urbanSTL

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.

I think we can all agree voters didn't actually approve this funding. If we can't agree on that, people are being intentionally dense.

Voters approved funding for the Edward Jones Dome.

The funding mechanism being used here is clearly an abuse of broad language and in violation of the spirit of what was passed.

Even if you believe the ends justify the means (and I get that—I really do), I really, really hope nobody actually believes these are admirable means.

roger wyoming II wrote:

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.

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.

No, a slap in the face to representative democracy is the Supreme Court ruling that says filthy rich people like Stan's buddy Rex can run false and deceptive ads all day on the radio to get any stadium vote result they want. Advertising works. It just takes a few sound bites to get people to vote against their own interests. Ask the NRA.

I really don't care about the stadium -- I just think we need to keep the Rams to stay a viable major metro area. And I enjoy attending St. Louis Rams games with friends. Unfortunately the NFL says we have to show we would build a new stadium for the Rams to stay. After the NFL decides we would, and forces Stan to keep the team here, then I say let the city folks vote on whether they want a new stadium in the city limits. If not, the governor can shop it to St. Louis County, Jeff County, Franklin County, St. Charles, and even Illinois. St Louis city is only 1/10 of the metro area after all. If they don't want my discretionary entertainment dollars for a beautiful new city capital asset, I'm not going to force it down their wallets.

Peacock and Blitz are just staying focused on the first goal right now -- doing what it takes to keep the team.

gary kreie wrote:No, a slap in the face to representative democracy is the Supreme Court ruling that says filthy rich people like Stan's buddy Rex can run false and deceptive ads all day on the radio to get any stadium vote result they want. Advertising works. It just takes a few sound bites to get people to vote against their own interests. Ask the NRA.

I really don't care about the stadium -- I just think we need to keep the Rams to stay a viable major metro area. And I enjoy attending St. Louis Rams games with friends. Unfortunately the NFL says we have to show we would build a new stadium for the Rams to stay. After the NFL decides we would, and forces Stan to keep the team here, then I say let the city folks vote on whether they want a new stadium in the city limits. If not, the governor can shop it to St. Louis County, Jeff County, Franklin County, St. Charles, and even Illinois. St Louis city is only 1/10 of the metro area after all. If they don't want my discretionary entertainment dollars for a beautiful new city capital asset, I'm not going to force it down their wallets.

Peacock and Blitz are just staying focused on the first goal right now -- doing what it takes to keep the team.

I think you're overstating how much influence negative marketing from Stan, LA funders, or Rex might be having on peoples' thoughts about the stadium issue. I don't really watch local TV or listen to local talk radio, so I don't even know if actual ads are going out about this issue right now. But the only media sources that I really know of that have publicly come out against funding a new stadium are Ray Hartmann in STL Mag and the StL P-D Editorial Board. And you can't really think those sources are taking money from conservatives Rex and Stan to gin up local opposition to a stadium deal. And at the same time, the local sports media have been coming on just as strong for several years for building support for a new stadium in order to keep football in St. Louis, and I really think they have just as strong if not stronger influence on how St. Louisans think about sports-related issues than the P-D editorial board. And BTW, I'm not at all saying Peacock, Blitz and other corporate partners are paying local sports media to generate support for a new stadium, but if and when they do fund a visible public campaign to build support for a stadium, how is it that those filthy rich people paying to build public political support for their cause while using their Supreme Court- given rights are any different that Stan or Rex doing it?

The real reason why a lot of people are sour on the idea is because it just stinks that we're in this situation again. That's not a thought put in St. Louisans heads from some ad campaign. It's just reality. It's rotten that St. Louis has to go through this in the midst of dealing with a lot of other huge problems and so soon after we just built the first stadium. And in the end, even with the positive fiscal analysis that says we'll break even or maybe even make a little money for the government after 30 years, it's just not that much benefit for St. Louisans who have to watch our city get dragged though the mud of this process with NFL and a sh*tty owner. In the end, I support the stadium, because I believe it's better for our region's morale to at least come out with some kind of moral victory after being dragged through this mud, but it still stinks and people who are less idealistic than me don't have time for that.

The narrative has changed immensely. Amongst all the people you talk to in STL, Dave Peacock is considered a knight in shining armor. The Ferguson situation lead many St. Louisans to believe that this area was hopeless and spiraling downward. Along comes Peacock, who has done what many politcians wet dream over: made St. Louisans proud to be St. Louisans and also made us believe we could do great things.

So any politician, editorialist who comes out against the stadium issue is swimming upstream. THEY LOSE.

Next step for Dave Peacock is to actually accomplish something with tangible benefits for the city of St. Louis. The way he talks about a stadium revitalizing downtown and the fact that he makes his home in town and country doesn't give me great feelings about Peacock's actual goals for the city of St. Louis.

sirshankalot wrote:The narrative has changed immensely. Amongst all the people you talk to in STL, Dave Peacock is considered a knight in shining armor. The Ferguson situation lead many St. Louisans to believe that this area was hopeless and spiraling downward. Along comes Peacock, who has done what many politcians wet dream over: made St. Louisans proud to be St. Louisans and also made us believe we could do great things.

So any politician, editorialist who comes out against the stadium issue is swimming upstream. THEY LOSE.

I think you very much overestimate public support for this. Read around, more than a few people voted down the bond issue yesterday because they felt cheated and outright disrespected by the stadium funding vote ordinance being declared invalid by a politically appointed judge.

Now, I'm sure some very pro-stadium people will come and and shout "WELL THATS BECAUSE THEYRE STUPIDS!!!11!!!!", but that's beside the point.

At least two prominent southside alderpeople have said that they are getting large amounts of feedback from people regarding potentially funding the stadium. Overwhelmingly negative feedback.

And, I digress, but the statement "THEY LOSE" seems to encapsulate perfectly a lot of the attitudes shown by pro-stadium people. This isn't about urban preservation anymore (it was, not too long ago), this isn't about wise or proper usage of public funds anymore (it was, not too long ago), this isn't even about democracy anymore. This is about a WE WIN, WE KEEPS THE FOOTBALL, ends-justify-the-means situation. I'm very curious, what is the point in which this stadium project becomes unacceptable to you lot? I'd really like to know, if it's not preventing historic businesses from being demolished, if it's not sinking this city into further financial obligations, if it's not even allowing people to vote on what their damn money is being used on, then what is it? Where does it end?

Aesir wrote:I'm very curious, what is the point in which this stadium project becomes unacceptable to you lot? I'd really like to know, if it's not preventing historic businesses from being demolished, if it's not sinking this city into further financial obligations, if it's not even allowing people to vote on what their damn money is being used on, then what is it? Where does it end?

If it involved funding from any tax schemes not already in place.

http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLcom/S ... -Fans.aspx

Good interview with AP's Bernie Wilson.
SD's situation looks pretty bad, compared to STL's. Oakland might as well move in with SF or pray Carson happens.

blzhrpmd2 wrote:This is a real question, not trying to be facetious. Was there any need or demand for a vote when Boeing was being offered massive tax credits last year as incentive to bring business? What was the process in deciding how much and under whose authority that enticing package was pitched? And yes, I get it, the NFL is not the same, however I'm just curious as to the governmental process. Are there not tons of ways that taxes get used that never get voted on?

There are tons. It's complicated and a tough issue on where you draw the line on what should and shouldn't require a vote.

My issue is less that and more about the fact that we voted and passed an ordinance to make sure that we'd be able to vote in these instances. We explicitly decided we wanted the right to vote on tax dollars going to stadiums.

And now that voted upon right is being taken away.

^ did you vote on that ordinance in 2002?

To me it is silly to vote on 6% of the project cost. If the city was paying 200-300m then fine but for $66 million over 30 years let BOA vote on it. We elected these people to represent us on things like this. These bonds won't be paid by a new tax so what am I voting for?

Well actually, it seems like they'd be agreeing to pay back a portion of the bonding with the state to a tune of somewhere around $60-70 M of the initial project costs, but if they're paying it back via $6 Million annual payments over 25-30 years like they are for the current stadium, it would be costing the city around $150-$180 M over the 30 years. I don't know if that's the arrangement though. Maybe their annual debt obligations will be lower or over a shorter term this time around.

Mound City wrote:

Aesir wrote:I'm very curious, what is the point in which this stadium project becomes unacceptable to you lot? I'd really like to know, if it's not preventing historic businesses from being demolished, if it's not sinking this city into further financial obligations, if it's not even allowing people to vote on what their damn money is being used on, then what is it? Where does it end?

If it involved funding from any tax schemes not already in place.

If the Mayor says it's a bad deal for the city, or if we don't get the $450 million in outside money up front, or if the state portion has to be covered by the city, or if the city has to fund more than 20%, or if it added one dime in city taxes to residents not currently paid by visitors, or if the NFL doesn't guarantee us a team for 30 years before we commit funding, then it would be unacceptable to me to build this stadium in the city limits of St Louis.

This is about a WE WIN, WE KEEPS THE FOOTBALL, ends-justify-the-means situation.

Yes, it is. That's ALL it is. It's about keeping the NFL in St. Louis and keeping STL a major league city.

The rest of it is small details. For the lawyers and bean counters. For everyone else, it's all about some football.

You guys are over-analyzing this, and Slay's statement of support all but says that.

There are basically two kinds of people: You either want St. Louis to have NFL football, or you don't. There is no more cost benefit analysis. Whether it pays for itself is moot.

You're either in or you're out. And you know what? It's ALWAYS been that.

The whole Peacock/Blitz road show was pure PR. The financing, Slay's quiet support, Nixon, everything was aimed at one thing - keeping the NFL in St. Louis.

All of the kvetching, gnashing of teeth, comparing against other Ferguson-esque priorities, etc, are washed away.

This is about having a state of the art stadium and NFL football in St. Louis for the next 50 years. Period, end of story. Forget all the debating of the hows and whys. Take it or leave it, that's the bottom line.

And if we leave it, we're saying goodbye to NFL football for at least two generations.

Is there any financing plan opponents would accept that gets the $450M investment from the NFL?

gary kreie wrote:

Mound City wrote:

Aesir wrote:I'm very curious, what is the point in which this stadium project becomes unacceptable to you lot? I'd really like to know, if it's not preventing historic businesses from being demolished, if it's not sinking this city into further financial obligations, if it's not even allowing people to vote on what their damn money is being used on, then what is it? Where does it end?

If it involved funding from any tax schemes not already in place.

If the Mayor says it's a bad deal for the city, or if we don't get the $450 million in outside money up front, or if the state portion has to be covered by the city, or if the city has to fund more than 20%, or if it added one dime in city taxes to residents not currently paid by visitors, or if the NFL doesn't guarantee us a team for 30 years before we commit funding, then it would be unacceptable to me to build this stadium in the city limits of St Louis.

Actually these are all good conditions I'd add to my "No funding from tax schemes not already in place" caveat, but I'd be okay with some city taxes paid by me, specifically on tickets and/or concessions purchased for stadium-related events.

dbInSouthCity wrote:^ did you vote on that ordinance in 2002?

To me it is silly to vote on 6% of the project cost. If the city was paying 200-300m then fine but for $66 million over 30 years let BOA vote on it. We elected these people to represent us on things like this. These bonds won't be paid by a new tax so what am I voting for?

I did not. I was 14. That's irrelevant. We as a city did, and I take ownership of the stupid things we've done as a city long before I lived and voted here as well.

We as a city voted to have that right and now a judge tossed it out based less on legal merits and more on the desire to see the stadium built.

I definitely agree with your last two sentences, but I don't agree that any other American sports league will overtake it in the next thirty years.

I for one appreciates Mayor Slay's position on supporting the new stadium for all the reasons he stated in today's PD article. Considering that the funding for such project is being generated primarily from hotel / rental car taxes, which are paid primarily by tourists. Why not keep the NFL in town and generate construction jobs where the city can also get a 1% payroll tax from the construction worker for a couple of years and infuse the North Riverfront with a billion dollar investment. It also frees up the Jones Dome for more events from August thru December. One other thing about Slay, at least he takes a position on things, unlike another politician here by the name of Steve Stenger, who does not take a position on anything. His position seems to be gray (on the fence) on everything. Seriously, what's his position on the stadium, city / county merger, taxes, infrastructure, etc.?

I can hear it now...SUNDAY SUNDAY SUNDAY at the Monster Pimp Juice Energy Drink Dome......

I just hope the lease at least runs through all of the bonds' maturities.

Some perspective...

The City's budget is $1.0 billion, so $6 million is 0.6% of the budget. If you made $100,000 a year and bought Starbucks each work morning for year it would actually be a slightly higher portion of your annual budget.

mattonarsenal wrote:Some perspective...

The City's budget is $1.0 billion, so $6 million is 0.6% of the budget. If you made $100,000 a year and bought Starbucks each work morning for year it would actually be a slightly higher portion of your annual budget.

Which is why at the end of the day, I would probably vote for this.

I'm just pissed at the backhanded nature in which this has been handled.

roger wyoming II wrote:

mattonarsenal wrote:Some perspective...

The City's budget is $1.0 billion, so $6 million is 0.6% of the budget. If you made $100,000 a year and bought Starbucks each work morning for year it would actually be a slightly higher portion of your annual budget.

That is some perspective but a hefty portion of the budget is for airport operations... I think I've read somewhere that a more "traditional" city budget would be more like $550 million. Anyway, $6 million a year represents an awful lot of our discretionary budget. But on the other hand we get back $4 million or so in city taxes derived from the football activity, so for now its closer to a $2 million hit. If the stadium does get done, I'd very much like for that difference to be made up from a better lease deal and other gameday revenue.

On Twitter recently, Scott Ogilvie implied that without Water operations and Lambert operations the city budget is actually about $485 million.