urbanSTL

^ Agree, it also bad business practice to spend money on the same thing if you have already decided to do something different.

On a different note, On my way to work one of the lead stories for the Bay Area was that Radier's/Oakland stadium deal was dead on arrival for a number of reasons

1) Raider's/NFL can get to $500 million on funding but no funding in sight for the other $500 million, private or public. Gov. Brown and the state have a budget surplus but no one in Sacramento is going to touch this and Oakland is just trying to put more cops back on the street and Alameda County is trying to figure how to expand transit because of ever increasing amount of congestion.

2) Raiders/Developers are asking for free land as part of the deal which is going nowhere with either the city and or Alameda county. That is going nowhere. Not surprised, Cities and counties are looking for pay days in the red hot Bay area real estate markets not the other way around.

3) Supposedly no cooperation between the Raiders/Oakland A's as Raiders are demanding that the current stadium is demolished as soon as new stadium is built. Leaving A's high and dry since the Giants, MLB and now courts have blocked the A's move to San Jose.

The plus side on my end. Maybe a revised Oakland A's Jack London square waterfront stadium with a new BART station comes back to life.

Still can't picture St. Louis Raider's but you never know. The reality is Stan K's LA plan and St. Louis/Dave Peacock at the moment are the only two legitimate ways for NLF to get two new stadiums. At the same time, I think Chargers would be more than glad to be the second home team in Inglewood.

^Isn't this similar to the one proposed at Union Station? I like the idea of ours being based at Union Station. It let's the Arch be the center of attention, while at the same time offering a nice visual stimulus, after you pass the Arch or approach the Poplar.

Dweebe, It will be interesting to see who is right on this one. I still think Levi's stadium is not even on the list let alone #4. However, Something to happen for the Raiders and Chargers in their respective towns is liking watching a glacier move so it might be a while.

I'm still at the believe the San Francisco with its play to bring Warriors back across the bay, 49er's and to lesser extent the Giants want the bay area to be an one home team town. So far the only team that seem content with a cross bay rival for fans and revenues is the Giants as long as the A's don't go to San Jose. My gut feeling is that NFL and NBA share the same feeling. NBA Kings getting a new arena in Sacramento and about to get a new arena for Warriors and won't be surprised if Clippers quietly announce a move to Seattle at some point in the next year or two into a new arena

Regarding the lawsuit filed by the RSA vs City's law on stadium funding:

1.) Both the City and County have almost identical laws on this subject, both placed on the ballot by initiative petition, and both of which voters approved. Residents of the region spoke very clearly on the subject.

2.) The lawsuit is a big political miscalculation by stadium proponents. What if the RSA loses? Then they still have to have a public vote, and they've tainted their cause to some extent. Probably more importantly they've wasted time they could have used to get the issue through City Hall and on the ballot this November and campaign for it.

3.) The Board of Aldermen can place the issue on the ballot for a public vote, even without the law. So the lawsuit is possibly moot even if they prevail.

4.) The City of St. Louis is 62 square miles and 320,000 people. That's what we have to work with. Having a public vote forces some fiscal discipline on whoever is proposing a stadium, and that's a good thing. The details of these proposals are important. We are seriously fiscally constrained as a city, and we're not in a position to take on major liabilities. So again, the details of the proposal matter, and they aren't in writing yet.

5.) Its a reasonable law. The City Charter requires a 2/3rds public vote approval to issue debt for essential things like trash and fire trucks. 50% is not a high bar to clear.

6.) Its an opportunity for stadium proponents to explain the project, explain the benefits as they see them, and if successful, ultimately demonstrate public support and commitment to a stadium, which seems like a helpful step to land a new team / owner. Its an opportunity to engage with people, they should embrace it.

Scott Ogilvie
24th Ward Alderman

Regarding the lawsuit filed by the RSA vs City's law on stadium funding:

1.) Both the City and County have almost identical laws on this subject, both placed on the ballot by initiative petition, and both of which voters approved. Residents of the region spoke very clearly on the subject.

2.) The lawsuit is a big political miscalculation by stadium proponents. What if the RSA loses? Then they still have to have a public vote, and they've tainted their cause to some extent. Probably more importantly they've wasted time they could have used to get the issue through City Hall and on the ballot this November and campaign for it.

3.) The Board of Aldermen can place the issue on the ballot for a public vote, even without the law. So the lawsuit is possibly moot even if they prevail.

4.) The City of St. Louis is 62 square miles and 320,000 people. That's what we have to work with. Having a public vote forces some fiscal discipline on whoever is proposing a stadium, and that's a good thing. The details of these proposals are important. We are seriously fiscally constrained as a city, and we're not in a position to take on major liabilities. So again, the details of the proposal matter, and they aren't in writing yet.

5.) Its a reasonable law. The City Charter requires a 2/3rds public vote approval to issue debt for essential things like trash and fire trucks. 50% is not a high bar to clear.

6.) Its an opportunity for stadium proponents to explain the project, explain the benefits as they see them, and if successful, ultimately demonstrate public support and commitment to a stadium, which seems like a helpful step to land a new team / owner. Its an opportunity to engage with people, they should embrace it.

Scott Ogilvie
24th Ward Alderman

Scott, thanks for the comments. While you're on here, why does this kind of project have to come from the private sector to get done? Yes, people have varying opinions on the necessity of funding a stadium. But it seems like the projects of this magnitude never come from those in public office. Its always some group of citizens yelling until their heard, and then the public officials get into gear. Maybe that's the state of political workings everywhere. On this site, we always harp on the need for better transit, less crime, better schools, friendlier business environments (less bureaucracy), etc. Are you (the aldermen) doing anything large scale in regards to those kind of needs? Are we just trying to maintain? Would the city take on debt to push for more urban transit or education for preschool/after school and the like? On the outside looking in, it doesn't seem like we are making those efforts.

Thats a lot of questions!

Yes, I mean I think there are many efforts on various things out there, with varying degrees of success. As an individual member of the Board of Aldermen, you aren't much more than one voice and one opinion. Budgets in both the City and County are really mostly an executive processes, so you just try to work your priorities in, but its mostly not within our control.

Most of our big efforts are really regional efforts. More taxpayers, more money, but more political complications. I mean, MSD is spending $4 billion in infrastructure improvements over the next 20 years, so there are certainly already big projects out there.

And yes, all government is definitely an interaction between issues / wants / needs that citizens bring to the fore, and efforts that come from inside all the different regional government agencies and their professional staff.

I'd be happy to address a specific question if you have one.

Thats a lot of questions!

Yes, I mean I think there are many efforts on various things out there, with varying degrees of success. As an individual member of the Board of Aldermen, you aren't much more than one voice and one opinion. Budgets in both the City and County are really mostly an executive processes, so you just try to work your priorities in, but its mostly not within our control.

Most of our big efforts are really regional efforts. More taxpayers, more money, but more political complications. I mean, MSD is spending $4 billion in infrastructure improvements over the next 20 years, so there are certainly already big projects out there.

And yes, all government is definitely an interaction between issues / wants / needs that citizens bring to the fore, and efforts that come from inside all the different regional government agencies and their professional staff.

I'd be happy to address a specific question if you have one.

Yeah, I lost focus. Similar to the stadium project, are there any large-scale, city-specific development projects (like the stadium) that the city would willing take on debt (or not take on debt) in order to accomplish? (i.e. debt for transit, repaving roads, expanding city, education options, business incentives)

^ Heck, the city aldermen/women can't even agree on a $190 million bond measure to fix city streets and public infrastructure. While city aldermen should not take this project lightly I would argue that can make this happen without a city wide vote very much the way Minneapolis got it done up north. It is unique to note that both Minneapolis and St. Paul are gaining population. Is it because of new stadiums, no. But multiple of things including stadium investment.

The reality for St. Louis is that their is no other options nor will most likely have Gov Nixon let alone Peacock put something together again that could either keep the Rams and or facilitate an expansion team while facilitating a $500 million dollar of work on the north riverfront. Heck, might even put St. Louis in position for an MSL team. Some tweaks and could be a really good plan. I really do think it comes down to the perception of St. Louis going from a second tier city to a third tier city without the Rams.

I know most of the Aldermen have their hearts in the right place but for the life of me I can't understand how anyone would think the stretch of land from Lumiere to Stan Span will organically ignite into a thriving urban neighborhood.

IT WON'T. It never has and never will. It's ugly and it sucks.

I agree the future is bright. And that parcel of land that is so visible to everyone will be brighter housing a state-of-the-art stadium and renovated power building.

If the NFL leaves, my life is unaffected. In fact, it probably gets better. But what empirical data do you have to suggest that area will thrive? I have none. All I have is what it has looked like the last 30 years.

ward24 wrote:Regarding the lawsuit filed by the RSA vs City's law on stadium funding:

1.) Both the City and County have almost identical laws on this subject, both placed on the ballot by initiative petition, and both of which voters approved. Residents of the region spoke very clearly on the subject.

2.) The lawsuit is a big political miscalculation by stadium proponents. What if the RSA loses? Then they still have to have a public vote, and they've tainted their cause to some extent. Probably more importantly they've wasted time they could have used to get the issue through City Hall and on the ballot this November and campaign for it.

3.) The Board of Aldermen can place the issue on the ballot for a public vote, even without the law. So the lawsuit is possibly moot even if they prevail.

4.) The City of St. Louis is 62 square miles and 320,000 people. That's what we have to work with. Having a public vote forces some fiscal discipline on whoever is proposing a stadium, and that's a good thing. The details of these proposals are important. We are seriously fiscally constrained as a city, and we're not in a position to take on major liabilities. So again, the details of the proposal matter, and they aren't in writing yet.

5.) Its a reasonable law. The City Charter requires a 2/3rds public vote approval to issue debt for essential things like trash and fire trucks. 50% is not a high bar to clear.

6.) Its an opportunity for stadium proponents to explain the project, explain the benefits as they see them, and if successful, ultimately demonstrate public support and commitment to a stadium, which seems like a helpful step to land a new team / owner. Its an opportunity to engage with people, they should embrace it.

Scott Ogilvie
24th Ward Alderman

Scott, thanks for your perspective. Here are a few questions.

1) Can you tell us how much of the $6 million that the city contributes to the stadium now comes from visitor taxes (hotel, rental cares, restaurants) and not from St. Louisans? Also, about how much do sales taxes / earnings taxes go on up Rams game days versus non-sports Sundays? How will the public payoff the dome when the Rams leave?
2) The Donnybrook folks, Bill McClellan, Charlie Brennan, along with McGraw Milhaven and others are revving up the public to vote NO. But they never mention the real numbers -- they just get folks to call in saying we should not pay ONE DIME of public money to build a stadium for mean old Stan Kroenke. These media types won't discuss the numbers -- just the emotion. The Post looked at the numbers and reluctantly agreed that the Missouri Economic Dev. Study was correct, and that the Rams more than pay for themselves, even with new stadium payments. Have you looked at the numbers? Do you agree with the Post that the Rams more than pay for themselves? How will you personally vote when you go to the polls?
3) The citizens of St. Louis pay the Aldermen to study the details of issues and make informed votes. Why take the MOLEG approach and kick any tax related bill back to the voters, who only hear sound bites? Is it too risky for Aldermen to vote yes and possibly lose their next election?
4) I have no doubt that Kroenke, who (as we learned after the election) spend $1.8 million on the election in Inglewood even though it was a slam dunk, will covertly spend whatever it takes to get the media to rev up the public for a NO vote. He's counting on it and he is manipulating his own image here to make sure folks think they are voting against him. Fellow filthy rich guy Rex Sinquefield's Show-Me institute already owns the MOLEG. Are you not concerned that the public might vote the wrong way? After all, we Missourians voted to let felons have guns, and voted to kill the Obamacare marketplace here and effectively kill medicaid expansion for poor people and turn down a couple of billion dollars from the federal government.

Thanks.

^ good post, please answer Mr. Ogilvie...also, please answer why the city is wiling to risk (through a public "No" vote) private investment in the North Riverfront of approximately $400M? Where will that type of investment come from in the near future?

Preysbertian, you make a decent argument with a couple good examples but I would also say that doesn't enough come close to the infill needed in this area that is decades out at current slow growth region. Even now, I believe Farmworks bigger plans are stalled including the legal entanglement of a biofuel plant never built (which I think is a great idea). In addition, I believe most of the companies along Broadway will indeed remain in place and intact with the latest stadium plan.

Nor does anyone account for the competing areas from Bottleworks, to BPV to Lacledes, west downtown & midtown not to mention that north St. Louis is literally crumbling in front of everyone eyes when argument is made that this area will come back organically. Heck, we just now seeing inkling of the possibility of redeveloping the old Owens Glass plan on the hill in an established intact neighborhood. That has been almost a decade since something was last discussed.

At same time, GRG is taking the area backwards already by securing property on Lacledes, first via a parking lot from the old pinnacle development deal as well as a recent parcel, that includes more green space!!! At the same time, Trailnet is a great organization but they couldn't pull off a development deal around the old power plant if not mistaken.

I think Sirshankalot is being a realist and seeing an opportunity for matching private funding to have a stadium that goes up a notch, open the dome to more convention, provides an opening to secure a MSL time and will probably make the tie in from Arch/Lacledes to north riverfont if done right.