urbanSTL

roger wyoming II wrote:^ yeah; I think a move to the north riverfront likely would shift game-day business around a bit -- e.g. it would give the Landing an advantage over Wash Ave., etc. even though the stadium would be further away from what the Dome is -- but it wouldn't be a downtown revitalization project. Some would win, some would lose. And as a whole I bet there would be more tailgaters and less downtown patronage.

That's a fair point. I wasn't factoring in the landing as part of "downtown proper".

jsbru wrote: It's not exactly a zero-sum proposal, though, because while moving the Rams stadium to the riverfront alone will probably just move around football-related business patronage, the extra conventions during the fall season would bring in net positive traffic. Better yet, this traffic will be from out of town and be spending money on hotels, restaurants, etc. instead of just filling up the gas tank and bringing in their own food/beer to tailgate

Yes but that increased convention traffic to America's Center does not predicate on us financing a new NFL stadium elsewhere in the city. Our improved position to attract more conventions results simply from the Rams vacating the Dome, with or without a new NFL stadium in St. Louis.

Urban Review STL has a look at possible Illinois sites (link below), which, while very interesting in theory is probably a non-starter in reality due to cross state politics, et al, issues that have been already discussed on this thread.

http://www.urbanreviewstl.com/2015/01/n ... -illinois/

However.....it did cause me to come up with an idea, with the caveat that I have no idea how or even if it actually could happen.

But...here goes...what if instead of spending the budgeted 90-110 million on site acquisition for the currently planned area north of the Landing, that money was instead spent to:

A) acquire the necessary amount land on the Illinois side (Patterson names several possibilities), in the best location for visibility, transportation, site planning, etc
B) annex the land into the State of Missouri, and specifically into the City of St. Louis.

Is there any reason that but for the politics, state charters, etc...that this couldn't be done? I have to think that on a financial basis for 100 million dollars or so for site acquisition/consolidation/prep/legal hurldles in this location could work. To be clear, I'm not expecting that it ever would be, but is there a way it could?

One point upon which I think both supporters and detractors are talking past each other on this forum is the point about what other regional investments this stadium funding could be put towards. I don't think most detractors of the new stadium proposal mean to suggest that without the stadium bond payments, we could, with a flick of the pen, just transfer that $24 million of state and regional funding each year towards paying down bonds for MetroLink expansion, for example.

But it does mean that in a region and state that deals with comparatively great financial scarcity, by earmarking $24 million a year in local and state funding for an additional 30 years for a project that provides no measurable net gain in revenue or growth, it makes it that much more difficult to find funding for truly impactful regional investments such as NS MetroLink. To me, this is even more significant as we must be funding resources and strategies to stem the rapid growth of poverty and decline in north county over the next decades that threatens the whole region.

roger wyoming II wrote:^ If there is no stadium to pay for after 2021, I think what is likely to happen is that the County and City continue to collect their individual hotel taxes and those $$ are then used for some other purpose, perhaps in the form of backing bonds for another collective or separate city/county purpose(s).

I'm not sure how the state pays for its portion, but I don't think it would be out of the question to see other programs in the region supported with the basic overall amount.

Once the bonds are paid off the hotel tax used to pay for it goes away, this is why its best in the cities and counties interest to extend this bonds...because it lowers the payment and they get to keep the extra for other purposes...but once the bonds are paid off the hotel tax goes away.

roger wyoming II wrote:

americancitizen wrote:Urban Review STL has a look at possible Illinois sites (link below), which, while very interesting in theory is probably a non-starter in reality due to cross state politics, et al, issues that have been already discussed on this thread.

http://www.urbanreviewstl.com/2015/01/n ... -illinois/

However.....it did cause me to come up with an idea, with the caveat that I have no idea how or even if it actually could happen.

But...here goes...what if instead of spending the budgeted 90-110 million on site acquisition for the currently planned area north of the Landing, that money was instead spent to:

A) acquire the necessary amount land on the Illinois side (Patterson names several possibilities), in the best location for visibility, transportation, site planning, etc
B) annex the land into the State of Missouri, and specifically into the City of St. Louis.

Is there any reason that but for the politics, state charters, etc...that this couldn't be done? I have to think that on a financial basis for 100 million dollars or so for site acquisition/consolidation/prep/legal hurldles in this location could work. To be clear, I'm not expecting that it ever would be, but is there a way it could?

Good question on how state boundaries might change with a willing giver.... it isn't unusual to have border disputes (like GA/TN) but I've never heard of a mutual plan. Is your point that you think it would be easier to develop the land if it were technically part of the City and Missouri?

I would like to know how much power the Bi-State compact has with development; I believe they may have been given some additional powers as part of the City + Arch + River. Anyway, I'd like to see a serious effort to bring C+A+R treatments to the other side of the river as part of a more comprehensive effort with a stadium as a potential part of that.... I think it would be much better over there than on the city's riverfront.

Yeah, basically. Taking the premise that the State of Missouri, along with St. Louis City/County have more political impetus and have shown much more willingness to keeping the Rams than the State of Illinois likely has or will in adding a new NFL team.

To say it another way, there are a lot of urban development reasons stated on this board, in Patterson's article (and elsewhere) that the east river front makes more sense than the current projected site; if not for the fact that empty land across the river is within another state's boundaries. Regionalism is great and all but its not exactly our region's forte, I'm almost certain its not enough to justify building over there on its own.

But what if that land could somehow be annexed into Missouri & the City of St. Louis, does the east river front start to make more sense and make the project more feasible? That's where I was going with the idea at least....

dweebe wrote:

roger wyoming II wrote:^ If there is no stadium to pay for after 2021, I think what is likely to happen is that the County and City continue to collect their individual hotel taxes and those $$ are then used for some other purpose, perhaps in the form of backing bonds for another collective or separate city/county purpose(s).

I'm not sure how the state pays for its portion, but I don't think it would be out of the question to see other programs in the region supported with the basic overall amount.

More highways! More bridges to St. Charles! [/sarcasm]

I'm sure MODOT would be more than happy to find some wasteful interchange to fund...

Frank Cusamano reported on channel 5 tonight, that the Los Angeles city Council approved Farmers Field. This could be a significant obstacle for Kroenke. However, it is up to St. Louis to build a stadium or the the Rams will go. This was according to a national NBC guy that Frank had showed a clip on. This could ultimately be tihe reason Tim Leiweke is leaving Toronto in June. If this project is built, the likelihood of the Inglewood project being built goes down significantly. This is going to be interesting!

None of these stadium projects (Farmers Field, Kroenke's Inglewood stadium, or the St. Louis stadium) will be built without a committed franchise.

And that's why, right now, Kroenke's plan has the advantage. Farmers Field would gain the advantage if the Chargers announced they had reached an agreement with AEG and Farmers Field.

Well, the Chargers might just be considering that move. A deal in SD seems like a long shot.

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/jan ... ck-canepa/

St. Louisan's are already paying for stadiums in a lot of other cities every time we visit there through hotel, rental car, and other taxes only on visitors. We need to get our money back by upping the room and car rental tax on visitors to pay for our stadium, just like Minnesota, Arizona, and all other teams with new stadiums do. That, plus Rams ticket taxes, taxes on parking facilities, PSLs, Kroenke's fair share, the NFL fair share, possible TIF, and extension of the dome tax (if required) should pay for the whole thing with no new money from the public. Don't we pay something now for KCs huge stadium upgrades through state taxes?

Maybe we could throw in a state tax on big box stores that clobber small town businessmen to make profits off of Missourians that they spend later in Malibu.

St. Louis American - A tale of two regions

Nothing demonstrates this better than the region's leadership in two very different, developing situations: the response to the underlying structural causes that precipitated the phenomenon that is Ferguson, and the energy and high-level focus devoted to a proposed plan to build a new stadium in the hopes of retaining an NFL franchise in St. Louis (which is highly unlikely). When you look at the leadership response to these different challenges – one a genuine crisis, and the other is perceived as such by the corporate elite and NFL fans – you see a region without a strong moral compass or adequate idea about what is essential to make a metropolitan area viable.

http://www.stlamerican.com/news/editori ... 23e0c.html

what a load of BS that is- why cant we have both?
and "highly unlikely" is looking very likely right now, to keeping the Rams.

That type of argument is childish. The 2 issues are not connected and it's not an either/or situation. Anytime public money is associated with something the uniformed and out of touch start yelling about how that money could help schools, fight crime, etc.

Nobody can ever put their own self-interests aside to think about what is best for the region. It's a tiresome game.

dbInSouthCity wrote:what a load of BS that is- why cant we have both?
and "highly unlikely" is looking very likely right now, to keeping the Rams.

Because nobody cares about the poor like they do the Rams. I don't think there's any reason we couldn't (or shouldn't) cater to both interests, generally. But many of the decision makers are happy to dismiss things like Ferguson as "poor people problems caused by poor people". Shades of the Irish Question.

I care about poor people problems but i am not going to cancel my vacation to mexico next week.

They're right to point out that we ought to be diverting a lot of our energy to solving the issues that led to Ferguson, but it's wrong to suggest we can't do both.

But as far as saying it shows the region has a weak moral compass. Meh. I mean, maybe we do. Hell, we probably do. But I mean, nearly ever other major city in America is guilty of this crap. That's not a St. Louis problem.

^I'm going to venture a wild guess and say it will be a lot easier to build a new stadium then to solve the issues that led to Ferguson.