^ Ray Hartmann and the types portray themselves as "realist" but they are lowkey pessimist and indicative of a wider problem in St. Louis. The fact that we refuse to be a first class city.
Has Ray Hartmann ever been positive about anything?goat314 wrote:^ Ray Hartmann and the types portray themselves as "realist" but they are lowkey pessimist and indicative of a wider problem in St. Louis. The fact that we refuse to be a first class city.
Gary, your personal actions aside, Ray is probably mostly right about the sales tax. Studies indicate as much. It's not a guarantee, but it's just unlikely we'll see a major drop off there. As is, we don't even see that much WITH the Rams.
But the state will lose a sizable chunk of income tax. That one can't be debated.
Never mind, I found it. See below...
But the state will lose a sizable chunk of income tax. That one can't be debated.
Never mind, I found it. See below...
Here's the article with the quotes from Darlene Green.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... 037b1.html
Frankly, she's right. And while she and city alderman are about to face a storm of backlash from Rams fans living in the county (and other counties), it will be quite misdirected. Those people need to get in touch with THEIR public officials and ask why they refuse to participate in the regional good—on this and so much else.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... 037b1.html
Frankly, she's right. And while she and city alderman are about to face a storm of backlash from Rams fans living in the county (and other counties), it will be quite misdirected. Those people need to get in touch with THEIR public officials and ask why they refuse to participate in the regional good—on this and so much else.
The failure of the Peacock group may come from their inability to build regional cooperation.jstriebel wrote:Here's the article with the quotes from Darlene Green.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... 037b1.html
Frankly, she's right. And while she and city alderman are about to face a storm of backlash from Rams fans living in the county (and other counties), it will be quite misdirected. Those people need to get in touch with THEIR public officials and ask why they refuse to participate in the regional good—on this and so much else.
(Feel free to alter the underlined part and reuse for the next fifty years.)
I'm seriously just so sick of all of this. Just tell us what's gonna happen.
I wonder if there's any chance in Hades that Peacock and Nixon convince Stenger to put he county back in the equation.
I wonder if there's any chance in Hades that Peacock and Nixon convince Stenger to put he county back in the equation.
- 9,570
Technically the county could help pay the bonds issued by the RSA thus reducing the tax rebate # down a bit. and they can still have a county vote next year but this would have to pass as is right now.
City will issue $70M in bonds, which will cost $6.0m a year
RSA will issue $78M in bonds and pay it back with the portion of the the naming rights that the team generally gets
in turn the City will give tax rebates to the team to make up for the lose of naming rights $ (which is now going to pay back the RSA bonds)
Right now we know that the City gets about $4.2M from game day rev taxes and pays $6.0m for a net lose of $1.8M a year
questions that the Peacock & Co. need to answer how much taxable revenue will the new stadium with higher prices generate and what happens to taxes generated from other events at the stadium like soccer, college football, concerts, MLS ect... one thing is for sure is that the over all taxable revenue at the stadium will generate more than the $4.2M that football at the dome generates now...i wouldnt be surprised that the city's net lose of $1.8M doesnt really grow that much afterall.
City will issue $70M in bonds, which will cost $6.0m a year
RSA will issue $78M in bonds and pay it back with the portion of the the naming rights that the team generally gets
in turn the City will give tax rebates to the team to make up for the lose of naming rights $ (which is now going to pay back the RSA bonds)
Right now we know that the City gets about $4.2M from game day rev taxes and pays $6.0m for a net lose of $1.8M a year
questions that the Peacock & Co. need to answer how much taxable revenue will the new stadium with higher prices generate and what happens to taxes generated from other events at the stadium like soccer, college football, concerts, MLS ect... one thing is for sure is that the over all taxable revenue at the stadium will generate more than the $4.2M that football at the dome generates now...i wouldnt be surprised that the city's net lose of $1.8M doesnt really grow that much afterall.
- 1,299
Glad to be finally reading more comments about where the true problem lies - division. I've said it before and I'll say it again: the number one problem in the STL region is division. And that problem is mostly manifest outside the 1876 limit line.
So wouldn't it be ironic, with non-city residents pressuring city elected officials to support a stadium funding plan put on the backs of city taxpayers, while at the same time remaining silent on their own lack of helping pay the cost or putting pressure on their own elected representatives to get this done, that we all lose?
If the NFL leaves STL, when those moving vans get on the westbound lanes of I-44 to LA, when the symbol of the Arch once again reminds us of its "go west young man, go west", that we are all left behind, pointing fingers at each other, across municipal boundaries and from behind gated-entry subdivisions.
We will still have our lousy school system, our failing infrastructure, crime, bad politics, weak economy, and then ladeling more insult on the injury, a second loss of an NFL franchise. We'll be first city in history to lay claim to that distinction.
That's pathetic, folks. Pathetic on all of us.
So wouldn't it be ironic, with non-city residents pressuring city elected officials to support a stadium funding plan put on the backs of city taxpayers, while at the same time remaining silent on their own lack of helping pay the cost or putting pressure on their own elected representatives to get this done, that we all lose?
If the NFL leaves STL, when those moving vans get on the westbound lanes of I-44 to LA, when the symbol of the Arch once again reminds us of its "go west young man, go west", that we are all left behind, pointing fingers at each other, across municipal boundaries and from behind gated-entry subdivisions.
We will still have our lousy school system, our failing infrastructure, crime, bad politics, weak economy, and then ladeling more insult on the injury, a second loss of an NFL franchise. We'll be first city in history to lay claim to that distinction.
That's pathetic, folks. Pathetic on all of us.
- 641
Your consistent doom and gloom is pathetic. What if peacock and Co pull it off? What if the city's momentum gains real steam and conventions double at the Ed Dome? What if the northside sees a renaissance?
- 3,433
jstriebel wrote:Gary, your personal actions aside, Ray is probably mostly right about the sales tax. Studies indicate as much. It's not a guarantee, but it's just unlikely we'll see a major drop off there. As is, we don't even see that much WITH the Rams.
But the state will lose a sizable chunk of income tax. That one can't be debated.
Never mind, I found it. See below...
Then the same is true for Inglewood too, right? I asked Ray if substitution works there too -- that they will see no increase in tax revenue if the Rams move there, since this theory says entertainment budgets are fixed, and people will still spend the same amount but just move it to other entertainment. So tax revenue will not go up in Inglewood either. Ray said, no tax revenue in their region will likely increase. I think he had to say that since it will be easy to confirm 5 years from now. But it blows that substitution theory away. More people will travel to find good entertainment and spend their money there. That is why people come from other states here to watch baseball. Entertainment options are low in their regions so the come to ours to spend. And as our entertainment options diminish here, Missourians will go to other states to spend entertainment dollars. We have no beaches or mountains, NASCAR or MLS, now no NFL. People who enjoy those things travel to where they are. That is why that substitution theory only works at a national level, but breaks down locally and regionally. Those studies ShowMe found are from 1997 and 2000. They are not about what is offered here, but instead about the dome where the public paid the whole thing. ShowMes latest paper says building a new stadium will not create any new construction jobs. They can find a paper that supports any pre-conceived notion that their founder Rex Sinquefield ever had.
If Darlene Green is so strict about what the city can shoulder, than the city's budget should be made public. I hope she is as scrutinizing with every last red cent as she is about retention of this asset. I doubt the entire budget reflects her level of displayed analytical detail. It seems to me that the stadium will assist in her desires for community building and public safety.....in fact, what venture can better reflect community building on this grand of a stage in 2015? Is it a financial sacrifice? Sure, but assets like this cannot make perfect financial sense because of intangible value. In the 40s and 50s people griped and moaned about the costs of the Arch as a waste of money. Now it is our regional symbol and one that likely most wouldn't go back and trade.
And for the record, the place that might take our team back has lost 3 NFL franchises.
Here's a sneak peek at how we re-land the Rams tonight when Dave Peacock accidentally runs into Stan hiding out in the Peabody bar during the hearing:
And for the record, the place that might take our team back has lost 3 NFL franchises.
Here's a sneak peek at how we re-land the Rams tonight when Dave Peacock accidentally runs into Stan hiding out in the Peabody bar during the hearing:
- 337
But $4M-6M of that will be in the form of rebates on consumption tax revenue that would not exist but for the stadium, right?roger wyoming II wrote:^ Darlene Green isn't on board.... says it'll be $10M-$12M per year from the city. We had a $100 bet on that, right?
- 8,155
^ I'm just so confused now but I think that's right. We just need the damned ordinance introduced and analyzed.
- 13
This. All this.imthewiz wrote:I'm seriously just so sick of all of this. Just tell us what's gonna happen.
The NFL sucks.
- 337
Agree we need the thing introduced, but I don't think the details will be significantly different from what was leaked last week.roger wyoming II wrote:^ I'm just so confused now but I think that's right. We just need the damned ordinance introduced and analyzed.
If that is, in fact, right, then I think it's pretty transparently B.S. politics for her to point to money spent by the city, that the city wouldn't even have if the stadium didn't exist, as grounds to oppose building the stadium.
- 3,433
How did they get the city to go in on $6 million in 1995 when the city budget was a lot smaller, no payback was enumerated or guaranteed, and $6 million then was the equivalent of $9.4 million today? I guess the construction unions were stronger. What would the city have spent that money if they had not built the dome. More cars for officials? Better pensions?
- 337
I think it was more a matter of the NFL had been gone for several years at that point, and we just desperately wanted the NFL back.gary kreie wrote:How did they get the city to go in on $6 million in 1995 when the city budget was a lot smaller, no payback was enumerated or guaranteed, and $6 million then was the equivalent of $9.4 million today? I guess the construction unions were stronger. What would the city have spent that money if they had not built the dome. More cars for officials? Better pensions?
How the hell did they get the City, County, and State to agree that the stadium must be maintained within the top quartile of all NFL stadiums or else the Rams can leave in twenty years?
LA lost two teams in the same year. They lost another one long before that (albeit after only one year).Northside Neighbor wrote:...a second loss of an NFL franchise. We'll be first city in history to lay claim to that distinction.
No city has ever built 2 stadiums this quickly either. It's pathetic regardless. And on everyone's part.
- 1,299
"Sirshankalot",
Please point to whatever observation I made that you disagree with and explain why it's wrong. Except for the part of STL being unprecedented in losing two NFL teams. That point is overturned.Your consistent doom and gloom is pathetic. What if peacock and Co pull it off? What if the city's momentum gains real steam and conventions double at the Ed Dome? What if the northside sees a renaissance?
I don't know. It's one of those things you can't sum up in one sentence.Mound City wrote:Agree we need the thing introduced, but I don't think the details will be significantly different from what was leaked last week.roger wyoming II wrote:^ I'm just so confused now but I think that's right. We just need the damned ordinance introduced and analyzed.
If that is, in fact, right, then I think it's pretty transparently B.S. politics for her to point to money spent by the city, that the city wouldn't even have if the stadium didn't exist, as grounds to oppose building the stadium.
To say we're only spending $6 million is BS. To say we're actually spending $10-12 million is BS.
You have to be willing to look at the numbers rather than try to turn it into a talking point.
Yes, that money only exists if the team is playing here. BUT, the existence of that money is how we're supposed to justify the initial $6 million payment in the first place. So if you take that money away, then it gets tricky.
I think Lewis Reed's office said it best. We really need to see good, reasonable projections on how much tax revenue this stadium will generate.
St. Louis formula isn't all that complicated (w/o getting into the slight annual adjustments):
If x = Gameday Tax Revenue and y = St. Louis' annual net financial impact, then it's...
y = .5x - 6,000,000
But until someone tells us what x is going to be, then we have nothing to go on.
If tax revenue stays stagnant at $4.2 million (and it won't, it should grow), then you'd be looking at the net impact on St. Louis being a loss of $3.9 million a year.
But the other issue here is that even if we get these numbers to look pretty acceptable, that's OUR perspective. The NFL's current stance is that the naming rights money should be theirs AND all the tax money should be theirs. And then suddenly none of this works.
- 8,155
^ on that last point. I just don't see how the NFL allows the naming rights to not be counted as the owner's $$.... I mean right now Ed Jones is paying Stan that money and I think it is extremely rare where those rights $$ are getting credited to the public side in the new deals around the country. In trying to get a handle on the Minnesota Vikings deal, I'm not 100% sure but I think the owner is getting credit even for the seat license fees and not the public. (It also appears Minneapolis is coming up with it's $150M share through a new tax on electronic pull tabs. whatever those are.)jstriebel wrote:I don't know. It's one of those things you can't sum up in one sentence.Mound City wrote:Agree we need the thing introduced, but I don't think the details will be significantly different from what was leaked last week.roger wyoming II wrote:^ I'm just so confused now but I think that's right. We just need the damned ordinance introduced and analyzed.
If that is, in fact, right, then I think it's pretty transparently B.S. politics for her to point to money spent by the city, that the city wouldn't even have if the stadium didn't exist, as grounds to oppose building the stadium.
To say we're only spending $6 million is BS. To say we're actually spending $10-12 million is BS.
You have to be willing to look at the numbers rather than try to turn it into a talking point.
Yes, that money only exists if the team is playing here. BUT, the existence of that money is how we're supposed to justify the initial $6 million payment in the first place. So if you take that money away, then it gets tricky.
I think Lewis Reed's office said it best. We really need to see good, reasonable projections on how much tax revenue this stadium will generate.
St. Louis formula isn't all that complicated (w/o getting into the slight annual adjustments):
If x = Gameday Tax Revenue and y = St. Louis' annual net financial impact, then it's...
y = .5x - 6,000,000
But until someone tells us what x is going to be, then we have nothing to go on.
If tax revenue stays stagnant at $4.2 million (and it won't, it should grow), then you'd be looking at the net impact on St. Louis being a loss of $3.9 million a year.
But the other issue here is that even if we get these numbers to look pretty acceptable, that's OUR perspective. The NFL's current stance is that the naming rights money should be theirs AND all the tax money should be theirs. And then suddenly none of this works.
So I think at minimum we're looking at the NFL seeing this as well over a 50% participation from the NFL. But maybe I'm missing something.... I usually do!
The Chargers have a new video of their stadium design.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/_OSC-rXed-I
I honestly like it more than what will never get built on the North Riverfront.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/_OSC-rXed-I
I honestly like it more than what will never get built on the North Riverfront.
- 9,570
^ Thats not the Chargers video...thats the City of San Diego video for a stadium at a location the Charges do not want and a location that requires a June 2016 vote...the location chargers want is downtown but hotel owners do not want the stadium there they want a new convention center.
It is the owners $ and the owner is getting it via the tax rebates.roger wyoming II wrote: ^ on that last point. I just don't see how the NFL allows the naming rights to not be counted as the owner's $$..
Task Force proposal doesn't say the Naming Rights $ is being used towards the public portion...it says its borrowing it to bond and paying it back via the tax rebates....so technically its not part of the funding for public or owner.
- 8,155
Here's more on the Vikings deal and the owner, the wonderfully-named villain Zygi Wilf, getting to credit PSL's to his side of the private-public split.
http://www.startribune.com/seat-license ... 244270481/
The personal seat licenses in the so-called stadium-builder license program are expected to net $100 million. That revenue will count as part of owner Zygi Wilf’s contribution to the construction....
Kelm-Helgen pointed out that the team is responsible for the license program. If sales fail to produce the necessary $100 million, she said, the state has “ironclad agreements” that require the Vikings to make up the difference.
(I think it turned out they raised more than that.) So again, here we're trying to count the projected $160M in seat licenses to the public side of the ledger. I don't know if Grubman has specifically commented on that issue like he did on the gameday taxes. but I can easily see the owners nodding in agreement when he argues Saint Louis isn't coming up with enough ransom.
http://www.startribune.com/seat-license ... 244270481/
The personal seat licenses in the so-called stadium-builder license program are expected to net $100 million. That revenue will count as part of owner Zygi Wilf’s contribution to the construction....
Kelm-Helgen pointed out that the team is responsible for the license program. If sales fail to produce the necessary $100 million, she said, the state has “ironclad agreements” that require the Vikings to make up the difference.
(I think it turned out they raised more than that.) So again, here we're trying to count the projected $160M in seat licenses to the public side of the ledger. I don't know if Grubman has specifically commented on that issue like he did on the gameday taxes. but I can easily see the owners nodding in agreement when he argues Saint Louis isn't coming up with enough ransom.