It sounds like they are working with the stadium task force to "build up around the stadium". They mentioned taking a parking garage and turning the first floor into retail. That's the first I've heard of anything like that.
^ Yeah, first floor retail or not, that's still a stadium surrounding by parking.
- 3,433
It's good to have a plan B in case the stadium plan collapses. But realistically, it took 10 years just to get a phase 1 development across the street form 40,000 fans per summer night. So I wouldn't hold my breath that there are folks sitting on $300 million ready to invest on the riverfront. Where have they been for 40 years?
Sounds suspiciously like the kind of carefully planted story someone would pay to spread around at this time ahead of a public vote on a new stadium hoping for a NO vote result. Who would do that? It will be interesting to see if we start seeing the same kind of shenanigans they are seeing in Carson start happening here.
http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp ... story.html
Sounds suspiciously like the kind of carefully planted story someone would pay to spread around at this time ahead of a public vote on a new stadium hoping for a NO vote result. Who would do that? It will be interesting to see if we start seeing the same kind of shenanigans they are seeing in Carson start happening here.
http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp ... story.html
So the city will be spending the hotel tax dollars on things for visitors to the city of St. Louis, rather than city residents, whether we have a new stadium or not.ward24 wrote:Jason - The most likely destination for hotel tax funds after 2021 when the Dome is paid off is the convention center complex, including the Dome itself. We still own that facility, and there are millions of dollars of deferred maintenance, and tens of millions of upgrades that could reasonably happen there. Correct that the tax doesn't sunset. In order for the facility to stay competitive as a host for conventions and other events, it needs ongoing maintenance and investment, so there's no shortage of things to do there to make a better facility.
Scott Ogilvie
Gary, I think that might be a bit of a paranoid accusation.gary kreie wrote:It's good to have a plan B in case the stadium plan collapses. But realistically, it took 10 years just to get a phase 1 development across the street form 40,000 fans per summer night. So I wouldn't hold my breath that there are folks sitting on $300 million ready to invest on the riverfront. Where have they been for 40 years?
Sounds suspiciously like the kind of carefully planted story someone would pay to spread around at this time ahead of a public vote on a new stadium hoping for a NO vote result. Who would do that? It will be interesting to see if we start seeing the same kind of shenanigans they are seeing in Carson start happening here.
http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp ... story.html
We've known for at least a couple of months that the GRG was working on a North Riverfront redevelopment plan before the stadium plan and that it was set to pursue it with or without the stadium.
Now we've just gotten a bit more detail.
And I can't speak for everyone, but the fact that they intend to build onto the parking lots (honestly, parking garages with retail isn't such negative for me—like a land owner mentions in there, I'm skeptical we can fill a large cluster of office buildings at this point) and certainly the areas beyond the stadium grounds makes the stadium proposal better in my eyes.
Now, I also admit that it adds fuel to the idea that this land is valuable without a stadium, too. But this was not a one-sided article.
I think it's just all-around great news, personally.
- 3,433
- 8,155
^ you're crazy, man! The paper runs a story in November about the riverfront study, people here update things along the way, and the paper runs a second story after the study is nearing completion and downtown leaders and property owners are briefed about it. And you bring out the tin foil!
https://www.facebook.com/KeepTheRamsInStLouis
It's likely complete hogwash given the source and I can't find any other credible outlets saying anything similar, but there is a rumble that an announcement is coming by the end of the week from Kroenke/Rams, topic unknown. A lot of the guesses from readers center around an ownership change/sale/swap/transfer, what have you. l wouldn't hold my breath, but if you are in the mood for a chuckle, read the comments following the post.
It's likely complete hogwash given the source and I can't find any other credible outlets saying anything similar, but there is a rumble that an announcement is coming by the end of the week from Kroenke/Rams, topic unknown. A lot of the guesses from readers center around an ownership change/sale/swap/transfer, what have you. l wouldn't hold my breath, but if you are in the mood for a chuckle, read the comments following the post.
- 3,767
Knew this was coming....
http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/morn ... 1432817401
Meanwhile, in the City....
http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/morn ... 1432817359
http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/morn ... 1432817401
Meanwhile, in the City....
http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/morn ... 1432817359
- 9,570
that lawsuit is getting tossed, they have no case at all...just because the legislative session was unable to pass laws banning funding without a vote doesnt mean the court has to make laws...there is nothing illegal about it.
Yep. That lawsuit has no legal basis.
Of course, neither does the RSA's lawsuit against the city. But they'll probably win that one too for some reason.
Of course, neither does the RSA's lawsuit against the city. But they'll probably win that one too for some reason.
- 9,570
^ RSA has a bit of a case since state law says no vote is required and that law was on the books before the city ord.
I'm not sure that's accurate. This is my understanding:dbInSouthCity wrote:^ RSA has a bit of a case since state law says no vote is required and that law was on the books before the city ord.
State law doesn't say no vote is required. It says the RSA can exist and can issue bonds.
But the city is not obligated to fund the RSA to pay off their bonds. If the RSA wants the city to pass through funds to the RSA in order to pay off the bonds, that has to be approved by the city. And because those payments would be funding a new stadium, city ordinance requires a vote of the people.
That ordinance doesn't conflict with state law.
It's a silly lawsuit, but it is one the RSA will likely win due to forces beyond the law.
- 8,155
This issue of whether the riverfront location is "adjacent" to an existing convention facility as required by the state law is an interesting one.... if the judge is open to an expansive definition then I can see working through that, but if I were the Peacock team I'd address the issue by:
1) tearing down the elevated highway cutting the two and replace it with an urban-scaled boulevard that works with the city fabric and 2) rehabbing one of the warehouses and utilizing it as a convention facility. This of course would require sliding the stadium a bit more north so as to allow for the rehab, but you have to do what you have to do!
1) tearing down the elevated highway cutting the two and replace it with an urban-scaled boulevard that works with the city fabric and 2) rehabbing one of the warehouses and utilizing it as a convention facility. This of course would require sliding the stadium a bit more north so as to allow for the rehab, but you have to do what you have to do!
^Interesting idea, Roger...how much would something like that cost?
I hadn't realized the "adjacent" portion of the statute until you mentioned it Roger. That's EXTREMELY interesting. Perhaps these guys actually do have a case. That will be interesting.
Truthfully, this whole thing is full slime. Nobody looks particularly good here. Not the stadium proponents who are trying to use a 17 27 year old statue that was created with no intention of building a second stadium to do it and are suing the city to bypass a democratic vote. And not the opponents who are using a technicality within the state statute to block it after they failed to pass legislation—all led by a western Missourian not keen on supporting St. Louis.
It's just ugly. I hope one way or another the ends justify the means. But this is not an enjoyable process.
Truthfully, this whole thing is full slime. Nobody looks particularly good here. Not the stadium proponents who are trying to use a 17 27 year old statue that was created with no intention of building a second stadium to do it and are suing the city to bypass a democratic vote. And not the opponents who are using a technicality within the state statute to block it after they failed to pass legislation—all led by a western Missourian not keen on supporting St. Louis.
It's just ugly. I hope one way or another the ends justify the means. But this is not an enjoyable process.
- 8,155
^ What's the technicality the state legislators filing this law suit are relying on? (One of them, progressive Tracy McCreery, is from Olivette, btw.) I'm not going to make any predictions on how the cases turn out, but again it seems to me that there are strong arguments that the 1988 authorization for financing the Dome was intended to be limited in scope and does not authorize funding a replacement facility, especially one that arguably is not adjacent to a convention facility. There are solid arguments that funding a riverfront stadium is indeed valid when you take a broader interpretation.
Also, I wonder if the larger site plan was designed in part to assert that the facility is indeed adjacent to a convention facility..... remember that the Bottle District site -- which is adjacent to a convention facility -- is slated for stadium parking from which fans will have access to a pedestrian bridge of some sort over the interstate (not sure if this was changed in the most recent iteration) leading to the actual stadium some further distance away. All that sea of stadium parking has a clever purpose.
Also, I wonder if the larger site plan was designed in part to assert that the facility is indeed adjacent to a convention facility..... remember that the Bottle District site -- which is adjacent to a convention facility -- is slated for stadium parking from which fans will have access to a pedestrian bridge of some sort over the interstate (not sure if this was changed in the most recent iteration) leading to the actual stadium some further distance away. All that sea of stadium parking has a clever purpose.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/20 ... comnfl-top
"In this scenario, the person said, Kroenke has agreed to let the league decide which other team would occupy his stadium — a move that might not happen right away."
What a complete joke. The NFL is laughable for negotiating anything with Uncle Rico right now. If I were Goodell, I think I'd have to tell Stan to stop talking with everybody except the people that are desperately requesting his input. Until Stan gets his a$$ in front of STL leaders and voices his concerns, desires, or combination of both, the NFL shouldn't be letting him "agree" to anything.
Davis and Spanos seem to have set a precedent for a "good faith" effort, and it doesn't involve sending a patsy over to play house with Dave Peacock for a few hours then go running back to daddy.
"In this scenario, the person said, Kroenke has agreed to let the league decide which other team would occupy his stadium — a move that might not happen right away."
What a complete joke. The NFL is laughable for negotiating anything with Uncle Rico right now. If I were Goodell, I think I'd have to tell Stan to stop talking with everybody except the people that are desperately requesting his input. Until Stan gets his a$$ in front of STL leaders and voices his concerns, desires, or combination of both, the NFL shouldn't be letting him "agree" to anything.
Davis and Spanos seem to have set a precedent for a "good faith" effort, and it doesn't involve sending a patsy over to play house with Dave Peacock for a few hours then go running back to daddy.
- 3,767
- 641
in our rush to be the first to post articles, we repeat.....ugh
- 3,767
^My bad... Wasn't there when I last looked.
PS_ Don't stress too much... a double post is nothing to get all worked up over... And no rush.. we don't work for a media outlet, so we don't get paid or credit for reporting first. Just got our posts crossed.....
PS_ Don't stress too much... a double post is nothing to get all worked up over... And no rush.. we don't work for a media outlet, so we don't get paid or credit for reporting first. Just got our posts crossed.....
- 9,570
the lawsuit doom and gloom from Hartman and McClellan is ridiculous. if anyone has ever been involved in these type of big projects the first thing you do is you sit down and figure out all the risks and everything that can go wrong. Task Force has done this...these are smart people. notice how bonding went from $350 to $250M...now its only 25% of total project cost? and there is more room for it to go down too and tax credits to go up. so again, everyone relax and come back in the fall where the real show starts.