urbanSTL

^ Fair enough, but I would argue if their is an area that will accommodate a top tier NFL/premier open air soccer stadium this it is, if their is a project that might encourage Laclede's Landing infill like a Drury tower and or Bottleworks to break ground this is it, if their is a project that can attract or secure a local NFL ownership and or MSL ownership group this is it, if their is a time that the city will attract $400-500 million in private matching investment it is now,.. City aldermen will want to discuss and everything will have moved on by next year.

As far as what can still be developed lets not forget that downtown still have huge spaces to fill in the Railway Exchange, Chemical, and Jeff Arms. I'm still confounded on the demographics and census counts supports the notion that you will fill all the old industrial space that still exists with lofts. Not too mention that you also got a significant amount of new residential units in CWE, with more coming from COTREX, and the doesn't even account for the new construction in Clayton. Lofts have a lot more competition.

I can't believe the Board of Aldermen are ready to hand the future of the Rams here over to the ignorant, Charlie Brennan-listening, Bill McLellan-reading masses.

This is why I need out of St. Louis.

Raiders owner Mark Davis talked to reporters at the meetings. Says he's not interested in selling team or moving to St. Louis. It's "not where the team belongs".

Dweebe, I think Davis leaves the door open on Levi's stadium but definitely puts it down the list behind a new Oakland and/or Carson City stadium. I think gives a vague response to St. Louis move but definitely makes it clear that he is not selling the team. I Charger owners have said the same in so many words.

At least this guy talk and answer some questions straight up. No matter happens I think the idea that Stan K himself find a way out of St. Louis is probably something that everyone can agree with.

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco ... -this.html

Raiders owner: 'We're trying to stay, but we can't do this forever'

When asked about possibly sharing Levi's Stadium in Santa Clara with the San Francisco 49ers, Davis said, "It's just as far for me to get to Santa Clara as it is to fly to L.A."

dweebe wrote:

Mound City wrote:I can't believe the Board of Aldermen are ready to hand the future of the Rams here over to the ignorant, Charlie Brennan-listening, Bill McLellan-reading masses.

This is why I need out of St. Louis.

Get ready for a future with no football in St. Louis. Should keep those masses and most people on this board happy.

Ugh

If the people of St. Louis decide they don't want football, isn't that ok?

I mean, you might personally hate it, but there's nothing inherently awful about a city not making football a priority. I'm pretty convinced that the tax dollars largely even out. There might even be a slight positive.

But football isn't windfall for the city, that's for sure. So it's not a dumb financial decision.

There's no evidence that the NFL actually attracts Fortune 500 companies or population or young people.

It's just a piece of entertainment that some people think is worth spending for and others don't. It's prestige to some people, but in the absence of the aforementioned evidence, there's not much to that argument.

It's not a social issue. It's not like letting the NFL leave the city is part of classism or an attack on the helpless.

It's an entertainment choice. And if we, as a city, choose that's not where we want to spend our dollars, so be it. And if we choose that we do, that's fine, too.

There isn't anything about letting the NFL leave that would speak badly to the state of this city. There are plenty of things to complain about in regards to that, but the existence or lack thereof of an NFL team isn't one.

jstriebel wrote:There isn't anything about letting the NFL leave that would speak badly to the state of this city. There are plenty of things to complain about in regards to that, but the existence or lack thereof of an NFL team isn't one.

It's about a narrative - the national image of the city. If St. Louis was growing quickly from both a population and a business perspective, telling Kroenke and the NFL to go pound sand would be seen as a decision from a position of strength. But St. Louis has had a lot of bad press lately, and it is a slow growing region. Letting the NFL go at this time will be viewed as a one more downward slide.

Even if the NFL is not a great financial investment, I'd argue the region can't afford to lose the NFL at this time.

But again, you're not talking about something tangible. And I'm not saying there isn't value in intangible things. I believe there is, and that's why if we the people choose to build this thing, I won't be mad.

But if we the people don't, then there's no problems. Narrative isn't reality. It only takes the next "big story" to shake that up.

We can control the narrative by working on the developments that address the issues of resident population and business population.

We needn't worry about the short-term narrative impacts of having a football team.

If we want one, let's try to keep it. I'm fine with that. But if we—as a city—decide we don't. Then everything is still going to be ok. (Or maybe it isn't. But it won't be because we don't have a football team.)

I'm going to try to answer Gary's questions above without going too far down the rabbit hole:

1.) The debt on the current Dome is paid for with a portion of the hotel tax charged in the City, its the only source. A tiny, tiny percentage of hotel stays are generated by Rams games. The team leaving has no impact on paying off the existing debt. There has been zero real analysis / study done over the last 20 years on what economic impact the Rams have. The CVC said in public, "We don't know." So the real answer is we don't know, but we do know it isn't much in terms of tax revenue to the City. The state is a little bit different animal, because the state is collecting 6% income tax on the player and management salaries. But its very unlikely that the annual tax revenue generated to the City exceeds the $6M that goes into the Dome.

2.) The Post looked mostly at State taxes generated by the Rams, not taxes to the City. They are vastly different. I agree that the state comes out better in the deal than the City does. The state probably breaks even. What matters to me is the City's budget, since that's where the vast majority of services provided to residents comes from. These things are a lot more complicated than looking at two or three revenue sources and two or three expense categories.

2A.) How would I vote? I don't know, because there's no proposal with numbers in writing in front of the Board of Aldermen. I could go either way depending on the details.

3.) I think everyone saying a public vote in the issue is being anti-stadium is really jumping to conclusions. I'm pro stadium vote because its the law. This is the exact situation the law is intended for. Voters approved the law in both the City and County in separate votes. People wanted a say in this, got it on the ballot, and made it law. Its a reasonable law. Let's follow the law. That's my whole point, and what generated the letter to the RSA. Here's the law: https://www.municode.com/library/mo/st. ... 3.91.010DE Saying that the RSA should be working towards a vote just means this: Get a proposal through the Board of Aldermen, as the law requires, let's put it on the ballot, and go sell the idea to voters. I've done it in the past when we passed Prop R to reduce the Board of Aldermen. Its honestly not a high hurdle to get 50% of the vote if you have a good proposal. We needed 60% with Prop R.

4.) Am I concerned the public will vote the wrong way? No - Look, its the law. There's not another option. There's no plan B besides the hail mary lawsuit. Time spent on the lawsuit is literally time wasted for stadium proponents that could be spent selling the idea to the public. A public vote is a great opportunity to show support for the project TO THE NEXT TEAM OWNER in St. Louis, because there's not going to be a stadium without owner money, and Kroenke isn't putting money into this plan.

5.) The other questions like "You are turning away $400M in private investment by having a vote" - First of all, again, its the law to have a vote. Second, right now there's no private money in this project. There's the IDEA of private money. But WAY more than a public vote, a new stadium depends on an owner who owns a team in St. Louis putting their money in. That's the biggest hurdle and variable in this equation. Right now that owner does not exist, and I would make a strong argument that having a "Yes" outcome on a vote actually is a step towards getting to the point where an owner wants to make that investment.

Thanks,

Scott Ogilvie
24th Ward Alderman

^ What would be the deadline to get something on the ballot for a November public vote?

ward24 wrote:I'm going to try to answer Gary's questions above without going too far down the rabbit hole:

1.) The debt on the current Dome is paid for with a portion of the hotel tax charged in the City, its the only source. A tiny, tiny percentage of hotel stays are generated by Rams games. The team leaving has no impact on paying off the existing debt. There has been zero real analysis / study done over the last 20 years on what economic impact the Rams have. The CVC said in public, "We don't know." So the real answer is we don't know, but we do know it isn't much in terms of tax revenue to the City. The state is a little bit different animal, because the state is collecting 6% income tax on the player and management salaries. But its very unlikely that the annual tax revenue generated to the City exceeds the $6M that goes into the Dome.

2.) The Post looked mostly at State taxes generated by the Rams, not taxes to the City. They are vastly different. I agree that the state comes out better in the deal than the City does. The state probably breaks even. What matters to me is the City's budget, since that's where the vast majority of services provided to residents comes from. These things are a lot more complicated than looking at two or three revenue sources and two or three expense categories.

2A.) How would I vote? I don't know, because there's no proposal with numbers in writing in front of the Board of Aldermen. I could go either way depending on the details.

3.) I think everyone saying a public vote in the issue is being anti-stadium is really jumping to conclusions. I'm pro stadium vote because its the law. This is the exact situation the law is intended for. Voters approved the law in both the City and County in separate votes. People wanted a say in this, got it on the ballot, and made it law. Its a reasonable law. Let's follow the law. That's my whole point, and what generated the letter to the RSA. Here's the law: https://www.municode.com/library/mo/st. ... 3.91.010DE Saying that the RSA should be working towards a vote just means this: Get a proposal through the Board of Aldermen, as the law requires, let's put it on the ballot, and go sell the idea to voters. I've done it in the past when we passed Prop R to reduce the Board of Aldermen. Its honestly not a high hurdle to get 50% of the vote if you have a good proposal. We needed 60% with Prop R.

4.) Am I concerned the public will vote the wrong way? No - Look, its the law. There's not another option. There's no plan B besides the hail mary lawsuit. Time spent on the lawsuit is literally time wasted for stadium proponents that could be spent selling the idea to the public. A public vote is a great opportunity to show support for the project TO THE NEXT TEAM OWNER in St. Louis, because there's not going to be a stadium without owner money, and Kroenke isn't putting money into this plan.

5.) The other questions like "You are turning away $400M in private investment by having a vote" - First of all, again, its the law to have a vote. Second, right now there's no private money in this project. There's the IDEA of private money. But WAY more than a public vote, a new stadium depends on an owner who owns a team in St. Louis putting their money in. That's the biggest hurdle and variable in this equation. Right now that owner does not exist, and I would make a strong argument that having a "Yes" outcome on a vote actually is a step towards getting to the point where an owner wants to make that investment.

Thanks,

Scott Ogilvie
24th Ward Alderman

Thanks, Scott, for taking the time to give well-reasoned answers to my questions.

On the first item, if I understand your answer, I believe you are saying the city's $6 million per year tab for the dome is entirely paid for by the hotel tax. St. Louisans rarely stay in St. Louis hotels, so that would make it a visitor tax just like the ones we pay when we visit other cities for their NFL stadiums. But the Rams generate a fraction of that, so if the Rams leave, there would still be enough to finish paying off the dome, and after 2021 it could be used for other city functions.

On the second item, I'm glad to see that you agree with the Post that the state at least breaks even.

With regard to a public vote, I'm starting to agree with the LA Times article that quoted you, where they contend the city vote is what will kill the NFL in St. Louis and pave the way for the Rams to move to LA. Yesterday, Mark Davis said he would never sell the Raiders and will never consider moving to St. Louis. San Diego just announced a funding plan that requires no public vote. And Kevin Demoff just laughed when asked if Stan would consider selling the team to St. Louis interests.

So, our only option may be to try to get the NFL to make Stan stay here. It may have bee a strategic error on the Governor's part to consider St. Louis city or county for a new stadium where a vote is the law, apparently. And now it is probably too late to court St. Charles. The MLS commish wants a smaller MLS style stadium in downtown, but no earlier than 2020, but that would also require a public vote by law so would run into the same media bias. The Illinois side may be the way to go there.

I wonder if Peacock will be like most St. Louisans and just give up.

I'm not giving up yet. But LA forces are powerful. They are pulling out all the stops. Check out this new Forbes piece that says the new stadium would be built on top of an ancient Native American city.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kristinakil ... ican-city/

jstriebel wrote:If the people of St. Louis decide they don't want football, isn't that ok?
....

It's an entertainment choice. And if we, as a city, choose that's not where we want to spend our dollars, so be it. And if we choose that we do, that's fine, too.

There isn't anything about letting the NFL leave that would speak badly to the state of this city. There are plenty of things to complain about in regards to that, but the existence or lack thereof of an NFL team isn't one.

Well, it's not the St. Louis I grew up in, and it's not a St. Louis I want any part of. Guess it just is what it is.

sirshankalot wrote:I wonder if Peacock will be like most St. Louisans and just give up.

Bernie Miklasz and Randy Karraker keep writing and tweeting that Peacock keeps expressing nothing but confidence, even privately, to them.

In all his presentations and interviews about the new stadium, he only speaks in the future tense ("The stadium will do this, it will do that.").

Seriously, gotta give nothing but props to the man. He represents a new wave of St. Louisans who get it done, guys like Jack Dorsey. The only difference is, he's keeping his talents and clout in St. Louis for the benefit of here.

St. Louis can't handle any more suck at this time and losing NFL would suck. Welcome to a 3rd tier city in decline will be the perception.

I genuinely believe the perception is worse in St. Louis than outside it. It's the whole St. Louis inferiority complex.

"How can I feel good about my city if we don't have an NFL team?!"

I don't think people from the outside view this in the same manner. The NFL has no impact on our "tier."

ward24 wrote:1.) The debt on the current Dome is paid for with a portion of the hotel tax charged in the City, its the only source. A tiny, tiny percentage of hotel stays are generated by Rams games...

Hey Scott,

Last night I was doing some reading on that 3.5% hotel tax. It doesn't appear to sunset, and it's also not strictly limited to the Dome, but there is this restriction: "to provide funds for convention, tourism and sports facilities purposes and agencies."

If we decide not to move forward with the stadium (or if the NFL decides to pass on it), do you have any thoughts on where we might direct that money once the bonds are paid off? (Related to that, will the bonds be paid off in 2021 as I believe I've seen about the state bonds?)

It would seem we can't direct that money just anywhere, but I'm sure there's various ways to effectively stretch the definition of "tourism purposes." (Tourists are more likely to enjoy nice sidewalks and lighting, right?)

Just curious if there's been any thoughts about that, whether just individually or as a group.

Thanks.