^Well said!
- 8,155
Well that's the heart of the issue.... if it's just a continuation of the status quo (or a slight adjustment) then this whole thing sails through with relative ease. The problem is that they haven't been able to figure out a way to get there and by all accounts Peacock submitted/floated a plan that would have raised our city taxes and harmed our credit rating. So we know its not a simple extension of the $6 million ,otherwise they'd have submitted that weeks ago and we'd have the damn thing passed (or nearing passage) by now.imthewiz wrote: If the financing truly is only $6 million/year from the city. I think that's reasonable.
My prediction is we'll be having a debate about whether whatever is eventually proposed meets the "no new taxes without a public vote" pledge and the impact on our budget and credit rating of foregoing the current revenue we receive from gameday activity. Hopefully these guys get their act together and actually introduce the bill next week like they say.
^i hear by Monday they introduce the plan to the aldermen but we shall see.
I guess I never followed why the $6 million over 30 years doesn't cover $150 million. 6x30=180 right? So why is that the problem? I probably just don't understand how bonds work
I guess I never followed why the $6 million over 30 years doesn't cover $150 million. 6x30=180 right? So why is that the problem? I probably just don't understand how bonds work
- 8,155
^^ Ha! My prediction is true!
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... Gk.twitter
But [Slay's Chief of Staff] cautioned that the legislation obtained by the Post-Dispatch is a draft, with important holes still being negotiated.
The percentage of game-day taxes rebated back to the NFL team, for instance, is a big deal, she acknowledged. If the team gets all the taxes, the city could lose a large chunk of annual revenue.
Still, she called the bills a good deal for the city.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... Gk.twitter
But [Slay's Chief of Staff] cautioned that the legislation obtained by the Post-Dispatch is a draft, with important holes still being negotiated.
The percentage of game-day taxes rebated back to the NFL team, for instance, is a big deal, she acknowledged. If the team gets all the taxes, the city could lose a large chunk of annual revenue.
Still, she called the bills a good deal for the city.
- 8,155
The need is to come up with $150 million up front to build the thing. It's like a 30 year home mortgage loan where the total payments are way more than the purchase price. Apparently the $6 million/yr. for 30 yrs. only gets you to around $70 million to bring to the table. (Also looks like from the article the Enterprise name rights deal is what has allowed there to be any kind of possibility for this moving forward as that's relieving some pressure on the city.)imthewiz wrote:^i hear by Monday they introduce the plan to the aldermen but we shall see.
I guess I never followed why the $6 million over 30 years doesn't cover $150 million. 6x30=180 right? So why is that the problem? I probably just don't understand how bonds work
- 3,433
- 1,299
Living in the city and being a city taxpayer is like being a live-in girlfriend.
You give up the goodies and everyone else gets the fun.
Why the rest of the region is not being taxed for this while city taxpayers are is just bogus.
Everyone knows that most people attending those games will be non-city residents.
And to think that those non-city residents are unhappy that city taxpayers don't like paying for it.
It's pathetic. If you live in STL County, St, Charles County, Jeff Co, Mad Co, or St. Clair Co., and you support this approach, then you're pathetic, too. You probably chuckle every time you enter the Zoo and Art museum tax-free, too (okay, not you STL County folks on that score, but you get the point).
You give up the goodies and everyone else gets the fun.
Why the rest of the region is not being taxed for this while city taxpayers are is just bogus.
Everyone knows that most people attending those games will be non-city residents.
And to think that those non-city residents are unhappy that city taxpayers don't like paying for it.
It's pathetic. If you live in STL County, St, Charles County, Jeff Co, Mad Co, or St. Clair Co., and you support this approach, then you're pathetic, too. You probably chuckle every time you enter the Zoo and Art museum tax-free, too (okay, not you STL County folks on that score, but you get the point).
imthewiz wrote: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.
You're right, and for that reason, I like Megan Green's support on principle but don't want to see her bill succeed.
BUT the reason we are where we are is because we let people get away with running roughshod over the public like this. And that's not okay. And we should stand up and speak out against it.
Not shrug our shoulders and say football.
^So now we are resorting to personal attacks? Cool.
Like I said before, we are where we are. And where we are is that we have to have funding for the stadium passed soon otherwise the Rams are leaving
Like I said before, we are where we are. And where we are is that we have to have funding for the stadium passed soon otherwise the Rams are leaving
- 337
City's annual payment remains the same as what it currently is; a decreasing percentage of City's budget over time: checkgary kreie wrote:Stadium Financing Plan Revealed.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... 8b7c7.html
City is not responsible for any cost overruns: check
Gap is made up by naming rights money, with half reimbursed in the form of gameday taxes to NFL: check
What else needs to be said?
Let's build this ***** stadium.
Wrong. Those of us who want to keep the Rams are all bad people. We should be sad, go sit in the corner and think about all the things we've done wrong.Mound City wrote:City's annual payment remains the same as what it currently is; a decreasing percentage of City's budget over time: checkgary kreie wrote:Stadium Financing Plan Revealed.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... 8b7c7.html
City is not responsible for any cost overruns: check
Gap is made up by naming rights money, with half reimbursed in the form of gameday taxes to NFL: check
What else needs to be said?
Let's build this ***** stadium.
And that's why this discussion is so frustrating. Nobody keep their damn emotions in check. Everyone has to create a bunch of straw man arguments.
C'mon Dweebe. You're better than that.
C'mon Dweebe. You're better than that.
Mound City wrote:City's annual payment remains the same as what it currently is; a decreasing percentage of City's budget over time: checkgary kreie wrote:Stadium Financing Plan Revealed.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... 8b7c7.html
City is not responsible for any cost overruns: check
Gap is made up by naming rights money, with half reimbursed in the form of gameday taxes to NFL: check
What else needs to be said?
Let's build this ***** stadium.
We need to see what the gameday tax generation will be first.
If we're giving away 80% of the gameday taxes, then it's a lot harder to justify the first $70 million.
I'm not saying that's the case. But we still don't have all the numbers we need to make a responsible decision.
Is this referring to me? I don't think I personally attacked anybody. Did I?imthewiz wrote:^So now we are resorting to personal attacks? Cool.
Like I said before, we are where we are. And where we are is that we have to have funding for the stadium passed soon otherwise the Rams are leaving
- 337
Why would that make it harder to justify the first $70 million? That first $70 million's all going to be covered by the hotel-motel tax already in place, like it currently is.jstriebel wrote:Mound City wrote:City's annual payment remains the same as what it currently is; a decreasing percentage of City's budget over time: checkgary kreie wrote:Stadium Financing Plan Revealed.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... 8b7c7.html
City is not responsible for any cost overruns: check
Gap is made up by naming rights money, with half reimbursed in the form of gameday taxes to NFL: check
What else needs to be said?
Let's build this ***** stadium.
We need to see what the gameday tax generation will be first.
If we're giving away 80% of the gameday taxes, then it's a lot harder to justify the first $70 million.
I'm not saying that's the case. But we still don't have all the numbers we need to make a responsible decision.
- 8,155
^ What? 
edit: sorry for the eye roll but I feel like I'm back in June or July when we were just starting to get a better understanding on how the Dome and Convention Center were actually being paid for and how the hotel/motel taxes weren't nearly sufficient.
edit: sorry for the eye roll but I feel like I'm back in June or July when we were just starting to get a better understanding on how the Dome and Convention Center were actually being paid for and how the hotel/motel taxes weren't nearly sufficient.
- 337
Does the hotel-motel tax not currently cover the city's annual $6 million contribution?roger wyoming II wrote:^ What?
- 8,155
^ Nope. They don't even meet the first obligation convention center expansion payments.
All direct game day taxes were estimated to recoup about that much but that includes sales taxes on food/drink/merchandise, the 5% amusement tax, the bit of earnings tax and I believe hotel stays attributable to the games. Sounds like we'll have to give up at least most of that revenue now in order to make up the difference between what the bond extension will pay for and Slay's $150 million commitment.
All direct game day taxes were estimated to recoup about that much but that includes sales taxes on food/drink/merchandise, the 5% amusement tax, the bit of earnings tax and I believe hotel stays attributable to the games. Sounds like we'll have to give up at least most of that revenue now in order to make up the difference between what the bond extension will pay for and Slay's $150 million commitment.
Is this referring to me? I don't think I personally attacked anybody. Did I?[/quote]
I was referring to NN people being pathetic
I was referring to NN people being pathetic
- 8,155
iirc, the city is on the hook for about $22 million in annual bond payments on the convention center expansion and Dome and that the hotel/motel tax only covers about half that (I probably am off a bit but that gives an idea.) And it is the Convention Center expansion and not the Dome that has a first legal obligation to pay.Mound City wrote:Does the hotel-motel tax not currently cover the city's annual $6 million contribution?roger wyoming II wrote:^ What?
However, currently Rams activity is estimated by the City budget director to generate about $4.5 million in direct taxes so you can say that it's been costing our budget about $1.5 million in recent years. Moving forward, it looks like we'd have to give up most of that direct tax recoupment so our ultimate cost will be higher. What kind of impact that would have on the budget, etc. will be an item of discussion for sure.
- 641
For young urbanists who think sports aren't important why does this thread have 190 pages?
I'm a young urbanist who has been obsessed with sports my entire life.sirshankalot wrote:For young urbanists who think sports aren't important why does this thread have 190 pages?
But I think the answer is buried in your question to some degree. The fact that we're urbanists is why this thread has 190 pages.
This is a $1B project for and with hundreds of million in public funds from our urban city. That's a big deal, and that's why it's caused a lot of discussion.
I don't think anybody thinks sports and sports projects don't matter. I think some people aren't big fans of sports, and I think other people (with some overlap) believe that HAVING sports teams isn't important to the HEALTH of a city.
But I think everyone would agree this is a big project with big impacts. And that's why for 190 pages we've been discussing those impacts and the worthiness of the investment.
- 1,299
Wha??? You don't think it's pathetic that in a region of 2,500,000 people, the citizens of the poor center city, the much maligned center city, the center city the wealthier neighboring county has no interest in joining, the center city with a struggling public school system and a concentration of poverty, a city with about a tenth of the region's population, are being asked to pay the taxes toward this project, this regional amenity, this "jewel" sports palace, this place where mostly wealthy suburbanites will attend? You don't think that's pathetic?Is this referring to me? I don't think I personally attacked anybody. Did I?
I was referring to NN people being pathetic
Why not? How is this in any way fair to residents of St. Louis city?
I get it. It's all about expediency and the possibility of forever losing the Rams/NFL - for the region.
So how about this.
We city folk pay taxes for the NFL stadium.
And you suburban folks in Jeff County and St. Charles County sign up to join the ZMD?
Sound fair? Think it will happen?
What's pathetic is the lack of regional unity in St. Louis. And that's not the city's fault. Well, unless you base your logic on 140 year-old decisions.