urbanSTL

^
Did we vote on the Northside TIF?

anyway...i asked this before but you just answered the part about if you voted for a ord in 2002

why do we elect 28 alderman? why do we have to have an election for 6% of a $1B project that would bring in a $640m private investment to the city? if our elected officials cant cast that vote on our behalf then lets just get rid of the BOA and vote on everything.

Jeff Rainford had a good discussion with Frank Cusamano about the new stadium.

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.

And the $4 million will rise to $8 million with 2.5% inflation over 30 years, while the $6 million will stay fixed. The Mayor might actually be right. This might be a good deal for the city.

Once more with feeling:

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.

Okay, not totally correct. Rainford made it clear, without an up front commitment of a team and $450,000 in private investment, no deal.

But he also made it very clear that this is about the love of football, and the notion that most people love it, and want it for St. Louis, and this project is all about keeping NFL football in St. Louis.

What's wrong with that?

Might also be for the love of MLS soccer, World Cup soccer, FIFA Friendlies, concerts, College Football and whatever else they can use the venue for.

DogtownBnR wrote:Might also be for the love of MLS soccer, World Cup soccer, FIFA Friendlies, concerts, College Football and whatever else they can use the venue for.

If we get a new stadium a MLS team will follow, worst secret that Peacock would be part of the ownership. The World Cup qualifier just sold out Busch stadium (imagine 65,000 at a new stadium with many American Outlaws traveling from around the country to see it. Hint hint Hotel tax $$$ ) FIFA friendly's, just look up INTERNATIONAL CHAMPIONS CUP, we would get a piece of that every year. College football wants a bowl game in St. Louis, maybe a SEC championship game (if they can get over the cold weather). Concerts, like Kenny Chesney at Arrowhead.

This stadium will generate more money for STL then just the "8 days a year" crowd wants everyone to believe.

Northside Neighbor wrote:Once more with feeling:

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.

Okay, not totally correct. Rainford made it clear, without an up front commitment of a team and $450,000 in private investment, no deal.

But he also made it very clear that this is about the love of football, and the notion that most people love it, and want it for St. Louis, and this project is all about keeping NFL football in St. Louis.

What's wrong with that?

Why does he get to make that assumption when the voters had expressed a specifically desire (in the form of an ordinance that required it) to vote on these issues in the future?

And you can repeat over and over again that there's no economic factors to take into account, but that doesn't make it so. I'd prefer to keep the NFL. I wouldn't do it at all costs. So therefore I need to weigh the costs.

I think this is an okay deal. I also think leadership looks pretty ugly and underhanded getting it done.

jstriebel wrote: Why does he get to make that assumption when the voters had expressed a specifically desire (in the form of an ordinance that required it) to vote on these issues in the future?

as of 8/3/2015 there is no ordinance on the books that requires a vote, it is strictly up to the BOA to call for one if they wish.

dbInSouthCity wrote:

jstriebel wrote: Why does he get to make that assumption when the voters had expressed a specifically desire (in the form of an ordinance that required it) to vote on these issues in the future?

as of 8/3/2015 there is no ordinance on the books that requires a vote, it is strictly up to the BOA to call for one if they wish.

Right, but it took dirty politics to make that happen instead of simply honoring the clear desires of the citizens.

jstriebel wrote:

dbInSouthCity wrote:

jstriebel wrote: Why does he get to make that assumption when the voters had expressed a specifically desire (in the form of an ordinance that required it) to vote on these issues in the future?

as of 8/3/2015 there is no ordinance on the books that requires a vote, it is strictly up to the BOA to call for one if they wish.

Right, but it took dirty politics to make that happen instead of simply honoring the clear desires of the citizens.

Citizens in some states had desires for all kinds of things that thankfully aren't laws of the land anymore....now this one isnt in the same category but as the judge clearly said it was too vague and it was. Again why would we vote on something thats a small % of a larger STATE project and paid by something voters already voted on and approved. This is why we have elected officials to take these kinds of votes for us and the BOA will vote on this. I would be the first calling for a vote if it was asking for a new tax. it isnt.

Dmelsh wrote:

If we get a new stadium a MLS team will follow, worst secret that Peacock would be part of the ownership. The World Cup qualifier just sold out Busch stadium (imagine 65,000 at a new stadium with many American Outlaws traveling from around the country to see it. Hint hint Hotel tax $$$ ) FIFA friendly's, just look up INTERNATIONAL CHAMPIONS CUP, we would get a piece of that every year. College football wants a bowl game in St. Louis, maybe a SEC championship game (if they can get over the cold weather). Concerts, like Kenny Chesney at Arrowhead.

This stadium will generate more money for STL then just the "8 days a year" crowd wants everyone to believe.

Yep, all of that seems to be lost in the bickering about tax money, etc. This will definitely not be an 8 day a year facility.

dmelsh wrote:

DogtownBnR wrote:Might also be for the love of MLS soccer, World Cup soccer, FIFA Friendlies, concerts, College Football and whatever else they can use the venue for.

If we get a new stadium a MLS team will follow, worst secret that Peacock would be part of the ownership. The World Cup qualifier just sold out Busch stadium (imagine 65,000 at a new stadium with many American Outlaws traveling from around the country to see it. Hint hint Hotel tax $$$ ) FIFA friendly's, just look up INTERNATIONAL CHAMPIONS CUP, we would get a piece of that every year. College football wants a bowl game in St. Louis, maybe a SEC championship game (if they can get over the cold weather). Concerts, like Kenny Chesney at Arrowhead.

This stadium will generate more money for STL then just the "8 days a year" crowd wants everyone to believe.

So, 20 days a year?

dbInSouthCity wrote:Citizens in some states had desires for all kinds of things that thankfully aren't laws of the land anymore....now this one isnt in the same category but as the judge clearly said it was too vague and it was. Again why would we vote on something thats a small % of a larger STATE project and paid by something voters already voted on and approved. This is why we have elected officials to take these kinds of votes for us and the BOA will vote on this. I would be the first calling for a vote if it was asking for a new tax. it isnt.

You're making two separate arguments here.

It doesn't matter how minuscule a part of the budget it is, we asked and voted to have the right to vote. The judge doesn't have the right to throw that out on the basis of "it's not really a big deal." (And he didn't.)

The reason we should have the right to vote on this, though, is that it's a complete non-necessity, and cities, certainly including ours, have a track record of making very bad deals on these things. That's why as citizens we asked for the right to have a check on our elected officials on this.

Now, the judge threw it out because it was too vague, and that's another story. I think that's hogwash. I've read through it and I've read through the state laws on the bucks. There's no contradiction and it's not any vaguer than it was meant to be. I don't know how a law ensuring we vote on stadiums is too vague unless you're just looking to make sure we don't get to vote on a specific stadium. And that's exactly what happened.

The result might be okay, but this process is a sham and done with a total disregard for democracy.

Some people are really giddy that democracy got trampled on. I don't get it. Tell me the ends justify the means. I'll understand and politely disagree. But defending the process itself will continue to elicit disagreements from me.

^^The MLS regular season is 34 games, 16 home, not including playoffs. The NFL season has 8 homes games, playoffs and pre-season. Not saying MLS is for sure, but seems as if that would be part of the deal. There are several additional FIFA official games to possibly add to that, such as CONCACAF Champions League & US Open Cup. No telling on other events, but with the CVC and STL Sports Commission, they do pretty well bringing big events to STL. I do think it has potential to host way more than 20 dates a year. If the Rams averaged 11 (with pre-season + 1 playoff game) & MLS 16-25 ( with playoffs & tournaments) we could be looking at well over 30 dates a year for NFL & MLS games. Obviously, MLS has to come first. Again, that is likely a given, if this gets built. I would expect at least 5-10 additional dates for 'other events'. 10 may be high, but it all depends on how aggressive the City is, in attracting events.

DogtownBnR wrote:^^The MLS regular season is 34 games, 16 home, not including playoffs. The NFL season has 8 homes games, playoffs and pre-season. Not saying MLS is for sure, but seems as if that would be part of the deal. There are several additional FIFA official games to possibly add to that, such as CONCACAF Champions League & US Open Cup. No telling on other events, but with the CVC and STL Sports Commission, they do pretty well bringing big events to STL. I do think it has potential to host way more than 20 dates a year. If the Rams averaged 11 (with pre-season + 1 playoff game) & MLS 16-25 ( with playoffs & tournaments) we could be looking at well over 30 dates a year for NFL & MLS games. Obviously, MLS has to come first. Again, that is likely a given, if this gets built. I would expect at least 5-10 additional dates for 'other events'. 10 may be high, but it all depends on how aggressive the City is, in attracting events.

I'm not as optimistic about our MLS chances, but I agree it does a lot to make the stadium more promising as a contribution to urban activity.

I never get overly excited about something getting done around here, until it is a done deal, but I'm a big believer in Dave Peacock & his ability to get the job done. That would include assembling investors for an MLS expansion team. Expansion that MLS and Don Garber have often referenced as a given.

As I've mentioned before, I'd love to see him take the lead with regards to Downtown revitalization. Sort of a Dan Gilbert (Detroit) type, except Dave Peacock will be leading the effort to increase investment and maybe even lure companies Downtown. Not necessarily invest his own money obviously. He is not nearly as wealthy as Mr. Gilbert, but has probably the same or greater business sense.

MarkHaversham wrote:

DogtownBnR wrote:^^The MLS regular season is 34 games, 16 home, not including playoffs. The NFL season has 8 homes games, playoffs and pre-season. Not saying MLS is for sure, but seems as if that would be part of the deal. There are several additional FIFA official games to possibly add to that, such as CONCACAF Champions League & US Open Cup. No telling on other events, but with the CVC and STL Sports Commission, they do pretty well bringing big events to STL. I do think it has potential to host way more than 20 dates a year. If the Rams averaged 11 (with pre-season + 1 playoff game) & MLS 16-25 ( with playoffs & tournaments) we could be looking at well over 30 dates a year for NFL & MLS games. Obviously, MLS has to come first. Again, that is likely a given, if this gets built. I would expect at least 5-10 additional dates for 'other events'. 10 may be high, but it all depends on how aggressive the City is, in attracting events.

I'm not as optimistic about our MLS chances, but I agree it does a lot to make the stadium more promising as a contribution to urban activity.

Then you really haven't been following it. I am very optimistic if the stadium is built. MLS will follow.

The major concern with the MLS is whether the stadium is acceptable to the league. They typically don't like playing in football stadiums on a long-term basis if they can avoid it.

But they do in certain markets AND Garber specifically noted that it could work with this stadium when he visited STL.

Nonetheless, that's my one concern. They can lead us on and tell us it will work, but I won't 100% believe they'll be willing to play in that stadium until it's truly guaranteed.

I'd put the odds at about 80% that we get an MLS team by 2025 (would be awarded a few years sooner, and that's a conservative estimate anyways) IF we build the stadium. But I don't think it's quite a lock.

If you look at the competition for MLS, I think STL has to be in the lead, if the stadium is being built or completed. I know NFL venues are not ideal, but the MLS conversion renderings looked about as good as an NFL to MLS venue could look. While a soccer specific venue is preferred (especially in the City), anything is better than nothing.

STL has so much momentum with regards to soccer, especially in the national media. With the recent successes of Friendlies, the USWNT, USMNT and the touted history, STL has jumped to the top of expansion cities. Also, the success of USL Pro (STLFC), the fact that youth soccer is huge here, Belleville is building a mega-soccer complex, can only help the cause. We also have Twellman, Chalupny, Sauerbrunn, Ream, Davis, amongst others, to promote STL nationally. I know Twellman does. Eric Wynalda has always been a huge fan of STL getting an MLS squad. Garber cannot ignore this. I think our odds are very good, if the stadium is completed.

I believe the converted stadium still would see 38,000, which is an awfully high amount for the MLS. I believe only Seattle is able to fill anything that big right now.

It will be interesting to see how St. Louis can do on a regular basis should they get an MLS team. Not that they'd have to sell the thing out every game, you'd just hope it'd be mostly full.

I'm cautiously optimistic.

dmelsh wrote: Then you really haven't been following it. I am very optimistic if the stadium is built. MLS will follow.

I've been following it for years. Until a bunch of rich people publicly declare that their mission in life is bringing a MLS franchise to St. Louis, it's hardly worth thinking about.

I heard that Peacock is actually turning away potential investors for a soccer team because he has enough. However, I can't remember where I heard it...I believed I heard it on ESPN 101.1.