City vs Rams Lawsuit

pat · PostJan 12, 2015#5012015-01-12T17:52+00:00

its 11,000 less spots then required by the City Zoning Code for a stadium. its not to entice the NFL, its to generate revenue for the owner and have people park reasonably close by....i would never park there, even with 10,000 spots i bet it will be a pain to get out of there...i don't mind walking a mile but some folks rather not.

Yeah, its less than code, but that's suggesting the existing zoning code is good policy. I don't think it is.

Good point on the revenue generation from parking. I see why that would be important.

roger wyoming II · PostJan 12, 2015#5022015-01-12T18:03+00:00

DogtownBnR wrote: Let's be frank, our riverfront is not that scenic, in a natural sense. It floods, it is very fast flowing, making recreation boating a risky and difficult proposition, which is why is almost non-existent.

I agree our river and topography isn't as cooperative as the Ohio and Allegheny are for Cincy and Pittsburgh.... having some hills across the river to visually enjoy would be nice even if there was no development. But back to the plan, it is interesting to note that the floating trail includes boat docks in its depiction. As I've mentioned before I believe the power plant transformation and floating trail are the most exciting things about what has been put out there and I just hope it is not fancy that would never come to fruition while we tear down everything else.

dweebe · PostJan 12, 2015#5032015-01-12T18:12+00:00

pat wrote:Good point on the revenue generation from parking. I see why that would be important.

Back of envelope math:
Football: 11,000 spots x $25 parking x 10 games
MLS Soccer: 7000 x $10 x 21
Other (concerts, soccer friendlies, college football): 11,000 x $25 x 3
That's $4 or $5 million a year in extra revenue as I don't think the Rams get any parking income. Not even that nasty garage attached to the convention center that's being torn down.

dbInSouthCity · PostJan 12, 2015#5042015-01-12T18:39+00:00

my math is more like

NFL 10,000 X $40 X 10= $4,000,000 (could add another $1M a year with 2 playoff games and $50 per spot)
MLS 10,000 X $25 X 21= $2,500,000
special events 10,000 x $30 x 12 (lets call it one a month average) = $3,600,000

Grand Total= 10,100,000 in new revenue for the Rams...and its pretty much 100% profit....
in 2013 the Rams turned a $13,000,000 profit....so just PARKING would nearly double their profit.

survivor147 · PostJan 12, 2015#5052015-01-12T18:41+00:00

The nasty garage is being torn down? I never heard that. What's replacing it?

dbInSouthCity · PostJan 12, 2015#5062015-01-12T18:45+00:00

survivor147 wrote:The nasty garage is being torn down? I never heard that. What's replacing it?

new garage i believe

dweebe · PostJan 12, 2015#5072015-01-12T18:47+00:00

survivor147 wrote:The nasty garage is being torn down? I never heard that. What's replacing it?

Can't find the article. But as I understood it they're taking it down and expanding that second floor ballroom. (Marked 220 to 229 on the map.)
http://explorestlouis.com/wp-content/up ... -22-13.pdf

dredger · PostJan 12, 2015#5082015-01-12T18:47+00:00

^ I believe their is another thread, but essentially the convention center or maybe it is the city has an RFP to develop a new parking garage next door with the intention of tearing down the existing one. That in turns create space for ballroom expansion which is considered under size in the industry or at least that is the underlining plan. I believe the CVC has stated that they will expand ballroom space but have not laid out the plan yet. The issue of course is money but also believe the current garage is owned by someone else.

Someone please correct me if I didn't get that right..

roger wyoming II · PostJan 12, 2015#5092015-01-12T18:52+00:00

^ that's correct... the hope is for a replacement mixed-use garage at the site of the current surface lot and increase the ballroom space.

dweebe · PostJan 12, 2015#5102015-01-12T18:52+00:00

dredger wrote:^ I believe their is another thread, but essentially the convention center or maybe it is the city has an RFP to develop a new parking garage next door with the intention of tearing down the existing one. That in turns create space for ballroom expansion which is considered under size in the industry or at least that is the underlining plan. I believe the CVC has stated that they will expand ballroom space but have not laid out the plan yet. The issue of course is money but also believe the current garage is owned by someone else.

Someone please correct me if I didn't get that right..

Finally found it.
http://urbanstl.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=10282
https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/d ... eid=396914

roger wyoming II · PostJan 12, 2015#5112015-01-12T18:59+00:00

keeping on the parking issue, another benefit of the Rams vacating the Dome and moving elsewhere is that there should be more interest in developing some of the many existing surface lots west of the dome... our knowledgeable tech840 poster mentioned that about the lot behind the T-Rex.

dweebe · PostJan 12, 2015#5122015-01-12T19:11+00:00

roger wyoming II wrote:keeping on the parking issue, another benefit of the Rams vacating the Dome and moving elsewhere is that there should be more interest in developing some of the many existing surface lots west of the dome... our knowledgeable tech840 poster mentioned that about the lot behind the T-Rex.

Their Sunday utilization and rates will go way down.

quincunx · PostJan 12, 2015#5132015-01-12T19:13+00:00

STL Mag - Battle Lines Are Being Drawn Over Public Funding for New St. Louis Stadium

Matthew Glans, a senior policy analyst at the Heartland Institute, noted, “Stadium subsidies are a poor use of taxpayer dollars. They rarely realize the benefits their supporters claim, and they shift tax revenue away from where it is better utilized.”

http://www.stlmag.com/news/battle-lines ... for-new-st./

roger wyoming II · PostJan 12, 2015#5142015-01-12T19:24+00:00

^^ Rams leaving the CBD could be a bit of a windfall for downtown.... an increase in convention and other business would make up for the minimal $500,000 annual rent Rams pay the CVB, the reduced max capacity parking demand could spur infill development on some lots, and while some particular spots might be affected, restaurants/bars, etc. as a whole would benefit from an increase in the more consistent level of activity brought to downtown.

dweebe · PostJan 12, 2015#5152015-01-12T19:25+00:00

quincunx wrote:STL Mag - Battle Lines Are Being Drawn Over Public Funding for New St. Louis Stadium

Matthew Glans, a senior policy analyst at the Heartland Institute, noted, “Stadium subsidies are a poor use of taxpayer dollars. They rarely realize the benefits their supporters claim, and they shift tax revenue away from where it is better utilized.”
http://www.stlmag.com/news/battle-lines ... for-new-st./

At Friday's press conference the St. Louis Magazine reporter asked Dave Peacock a question about public financing. Supposedly Peacock was like two or three sentences into his answer when the reporter grabbed his coat and walked quickly out the door while Peacock was still talking. Is that true. Was anyone there?

DogtownBnR · PostJan 12, 2015#5162015-01-12T19:26+00:00

Link regarding Chargers litigating to keep Stan out of LA...

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... out-of-la/

roger wyoming II · PostJan 12, 2015#5172015-01-12T19:34+00:00

^ I think we know how this is all going to go down.... Kroenke wants to move to LA but litigation bogs things down. Rams and NFL finally get behind Saint Louis plan but litigation on public funding bogs things down. Rams go to London. Amiright?

DogtownBnR · PostJan 12, 2015#5182015-01-12T19:37+00:00

^Probably spot on!

dweebe · PostJan 12, 2015#5192015-01-12T19:47+00:00

roger wyoming II wrote:^ I think we know how this is all going to go down.... Kroenke wants to move to LA but litigation bogs things down. Rams and NFL finally get behind Saint Louis plan but litigation on public funding bogs things down. Rams go to London. Amiright?

Not as crazy as it seems. Kronke already has the stadium.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenal_F.C.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emirates_Stadium

roger wyoming II · PostJan 12, 2015#5202015-01-12T20:07+00:00

I really don't know about the legal arguments about whether a bond extension would have to go to a public vote or not, but I think it would face an uphill climb if it did.... thoughts? Also, can Saint Louis County Govt. be counted on to back the bond extension even if one isn't needed?

dbInSouthCity · PostJan 12, 2015#5212015-01-12T20:10+00:00

It can be done without a vote of the people....and that's the plan right now. Basically the City and County would take over paying the states $12M portion of the current Dome bonds, freeing up the state $12M to be used for new stadium...this is done to avoid a vote in the City and County since both passed referendums about funding new stadiums
Now the question is where does the city and county get the extra money....well the current dome bonds would be re-financed, so it wont be $12M to cover it...it would be less, and projected extra revenue generated by the Dome (with it being open for business 12 months a year) would partly go towards the bonds. Now the hotel and gas taxes that are paying for those bonds currently generated more then its required, so there is so slack in there to pay for it too. its a messy shell game that only government accounting methods can pull off

jstriebel · PostJan 12, 2015#5222015-01-12T20:20+00:00

roger wyoming II wrote:It is interesting to that the proposal for NFL is not a retractable stadium as that ensures it will not be the site of these major indoor events but will still cost $1 billion or so.

Peacock addressed this in an interview on ESPN 101 on Friday, I believe.

Basically, while this is still a significant amount of money, we ARE on a budget. We don't have unlimited funds. Retractable roofs cost $100-150 million (I'm not sure if he said this, but I saw this elsewhere). Final Fours are starting to go to a core group of cities, with other cities being mixed in every now and then. So you'd basically be talking about a Final Four once a decade. Is that worth it?

A Super Bowl isn't happening with a stadium this small anyways. If they increased capacity and built the roof, maybe they'd get one, but it'd probably just be a one time thing as a reward for building the new stadium, not something they'd get repeatedly. Again, is that worth it? (I don't think Peacock talked about the Super Bowl, I just extrapolated that from the other answer.)

And I think that makes sense. We already have the venues to host the other tiers of NCAA basketball. I wish we'd get another Final Four, but I get his point. If we complain about building this thing to host 8 football games a year, does 3 basketball games (as part of a single Final Four) in one decade make it worth an extra $150 million?

As for the weather for football, I think our fans will get used to it. They used to go to games at Busch, right? And then there's the fact that teams with roofs over use them, so I'm okay saving the money and keeping it fully open air.

Now, if the owner wanted these things and said, "okay, this is pretty cool, but let's get that roof, I'll chip in the extra," I wouldn't complain. But it's probably already not worth the money we'd owe (even though I sort of want it because I'm a hypocrite). I think the roof definitely isn't worth it.

roger wyoming II · PostJan 12, 2015#5232015-01-12T20:29+00:00

^ do you think it would be worth it for CVB to go ahead with some kind of significant renovation to keep up the EJD? Seems like they'll have to to some extent but the question is how much and if they'd have to go to taxpayers.... iirc they already have $60 million or so they could use.

PostJan 12, 2015#5242015-01-12T20:31+00:00

dbInSouthCity wrote:It can be done without a vote of the people....and that's the plan right now.

I don't know if it is that simple and it would be litigated. But again getting back to being a guage of the public will, do you think it would survive a public vote if it came to that?

dweebe · PostJan 12, 2015#5252015-01-12T20:32+00:00

jstriebel wrote:Basically, while this is still a significant amount of money, we ARE on a budget. We don't have unlimited funds. Retractable roofs cost $100-150 million (I'm not sure if he said this, but I saw this elsewhere). Final Fours are starting to go to a core group of cities, with other cities being mixed in every now and then. So you'd basically be talking about a Final Four once a decade. Is that worth it?

Pretty much assume the men's Final Four will rotate between Indianapolis, Phoenix, San Antonio and New Orleans. Lucas Oil is the midwest location and it's hard to fight that when the NCAA headquarters is just blocks away from it.

No: it's not worth one Final Four.

City vs Rams Lawsuit

Choose Display Mode