urbanSTL

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... 02509.html

Stan trying to up his standing on the spectrum on evil

Henry Potter-------->Darth Vader--------->Kroenke--------->Skeletor--------->Gargamel
(of Its a Wonderful Life)

Good man, Stan. Someone needs to roast the sh*t out of local "leadership" here.

^ that was embarrassing to read, all 29 pages of it. A man worth $7.2b + $7b from his wife and he produces a factually wrong 29 page paper that looks like Swiss cheese

I think in one part they mention an online pool of 53 people or something

He also cited listicles on Time and Sports Illustrated's websites as his basis for the EJD not being "top tier". It obviously isn't, but come on Stan, at least commission a study or something.

I'm so sick of this garbage. Let's move forward as a city and a region and prove the man wrong, please.

http://STLNFL.com

jstriebel wrote:I'm so sick of this garbage. Let's move forward as a city and a region and prove the man wrong, please.

http://STLNFL.com

"Move forward as a city and a region" from what? Whether the Rams stay or leave, St. Louis will continue the same slow-growth/gradual-decline trajectory as every other rust belt city that peaked in the post WWII era. The only difference is, we either will or won't have an NFL team to follow during the fall and winter.

Clearly this is a peasant with billions of dollars and a chip on his shoulder. He probably came to St. Louis and expected to be worshiped and the "elite" probably didn't give that Larry Rice look-alike the time of day. This is like psych-101, the redneck with the inferiority complex, times several billion, gives the F-U to an entire city that thought he was one of the Beverly Hillbillies.
At this point, I'd rather have him move and for St. Louis to attract another team. St. Louis obviously isn't as large as LA and is ranked as the 21st media market, but we are larger than many other NFL media market cities: Charlotte, Kansas City, Cincinnati, Baltimore, Indianapolis, Nashville, San Diego, Jacksonville, New Orleans, Green Bay, Buffalo. For this low-life to do this to St. Louis' psyche, makes my blood boil. I think I'd choose ISIS or Osama bin Laden over Stan Kroenke. In fact, if England can ban Donald Trump, why doesn't the state of Missouri or St. Louis just ban this excrement of a human being for life?

Mound City wrote:

jstriebel wrote:I'm so sick of this garbage. Let's move forward as a city and a region and prove the man wrong, please.

http://STLNFL.com

"Move forward as a city and a region" from what? Whether the Rams stay or leave, St. Louis will continue the same slow-growth/gradual-decline trajectory as every other rust belt city that peaked in the post WWII era. The only difference is, we either will or won't have an NFL team to follow during the fall and winter.

We'll also have saved a good deal of money as a region, we'll have preserved some good developments on the North Riverfront, and left other opportunities there.

More vaguely, perhaps the political leaders who were so quick to force this stadium through might be willing to admit that not everything Kroenke wrote is a complete lie.

I think a few of us have long hoped this might be a real wake up call for a change. I certainly understand your skepticism about that idea, though.

jstriebel wrote:

Mound City wrote:

jstriebel wrote:I'm so sick of this garbage. Let's move forward as a city and a region and prove the man wrong, please.

http://STLNFL.com

"Move forward as a city and a region" from what? Whether the Rams stay or leave, St. Louis will continue the same slow-growth/gradual-decline trajectory as every other rust belt city that peaked in the post WWII era. The only difference is, we either will or won't have an NFL team to follow during the fall and winter.

We'll also have saved a good deal of money as a region, we'll have preserved some good developments on the North Riverfront, and left other opportunities there.

More vaguely, perhaps the political leaders who were so quick to force this stadium through might be willing to admit that not everything Kroenke wrote is a complete lie.

I think a few of us have long hoped this might be a real wake up call for a change. I certainly understand your skepticism about that idea, though.

What good developments are being preserved on the North Riverfont that would be lost if the stadium were built? How much money is the region really saving that will realistically be better-spent if this stadium isn't built?

Again, I'm forced to ask, concretely, what really changes about St. Louis, for the better, if it loses its status as an NFL city?

I'm not sure anything concrete/money wise changes for the better without the NFL. At a minimum I do believe it lets the city focus on one less large topic. I mean we seriously wasted a year of political discussion about a stadium. Those discussion would've been better had about NGA. Or a plan for Chouteau's landing. Or more time spent figuring out a crime plan. Or another plan for the north riverfront.

Im not totally against the stadium - I think Public money is going to be have to be spent on the north riverfront regardless and the stadium may be the best solution to that.

I guess what I'm forced to ask back to stadium supporters - does St. Louis lose anything tangible without an NFL team? I feel like Seattle and especially Key Arena is doing well without the Sonics.

mjbais1489 wrote: I guess what I'm forced to ask back to stadium supporters - does St. Louis lose anything tangible without an NFL team? I feel like Seattle and especially Key Arena is doing well without the Sonics.

Yes. We lose an NFL team. That is a tangible cultural asset. Now, the overall value of said tangible cultural asset is up for debate, but whether or not it is a tangible cultural asset is not. Let me be clear: I'm not of the opinion that St. Louis "needs the NFL" in order to help its growth, or save it from doom, or whatever. My point is simply, St. Louis is going to remain on the same trajectory it's on (barring some major nationwide economic upheaval). The question is whether or not we'll have an NFL team along the way.

To address the second part of your post: Comparisons between St. Louis and Seattle, along with any other coastal or sunbelt city, are entirely erroneous. We cannot compete with the west coast, or the east cost, or the sunbelt. Our competition is Detroit, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Buffalo, Cincinnati, Milwaukee, Kansas City, Indianapolis, Oklahoma City, Columbus, etc. To a limited extent, maybe Nashville & Memphis, although by then you're trending toward the sun belt, IMO.

Mound City wrote:

mjbais1489 wrote: I guess what I'm forced to ask back to stadium supporters - does St. Louis lose anything tangible without an NFL team? I feel like Seattle and especially Key Arena is doing well without the Sonics.

Yes. We lose an NFL team. That is a tangible cultural asset. Now, the overall value of said tangible cultural asset is up for debate, but whether or not it is a tangible cultural asset is not. Let me be clear: I'm not of the opinion that St. Louis "needs the NFL" in order to help its growth, or save it from doom, or whatever. My point is simply, St. Louis is going to remain on the same trajectory it's on (barring some major nationwide economic upheaval). The question is whether or not we'll have an NFL team along the way.

So is your attitude basically that nothing will ever change in St. Louis?

I don't know if it will or not. But this would seem to be the sort of development (negative as it may appear on the surface) that could finally start to get people to think differently about how we do things.

jstriebel wrote:

Mound City wrote:

mjbais1489 wrote: I guess what I'm forced to ask back to stadium supporters - does St. Louis lose anything tangible without an NFL team? I feel like Seattle and especially Key Arena is doing well without the Sonics.

Yes. We lose an NFL team. That is a tangible cultural asset. Now, the overall value of said tangible cultural asset is up for debate, but whether or not it is a tangible cultural asset is not. Let me be clear: I'm not of the opinion that St. Louis "needs the NFL" in order to help its growth, or save it from doom, or whatever. My point is simply, St. Louis is going to remain on the same trajectory it's on (barring some major nationwide economic upheaval). The question is whether or not we'll have an NFL team along the way.

So is your attitude basically that nothing will ever change in St. Louis?

I don't know if it will or not. But this would seem to be the sort of development (negative as it may appear on the surface) that could finally start to get people to think differently about how we do things.

What do you mean by "nothing will ever change in St. Louis"? Specifically what change are you referring to? Things are changing in St. Louis all the time. If you're talking about making St. Louis a place that can compete with the coasts or the sunbelt, well, nothing will change that because that is a function of national and (to an extent) global economics. It doesn't mean St. Louis couldn't change the way they do a lot of things to make the city (and its surrounding region) a marginally better place to live and/or work, but most of its problems begin and end with a lack of money.

Therefore, yes, I guess my attitude is "nothing will ever change in St. Louis" in the way I assume you mean. Again, of course, barring a major upheaval in the way (mostly corporate) money is distributed nationally and (to an extent) internationally.

dweebe wrote:

mjbais1489 wrote:I guess what I'm forced to ask back to stadium supporters - does St. Louis lose anything tangible without an NFL team? I feel like Seattle and especially Key Arena is doing well without the Sonics.

We're not Seattle. We don't have monsters like Microsoft, Amazon and Boeing pouring tons of money in to the city. Nobody is talking about building a 1000 foot tall residential tower in St. Louis.

Yeah I think that's a great point. Does spending a year of political discussion/will talking about a stadium help us get closer to getting companies like that? Does the stadium or team get us closer to getting those type of companies here? Or would that time have been better spent discussing/planning something else?

mjbais1489 wrote:

dweebe wrote:

mjbais1489 wrote:I guess what I'm forced to ask back to stadium supporters - does St. Louis lose anything tangible without an NFL team? I feel like Seattle and especially Key Arena is doing well without the Sonics.

We're not Seattle. We don't have monsters like Microsoft, Amazon and Boeing pouring tons of money in to the city. Nobody is talking about building a 1000 foot tall residential tower in St. Louis.

Yeah I think that's a great point. Does spending a year of political discussion/will talking about a stadium help us get closer to getting companies like that? Does the stadium or team get us closer to getting those type of companies here? Or would that time have been better spent discussing/planning something else?

Total non-sequitur. The time/"will" spent solidifying the riverfront stadium proposal has had negligible, if any, bearing on St. Louis's ability to "get companies like that."

I don't think that's necessarily the case. What if the Governor established a St. Louis Business Task Force and gave them a mission of attracting X number of Fortune 100/500/1000 (whatever) companies to the city and supported them every step of the way?

You don't think the priority and passion supplied to driving through a football stadium proposal and funding plan in one calendar year was anything more than negligible?

That energy and time and money spent on the right things could do wonders for this region.

jstriebel wrote:I don't think that's necessarily the case. What if the Governor established a St. Louis Business Task Force and gave them a mission of attracting X number of Fortune 100/500/1000 (whatever) companies to the city and supported them every step of the way?

You don't think the priority and passion supplied to driving through a football stadium proposal and funding plan in one calendar year was anything more than negligible?

That energy and time and money spent on the right things could do wonders for this region.

Apples-to-oranges. The Rams were already here, and the task force's objective and actions were all based on very clearly defined guidelines set forth by the NFL. The question now is whether the NFL will follow their own guidelines in the way the task force has been relying.

A more apt comparison to what you're talking about is like when Missouri tried to lure Boeing's 777X production here. Missouri failed, and that's even notwithstanding the fact that Boeing has a significant presence here. If the governor made a task force like what you're suggesting, what we'd wind up seeing is a lot of outside corporations leveraging St. Louis's offers to get better deals where they are currently.

Your last point is fair enough, but I think your dismissal of what I'm saying as apples to oranges is unfair.

Of course it's apples to oranges. I'm talking about doing something completely different. But I'm simply talking about exerting the time and effort to working on the efforts that can bring about economic benefits to this region.

I think this notion that we can't possibly succeed in these areas because we're not on the coast is short-sighted and frankly wrong. Indianapolis, Cincinnati, and Nashville have little going for them naturally, but they've managed to make progress in their business (and quality of life) sectors by doing a lot of things that St. Louis won't.

(They've also spent too much money on football stadiums, so if you want to say we can do both, fair enough.)

That those cities can spend significant money on a football stadium and still work on the stuff you're talking about is precisely my point, but beyond that, none of those places is ever going to compete with the coasts or the sunbelt, either. Just like St. Louis won't. (Again, barring a major upheaval of the way corporate money is being spent nationally and to an extent globally).

Yes, St. Louis can do things differently to make things marginally better (like Cincy has). No, whether or not we have an NFL team necessarily factors into that discussion. It's still not going to make a huge difference in the grand scheme of things. Indy and Nashville, I'd argue, are different animals altogether. Both are bigger than they've ever been, they don't carry the rust-belt baggage that Cincy and St. Louis do, and they also benefit from being state capitals.

That said, I also think it's worth pointing out that all three (including Cincy) are still smaller than St. Louis in terms of population and dollars.

These midsized cities away from the coasts and rust belt are what they are. They're gonna be midsized cities with midsized city stuff. The "powers that be" in St. Louis understand this, and they had to make the determination if, all of those other things equal, there should also still be NFL football here. And they decided that there should. Guess we'll see if the NFL owners go for it.

I wouldn't say he's "screwed," he'll make out well for himself no matter how this shakes out. I'm still leaning toward him not getting to move the Rams to L.A., though.