urbanSTL

If someone came to me with two proposals and said "we can divert the funding streams in place right now to build the new stadium, or we can use them to fund alternative policing measures, more and better programs for children k-12 in the city and north county, the shortfall created by eliminating and/or decriminalizing all non-violent offenses and the fines and court costs associated therewith, etc., but we can only pick one" I would pick the latter in a heartbeat.

Similarly, as I've said previously, if someone came to me with two proposals and said "we can do the stadium, or we can use the money to create a high-vitality, mixed-use commercial/residential/retail/restaurant/bar district," I would also pick the latter.

Of course, neither of these is the situation.

To do so to make an argument against building the stadium is to create a false choice. Like others have said, we could do both.

south compton wrote:^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.

Beyond any shadow of a doubt. But that just means all the more that we need to make the effort. I'm not against the stadium effort, mind you. (I'm against parts of the plan, but not the effort.)

There is literally 2 guys working on the stadium thing and neither is from the government....so its not like some great resource's are being diverted to the stadium from Ferguson related issues.

^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.

Exactly!!!

^I disagree. The issues from Ferguson are not that complicated. We've had these issues for decades, but just haven't addressed them. I think people continually talk about how complex the problems surrounding Ferguson are as an excuse to avoid addressing them. Its also not fun to solve the Ferguson issues. Its fun to solve the Rams leaving. We get a new shiny stadium.

Last thought and I'll get back on topic. What are the issues that have come to light or more so from Ferguson? Disconnect between governments and their citizens, too many police forces and municipalities, inequality between races and their financial statuses, violent crime, lack of education, etc. Not all those are problems from Ferguson but also St. Louis problems. Those all are solvable. You just can't solve them in one political term. We just don't have leaders with the balls to take them on.

On the other hand, Stenger also called keeping the Rams "very important" and a "necessity." So I can't decide whether we should buy into his priorities or not.

I don't have a problem with him wanting to keep the Rams, or even backing the questionable plan in place to do so. Let's just not overstate how important it is. Because the answer is "not very." It'd just be something nice to do.

^ depends who you ask on "how" important it is to keep the Rams....for me its very important. I dont care about this ROI bs, i want the Rams here and I dont care that we will spend $300-350m in state funds to do it. We know that the $ used for the bonds cannot be spent on anything else and when the bonds are paid off that revenue stream goes away (per Jane Dueker)

roger wyoming II wrote:^ if you can point me to Jane's comments that would be great... and again the revenue stream from the state is the general fund and my understanding (per Saint Louis Public Radio) is that there is no special tax for the bonds either. Clarity would be terrific.

my twitter Direct message inbox

dbInSouthCity wrote:^ depends who you ask on "how" important it is to keep the Rams....for me its very important. I dont care about this ROI bs, i want the Rams here and I dont care that we will spend $300-350m in state funds to do it. We know that the $ used for the bonds cannot be spent on anything else and when the bonds are paid off that revenue stream goes away (per Jane Dueker)

It's important because you enjoy the Rams and NFL football a lot. I get that. I'm okay with people feeling that way. There's a big part of me that's tugged that way.

But are those really the priorities you want you think government leaders should hold as it concerns our public funds?

And let me tread this line. I'm not complaining that he might want to spend those public funds. I'm complaining that he calls it "very important" and a necessity". It's very clearly neither of those things as it concerns the health of our region.

It's a toy, maybe a very cool toy, maybe a toy worth $400 million. But it's not very important or a necessity.

Well said, jstriebel

blzhrpmd2 wrote:^That sounds like a slippery slope, though. Does that mean that everything that is not sports related that is funded from any fraction of public funds is 100% a necessity? Doubtful. Is the art museum needed? Do we need our zoo? Do we need the MO History museum? Is the science center a priorty?

Of course they are not. I could live my life in STL and never frequent them and live just fine; just like I could potentially never go to an NFL game here after 2016. Part of my taxes go toward those above amenities, however, so that people in the region and visitors can enjoy them. Luckily, I do frequent those places as often as I can and every time I do I'm glad they are there to help make our city what it is.

I'm sure there are cynics that would tell you museums are a waste and since they don't use them they shouldn't be paying for it. That's how I feel like detractors of the Rams and this stadium are. But whether you want to admit it or not, the Rams (and our museums) make a contribution to the identity of who we are. We don't need it, but it is a valuble asset just like any city accessory. They are signs of a thriving place, and I would just as soon keep our offerings of the diverse nature characteristic of a certain tier city.

The Zoo, Art Museum, etc are cultural institutions that offer residents educational opportunities that could never be matched by a sports stadium. Additionally, those cultural institutions are FREE or low cost which makes them much more accessible to a wider range (if not all) of residents. Access to an NFL stadium, on the other hand, is $60+ per person, completely on the opposite side of the affordability spectrum. So if we're talking about "quality of life", then a venue thats open and affordable to all is much more valuable than one thats open 10 days a year at $60 per person.

STL Rams aren't a legacy team, so it's hard to agree with saying the Rams are a part of who we are. They are not the Cardinals. Sports teams are not signs of a thriving place. Plenty of cities suffering and thriving with and without sports teams. Seattle is thriving because of Amazon, Microsoft, Starbucks, etc., not because of the Sounders or Seahawks. Over the past couple of years, I doubt anyone would describe Detroit as "thriving", no matter how well the Tigers, Lions, or Red Wings performed.

To be clear, I'm not against the Rams - I would like the Rams to stay, but not at any expense (or at that location); and I understand that if the Rams leave, its not like STL magically has $300M to invest on rail transit or anything else that could help make us a thriving city. I think maybe our civic leaders need to be "scared straight" and maybe they will make better decisions as it pertains to the economic health of the region. But as JStriebel said, sports teams are toys, very cool, and expensive toys.

blzhrpmd2 wrote:^That sounds like a slippery slope, though. Does that mean that everything that is not sports related that is funded from any fraction of public funds is 100% a necessity? Doubtful. Is the art museum needed? Do we need our zoo? Do we need the MO History museum? Is the science center a priorty?

Of course they are not. I could live my life in STL and never frequent them and live just fine; just like I could potentially never go to an NFL game here after 2016. Part of my taxes go toward those above amenities, however, so that people in the region and visitors can enjoy them. Luckily, I do frequent those places as often as I can and every time I do I'm glad they are there to help make our city what it is.

I'm sure there are cynics that would tell you museums are a waste and since they don't use them they shouldn't be paying for it. That's how I feel like detractors of the Rams and this stadium are. But whether you want to admit it or not, the Rams (and our museums) make a contribution to the identity of who we are. We don't need it, but it is a valuble asset just like any city accessory. They are signs of a thriving place, and I would just as soon keep our offerings of the diverse nature characteristic of a certain tier city.

None of this is what I said, though. I said it's okay to spend money on things that are fun.

I merely took issue with Stenger describing having an NFL team as a necessity. If you want to spend the money on them, just say you think the amount of joy or whatever they bring is worth it.

We are already paying for new stadiums in Atlanta, Minneapolis, and most other NFL cities, whenever we travel there through hotel and car rental taxes. We should do the same to get some of our money back and make visitors pay for our new stadium. Locals who oppose the stadium would pay nothing over current levels-- probably less since interest rates are lower. It would be nearly free unless you stay in St. Louis hotels or rent cars downtown or attend Rams games. How much did they pay for Busch or Scottrade -- nothing if they don't use them. Yet most folks were opposed anyway just because they don't like sports.

But the folks opposed will likely use the stadium even in they don't pay a dime for it. Concerts, Pope visits and Religion revivals, MLS, concerts, outdoor hockey, monster truck and motocross etc. would likely happen there. The dome would now be available for possibly an NBA team or amateur sports like NCAA swimming or basketball, not to mention other conventions. And imagine a huge event that uses both stadiums at the same time.

If we finish paying off the loans for the dome, I think nothing would be better to pick up that stream than a new stadium. I have zero confidence that this Missouri legislature would use that savings for Medicaid Expansion, or Schools, or roads. They would likely divert it to a big tax break for businesses, which Kansas has learned is not a factor in keeping businesses from leaving the area and moving to Austin anyway. Or maybe they would use the savings to lower the tax on cigarettes and gas even more. I vote for extending the modest dome stream for construction jobs and capital improvements -- a new stadium. And accept the free money from the NFL, the team owner, new visitor tax or ticket tax, and PSLs what would quadruple the dome stream dollars.

Good article on STLtoday discussing the site location, and why it's probably not the right spot.

http://www.stltoday.com/business/column ... c70f4.html

Although, in making that case, it's odd that they fail to mention that there actually HAS been investment and re-development in this area.

^ It's an article discussing the site location. I don't know that I'd label it as anything approximating "good". He takes some valid points and devalues them by wrapping them in cheesy attempts at humor and misinformation.

The place is a vision of apocalyptic ruin — fields of weeds and rubble, hulking old warehouses with busted windows. The painted names of long-dead companies fade on the brick walls. For-sale signs hang hopelessly.

The ornate old Union Electric Light and Power building, a jewel of Victorian-era industrial architecture, is covered in soot and bordered by abandonment.

The place is creepy and needs a rescue plan.

OMG THAT PLACE IS CREEPY AND THERE'S PROBABLY ZOMBIES THERE YOU GUYZ. Really?

But on most days, the stadium will be a big empty building surrounded by a 10,000 vacant parking spaces. You can’t base a local economic revival around that.

^ Excellent, valid point.

Look at the eight-year struggle to get just a piece of Ballpark Village built next to Busch Stadium, although it was part of the original deal for public support. The Cardinals ballpark is busy 81 days a year and sits amid downtown offices and hotels. A stadium just isn’t a development magnet.

That a stadium isn't a development magnet is a defensible point, but using Ballpark Village as a reference without factoring in Cordish's incentives grab or the small matter of the intervening Great Recession fallout is disingenuous.

The north riverfront ought to have more potential. It has interstate highway connections, a few blocks from downtown

Yes it should, and yes it is.

with its nearly 90,000 jobs.

Uh, no. Not in quite some time.

Then again, developers aren’t lining up with other plans for the property.

That ignores the redevelopment that has happened in the proposed stadium's footprint (as has been mentioned) and currently active businesses there, but it is valid that there's much that's not happening currently.

The best evidence from economic studies is that new stadiums and football teams contribute just a little in terms of hard-dollar economic benefit to a region. That’s particularly true of stand-alone stadiums ringed by parking lots.

The main gain from a football team is psychological: It gives us something to cheer about. It can make us prouder of St. Louis and may raise the city’s national profile. That’s hard to value in dollars, but it does have value.

Perfectly fair, especially the bolded part. But it should be noted that the NFL wants stadiums surrounded by parking lots. If this isn't the right spot, what is?

A big empty building might fit well out on the suburban flood plains. When the levees break again — as they will someday — there will be time to clean up the mud before football season.

A bit sarcastic, but okay. Putting a stadium someplace where the parking prairie is less out of place is not a bad idea. But then:

Other businesses are reluctant to locate on land that could go underwater, although such prudence can yield to cheap land prices and government tax giveaways.

They are? I must have missed all of the development that failed to occur in Earth City and Gumbo Flats. And, and aside: Cheap land prices and government tax giveaways are hardly the exclusive domain of municipalities in floodplains - see pretty much everything that's developed in O'Fallon, Dardenne Prairie, Winghaven, etc.

His quotes from Richard Ward, Dave Peacock and Vincent Schoemehl have value and merit. Gallagher's contribution is this:

If we’re looking for a spot in need of activity, we could build the stadium at MidAmerica St. Louis Airport, in Mascoutah. The empty terminal could become a big sports bar. Fans could tailgate on the tarmac. The airlines have no use for it.

And that's something we should take seriously? It's not particularly informative and not particularly funny. IMHO.

-RBB