I don't want to deal with this relocation BS another year.... 
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap300000 ... os-angeles
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap300000 ... os-angeles
Anyone heard the anti-stadium radio ads from the Show Me Institute? They're on music stations like 106.5 and 105.7.
I figured that was coming.Mound City wrote:I'm too cool to listen to corporate radio
- 3,433
Show-Me just asks billionaire Rex Sinquefield what the correct outcome should be, since he funds it, and then they dry lab the analysis to get that result. There are laughable errors in their studies. It is kind of ironic that their studies say Missouri should not accept Expanded Medicaid dollars for the poor, which will cost the state 2.25 Billion dollars, and they don't believe the City should spend $145M to get a match of $850 million for a $1 billion dollar construction project on mostly abandoned property downtown in the city. I guess if there is a chance it might help non-billionaires, they are opposed to it.dweebe wrote:Anyone heard the anti-stadium radio ads from the Show Me Institute? They're on music stations like 106.5 and 105.7.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/2 ... 67252.html
- 3,762
^ but you're totally cool with an unofficial, error-riddled, non-peer-reviewed "study" by some Rams fan who happens to be a Harvard student. objectivity is long gone from this thread. it's all cherry picking.
- 3,433
.urban_dilettante wrote:^ but you're totally cool with an unofficial, error-riddled, non-peer-reviewed "study" by some Rams fan who happens to be a Harvard student. objectivity is long gone from this thread. it's all cherry picking.
At least they show their work and assumptions and don't just find general studies from long ago that apply to the dome but none about this specific deal. There is also the Chamber, Mo dept of Economic Dev, Mo tax credits analysis. & Post. Post says Rams more than pay their way and recommend the City pass the funding bill. And the Harvard MBAs.
- 1,299
Momentum seems to be growing amongst the anti-stadium forces in the city.
Darlene Green and Tishaura Jones have issued statements opposing the deal on a variety of grounds.
Darlene Green and Tishaura Jones have issued statements opposing the deal on a variety of grounds.
- 9,570
^ the end game has been determined long time ago. Lewis Reed is on board and the ship has sailed for the opposition.
- 1,299
So in other words, we have been witness to a grand Kabuki dance?
- 3,433
I don't know if $3 million is the right number, nor do I know what the constraints are on money that goes toward our parks.
But I do think the general idea that money put towards something else that currently comes out of the general fund (or could be moved back into the general fund) is the right idea. I think Darlene Green's suggestion was just one option. There are likely other similar possibilities. I don't know how likely they'd be to occur.
Personally, I don't want to see the stadium built at any cost any more due to moral concerns over the game of football. But if we're strictly talking economics, then yes, I think something like that would be one reasonable path to explore.
But I do think the general idea that money put towards something else that currently comes out of the general fund (or could be moved back into the general fund) is the right idea. I think Darlene Green's suggestion was just one option. There are likely other similar possibilities. I don't know how likely they'd be to occur.
Personally, I don't want to see the stadium built at any cost any more due to moral concerns over the game of football. But if we're strictly talking economics, then yes, I think something like that would be one reasonable path to explore.
- 1,299
It doesn't matter. It's a fixed game. Operation Kabuki is in effect. Stadium deal will be approved despite protests from various parties. City taxpayers will be on the hook. The Rams will get the bacon; the taxpayers will get the bill. Time to move on to the next thing.
How about $80,000,000 in upgrades to Scottrade Center? You non-city residents want to belly up to the bar to help pay for this one, or are you going to whine and complain about how the city should pay the freight on that project, too?
How about $80,000,000 in upgrades to Scottrade Center? You non-city residents want to belly up to the bar to help pay for this one, or are you going to whine and complain about how the city should pay the freight on that project, too?
Think there wasn't enough drama? The Rams have announced they're playing a home game in London next season.
http://www.stlouisrams.com/news-and-eve ... 10cf4f5566
The CVC isn't happy.
http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/blog ... ml?ana=twt
The Peacock group is trying to play it off as not much.
http://www.stlouisrams.com/news-and-eve ... 10cf4f5566
The CVC isn't happy.
http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/blog ... ml?ana=twt
The Peacock group is trying to play it off as not much.
"The Rams playing a home game in London next season is irrelevant if the team leaves St. Louis. However we are confident the Rams will continue to call St. Louis their home. Our work remains focused on the Rams playing for 30 years in a new riverfront stadium in downtown St. Louis and not whether they play one home game a year from now in London.
"If the Rams proceed with us on the north riverfront stadium and redevelopment project, we're certain accommodations can be made for the Rams to play one game in London next season."
- 60
I think this could be a hint a good things for St. Louis in regards to keeping the Rams. Do you think that they would commit to taking a game away from LA if they are trying to re-establish a fan base there? "Hey LA! Here's your team, buuuut we're going to take a home game away from you right away. Enjoy!"
- 3,433
- 1,792
Who is whining and complaining, county said they wanted a vote, stadium task-force said nah we'd rather not. County agreed to kick in more to clear dome debt to free the city up for the stadium deal. The vitriol toward the county on this issue is unearned.How about $80,000,000 in upgrades to Scottrade Center? You non-city residents want to belly up to the bar to help pay for this one, or are you going to whine and complain about how the city should pay the freight on that project, too?
Regarding Scottrade upgrades I'd assume the county might insist on a vote on that one too. If it did come I'd probably vote for it depending on a number of factors, but I'm not going to call my representative in county leadership and demand that we throw money at it, and if at all possible avoid a vote on it, out of fear at loosing prestige as a big league metro. Sorry.
St. Charles is the same way. People are so gun shy about asking them to support regional institutions like ZMD. It'd be nice if they could get a petition going out there to enter the ZMD. If it came to a vote, I think there is a solid chance that with a little marketing and promotion, that it would pass. But they aren't going to breakout the pitchforks to force the issue when they get all the benefit and none of the negatives.
^I agree that the vitriol is a LITTLE unfair in that none of the fans at the county have said they wouldn't pay. Rather they just want to keep their Rams, so they're supporting the plan at hand (which just so happens to be insanely unfair to the city).
But just to be clear, the county hasn't agreed to pay for anything. Maybe it's been discussed by the people who matter. Maybe it was just an idea floated. I don't know. But there is no commitment on the books for the county to pick up any debt payments elsewhere as far as I can tell.
But just to be clear, the county hasn't agreed to pay for anything. Maybe it's been discussed by the people who matter. Maybe it was just an idea floated. I don't know. But there is no commitment on the books for the county to pick up any debt payments elsewhere as far as I can tell.
- 8,155
^ Right, the County hasn't agreed to do jack.... and my assumption is that the political landscape will require a public vote before any issuance of new bonds backed by the hotel tax for sports purposes downtown. But having said that. I agree that most of the vociferous pro-stadium folks from the County would be supportive of County funding if given the chance.
- 3,433
Jason Rosenbaum of NPR just wrote this piece on stadium financing, which is by far the best so far.
http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/tra ... nt-stadium
And in the piece he put a link to the actual spreadsheet created by Darlene Green that lays out all the City number with and without the stadium. From this, I can finally see where folks were coming up with the total cost of $22M (in 2015 dollars) as the difference between funding the stadium and not funding it.
Here is Darlene Green's spreadsheet.
http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/ ... 112015.pdf
![]()
City of St. Louis Stadium Funding 1 of 2 by Gary Kreie, on Flickr
![]()
City of St. Louis Stadium Funding 2 of 2 by Gary Kreie, on Flickr
http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/tra ... nt-stadium
And in the piece he put a link to the actual spreadsheet created by Darlene Green that lays out all the City number with and without the stadium. From this, I can finally see where folks were coming up with the total cost of $22M (in 2015 dollars) as the difference between funding the stadium and not funding it.
Here is Darlene Green's spreadsheet.
http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/ ... 112015.pdf
City of St. Louis Stadium Funding 1 of 2 by Gary Kreie, on Flickr
City of St. Louis Stadium Funding 2 of 2 by Gary Kreie, on Flickr
Am I seeing correctly that Green's spreadsheet does not account for increased convention business should the Rams leave? What difference would that make?
- 3,433
Probably assumed that is a wash since the Rams would free the Dome for conventions if they left to LA or left for National Car Rental Stadium.mill204 wrote:Am I seeing correctly that Green's spreadsheet does not account for increased convention business should the Rams leave? What difference would that make?
Darlene Green's excellent analysis clearly computes costs and revenues in both actual dollars and 2015 equivalents. So below, I summarized the best numbers I have, starting with totals from the City spreadsheet, and then adding other local government revenue from keeping the Rams.
First, here is a summary of the City of St. Louis (Darlene Green) Spreadsheet totals from the .pdf obtained by Jason Rosenbaum of NPR at this link:
http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/ ... 112015.pdf
New Stadium - Projected
No New Stadium - Status Quo - Rams Leave - Projected
The City analysis does not include projected dollars that other local government organizations would receive from current sales taxes that would be lost if the stadium is not built and the Rams leave. These include City Schools, Great Rivers Greenway, CVC, & Regional Arts Commission. For those numbers I used page D6 of the Exhibit D Cost Benefit Analysis of the State Tax Credits application to the Missouri Development Finance Board, and brought the columns up to 2015 dollars for comparison.
http://www.stltoday.com/dome-authorithy ... 83e2b.html
New Stadium Other Government Revenue - from State Tax Credits Application
http://fox2now.com/2015/11/12/crunching ... -proposal/
I don't know the source for their number, but I assume this is spread over 35 years. Working backwards, that would mean a value of $163,489 the first year, and $3,769,913 over 35 years in PV 2015 dollars.
Note: This does not include windfalls received by the County (which contributes nothing to the New Stadium but hosts the Rams facility and player homes and businesses which generate tax revenue for the County), or the State which will contribute $12M per year flat payment toward the new stadium, but will receive $13M per year rising to $30M in income tax revenue from Rams players and staff. This also does not include the cost of operation and maintenance. The Vikings will pay $8M per year in rent for use of the new Minneapolis stadium. Ideally, the rent from all users would cover operations and maintenance.
First, here is a summary of the City of St. Louis (Darlene Green) Spreadsheet totals from the .pdf obtained by Jason Rosenbaum of NPR at this link:
http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/ ... 112015.pdf
New Stadium - Projected
- Total City Obligation
$188,941,711 In 2015 $$s, PV @4.7% ($421,729,610 act. @ 2% infl.) - Total City Revenue
$136,861,648 In 2015 $$s, PV @4.7% ($307,332,506 act. @ 2% infl.) - Net Benefit/Cost to City
$-52,080,063 In 2015 $$s, PV @4.7% ($-114,397,104 act. @ 2% infl.)
No New Stadium - Status Quo - Rams Leave - Projected
- Total City Obligation
$ 33,192,373 In 2015 $$s, PV @4.7% ($ 38,500,000 act. @ 2% infl.) - Total City Revenue
$ 3,769,226 In 2015 $$s, PV @4.7% ($ 3,863,681 act. @ 2% infl.) - Net Benefit/Cost to City
$-29,423,147 In 2015 $$s, PV @4.7% ($-34,636,319 act. @ 2% infl.)
- Total Difference from Above City Obligation
$ -22,656,916 In 2015 $$s, PV @4.7% ($ -79,760,785 act. @ 2% infl.)
The City analysis does not include projected dollars that other local government organizations would receive from current sales taxes that would be lost if the stadium is not built and the Rams leave. These include City Schools, Great Rivers Greenway, CVC, & Regional Arts Commission. For those numbers I used page D6 of the Exhibit D Cost Benefit Analysis of the State Tax Credits application to the Missouri Development Finance Board, and brought the columns up to 2015 dollars for comparison.
http://www.stltoday.com/dome-authorithy ... 83e2b.html
New Stadium Other Government Revenue - from State Tax Credits Application
- St. Louis City School Board
$ 11,413,567 In 2015 $$s, PV @4.7% ($27,219,553 act. @ 2% infl.) - Great Rivers Greenway
$ 976,494 In 2015 $$s, PV @4.7% ($ 2,328,784 act. @ 2% infl.) - Convention and Visitors Commission
$ 227,348 In 2015 $$s, PV @4.7% ($ 537,687 act. @ 2% infl.) - Arts and Entertainment Commission
$ 86,672 In 2015 $$s, PV @4.7% ($ 195,523 act. @ 2% infl.)
- Total of the 4 Items -- Other St. Louis Government Revenue lost without NFL
$ 12,700,081 In 2015 $$s, PV @4.7% ($ 30,281.551 act. @ 2% infl.)
http://fox2now.com/2015/11/12/crunching ... -proposal/
I don't know the source for their number, but I assume this is spread over 35 years. Working backwards, that would mean a value of $163,489 the first year, and $3,769,913 over 35 years in PV 2015 dollars.
- Total Metro Transit Revenue loss if the NFL leaves:
$ 3,769,913 In 2015 $$s, PV @4.7% ($ 8,500,000 act. @ 2% infl.)
Note: This does not include windfalls received by the County (which contributes nothing to the New Stadium but hosts the Rams facility and player homes and businesses which generate tax revenue for the County), or the State which will contribute $12M per year flat payment toward the new stadium, but will receive $13M per year rising to $30M in income tax revenue from Rams players and staff. This also does not include the cost of operation and maintenance. The Vikings will pay $8M per year in rent for use of the new Minneapolis stadium. Ideally, the rent from all users would cover operations and maintenance.
- Grand Total Cost to City Governments New Stadium vs. No New Stadium.
$ -6,186,921 In 2015 $$s, PV @4.7% ($ -40,979,232 act. @ 2% infl.)