If we can get the NFL to agree St Louis would build them a stadium,, go with Carson, and convince Kroenke to play ball, then I think everything could be on the table again. Including the location, timeframe, and design. What if we find out Kroenke will refocus on St Louis but really does have real ideas for affordably updating the dome for instance. Or wants something in the suburbs. We just have to get past step one -- convincing the NFL that St Louis deserves to keep the Rams. We may have just done that with today's ruling.
- 641
we still have the state issue regarding extension of the bonds and tax credits so wouldn't go that far....
- 8,155
^ I wouldn't go that far either but not because of the lawsuit... I think that "market feasibility" mumbo jumbo is still a big land mine if Kroenke wants to make it one.
I'm still of the belief that only the problems of Oakland and San Diego are what is keeping Saint Louis in the game.... both of those ships have to sink or else the NFL will say, "so sorry, Saint Louis, you really made a heroic effort but your long term situation isn't what we need to see from a host city"
I'm still of the belief that only the problems of Oakland and San Diego are what is keeping Saint Louis in the game.... both of those ships have to sink or else the NFL will say, "so sorry, Saint Louis, you really made a heroic effort but your long term situation isn't what we need to see from a host city"
- 9,566
We have no state issues....state law is clear, the governor can extend the bonds...any lawyer will tell you that the lawsuit by the 6 state reps is a total joke. They couldn't pass a law to stop the governor from extending them in the last session and now they want a judge to make a law for them....
- 337
http://interact.stltoday.com/forums/vie ... 1&start=12
Man, my week is off to such a great startBernieM wrote:Lots of other positive pro-STL developments going on behind the scenes.
I am not at liberty to divulge (truly sorry) but I'm very encouraged right now.
As I always like to say, though ... still so many potential twists and turns in this to make a foolish prediction (on the Rams' future home) either way. But for at least right now, I do like what I'm hearing.
-B
Big labor is a big reason this deal will get done. The unions need work and the stadium is a big project they can get behind right off the heals of City Arch River.
- 8,912
I've said this from the beginning. The Rams are not moving.
- 337
I hope you're right. Today's developments were undeniably good news for people who don't want them to.moorlander wrote:I've said this from the beginning. The Rams are not moving.
- 190
This declaratory judgement is just that. They still won't be able to get any city money without a vote, as I understand it. That's my opinion anyway. Of course, unless no one challenges them.
Go on?KerrytheKonstructor wrote:This declaratory judgement is just that. They still won't be able to get any city money without a vote, as I understand it. That's my opinion anyway. Of course, unless no one challenges them.
I believe the BoA still has to have a vote. But the citizens now no longer do.
But that's what I find so stupid about this ruling. As I understand the laws and ordinances...
The state law gives the RSA the right to build a stadium. (This seems like a blatant violation of the spirit of the law, of course. To interpret it this way means there are no limits on this. As many stadiums in as many years as they want. But fine.) But the BoA still has to fund the RSA. And while the additional 3.5% hotel tax is supposed to be directed to the RSA, it is still very clearly stated as being subject to appropriation by the City.
Meaning the City has to vote on what to do with the money if I'm understanding right. So even though the RSA can do all the things to build a stadium, they can't pay for it with the city's tax money until it's appropriated to them for that.
And the city ordinance required a vote of the citizens to allow the BoA to do that. I don't see any manner in which that contradicts the state law.
And like I said, I think the BoA has to still vote on it anyways. So I just don't get this at all.
- 3,433
- 1,792
I don't trust. Not saying they are corrupt but they do tend to cave easily to pressure. I'd be more impressed if they were actively seeking inputs from their constituents, particularly taking concerns to the committee up front to avoid being stuck with only an up or down vote when small changes could be made to address those concerns before committing to the overall plan.
- 190
Frankly, the judge's opinion on vagueness are thin at best. And that's the only thing he declared the ordinance invalid for. He brings up one case from 1898 that is at least directly applicable, and another involving Casey's General Stores' application for a liquor license that would appear to be better suited for the adjacency argument and judgement, if that even (I think he used it in his opinion concerning the adjacency issue actually, but I didn't read that section too closely because I agree with his declaration in regard to that seemingly obvious issue of spirit and intent). Ironically, both of these judgements sided with the big business vs. the government. If that Casey's liquor case is the second best precedent for declaring a statute invalid, then I'm Matlock.
In the other ruling he invalidates the interveners on all 3 of the necessary conditions, but re: the 3rd, if the city we're really trying to defend this properly, wouldn't this clearly be a case for a jury. Why the motion for judgement on the pleadings from the defense anyway? I guess that was just to speed up the process?
Despite all of that and more that I am way short on time for, it's a good enough opinion which makes plenty of valid points. But it could clearly be overturned on appeal. It ain't that strong. Also, the judge himself notes in the opinion regarding the interveners that his court was making "no judgment as to whether Proposed Intervenors would have
standing to seek the enforcement of the Ordinance in a separate lawsuit."
Anyway, we all know that public votes for stadia virtually all fail, and so this is what we are left with. Posturing and manureving. The damn wording of the measure is beside the point. The certified dollar amount and should we spend it are the only two ballot requirements deemed worthy of mention. It was intended as a strong measure to prevent another embarrassing public fleecing. It was intentionally vague to prevent any end arounds, but now, Vague 22, Vague 16, hut, hut, hike the taxes for something most people would (as acknowledged by nearly everyone) vote against.
I really do want the Rams to stay. I wanna live in a big league town too. I just wish they wanted to be here on our own merits and not because we're so scared to lose a team (for demonstrably no good reason) that we are willing to have our government pay their way. That goes for every town and all corporate graft. The end result of which would be what: stadiums being replaced less frequently?, still higher ticket and concession prices? teams spread about the country based more on earnings? Hey why don't we just make the leagues and all the teams public? Let's see how the owners would vote for that? Oh wait, we already know. See Green Bay.
Anyway, I just wanted you all to have a rant to read with your morning coffee.
I still believe "dem" Rams are gonna need a vote. That's , how do you say, prima facie?
In the other ruling he invalidates the interveners on all 3 of the necessary conditions, but re: the 3rd, if the city we're really trying to defend this properly, wouldn't this clearly be a case for a jury. Why the motion for judgement on the pleadings from the defense anyway? I guess that was just to speed up the process?
Despite all of that and more that I am way short on time for, it's a good enough opinion which makes plenty of valid points. But it could clearly be overturned on appeal. It ain't that strong. Also, the judge himself notes in the opinion regarding the interveners that his court was making "no judgment as to whether Proposed Intervenors would have
standing to seek the enforcement of the Ordinance in a separate lawsuit."
Anyway, we all know that public votes for stadia virtually all fail, and so this is what we are left with. Posturing and manureving. The damn wording of the measure is beside the point. The certified dollar amount and should we spend it are the only two ballot requirements deemed worthy of mention. It was intended as a strong measure to prevent another embarrassing public fleecing. It was intentionally vague to prevent any end arounds, but now, Vague 22, Vague 16, hut, hut, hike the taxes for something most people would (as acknowledged by nearly everyone) vote against.
I really do want the Rams to stay. I wanna live in a big league town too. I just wish they wanted to be here on our own merits and not because we're so scared to lose a team (for demonstrably no good reason) that we are willing to have our government pay their way. That goes for every town and all corporate graft. The end result of which would be what: stadiums being replaced less frequently?, still higher ticket and concession prices? teams spread about the country based more on earnings? Hey why don't we just make the leagues and all the teams public? Let's see how the owners would vote for that? Oh wait, we already know. See Green Bay.
Anyway, I just wanted you all to have a rant to read with your morning coffee.
I still believe "dem" Rams are gonna need a vote. That's , how do you say, prima facie?
- 3,433
The NFL is a National Asset because the government granted them anti-trust exemption and therefore are complicit in their policy of limiting the NFL to 32 teams. So unfortunately to keep our team we have to convince 9 owners that St Louis would indeed build a new stadium, no kidding. With some public money, even if technically the public portion all comes from visitors and Rams employees. Once they choose two other teams for LA, we can have a discussion without a gun to our heads. I personally believe the Rams could easily end up staying in the dome through 2025 through some deal with the current or next owner of the Rams. In that time a stadium plan can come together. But to stay in the running to keep our team, we're forced to jump through hoops set up by the government-sanctioned monopoly.
- 8,155
The problem with your argument is that the citizens of the City and County specifically voted to require a vote on new stadia. Whether or not the ruling striking down the ordinance is correct, it is a slap in the face to representative democracy.gary kreie wrote:I trust the BOA to study this and act in the best interests of the citizens financially. This is a representative democracy. The public can't be expected to study every issue in detail and vote correctly all the time. That's what they pay aldermen to do.
- 337
When does the current Aldermanic session end, and when does it reconvene?
If there's no specific proposal for the Alderpeople upon which to vote, then what would they be voting on?
As far as the City contributing financial assistance for the stadium, I think it's pretty clear at this point that no vote whatsoever is required; the City is already on the hook for these bonds, as they have been since the nineties.
I understand there are people who very much want there to be a vote required, but I'm not exactly sure how that works.
This is just my limited understanding of the facts, which may very well be inaccurate.
If there's no specific proposal for the Alderpeople upon which to vote, then what would they be voting on?
As far as the City contributing financial assistance for the stadium, I think it's pretty clear at this point that no vote whatsoever is required; the City is already on the hook for these bonds, as they have been since the nineties.
I understand there are people who very much want there to be a vote required, but I'm not exactly sure how that works.
This is just my limited understanding of the facts, which may very well be inaccurate.
- 9,566
^ on a break til September or October, to get a vote this year (November) it needs to be on the ballot by Aug 26th...
- 8,155
^ it'll be interesting to see what's next on the city end of things assuming there is no successful appeal of yesterday's ruling... I expect there will be a bill requiring a public vote (and that satisfies the ruling) but I don't know how far it would get.
And unless there is some kind of non-binding resolution in support of funding the stadium, I'm not sure if there will be any legislation introduced on the funding side until such time as ownership is on board and a specific funding package is presented. So that could be some time.
In the meantime, there may be an effort by Lindeke's group or others to get a revised ballot initiative.
And unless there is some kind of non-binding resolution in support of funding the stadium, I'm not sure if there will be any legislation introduced on the funding side until such time as ownership is on board and a specific funding package is presented. So that could be some time.
In the meantime, there may be an effort by Lindeke's group or others to get a revised ballot initiative.
And my limited understanding is that ultimately the alderman still have to decide whether to fund the payments on the bonds. And that's where the ordinance came in. It required the citizens to vote for stadium funding, which in this case would mean whether the city could pay the bonds for the stadium.Mound City wrote:I understand there are people who very much want there to be a vote required, but I'm not exactly sure how that works.
This is just my limited understanding of the facts, which may very well be inaccurate.
Much like the state bonds, the agency is able to put the city over a barrel by saying "what are you going to do? not pay off your debt (which we put you in)?" But ultimately, the city still has the power to do or not do so.
We'd just have to accept the consequences of not doing so. Which again, puts us over a barrel and pretty much forces an affirmative vote anyways.
- 8,155
^ The RSA doesn't have authority to issue bonds backed by City funds without the City's approval.... it just is a matter of where the approval is coming from.... voters? BoA? Possibly the BoE, but I don't think think so.
- 9,566
Roger give it up on the voters approving anything..it doesn't need to be done. BOA will vote on it (along w/ a handful of other stadium related bills), they will approve it and that will be the end of it...why is everyone making 6% of the total project funding like its a biggest thing ever... Voters already approved this funding, the city already agreed to pay the bonds...its very simple.
So the BOA passed a poorly written law in an effort to pander to the public who was upset over the initial stadium deal the city government screwed up in the first place. Now people including the BOA are upset this "law" wasn't upheld in court. What? Come on.
- 337
To be clear, that "poorly written law" was actually put to a public vote which it passed back in 2002...... it wasn't just the BoA. But I guess that doesn't really matter one way or the other, especially now that the ordinance has been invalidated.robertn42 wrote:So the BOA passed a poorly written law in an effort to pander to the public who was upset over the initial stadium deal the city government screwed up in the first place. Now people including the BOA are upset this "law" wasn't upheld in court. What? Come on.
Again I could be wrong about all this, but my understanding is the RSA absolutely can extend the bonds that the City is already required to pay; that's the RSA's broad authority as granted by the statutes passed by the Missouri state legislature in the early nineties.
Whether or not the City, vis-a-vis the BoA, honors its obligations is, I guess, a different matter, but I was operating under the assumption that the BoA wouldn't allow the City to default on its obligations for the sake of pure populist grandstanding against the new riverfront stadium.
- 8,155
dbInSouthCity wrote:Roger give it up on the voters approving anything..it doesn't need to be done. BOA will vote on it (along w/ a handful of other stadium related bills), they will approve it and that will be the end of it...why is everyone making 6% of the total project funding like its a biggest thing ever... Voters already approved this funding, the city already agreed to pay the bonds...its very simple.[/quote
I'm not sure I follow.... there most likely will be some kind of effort w/in BoA to have a public vote. And don't count out another run at a citizens initiative. Not saying they'll be successful but they may happen.
^^ MC, RSA does not have the power to issue or extend city-backed bonds w/o the city's permission... the state statue set up how the RSA operates but it doesn't entitle it to tap into city revenue w/o the city's agreement. That would be insanity.