^ My thought has been something like the situation in the Indianapolis Metro area where I believe around 7 counties are paying into the financing but Marion County is contributing a higher percentage than the outlying ones. Something like that here would be great, with everyone chipping in but the host jurisdiction paying a greater share. Another option would be to have a new regional tax like for GRG going towards a stadium.
- 1,299
All of these great ideas about sharing the tax burden are great, but mean nothing when you're negotiating with gangsters and they have all the leverage.
And maybe all the city residents are saying is also 'let us vote on it'.STLEnginerd wrote:Getting pretty tired of people blaming the county. All they did was say we want to vote on it. Nixon and Peacock said never mind we got this. Stupid.
Additionally what if Kronke does come back and say you know what I don't mind building in St. Louis, but I want a Maryland Heights location. Does ANYBODY think the city of St. Louis is going to easily commit to helping funding a stadium out there.
As for the Maryland Heights comment, if City residents yell and scream that the Rams cannot be allowed to leave, they should help fund it.
With the Mizzou Football protest working (and that's great), be prepared for the local sports media to begin using that to justify the cost of the stadium. "The power of sports" and/or "the power of football" are about to become a common refrain around here.
(And it's not entirely wrong. It just doesn't justify all costs.)
(And it's not entirely wrong. It just doesn't justify all costs.)
- 3,433
Wow. Hadn't thought of that one. That is pretty far out there -- to justify building rather than not building a stadium. Thanks. Work on that some more.jstriebel wrote:With the Mizzou Football protest working (and that's great), be prepared for the local sports media to begin using that to justify the cost of the stadium. "The power of sports" and/or "the power of football" are about to become a common refrain around here.
(And it's not entirely wrong. It just doesn't justify all costs.)
I thought stadium opponents might say not building, and thus getting rid of the Rams, would prevent a Mizzou style protest, since we'll have, what, 2 African American athletes between the Blues and Cardinals playing in St. Louis?
I had a couple of other financial thoughts -- what per cent of the money that St. Louis pours into state coffers makes it back to the city. They won't fund a dime of Metrolink, for example. A new stadium partially funded by the state might be a way to recover some money sent to Jeff City back into the city. I'm not sure how to quantify that.
Also, how much does it cost to heat and cool and light the dome. I assume after the Rams move out of there, one way or another, the highly lucrative fall conventions will take over that heating and cooling costs. The new stadium will be outdoors, so it should cost a fraction of the dome in terms of utility cost. Most games are at noon, so lights will only be used if the Rams get good enough for national broadcasts on Sunday or Monday nights. No need to heat or cool the field and stands in an open air stadium.
^ This is undoubtedly a generalization, but in my experience on Twitter, stadium opponents aren't typically the ones disturbed by the protests.
While it's a big building, maybe not as bad as you think. Isn't the Dome on the downtown steam loop?gary kreie wrote:jstriebel wrote:Also, how much does it cost to heat and cool and light the dome. I assume after the Rams move out of there, one way or another, the highly lucrative fall conventions will take over that heating and cooling costs. The new stadium will be outdoors, so it should cost a fraction of the dome in terms of utility cost. Most games are at noon, so lights will only be used if the Rams get good enough for national broadcasts on Sunday or Monday nights. No need to heat or cool the field and stands in an open air stadium.
- 1,299
This opinion piece by a city alderman won't sit well with stadium backers:
...unless of course "at the end of the day" they follow the Post Dispatch's advice and "hate the deal but vote for it anyway".
...unless of course "at the end of the day" they follow the Post Dispatch's advice and "hate the deal but vote for it anyway".
- 3,767
Carson backers have now tapped Disney CEO Bob Iger, to lead their project in Carson. This is big for the Chargers & Raiders push to Carson.
http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow ... story.html
http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow ... story.html
Forgot to mention this one. The FAA is expressing concerns, again, with the Inglewood site. Not really a new story, besides the fact that this is not a study put out by groups competing with StanK. This was put out by the FAA.
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-nfl ... story.html
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-nfl ... story.html
- 3,433
- 1,299
For some reason, Alderman Antonio French is not impressed. He says the plan is not transformative.Stadium minority hiring plan transformative.
There may be some confusion.
The plan details a few million for extra training, housing, recruitment, and more for minority contractors. That's on top of the city's standing 25/5 requirement that at least 25% of construction contracts on city-assisted projects go to minority firms. That's in the neighborhood of $250,000,000 in minority contracting. Plus another 5%, or $50,000,000, to women owned firms.
Maybe Alderman French is only counting the few million in outreach and supportive initiatives, and not the $250 million in construction contracts? I am having a hard time understanding why Alderman French would not be supportive of at least this part of the proposed stadium deal.
As Stan Kroenke would say, $250,000,000-plus dollars is a lot of "jack". Well, not to him maybe, but you get the idea...
Even aside from whether the numbers are good, French points out that the minority hiring agreement is not a part of the bill. He says those things (maybe not to this scope) usually exist on big projects but are rarely enforced because they aren't actually law.
Sounds like he's ticked because he wasn't involved with it. Seemed dismissive of the St. Louis NAACP President's approval.Northside Neighbor wrote:For some reason, Alderman Antonio French is not impressed. He says the plan is not transformative.Stadium minority hiring plan transformative.
There may be some confusion.
The plan details a few million for extra training, housing, recruitment, and more for minority contractors. That's on top of the city's standing 25/5 requirement that at least 25% of construction contracts on city-assisted projects go to minority firms. That's in the neighborhood of $250,000,000 in minority contracting. Plus another 5%, or $50,000,000, to women owned firms.
Maybe Alderman French is only counting the few million in outreach and supportive initiatives, and not the $250 million in construction contracts? I am having a hard time understanding why Alderman French would not be supportive of at least this part of the proposed stadium deal.
As Stan Kroenke would say, $250,000,000-plus dollars is a lot of "jack". Well, not to him maybe, but you get the idea...
- 1,299
Not true. It is law and enforced by the City of St. Louis:Even aside from whether the numbers are good, French points out that the minority hiring agreement is not a part of the bill. He says those things (maybe not to this scope) usually exist on big projects but are rarely enforced because they aren't actually law.
http://flystl.com/BusinessOpportunities ... ogram.aspx
Enforcing M/WBE participation on city-assisted projects is a big reason St. Louis Development Corporation exists.
- 8,155
^
"Pruitt said the oversight goals are unusual — but also hard to enforce.
“The worry is, in spite of all this, I haven’t seen anything that talks about penalties or clawback provisions if these goals aren’t met,” he said.
Promises have long been made about minority hiring, Pruitt said.
The city has had an executive order for 25 years that dictates minimum minority participation standards, now set at 25 percent, Pruitt said. Stadium hiring goals will stay the same.
But recent studies show that city projects were employing minority contractors more like 7 percent of the time, and subcontractors about 12 percent of the time, Pruitt said."
also, fwiw:
Antonio French @AntonioFrench 15h15 hours ago St Louis, MO
Just had a conversation with @AdolphusMPruitt. Says the plan he endorsed isn't the plan we've seen. Says he'll present his own plan Thurs.
"Pruitt said the oversight goals are unusual — but also hard to enforce.
“The worry is, in spite of all this, I haven’t seen anything that talks about penalties or clawback provisions if these goals aren’t met,” he said.
Promises have long been made about minority hiring, Pruitt said.
The city has had an executive order for 25 years that dictates minimum minority participation standards, now set at 25 percent, Pruitt said. Stadium hiring goals will stay the same.
But recent studies show that city projects were employing minority contractors more like 7 percent of the time, and subcontractors about 12 percent of the time, Pruitt said."
also, fwiw:
Antonio French @AntonioFrench 15h15 hours ago St Louis, MO
Just had a conversation with @AdolphusMPruitt. Says the plan he endorsed isn't the plan we've seen. Says he'll present his own plan Thurs.
Once again, another example that if this stadium gets built it will host a MLS team plus other big time soccer games.
http://soccerstl.net/2015/11/11/saint-l ... ave-lange/
So more than a few people were shocked to hear MLS commissioner Don Garber say at a Ballpark Village event in May:
“I think if we have a stadium plan that’s logical we’ll find an ownership group. There’s more interest in investment in MLS today than we have teams.”
Master of ceremonies and St. Louis’ Mr. Soccer, Bill McDermott, standing a few feet from Soccer Don, said, “I was very surprised to hear Don Garber say that an investor/ownership/operator group is not a major issue to find in St. Louis.”
If Garber can be taken at his word, then the major thing keeping St. Louis from joining the ranks of MLS cities is the s-word: a stadium.
http://soccerstl.net/wp-content/uploads ... soccer.jpg
http://soccerstl.net/2015/11/11/saint-l ... ave-lange/
So more than a few people were shocked to hear MLS commissioner Don Garber say at a Ballpark Village event in May:
“I think if we have a stadium plan that’s logical we’ll find an ownership group. There’s more interest in investment in MLS today than we have teams.”
Master of ceremonies and St. Louis’ Mr. Soccer, Bill McDermott, standing a few feet from Soccer Don, said, “I was very surprised to hear Don Garber say that an investor/ownership/operator group is not a major issue to find in St. Louis.”
If Garber can be taken at his word, then the major thing keeping St. Louis from joining the ranks of MLS cities is the s-word: a stadium.
http://soccerstl.net/wp-content/uploads ... soccer.jpg
- 3,433
I'm not remotely disturbed by the protests. After seeing the University President arguing with students about oppression, I'm supportive of him leaving. I see zero connection between the St. Louis stadium and the protests at Mizzou.jstriebel wrote:^ This is undoubtedly a generalization, but in my experience on Twitter, stadium opponents aren't typically the ones disturbed by the protests.
- 1,299
Some serious concerns raised here, especially when considering recent history on the new Cardinals stadium project:
http://www.stlamerican.com/news/local_n ... qU.twitter
http://www.stlamerican.com/news/local_n ... qU.twitter
- 3,767
Decent summary of yesterday's meeting between the Task Force & the NFL.
http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/morn ... 1447339293
http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/morn ... 1447339293
^^Northside, talk to anyone that is connected to the construction industry and they will all tell you the same thing. A lot of contractors involved in major projects have good intentions with regard to minority inclusion. However, the issue is actually finding qualifying minority owned firms that meet the requirements to actually get the contract. There are only so many firms that are minority owned and believe me, they are in demand and usually busy, if they do quality work. In other words, those firm's services are in great demand. Then you are left with the other firms, that may not do as well a job as the other minority owned firms. That is where general contractors have issues getting those minority firms qualified or even finding firms that can do the work at all.
Just thought I'd point that out, since I work in the industry. Minority inclusion is not as simple as some make it out to be.
Just thought I'd point that out, since I work in the industry. Minority inclusion is not as simple as some make it out to be.
^ a big player that my mother grew up with in University City is Tony Thompson of Kwame Building Group. He is ALWAYS busy and has actually expanded his operation beyond St. Louis. I believe his company has been featured in many publications and have been involved in some high profile projects in St. Louis including the Cross County Metrolink and old Stadium. To put it short the guy is LOADED and has made a lot of other black St. Louisans solidly upper middle class.
- 3,767
^Very well known and very reputable! I'd bet they have some piece of the stadium pie, if they so choose.