urbanSTL

gary kreie wrote:
The article points out that in 2015 dollars, the public money for the new stadium is a lot less than for the dome, and for a much better stadium. They fail to mention that players salaries and taxes on them have grown exponentially since 1995, pumping more money into state coffers via state income tax than that state pays for the dome each year, and will cover the state payment for the new stadium each year also when the bonds are extended in 2021.

Gary, I don't believe you responded to this question before, so I'll pose it again (this time with more correct numbers).

The current stadium plan calls for $187 million in tax credits. That's on top of the $12 million a year for 30 years. I'm not sure exactly when all of those credits are supposed to kick in, but that would be an extra $6.23 million a year over 30 years that the state would need to make back (and the credits probably hit upfront which makes it more painful for a while).

Now I'm not saying this means the stadium shouldn't be built. The stadium doesn't HAVE to make the state money, it just needs to come close to covering the gap. Maybe it still will, although these tax credits make it that much harder.

I think when you present your math about the income tax maybe exceeding the $12 million in bond debt per year but leave out the tax credits, then you're being no more forthright and honest than the media that you're complaining about.

I want the Rams here, I want this stadium built. I am under no illusion that this is somehow a break even or a money maker for the state or the city. it isn't and it doesn't have to be.

dbInSouthCity wrote:I want the Rams here, I want this stadium built. I am under no illusion that this is somehow a break even or a money maker for the state or the city. it isn't and it doesn't have to be.

This is a very valid opinion.

http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2015/09/14/ ... t-stadium/

I see Dave Peacock is lobbying alderman to get the financing package approved. Does anyone know what this process entails? Is this just a vote? Also, I would assume the vote is for the City portion of the financing package only, correct?

urban_dilettante wrote:

gary kreie wrote:They fail to mention that players salaries and taxes on them have grown exponentially since 1995, pumping more money into state coffers via state income tax than that state pays for the dome each year, and will cover the state payment for the new stadium each year also when the bonds are extended in 2021.

In 2014, Gleba says, the state “received approximately $18.4 million from all NFL players for duty days in Missouri.” If you figure that the Chiefs and Rams split that total about evenly, then the Rams (and their visitors) accounted for about $9.2 million in income tax, which is pretty close to the $10 million that Nixon claimed.

http://www.stlmag.com/news/sports/earni ... -the-rams/

$9.2 million < $12 million

I was glad to see Jeff Rainford on StayTunedSTL Thursday countering the disinformation campaign with the truth.

Can you provide a time stamp? Was it when he pulled the city-wide 8% property value increase out of his ass? Or was it when he claimed that the stadium will promote development, contrary to what most research shows and contrary to what happened the last four times we built stadiums?

I just got back from driving my kid to start college in Boston, so I'm a little behind in my attacks on you stadium deniers. So in answer to your comments above:

1. First of all, Ray Hartman has been saying the stadium effort will fail from day one, and that the adjacency requirement would kill it. Wrong on that one. So I see Ray only looked at "player" state taxes, not "player and staff" state taxes as the state economic dev dept had done, in order to make his numbers match his bias. The state says they get $13-$15 million from players AND STAFF now. BUT, OK, even if we use Ray's numbers and assume 2.5% inflation over the next 30 years, (same as last 30 years), then his $9.2 million per year will grow to $29 million per year, and the total collected will reach $423 million, vs. the amount of fixed payments of $12M * 30 = $360 million. So even using Ray's numbers, the state comes out ahead by $423M - $360M = $63 million. Do the spreadsheet yourselves. I am amazed that Ray and the Post are getting away with acting as if both the payments and revenue will be the same as today for the next 30 years. In fact, only the payment will stay fixed while the tax revenue will go up as player salaries go up, as they have always done. So much for Ray Hartman's analysis.

2. I thought Jeff Rainford said just the opposite of what you said -- he was disagreeing with Joe Buck that the stadium will greatly spur economic development. I agree we should not assume any spurt in economic development from a new stadium.

And with respect to sources for Jeff's report that having the NFL could raise property values by 8%, (actually rental value in this reference -- same thing), I found at least one report that he may have pulled that number from -- The New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/02/busin ... trict.html

This article cites a study by two professors that states "All things being equal, apartment rents in the central-city areas of N.F.L. towns were 8 percent higher."

gary kreie wrote:2. I thought Jeff Rainford said just the opposite of what you said -- he was disagreeing with Joe Buck that the stadium will greatly spur economic development. I agree we should not assume any spurt in economic development from a new stadium.

And with respect to sources for Jeff's report that having the NFL could raise property values by 8%, (actually rental value in this reference -- same thing), I found at least one report that he may have pulled that number from -- The New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/02/busin ... trict.html

This article cites a study by two professors that states "All things being equal, apartment rents in the central-city areas of N.F.L. towns were 8 percent higher."

Interesting. Well, this study in Business Review—also from 2004—found for St. Louis specifically:

The subsidy exceeds the present value of the potential increase in property tax revenue in
only three of the 25 cities that provided subsidies (New Orleans, Pittsburgh, and St. Louis).

The study further projected (see the final table), also based on an 8% increase in median housing price, that St. Louis would see an increase in property taxes amounting to less than half of the stadium subsidies over the 30 year life of the stadium.

https://www.phil.frb.org/-/media/resear ... q204jc.pdf

Also, not sure you can say that rental value and property value are the same thing, particularly in a central city that lacks rental properties in the vicinity of the stadium.

What bothers me about all the stadium propaganda is that pushers (e.g. Rainford) are spouting off generalized statistics and pie-in-the-sky economic development scenarios that don't hold up in St. Louis' case under minimal scrutiny or even a memory that extends back two decades.

STLEnginerd wrote:The 8% property value bumps seems like a chicken or egg question. Does the NFL raise your property values or does the NFL select cities to locate in based on a markets ability to pay. Which would preclude higher home values.

I really don't know but I wouldn't put much value on projecting revenues based on that number.

yep. and there are more than a few studies (http://econjwatch.org/articles/do-econo ... ega-events) showing that there is little to no net economic gain for cities with NFL teams. so i have a hard time believing that a stadium produces a city-wide 8% increase in property value, particularly in St. Louis.

Gary kreie.
Your math is wrong on point one. You can't use inflation in only half the equation

mjbais1489 wrote:Gary kreie.
Your math is wrong on point one. You can't use inflation in only half the equation

Inflation only applies to half -- the revenue. The bond payment is fixed at $12 million per year, like a fixed rate house payment. The state payments on the dome hasn't changed since 1995. That $12 million going forward looks cheap compared to 1995 because of inflation.

I haven't heard where the practice facility would end up in all of these discussions. Is Rams Park moving to the City as part of the deal?

It'd cost more money to build a new practice facility and Peacock's concern isn't truly with with future of the city, just saving football. So yeah, it's not really a factor unfortunately.

roger wyoming II wrote:^ I haven't read the application but I'm pretty sure you're off here.... just a couple points:

1) The state MDFB credits don't involve property taxes, which is a local issue. The program I believe it plans to use for the credit allocation is essentially similar to giving a income tax credit for charitable donations. And they are going above the normal cap and thus have to go through a bit more process.

Also, as the stadium would be owned by the RSA, there would be no property taxes generated.

2) Brownfields are a capped program. so any $$ that would be allocated to the stadium project would be unavailable for other projects. The Arcade-Wright restoration is one high-profile example of a recent Brownfields recipient.

You're right. I saw that that Board of Education would benefit with tax revenue, and I incorrectly assumed it would be from property taxes generated by having a team and new stadium. But, re-reading the words, I see now that part of the the St. Louis School District funding comes from SALES taxes in the City. Didn't know that. So the table actually summarizes the projected tax revenue generated by the stadium and team from SALES tax revenue. Not PROPERTY tax revenue. The table computes that the tax money that would come from having a new stadium and NFL team at $146 million over 35 years, and that is on top of the $6 million per year revenue generated to offset the city $6 million per year city bond payments.

So the tax credit is not like a tax abatement -- but it is a recognition by the state that the region comes out way ahead on tax revenue if they just help make this project go with a few bucks from the state.

As far as Brownfield tax credits go, the legislature created that tax credit to help abandoned contaminated property in the inner city compete with clean cornfields in O'Fallon for business. If Schaaf or Kinder got that tax credit eliminated for the stadium project, it wouldn't bother me if the task force skipped that funding and built the stadium in O'Fallon. At least out there we wouldn't have the daily letter-to-the-editor saying we should spend the billion dollars on more police instead of handing it to Kroenke.

Gary, I think my main response to your last paragraph would be: is it working? We're not attracting a whole lot of anything here.

Maybe the NFL is saving us from looking really bad. Or maybe it's not doing much at all. Maybe it's draining resources that could have a real impact.

I'm not claiming to know the answer. I just know that being an NFL city hasn't been a huge boon for us. So I'm not terribly afraid of what will happen if we're no longer an NFL city. (Doesn't mean I don't want to remain one, just means I'm not worried about our future if it goes the other way.)

jstriebel wrote:Gary, I think my main response to your last paragraph would be: is it working? We're not attracting a whole lot of anything here.

Maybe the NFL is saving us from looking really bad. Or maybe it's not doing much at all. Maybe it's draining resources that could have a real impact.

I'm not claiming to know the answer. I just know that being an NFL city hasn't been a huge boon for us. So I'm not terribly afraid of what will happen if we're no longer an NFL city. (Doesn't mean I don't want to remain one, just means I'm not worried about our future if it goes the other way.)

You could say the same thing if the Cardinals were threatening to leave town. Or Boeing. Or the Zoo. Obviously none of those are working, using your logic, since we aren't exactly booming with them. I don't care for that thinking. So what if economic studies are true and it won't matter since we fans will just spend the same amount of money on our second choice in entertainment and its all a wash? If that is the case, then I'd like to go to a Rams game here, if it's all the same to you. Why are folks trying to limit my entertainment options for me, if it's all break-even? Let me decide where I want to spend thousands on entertainment foolishly, thank you.

I moved here from Oklahoma years ago and really loved all the entertainment options here in a big city. I guess folks in little towns can come to love picnics in the park, if that's all there is to do there. There are fewer and fewer reasons to come to St. Louis over other big cities our size. Why delete one more?

Gary, I've enjoyed your analysis of the situation. Admittedly, I am a Rams superfan whose mood would be badly affected if the team moved. It really would bum me out for a while. (Yeah, yeah -- that in, and of, itself is sad....)

Thus far, I've selfishly supported the new stadium, not making any argument for the new stadium other than "I love NFL football and believe that having an NFL franchise provides a image boost for the region. No, I can't put a dollar figure on that image boost, but I strongly believe it's a positive."

Now, I read your posts that the stadium would pay for itself. It's revenue neutral. Honestly, it seems too good to be true. Why haven't any of the new stadium organizers (Peacock et all) articulated this argument? It would be the strongest argument yet.

So, with the latest pushback in this thread, would there be a way to "show your work" a little more clearly? Show the math?

gary kreie wrote:

jstriebel wrote:Gary, I think my main response to your last paragraph would be: is it working? We're not attracting a whole lot of anything here.

Maybe the NFL is saving us from looking really bad. Or maybe it's not doing much at all. Maybe it's draining resources that could have a real impact.

I'm not claiming to know the answer. I just know that being an NFL city hasn't been a huge boon for us. So I'm not terribly afraid of what will happen if we're no longer an NFL city. (Doesn't mean I don't want to remain one, just means I'm not worried about our future if it goes the other way.)

You could say the same thing if the Cardinals were threatening to leave town. Or Boeing. Or the Zoo. Obviously none of those are working, using your logic, since we aren't exactly booming with them. I don't care for that thinking. So what if economic studies are true and it won't matter since we fans will just spend the same amount of money on our second choice in entertainment and its all a wash? If that is the case, then I'd like to go to a Rams game here, if it's all the same to you. Why are folks trying to limit my entertainment options for me, if it's all break-even? Let me decide where I want to spend thousands on entertainment foolishly, thank you.

I moved here from Oklahoma years ago and really loved all the entertainment options here in a big city. I guess folks in little towns can come to love picnics in the park, if that's all there is to do there. There are fewer and fewer reasons to come to St. Louis over other big cities our size. Why delete one more?

Gary, I'd ask you to re-read my post.

I'm not sure I said what you think I said. I too would prefer that the Rams would say, and at this point, I cautiously support the stadium.

I'm merely saying that if the Rams do leave, I do not believe it will be doom and gloom for our wonderful city.