Not to mention it's going to take place next to a Blues home game. Intentional or not, the timing could've been better.
- 3,235
I think the better question is why are we holding these hearings and why isn't other cities that could potentially lose a team?
- 3,767
^All 3 cities will have a chance to have these "town hall meetings". Ours is 10/27/15, SD is 10/28 & OAK is 10/29.
While I think these are just a dog & pony show, to follow guidelines, our fans need to be heard in full force, to let the NFL know that we are being treated unfairly by a bum owner and franchise. If anything, a massive show of support could at least raise an eyebrow.
While I think these are just a dog & pony show, to follow guidelines, our fans need to be heard in full force, to let the NFL know that we are being treated unfairly by a bum owner and franchise. If anything, a massive show of support could at least raise an eyebrow.
- 3,433
http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news ... ml?ana=fbk
Alderman’s bill would put city stadium funding to public vote.
Alderman’s bill would put city stadium funding to public vote.
- 9,568
highly doubt that it will even make it to Slay's desk.
- 3,433
Of course the NFL isn't currently allowing time for this vote. So this would kill the effort to remain an NFL city and get the $450M in exchange for less than 1% of the yearly $1B city budget. How much of the other 99% of the city budget pays for itself?dmelsh wrote:http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news ... ml?ana=fbk
Alderman’s bill would put city stadium funding to public vote.
Of course the NFL isn't currently allowing time for this vote. So this would kill the effort to remain an NFL city and get the $450M in exchange for less than 1% of the yearly $1B city budget. How much of the other 99% of the city budget pays for itself? When do the citizens get to vote on every 1% of the budget?dmelsh wrote:http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news ... ml?ana=fbk
Alderman’s bill would put city stadium funding to public vote.
- 337
I would be shocked if Green's bill gets fifteen votes. Even if it does, Slay will veto.
Just dumb "look at me" politics.
Just dumb "look at me" politics.
Or....people are genuinely pissed off about how the vote-requirement ordinance was knocked out of the way, done with paying for stadiums, done with Peacock's numbers games, and are pressuring the Aldermen to act and vote in a certain way.
Could be that.
Could be that.
^ I've yet to hear anyone come out vehemently against the stadium in real life. Even people that hate Kroenke. I have heard a lot of people say that "if we lose the Rams...that would be typical St. Louis b.s.".
- 488
We don't ask the rest of the budget to pay for itself because Government is supposed to do things that aren't valuable to outside private interests (Fixing sidewalks, fire services, police, psychiatry care, etc.). Ideally this would pay for itself because it is a private enterprise.gary kreie wrote:Of course the NFL isn't currently allowing time for this vote. So this would kill the effort to remain an NFL city and get the $450M in exchange for less than 1% of the yearly $1B city budget. How much of the other 99% of the city budget pays for itself?dmelsh wrote:http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news ... ml?ana=fbk
Alderman’s bill would put city stadium funding to public vote.
My question is and always will be how much revenue vs. how much cost for us. If the gap is $4M a year the question becomes do you think paying the NFL/Kroenke $120M over 30 years to stay an NFL city is worth it? If you think it is that's fine. I don't know what my number would be. But I do want to get to that a reasonable number we can agree on. Would anyone disagree with trying to get to that number?
- 3,433
Maybe the NFL will delay things a year allowing time for a bill that meets the court criteria for a public vote. And in that year, the Task Force can consider alternate sites outside the city.Aesir wrote:Or....people are genuinely pissed off about how the vote-requirement ordinance was knocked out of the way, done with paying for stadiums, done with Peacock's numbers games, and are pressuring the Aldermen to act and vote in a certain way.
Could be that.
But public votes are only fair when the public knows the truth. In the last three days the Post has published letters containing statements the Post knows are false involving the stadium. The public was persuaded to vote to allow felons to have guns through a well-funded campaign. Kroenke already spent $1.8M to get the vote he needed in Inglewood. Kroenke is probably surprised St Louis didn't just rollover on this but actually mounted a defense to keep the team. But I'm sure he knows he has resources that the Task Force does not have to convince the public they should vote against their own interests and fulfill his dream.
Megan Green serves my neighborhood (though no longer my ward). We're friends on Facebook and she posts often in the neighborhood Facebook group.goat314 wrote:^ I've yet to hear anyone come out vehemently against the stadium in real life. Even people that hate Kroenke. I have heard a lot of people say that "if we lose the Rams...that would be typical St. Louis b.s.".
I assure you she hears from many people who don't see this stadium as being in the best interests of St. Louis.
Gary, come on. This is so subjective.gary kreie wrote:...convince the public they should vote against their own interests and fulfill his dream.
The financial picture is unclear—in part because Peacock and Co. aren't telling us anything, but it is just extremely unlikely this is exceedingly financially positive for the city. The goal needs to be to make it not financially terrible—and I think they can do that. But it's just not going to be a big money maker.
And I'm not saying that's an issue. But it is an entirely subjective opinion whether this is a positive for the interests of the city and its citizens. I have no doubt opponents would and will skew the numbers just as proponents are doing in the opposite way. To your point that there would be a campaign of misinformation, I agree.
But we have to stop pretending that the impact on the city is black or white. We don't really know what the impact will be, and it's a simple opinion on whether you want it or not.
That solves it. Bye bye Rams.jstriebel wrote:Megan Green serves my neighborhood (though no longer my ward). We're friends on Facebook and she posts often in the neighborhood Facebook group.goat314 wrote:^ I've yet to hear anyone come out vehemently against the stadium in real life. Even people that hate Kroenke. I have heard a lot of people say that "if we lose the Rams...that would be typical St. Louis b.s.".
I assure you she hears from many people who don't see this stadium as being in the best interests of St. Louis.
Go home Dave; you're not needed any more.
- 337
http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLcom/S ... asses.aspx
Post-Dispatch's David Hunn 'Will Be Surprised' if Bill Requiring Public Vote on Stadium Passes
Post-Dispatch's David Hunn 'Will Be Surprised' if Bill Requiring Public Vote on Stadium Passes
Like I said, dumb "look at me" politics."I think when the financing project comes out, then the alderman will change their mind. (Once they see the details of the financing package, things are going to change). What we're seeing right now is the ugly negotiations of everyday government. It's playing out about as it should."
"Frankly, I will be surprised (if the bill requiring a public vote) passes. The mayor's office is really good at lobbying this stuff. I've watched them for 14, 15 years. I think they are going to get their ducks in a row when they need too. When it comes down to it...usually the ducks line up in favor of the big players in town. For right or for wrong. That's usually the way it works."
They're claiming over on the stltoday.com forums that Alderwoman Green is a Chiefs fan and that she has numerous social media posts supporting the Kansas City team and pictures of her wearing their gear.
I guess that's one way to look at it. Or it's a risky decision a political leader is making to say "This process has been wrong. This shouldn't be forced upon City taxpayers without their say"Mound City wrote:http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLcom/S ... asses.aspx
Post-Dispatch's David Hunn 'Will Be Surprised' if Bill Requiring Public Vote on Stadium Passes
Like I said, dumb "look at me" politics."I think when the financing project comes out, then the alderman will change their mind. (Once they see the details of the financing package, things are going to change). What we're seeing right now is the ugly negotiations of everyday government. It's playing out about as it should."
"Frankly, I will be surprised (if the bill requiring a public vote) passes. The mayor's office is really good at lobbying this stuff. I've watched them for 14, 15 years. I think they are going to get their ducks in a row when they need too. When it comes down to it...usually the ducks line up in favor of the big players in town. For right or for wrong. That's usually the way it works."
- 516
Not a big fan of this. The decision to move forward is complicated and requires a close look at the financial details. We elect Aldermen so that they can study the details and make informed votes on complicated matters. They should do their job, look at the final financing proposal, ask questions and vote whichever way they think is best for the City. Don't pass the buck to the general public, who won't have the access to same information as them and, therefore, will not be able to make a completely informed vote. This is one of those times when we should count on our representative democracy to work.dmelsh wrote:http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news ... ml?ana=fbk
Alderman’s bill would put city stadium funding to public vote.
You couldn't be more right. Calling for a public vote on issues the Alderman should handle themselves is nothing more than posturing BS.south compton wrote:Not a big fan of this. The decision to move forward is complicated and requires a close look at the financial details. We elect Aldermen so that they can study the details and make informed votes on complicated matters. They should do their job, look at the final financing proposal, ask questions and vote whichever way they think is best for the City. Don't pass the buck to the general public, who won't have the access to same information as them and, therefore, will not be able to make a completely informed vote. This is one of those times when we should count on our representative democracy to work.dmelsh wrote:http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news ... ml?ana=fbk
Alderman’s bill would put city stadium funding to public vote.
- 8,155
I'm glad Megan filed the bill. The voters of Saint Louis City and County did pass a ballot ordinance requiring a public vote for funding new stadia... yes, that ordinance was struck down as being "too vague" etc. etc. but that doesn't mean that its not what people wanted then nor what they want now. The idea that voters can't make an informed vote is something that just isn't true.
And the bill is all moot anyway if the stadium funding ordinance clearly is a good financial deal for the city as that would easily pass. If it isn't, and we're getting into arguments about "intangibles" and "image" then I think a project of such scale and duration should be decided by the voters. And for the record, Peacock agrees but just that darned timeline!
And the bill is all moot anyway if the stadium funding ordinance clearly is a good financial deal for the city as that would easily pass. If it isn't, and we're getting into arguments about "intangibles" and "image" then I think a project of such scale and duration should be decided by the voters. And for the record, Peacock agrees but just that darned timeline!
- 337
Sorry, but SHE was elected by a popular vote of her constituents. Her passing the buck and punting (lol football) on the issue by pushing for a public vote is the OPPOSITE of "risk."DannyJ wrote:I guess that's one way to look at it. Or it's a risky decision a political leader is making to say "This process has been wrong. This shouldn't be forced upon City taxpayers without their say"Mound City wrote:http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLcom/S ... asses.aspx
Post-Dispatch's David Hunn 'Will Be Surprised' if Bill Requiring Public Vote on Stadium Passes
Like I said, dumb "look at me" politics."I think when the financing project comes out, then the alderman will change their mind. (Once they see the details of the financing package, things are going to change). What we're seeing right now is the ugly negotiations of everyday government. It's playing out about as it should."
"Frankly, I will be surprised (if the bill requiring a public vote) passes. The mayor's office is really good at lobbying this stuff. I've watched them for 14, 15 years. I think they are going to get their ducks in a row when they need too. When it comes down to it...usually the ducks line up in favor of the big players in town. For right or for wrong. That's usually the way it works."
Wanna know a REAL risky move?
Standing by her convictions, doing her job, and going on the permanent record as voting NO to pass the bill to attempt to keep the Rams in St. Louis, while convincing the other 28 voting members on the board to do the same.