urbanSTL

"The Rams are entrenched in our region’s identity and should be for generations to come."

As she authors legislation that will ultimately do nothing but secure the Rams' ability to leave St. Louis, if successful. She's either completely clueless, or she's speaking out of both sides of her mouth.

Either way, politics at its lowest.

Mound City wrote: 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."

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.

See normally I'd agree - in general I hate when things go to a ballot vote vs. political leaders doing what they were elected to. But I think the people of STL said in 2004 we cant trust political leaders to make this particular decision which I don't think is unreasonable. I bet she does vote No in the end, but I don't think its crazy for her to try to do what voters asked for a decade ago.

Oh, I'm sure she'll vote no, along with the other eight aldermen who signed that letter asking Peacock to drop the lawsuit that invalidated the public vote ordinance. I would be shocked if the task force has wasted a single second trying to lobby her or those other eight.

Fortunately for those of us who want to see this thing built, it sounds like Peacock has his 15-20 he needs. Guess we'll see starting next week.

You realize of course that there will never be a public vote because it will take too long and by then the NFL will OK relocation and any vote will be unnecessary. So the only way now that the public can vote YES for the stadium is through their Representatives. So if they require a public vote now, your vote is already effectively filed for you as NO.

gary kreie wrote:You realize of course that there will never be a public vote because it will take too long and by then the NFL will OK relocation and any vote will be unnecessary. So the only way now that the public can vote YES for the stadium is through their Representatives. So if they require a public vote now, your vote is already effectively filed for you as NO.

Correct.

This is why I say it's extremely insulting when the esteemed alderwoman gets on Twitter and tweets that she's a Rams fan, and that she believes "the Rams are entrenched in our region's identity, and should be for generations to come," all the while bringing her bill to the floor. It's either transparent pandering or startling cluelessness.

Either way, it's maddening and sickening. If you're going to be the champion of booting the Rams out of St. Louis in the name of "government accountability," then own it. But cut it with the Rams fan bullsh*t.

As others have reported, on her Facebook page, she lists her sports teams as the Blues, Cards, & CHIEFs. No Rams. And she has photos of her dogs wearing Chiefs sweaters. So just like the KC side legislators, I would have to say her motives are suspect. She may want to recuse herself from this vote.

https://www.facebook.com/meganellyia.green/sports

85% is financed by others including $610 in private money.

roger wyoming II wrote:Now the rumor is that the City is on the hook for any stadium overruns in the term sheet. I spit up my Jamba Juice when I read that.

Did not say the city is on the hook for overruns. Jason Cole user "Saint Louis" as a general term for the task forces effort. For all we know the state could be on the hook

Stadium proponents know that even if it passes in March, the vote won't happen because Kroenke would have already won. NFL proponents think there is significant. value in being an NFL city. Wash U and many business tout the NFL presence when they recruit top talent. What value should we put on that? Property values in NFL cities are higher per all studies. What value should we put on that? Poor weather towns with few entertainment options do not prosper. That is why we believe it is worth 1% of the $1 billion city budget to get the $450M and a new asset downtown.

I love how all the "progressives" all of a sudden get on their high horse about fiscal responsibility when it comes to the new stadium.

Most cities our size decided it is worth it to spend money to keep the NFL. A lot more than we are spending. The things I mentioned above have some value and other cities add that into the equation. But not here. We need to break exactly even at the parking meter level.

Stan's mo is to jump in at the last second and do whatever it takes to win. So don't worry, I'm sure he knows he can count on us to fail, but he has something up his sleeve he will reveal at the last second to guarantee victory parties in Hollywood & KC. Champagne is on ice in Inglewood.

imthewiz wrote:I love how all the "progressives" all of a sudden get on their high horse about fiscal responsibility when it comes to the new stadium.

Ain't that the truth...and the fact they seek out a "Rams Forum" to spiel it.

Can we talk about the fact that this process takes YEARS in most other cities but is being rushed through in a single year (and months or weeks for some of the public officials) here?

Gary, you're acting like every other city in the country says "oooh, NFL" and in a daze just takes out their wallets and flips them over putting together as much money as they possibly can to build a stadium.

And that's just not true. In most cities debates over public funding have lingered for quite some time. Recently, Minnesota/Minneapolis was a particularly dramatic case.

St. Louis isn't asking questions that aren't asked in other cities nor are they taking any longer.

The difference is that St. Louis isn't being given longer. But that doesn't mean we should be any less responsible in evaluating the proposal.

I cant believe how much commotion a symbolic bill by Green has caused.

roger wyoming II wrote:Now the rumor is that the City is on the hook for any stadium overruns in the term sheet. I spit up my Jamba Juice when I read that.

Perhaps I'm naive, but I'm guessing that's not true. There's no source from which the City could magically add a $100 million into the pot. If the City agreed to something like that, it would be worse than the "first tier" agreement in the original dome lease.

I'm sure Green introduced the bill because she is a Chiefs fan. . .

This has been going around... Her dog wears a Chiefs sweater. . .

Is it right that the NFL is rushing St Louis at an unprecedented pace to come up with a stadium solution? No.

Do I wish that the public could have voted? Yes.

Does it seem like the task force skirted around the issue of a public vote? Of course.

Is the NFL corrupt organization? Obviously.

The fact is folks, we are where we are. It has come down to not having a public vote. And if this hail mary of a bill somehow goes forward, the Rams leave. I like watching the Rams play. It would be a big blow to civic pride to lose another football team. If the financing truly is only $6 million/year from the city. I think that's reasonable. 1% of the city budget. National exposure 16 weeks out of the year. Sure, we can all argue on principles and on the right way to do things, but the fact is we are where we are. If we don't have financing for this seemingly reasonable deal.. Bye bye Rams.