^ To be fair (or just clearer) there was never any indication it was truly involved in the plans. It was more of a flash piece. "Here's the stadium that we're gonna build and hey look at this building that could potentially be renovated into something cool sometime maybe if someone pays for it."
With that said, I'm not sure what the reasoning for removing it from the renderings would be unless they've maybe been told by the current owner that there's no chance it's going to be used for something football related. (Doesn't someone use it for something these days?)
Funny how that building has had multiple hypothetical identities over the course of the project: first it was a team store, then it was team store/ballpark village-type restaurant/bar/gathering/fan zone, then it was mentioned as a possible MSL Hall of Fame or soccer museum. Talk about all over the map.
As far as this rally today, it fits the mysterious mold of this entire process. Bernie was just talking about how they could be responding to the "winds of change" that seem to blowing harder from a hearsay national media perspective that Rams/Chargers are hooking up or just that it's decided that Rams are California Bound. Wanting to "thank fans" could be labeled as a bit defeatist, even though that makes no sense given updated renderings and the homestretch preparation for "The Pitch" in October.
Here's how I see Dave's October going down with inspiration from another proud St. Louisan:
My read on the timing/notice of the rally this evening is it probably just literally came together at the last second. I have a feeling someone in the offices at 101 ESPN was all, "Hey, wouldn't it be cool if we could get Peacock and Blitz to do a little rally/presentation/radio spot during our pregame coverage of tonight's preseason game? Who's going to be listening otherwise, anyway?" and they called up Peacock and Blitz and they were all like, "Sure."
I wouldn't read much more into it than that. I certainly don't see it as "defeatist." You generally don't host a rally to say "Eh, thanks, guys, we tried."
Mound City wrote:My read on the timing/notice of the rally this evening is it probably just literally came together at the last second. I have a feeling someone in the offices at 101 ESPN was all, "Hey, wouldn't it be cool if we could get Peacock and Blitz to do a little rally/presentation/radio spot during our pregame coverage of tonight's preseason game? Who's going to be listening otherwise, anyway?" and they called up Peacock and Blitz and they were all like, "Sure."
I wouldn't read much more into it than that. I certainly don't see it as "defeatist." You generally don't host a rally to say "Eh, thanks, guys, we tried."
Plus it times right for the sports segments of the 6pm news.
The short sightedness of the saint louis area is baffling sometimes. Beautiful historic neighborhoods? Bulldoze them! Lay down super highways and section 8 housing instead! The beautiful, historic parkways filled with magnolia trees? Tear them down, put warehouses and factories instead. Central business district? No no no, nothing higher than that monument to people leaving our city. Honestly. I could keep going on all the terrible decisions but seriously we gotta stop making such terrible decisions. We need to get a master plan and start zoning it like other major modern cities. Amongst much other long term planning... Like getting new business into stl.
They are keeping it. I sit right across from the designer of the stadium and he's working on getting the word out about it!
why has it not been on the preliminary plans? Also, what about the countless historic buildings that will be demolished? What will happen to their iconic elements? Will those be incorporated into the design, like the lions from empire brewery in the cortex complex project you all are working on? I am genuinely curious. Thank you.
The renderings they shared yesterday were a bit dated (renderings are expensive), they have since shifted the configuration and will now keep the art. While I haven't been involved in the weekly meetings, I know saving as many buildings as absolutely possible is a very strong push for the team. Incorporating historical elements with modern is the goal. They would like to play tribute to the history of the riverfront while also incorporating the new elements (ie. the Musial bridge). That's all about what I can share publicly for now
Ummmmm if true I could get on board. They don't have to save EVERY building but a respectable handful would go a long way toward getting my support. I they are saving root wad, they could Easily save Lacledes power. If the power plant Reno is off the table laclede power could fill that role.
The architect was there fielding questions. He said that these renderings do not represent the most up to date versions and the "final" presentation ready designs will probably not be seen publicly before October. The current renderings represent the plans as of July. I'm sure I missed this along the way but the turf is planned to be natural grass, no field turf.
Yet attendance in the Dome was sad, sad, sad once again. The rally looked good because it jammed a lot of the small football crowd into one parking lot. Strategically planned that way.
I don't say that to knock the market. None of this stuff—the recent and current attendance or fan rallies—should matter. And I guess if we want to push out the photos of the "packed" rally, that's fine. But it's disingenuous and will probably be figured out by those seeking to bash the fan base.
blzhrpmd2 wrote: The architect was there fielding questions. He said that these renderings do not represent the most up to date versions and the "final" presentation ready designs will probably not be seen publicly before October. The current renderings represent the plans as of July. I'm sure I missed this along the way but the turf is planned to be natural grass, no field turf.
This jives with the report that maybe some other buildings may be spared. Hopefully so; it would make things so much better.
jstriebel wrote:Yet attendance in the Dome was sad, sad, sad once again. The rally looked good because it jammed a lot of the small football crowd into one parking lot. Strategically planned that way.
I don't say that to knock the market. None of this stuff—the recent and current attendance or fan rallies—should matter. And I guess if we want to push out the photos of the "packed" rally, that's fine. But it's disingenuous and will probably be figured out by those seeking to bash the fan base.
I know there weren't a ton of folks there; I'd seen on line there were maybe ~200 or so. But I do wonder how many - if any - of those were folks who want to rally to keep the NFL in St. Louis but who didn't buy tickets because they don't want to give the Rams any of their money?
Some interesting comments from the Chiefs President and Frank Viverito in this KC Star piece:
"It’s a challenging situation from all angles: (the Rams’) won-loss record, the ownership dynamics, the dynamics that come through the other cities and the other owners and the challenges of raising the money and selling the idea,” said Frank Viverito, St. Louis Sports Commission president. “There are as many scenarios as there are Republican presidential candidates right now.
“And one or more of those scenarios have another team playing in St. Louis sooner rather than later.”
The Post and other publications and TV and radio personalities continue to print letters & spread disinformation about the horrible use of public money for the stadium. And folks like Mr. Schaaf cite old general studies about funding stadiums which apply to the dome funding, but not the current proposal. They say these studies show entertainment is a zero sum game, and we Rams fans will spend our Rams ticket money on more movies and restaurants if the Rams leave so the tax revenue will stay the same. Three points on these myths:
1. The Post reported that the city gets $4.2M per year in revenue from taxes on players, tickets, dining, etc. from the Rams games, which does not cover their flat $6M per year bond payment. Currently. But with 2.5% inflation (average of last 30 years) tax revenue will rise to $8M per year and totally pay back the city investment and then some at the end of a new 30 year lease. Do the math.
2. The Post also agreed with the Missouri Economic Dev report that the Rams players and staff currently pay at least $13 million per year in state income taxes. That more than covers the state yearly bond obligation for a new stadium of a flat $12M per year. And that income tax revenue will likely rise at 3% or more over the 30 year lease to provide the state with even more revenue, if the Rams stay.
So even though technically some of this is public money, in fact even the public money is coming entirely from taxes on the Rams and its fans -- users of the stadium. We are just using the tax laws to pry the money from the stadium users. But the general public pays nothing in the long run unless they attend Rams games and become users.
3. The theory that the state and city will lose nothing since Rams and fans will spend the same amount of our money going to movies is a joke, right? First of all, the Rams and staff will be in another state and won't generate any taxes in Missouri, movies or not. And as a Rams fan, there is no way I would spend that kind of money for ADDITIONAL movies and restaurants or even ADDITIONAL Cards games than I already spend. Not in Missouri. If all Rams fans buy NFL Sunday Ticket, little or none of that money stays in Missouri. And for live NFL, we are more likely to drive to Indy, Chicago, or Nasville than KC, especially since opposing legislators support KC. And if, as you say, the entertainment dollars really is a zero sum game, then let me decide where I want to spend my dollars if it's all the same to you. With football here, I'll spend it in the city and in Missouri. Without football, I'll take an extra winter trip to Destin, or save it for retirement with Fidelty in Boston, or go to games in Indy, or buy Toys on Amazon. Missouri and St Louis city will lose my tax revenue.
^ I suspect ticket prices and concessions would go up a fair amount with a new stadium so I suspect attendance could drop a bit and still come around the same amount as now.... however, I'd say the odds are greater than 50/50 that we'll have to give up the amusement tax as part of the deal to keep the NFL. We gave it up for the Blues and Cardinals and I see it happening again.
Gary, I actually tend to be in the "it makes sense for the state" camp, but I can't help but feel you're only looking at some of the numbers.
For example, there are a lot of state tax credits involved here too. I think up to $50 million in the first three years.
How does the state recoup that money if they're also spending $12 million a year for 30 years and only bringing back in $13-14 million from player salaries?
roger wyoming II wrote:^ I suspect ticket prices and concessions would go up a fair amount with a new stadium so I suspect attendance could drop a bit and still come around the same amount as now.... however, I'd say the odds are greater than 50/50 that we'll have to give up the amusement tax as part of the deal to keep the NFL. We gave it up for the Blues and Cardinals and I see it happening again.
Ok, I can see that. But I still see attendance decreasing because of bad on field performance and inclement weather. Just seems like it'll be a tough sell if ticket and concession prices increase 10%, potential bad weather in November, December, and January, and subpar on field performance.
And with less people going to games to generate the necessary revenue, where would the additional funds come from to cover any potential gaps? The city? The state?
roger wyoming II wrote:^ I suspect ticket prices and concessions would go up a fair amount with a new stadium so I suspect attendance could drop a bit and still come around the same amount as now.... however, I'd say the odds are greater than 50/50 that we'll have to give up the amusement tax as part of the deal to keep the NFL. We gave it up for the Blues and Cardinals and I see it happening again.
Ok, I can see that. But I still see attendance decreasing because of bad on field performance and inclement weather. Just seems like it'll be a tough sell if ticket and concession prices increase 10%, potential bad weather in November, December, and January, and subpar on field performance.
And with less people going to games to generate the necessary revenue, where would the additional funds come from to cover any potential gaps? The city? The state?
None of the funding will be dependent on those streams of revenue. The funding will be set in place and virtually guaranteed to be there.
The question will just be on an annual basis whether there's other money in the budget that came from team/game/stadium/player revenue to spend on other things that year.
But it's not like if the stadium generates $0 than there won't be money to pay for the stadium. Because that funding stream will already be locked.
What it would mean is that there wouldn't be money to spend on other things.
I normally stay away from the insane asylum aka stltoday forums but once a while someone with a clue explains things to the inmates there, here is an example of that regarding bonds
the RSA issued the original EJD bonds: NOT the state of MO. The way the arrangement works is that the RSA leases the dome to the state of MO, who pays a lease payment to the RSA so that the RSA can pay off its bonds. The state of MO then subleases the facility back to the RSA so that it can operate it. It's not clear whether there is any money involved in the second lease.
Point being, the state of MO is making a lease payment NOT a bond payment. This is important.
Anyway, there are two legal/legislative components to the state financing of the new stadium:
1) The RSA's authority to issue or refinance bonds, which is clearly outlined in MO statute, which gives the executive broad authority for bonding.
2) The legislature's "power of the purse" to control appropriations. The bonds issued by the RSA are lease revenue bonds, which are not technically obligations of the state, meaning bondholders cannot extract taxing authority from the state. However they can seize the assets of the RSA, and it is well-documented that defaulting on lease bonds often does have an impact on the credit rating, despite the legal classification.
So what happened last year?
Opponents of the stadium bill attempted to weaken the proposal on two fronts:
1) They attempted to amend the MO statutes to limit the RSAs authority. This would have been the most clear cut way to stop the process. None of these bills even got out of committee.
2) They tried to amend the 2015 appropriations bill to limit the RSA’s ability to use the appropriation funds towards a new stadium. Specifically, the Senate passed a version of the 2015 budget that stated that the state appropriation would occur, provided that the funds were not used towards the issuance or refinancing of bonds related to a new stadium. This language ultimately removed due to legal concerns. However, even it had stayed in there, the RSA would have challenged the language and likely would have won.
Why?
Recall what I said above. The $12M appropriation the state makes towards the EJD is a lease payment. If you look at the appropriations bill it says “12M for debt service and maintenance on the Edward Jones Dome Project.” It does not specify that the payment must go to a specific series of bonds. Really, as a lease payment, it is ultimately the RSAs discretion to use the money as it chooses—whether its upgrade the dome, pay off bonds, issue new bonds or refinance bonds (all of these fall within the purview of “debt service and maintenance”). I believe STLRobertmartin correctly pointed this out. It’s understood that when you pay rent to your landlord, he uses that money to maintain your building, but you can’t control what specific upgrades he makes.
So where are we now?
In any case, the language was left off, so that discussion is moot. Where I believe the critics are now shifting their attention is to the statement “Edward Jones Dome Project,” and how that cannot possibly refer to a new stadium. The addition of the word “project” here is key- it creates an opening for the stadium backers to package together the new stadium as part of a package with the old. Indeed the presence of physical connector between the EJD and new stadium, as well as the fact that the EJD benefits economically from having the Rams out of the facility form the basis of considering the new stadium project as part of the EJD project. And of course, the adjacency ruling is also crucial here.
And of course, they are also threatening to block appropriations, which is the “nuclear option” in this scenario. Everyone involved is aware that his could harm the state’s credit rating. Legislators may claim that “NIxon is to blame” if this happens, but the people of Missouri won’t care, since they are getting hurt regardless of whose fault it is. I have a hard time believing that many legislators would risk their political futures for something like this.
Nixon wins. There's no way the state legislature actually follows through in this game of chicken.
It doesn't make what Nixon is doing right, but he legally can do it (to the above point it's not even technically him doing it), and the legislature can't stop that.
The city funding works pretty similarly as I understand it. The BoA can decide whether or not to appropriate budget money to go towards funding the RSA, but they can't actually stop the bonds from being issued.
But there may be more to it then that since it seems the task force plans to submit some sort of plan to the city for consideration prior to extending the bonds.
^ Just to clarify here, the RSA doesn't have the power to issue bonds obligating the city (or state) to back those bonds without legal authorization from the City (and state). And I'm pretty sure Slay doesn't have the power to do this on his own on the city's behalf; my recollection is that Slay has said this will go to the BoA, but legally I'm not sure if the necessary authorization could come from the BoE. (Slay, Green, Reed)
