urbanSTL

pat wrote:We didn't peak too early. We got screwed by the Civil War.

Anyways, I don't think its necessary for a city to have a NFL team to be defined as significant or important. You wouldn't say that about LA would. People are still moving there.

Point taken, but I would imagine the reasons people are moving to LA are generally not reasons upon which St. Louis might be able to capitalize.

So when the Rams leave because we were too cheap to match the $500 million the NFL and the Rams would kick in for a new stadium, then we Rams fans better see some serious investment in education and the airport in this city. Those institutions better take off like rockets and propel St. Louis to new heights, beyond all other second tier sports cities. Then we can call it even.

But Gary, nobody is suggesting it will happen that way. Everyone is pretty honest that the growth will be slow and deliberate. But faster than it would be if we spent hundreds of millions of dollars and replaced developable buildings with a stadium.

I really don't begrudge the reason that people like football, find watching it fun, and want to keep a team, so they're willing to spend a lot of our money on it. I just want people to be honest about the impact. THAT is the impact. It doesn't revitalize downtown. It doesn't bring in a ton of money. And it doesn't make or keep us relevant.

It's costly entertainment. (And I say costly not just because of the stadium costs but because it's built for a private organization that charges high ticket prices just to attend. Unlike, say, the zoo.)

We all have our own judgements on what that entertainment is worth. Let's just be clear about what it is. Sounds like Greatest STL is perfectly willing to admit that, and I can respect that.

blzhrpmd2 wrote:http://www.riverfronttimes.com/calendar/

I badly want the Rams/NFL to stay here and I'm quiet enslaved to professional sports, but just like I do on other forums when people say there is nothing to do in STL, I'm calling BS.

Now, if you have no interest in doing any of the 100s of things that are offered around here, that is different. But saying there is nothing to do, that's just incorrect.

Yeah, respectfully, most of these look like incredibly niche fine art/relatively low-budget theatre events and exhibits. If that's your bag, then more power to ya. Don't get me wrong: I like chamber music and going to look at pretty paintings every once in awhile (as I'm sure I'd have no trouble doing in virtually any other city close to St. Louis in size), but in terms of engrossing entertainment that lasts for months, a local NFL franchise completely annihilates them.

I love the Rams, but not as much as I hate getting screwed, which is what Stan is trying to do to everybody in the region. ***** that guy. We want to talk about having civic pride. How about the civic pride that comes from not being manipulated by a dipshit Uncle Rico lookalike who married well. All this hand-wringing over the Rams is just another manifestation of the St. Louis area's insufferable inferiority complex. We're so obsessed with being seen as "relevant" and so insecure about our city's ranking is some national dick-measuring contest that we let jerks like Kroenke walk all over us.

Greatest St. Louis wrote: Well, I was talking about the P-D's editorial, not the statements specifically made by Mr. Peacock, with which I tend to agree.

okay, my apologies.

Greatest St. Louis wrote: And I absolutely believe that much of the criticism of his plan, valid for not, has manifested itself as negativity for the sake of negativity.

i guess i don't understand how valid criticism manifests as negativity for the sake of negativity. could you give me an example? i think perhaps it depends on what you consider invalid which, in this case, seems to be any opposition to this plan. like i said, i'd be fine with the new stadium in its proposed location provided most of the existing buildings and businesses remained, parking were limited to something reasonable so that urban development could occur around the stadium, and the funding were predominantly private. it sounds like St. Louis is expendable for you so long as you are entertained, and if you're not you'll go elsewhere. some of us are more concerned with the city's long-term survival, economic growth, and repopulation—all of which require smart development—than we are with watching football games in the winter. ultimately that repopulation is the only thing that's going to ensure that there are things to do in St. Louis.

urban_dilettante wrote:

Greatest St. Louis wrote: Well, I was talking about the P-D's editorial, not the statements specifically made by Mr. Peacock, with which I tend to agree.

okay, my apologies.

Greatest St. Louis wrote: And I absolutely believe that much of the criticism of his plan, valid for not, has manifested itself as negativity for the sake of negativity.

i guess i don't understand how valid criticism manifests as negativity for the sake of negativity. could you give me an example? i think perhaps it depends on what you consider invalid which, in this case, seems to be any opposition to this plan. like i said, i'd be fine with the new stadium in its proposed location provided most of the existing buildings and businesses remained, parking were limited to something reasonable so that urban development could occur around the stadium, and the funding were predominantly private. it sounds like St. Louis is expendable for you so long as you are entertained, and if you're not you'll go elsewhere. some of us are more concerned with the city's long-term survival, economic growth, and repopulation—all of which require smart development—than we are with watching football games in the winter. ultimately that repopulation is the only thing that's going to ensure that there are things to do in St. Louis.

Yeah, I guess you've got me nailed down, there. Like I said a couple posts ago, #1 for me about where I live is my job, and then #2 after that is being entertained. Work and play. I'm young, single, and educated... sooooo that's pretty much all I do.

As far as the city's long-term survival, economic growth, and repopulation, if you ask me, whether or not this stadium is built will have approximately zero bearing. St. Louis is what it is. There are umpteen midwestern cities more or less exactly like it (admittedly usually not with as much cool historic architecture, and maybe a few less hip neighborhoods), and their trajectories all figure to be pretty much what they are for the foreseeable future. If this stadium is built, it's not going to put a significant dent in the city's long-term survival, economic growth, nor repopulation. The things that drive those are better schools and less crime, which are not factors this stadium would solve nor exacerbate.

I'm just starting out my professional career. I'm unmarried. There isn't much tying me here. The NFL is my (and many of my friends' and families) entertainment of choice to get me through the relatively dead, boring, cold winter months in this town. I'll probably be putting down roots within the next 5-10 years. In the end, if I have to choose between St. Louis sans NFL and a city remarkably similar to St. Louis with the NFL, to me, it's a no-brainer.

The NFL and owner will follow the precedent used in other cities for their portion of the funding. So if we can't take advantage of it as other cities have done and lose our team, it will go down as just one more reason to be depressed about living in the city that can't get anything done.

Greatest St. Louis wrote:As far as the city's long-term survival, economic growth, and repopulation, if you ask me, whether or not this stadium is built will have approximately zero bearing.

i guess we'll just disagree. i think putting an end to sh*tty precedents (re gary's post above)–like evicting small businesses and eroding what's left of our urban fabric in order to publicly fund stadiums for private enterprises owned by billionaires–will have a substantial bearing on the city's survival. and if our "cool historic architecture" gives St. Louis an advantage over other midwestern cities, maybe we shouldn't demolish it unless it's absolutely necessary, or at least economically advantageous.

Here's a fun exercise. The state pays 12 million per year towards paying off the dome. Peacock and the Governor want to just extend that to pay the Missouri public portion of the new stadium cost. There are 6 million people in Missouri, so the cost will be $2.00 per person per year for a new stadium. The rest will come from NFL, owner, taxes on visitors like the ones we already pay for new stadiums in other cities, PSLs, and stadium user tax, rental fee, and advertising.

So MOLEG will try to kill this and save me $2.00 per year. Lets all describe here how we plan to spend our $2.00 per year. I plan to save up my yearly $2.00 rebate and buy a single draft beer at Busch Stadium -- every 5 years. Oh wait, they go up a dollar every year, so I'll have to wait 6 more months every year for that cold refreshing Bud Light. Much better for Missouri than a new stadium.

that $2 a year will be $1.70 in 15 years.

Greatest St. Louis wrote: I'm just starting out my professional career. I'm unmarried. There isn't much tying me here. The NFL is my (and many of my friends' and families) entertainment of choice to get me through the relatively dead, boring, cold winter months in this town. I'll probably be putting down roots within the next 5-10 years. In the end, if I have to choose between St. Louis sans NFL and a city remarkably similar to St. Louis with the NFL, to me, it's a no-brainer.

This seems to be a little unfair to StL. Even NYC is boring in cold weather, once you get over all the pretty lights.

I think per dollar spent more people would use the stadium in a given year then the n/s metrolink line

^but fewer would benefit. can't forget the Prop A slogan from 2010

DannyJ wrote:^but fewer would benefit. can't forget the Prop A slogan from 2010

not true....Rams stay, im happy, if im happy my gf is happy if she is happy her mom is happy if her mom is happy her dad is happy if her dad is happy his mom is happy. ect... as you see the new stadium and the Rams staying has direct impact on happiness of potentially 20,000,000 people

mill204 wrote:

gary kreie wrote:Here's a fun exercise. The state pays 12 million per year towards paying off the dome. Peacock and the Governor want to just extend that to pay the Missouri public portion of the new stadium cost. There are 6 million people in Missouri, so the cost will be $2.00 per person per year for a new stadium.

I absolutely HATE arguments like this. Guess what, the state of Missouri is responsible for thousands of projects and programs, each costing about $x.xx to every resident of the state. Add up the cost of every single project and program and pretty soon you're talking about real money.

Imagine if we could apply the $12 million in annual state funding to expanding MetroLink or streetcars instead of an NFL/MLS stadium that would be used only 30 times a year.

Or we could hire 160 additional police officers and still have money left over.

This legislature is more likely to use the 12 million savings to lower cigarette taxes, or expand gun ownership. A stadium would shield the money from their mischief. And the NFL, owner, and fans will only spend the other $650 million on a stadium capital improvement, which translates directly to construction jobs here.

Is the Rams stadium at the top of everyone's chart on wasteful spending? Could we not shift 12 million a year from somewhere else?

I'm not sure what exactly is to be gained from losing the Rams. There's 80 pages maybe I missed it.

its .00048% of the states budget....its no where near the top of states wasteful spending list.

$12,000,000 / 600,000 fans at Rams home games= $20 per fan (Rams players/staff/visiting teams paid about $7.7M in state income taxes in 2013)
$8,000,000 spent on Amtrak / 197,000 riders= $41 per rider.