delivered to this point and if he thinks this level of foresight is helpful, then I trust him.

For anyone saying that is the opinion of a lowly, sports loving stadium-backer, I would similarly trust and admire someone of Peacock's credentials, ambition, and skillset if they were pursuing with this much passion another endeavor that involves the retention of a different city asset.

I think people that do not have an appreciation for sports are ticked off to see the city and its ambassadors move so tactfully on something while other issues lay waiting. I can't blame that sentiment, actually, however it should speak to how influential sports are on our country and culture, even if financially dubious.
1,093
Expert MemberExpert Member
1,093

PostApr 11, 2015#1586

Aesir wrote:Really have to wonder, if as Peacock says, there is increasing support for this, what's the problem with having a vote? If anything, sue to have one now.

The lengths you stadium backers are willing to go to in order to keep the NFL's carpetbagger franchise in town. It reeks of desperation.
I agree - have the vote.

Completely reeks of desperation.
3,762
Life MemberLife Member
3,762

PostApr 11, 2015#1587

blzhrpmd2 wrote:For anyone saying that is the opinion of a lowly, sports loving stadium-backer, I would similarly trust and admire someone of Peacock's credentials, ambition, and skillset if they were pursuing with this much passion another endeavor that involves the retention of a different city asset.
"asset" is subjective. how about all these opinions?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorf ... yers-lose/

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... -4-billion

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240 ... 0349497852

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc ... ms/260900/

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... rs/309448/

http://www.npr.org/2011/08/05/139018592 ... s-stadiums

and, of course, our business leaders and politicians always make smart decisions. that must be why the city—and downtown in particular—is thriving.
blzhrpmd2 wrote:I think people that do not have an appreciation for sports are ticked off to see the city and its ambassadors move so tactfully on something while other issues lay waiting. I can't blame that sentiment, actually, however it should speak to how influential sports are on our country and culture, even if financially dubious.
i think sports fan(atics) too often let their passion for the game supersede reason. i have nothing against sports, except when they're given precedence over more important concerns.
1,982
Never Logs OffNever Logs Off
1,982

PostApr 11, 2015#1588

I'm as big of a sports fan as there is, but I'm not real pleased with this stadium plan and how they're trying to get it through. It's not the worst plan, they've done it in a way that puts me on the fence. But it's still too much money. It's still sacrificing too many buildings. And it's trying to squeeze by without a public vote that is seemingly required.
1,067
Expert MemberExpert Member
1,067

PostApr 12, 2015#1589

All of those opinions are great. They are well organized arguments by smart people. I can readily admit that sports ventures are flawed in their ability to make perfect financial sense. Would someone like Peacock really be pushing this hard if he thought it would make the city worse off?

I'll ask it again: show all those articles above to every city in the country regarding all of their professional sports teams, their stadia, and ways in which those cities have financially invested in those teams. Request that they trade a professional franchise for something that will bring guaranteed more money to the city. How many will take it? Why did all the cities who LA was used as leverage against cave and build? It's because losing a team sucks. Plain sucks. It's why we still talk about losing the Cardinals despite having had the Rams here 20 years. It's why older generations still lament losing the Browns, why Seattle is upset about the Sonics, why Sacramento rallied to keep the Kings, and why fans in Cleveland are on STL Rams' fan pages saying things like "I'm rooting for you guys to keep the Rams, because no market should have to endure losing a team."

Define asset however you want, but keep in mind that if we lose the Rams, someone else gets the team (and wants it) and sees value in it. Therefore, it's an asset whether or not we want to recognize it as such. "More important concerns" is just as subjective.

If the city, politicians, and business leaders are going to make bad decisions anyway, then I'd rather have the NFL here than not.
459
Full MemberFull Member
459

PostApr 12, 2015#1590

^ Excellent post!
8,155
Life MemberLife Member
8,155

PostApr 12, 2015#1591

courtland wrote:^ Excellent post!
^ Is that your first post since 2010? If so, welcome back!
459
Full MemberFull Member
459

PostApr 12, 2015#1592

Yes, but I check in daily...especially concerning this subject. I'm a Big Rams fan and season ticket holder!
613
Senior MemberSenior Member
613

PostApr 12, 2015#1593

blzhrpmd2 wrote:All of those opinions are great. They are well organized arguments by smart people. I can readily admit that sports ventures are flawed in their ability to make perfect financial sense. Would someone like Peacock really be pushing this hard if he thought it would make the city worse off?

I'll ask it again: show all those articles above to every city in the country regarding all of their professional sports teams, their stadia, and ways in which those cities have financially invested in those teams. Request that they trade a professional franchise for something that will bring guaranteed more money to the city. How many will take it? Why did all the cities who LA was used as leverage against cave and build? It's because losing a team sucks. Plain sucks. It's why we still talk about losing the Cardinals despite having had the Rams here 20 years. It's why older generations still lament losing the Browns, why Seattle is upset about the Sonics, why Sacramento rallied to keep the Kings, and why fans in Cleveland are on STL Rams' fan pages saying things like "I'm rooting for you guys to keep the Rams, because no market should have to endure losing a team."

Define asset however you want, but keep in mind that if we lose the Rams, someone else gets the team (and wants it) and sees value in it. Therefore, it's an asset whether or not we want to recognize it as such. "More important concerns" is just as subjective.

If the city, politicians, and business leaders are going to make bad decisions anyway, then I'd rather have the NFL here than not.
Well said. Pretty much sums up my position on the subject as well.
3,762
Life MemberLife Member
3,762

PostApr 12, 2015#1594

blzhrpmd2 wrote:Would someone like Peacock really be pushing this hard if he thought it would make the city worse off?
whether or not he thinks it'll make the city worse off, the research demonstrates that it is bad economics. and there is more than a little precedent when it comes to our business leaders pushing for things that make the city worse off, intentional or not.
blzhrpmd2 wrote: I'll ask it again: show all those articles above to every city in the country regarding all of their professional sports teams, their stadia, and ways in which those cities have financially invested in those teams. Request that they trade a professional franchise for something that will bring guaranteed more money to the city. How many will take it? Why did all the cities who LA was used as leverage against cave and build? It's because losing a team sucks. Plain sucks. It's why we still talk about losing the Cardinals despite having had the Rams here 20 years. It's why older generations still lament losing the Browns, why Seattle is upset about the Sonics, why Sacramento rallied to keep the Kings, and why fans in Cleveland are on STL Rams' fan pages saying things like "I'm rooting for you guys to keep the Rams, because no market should have to endure losing a team."
right. these decisions are driven primarily by emotion and tribal attachments instead of reason and honest analysis. i agree.
blzhrpmd2 wrote: Define asset however you want, but keep in mind that if we lose the Rams, someone else gets the team (and wants it) and sees value in it. Therefore, it's an asset whether or not we want to recognize it as such. "More important concerns" is just as subjective.

If the city, politicians, and business leaders are going to make bad decisions anyway, then I'd rather have the NFL here than not.
i'm defining "asset" as something that generates economic activity and population growth in a struggling city, and provides the infrastructure for that to occur. in that sense the term "asset" is anything but subjective. if pro sports did that then this wouldn't be an issue, but it doesn't, as we've seen first hand for many many years.

again, my biggest beef isn't even the building of a new stadium. it's what is being destroyed for this particular stadium plan. it's that, in time-tested city-killing form, we're going to raze another swath of our downtown and give over the north riverfront and the investment that's already occurring there, along with any potential for actual economically proactive urban development, for yet another coliseum surrounded by oceans of parking that is, according to most research, not going to do sh*t for our economy.
3,433
Life MemberLife Member
3,433

PostApr 12, 2015#1595

You have to compare the economic benefit of $450M of NFL money from outside the area vs the losses that come from completely losing a business that is. worth a billion dollars. And as plans go forward, more and more of the salvaged buildings will be saved. They already changed the plan to save all the buildings and businesses on Broadway. I would love to save the Cotton Belt building, but I haven't heard that it is even possible to save it. Does it have a roof? There will be multiple design iterations before a stadium is built, and I hope they only provide enough limited parking for the hardcore tailgaters, but no more. They could weave that around every building not directly under the stadium footprint. So we could have the best of both.

PostApr 12, 2015#1596

urban_dilettante wrote:
blzhrpmd2 wrote:For anyone saying that is the opinion of a lowly, sports loving stadium-backer, I would similarly trust and admire someone of Peacock's credentials, ambition, and skillset if they were pursuing with this much passion another endeavor that involves the retention of a different city asset.
"asset" is subjective. how about all these opinions?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreyd...axpayers-lose/

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...lose-4-billion

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014...16330349497852

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...adiums/260900/

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...payers/309448/

http://www.npr.org/2011/08/05/139018...ports-stadiums

and, of course, our business leaders and politicians always make smart decisions. that must be why the city—and downtown in particular—is thriving.
blzhrpmd2 wrote:I think people that do not have an appreciation for sports are ticked off to see the city and its ambassadors move so tactfully on something while other issues lay waiting. I can't blame that sentiment, actually, however it should speak to how influential sports are on our country and culture, even if financially dubious.
i think sports fan(atics) too often let their passion for the game supersede reason. i have nothing against sports, except when they're given precedence over more important concerns.
Maybe its just my system, but I tried the links from my iPhone and my PC, and every single one of them says the articles don't exist. Anyone else able to read them? Maybe the articles are ancient and no longer available. I wanted to see if the reviewers looked only at deals like the dome, where the public paid everything, or ones like the new stadium, where the local public will pay almost nothing unless they attend games. It was pretty easy to find counter pieces that said it might pay to subsidize stadiums, just for the increase in metro property values alone.
1,982
Never Logs OffNever Logs Off
1,982

PostApr 13, 2015#1597

It's worth noting that under no circumstances is LA willing to build a stadium for the NFL. If they were, they'd have a team back by now. They're not.

The city that we might lose the team to has NO INTEREST in publicly subsidizing (to any real degree) a stadium.

I don't have one specific point to make with that, I just think it's worth considering when we talk about how other cities value these teams as an asset and about how we need to compete with our public dollars and lands.
1,093
Expert MemberExpert Member
1,093

PostApr 13, 2015#1598

jstriebel wrote:It's worth noting that under no circumstances is LA willing to build a stadium for the NFL. If they were, they'd have a team back by now. They're not.

The city that we might lose the team to has NO INTEREST in publicly subsidizing (to any real degree) a stadium.

I don't have one specific point to make with that, I just think it's worth considering when we talk about how other cities value these teams as an asset and about how we need to compete with our public dollars and lands.
definitely worth noting. STL is fighting for something that has an owner who doesn't want to be here. We're not even competing against another city. While he's spending his money on plans in LA, STL is spending its money on plans on a site that the owner of the team doesn't even want! HOW DOES THIS MAKE SENSE?!? THIS IS EMBARRASSING!
3,433
Life MemberLife Member
3,433

PostApr 13, 2015#1599

Think of it as the NFL building us a new stadium and putting a coveted NFL team here, if we can figure out how to finance the other half of the stadium from seat licenses, taxes on players and tickets, and taxes on visitor, like the visitor taxes in other cities. I'm not sure Inglewood won't approve more taxes for infrastructure ($100M estimates) than we would pay here. If we don't want this deal, there are at least 10 other cities that would take it, including Inglewood if it was offered to them. It is only offered to us because we are a current NFL city.
1,093
Expert MemberExpert Member
1,093

PostApr 13, 2015#1600

gary kreie wrote:If we don't want this deal, there are at least 10 other cities that would take it, including Inglewood if it was offered to them. It is only offered to us because we are a current NFL city.
Can you list these 10 cities?
Read more posts (3902 remaining)
Share