MLS2STL

Got love for St. Louis sports? Let's talk Pro, College, High School, or otherwise.
First unread post1210 posts
FerdinandIII wrote:
Tue Feb 28, 2017 7:09 am
Could someone please explain the math that the backers of this initiative are using? They claim that voting yes on both bills will not cost city residents anything unless they visit the stadium. My gut tells me they are lying but but I don't have anything to support my gut instinct.
It's misleading at best. Sales tax goes up city-wide to pay for Metrolink, etc. If the sales tax goes up, there is an automatic increase in the use tax. Use tax is due on items purchased out-of-state, but consumed in the City - for example, technically, some of the "sales tax" collected by Amazon.com is actually use tax. The City uses a portion of the city-wide use tax revenues to pay for a portion of the stadium costs. People visiting the stadium also pay an additional 1% community improvement district sales tax.
http://www.101sports.com/2017/02/28/u-s ... ium-plan/
Be all this as it may, there are still plenty of skeptics of whether building the new stadium is the best way to use city taxes. So what would you tell them? Kavanaugh, CEO of Saint Louis FC, wants to expand his current club’s youth programs to inner-city kids and schools.

“I would just ask them to take the time to try and understand the facts,” Kavanaugh said. “I truly believe the facts are that this is going to be good for the City of St. Louis. [It’s good for] Jobs and the financial return to the city, but also the connection and the commitment that we have to the kids.

“We’ve got over 4,000 select kids in the club today. Another 3,000 recreational players, and we want to extend that into the different inner-city schools,” Kavanaugh said. “We already have a foundation in place. We have to build on the foundation that we already have in place that touch some really fundamental things that can help the city of St. Louis and the kids.”
Had not heard about their plan to expand soccer in the inner-city. Hopefully this will help keep inner-city youth busy, keep them out of trouble.
moorlander wrote:
Wed Mar 01, 2017 6:14 am
FerdinandIII wrote:Could someone please explain the math that the backers of this initiative are using? They claim that voting yes on both bills will not cost city residents anything unless they visit the stadium. My gut tells me they are lying but but I don't have anything to support my gut instinct.

Image
Anyone have a link to their numbers? What time period is that $17M of net tax revenue figure for? (If it's for 30 years, that's like giving away $120 and getting 17 bucks back.)
[quote=STLrainbow post_id=280181 time=1488398769 user_id=9857]
[quote=moorlander post_id=280153 time=1488370464 user_id=553]
[quote="FerdinandIII"]Could someone please explain the math that the backers of this initiative are using? They claim that voting yes on both bills will not cost city residents anything unless they visit the stadium. My gut tells me they are lying but but I don't have anything to support my gut instinct.[/quote]


[IMG]//uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201703 ... 07dd38.jpg[/IMG]
[/quote]

Anyone have a link to their numbers? What time period is that $17M of net tax revenue figure for? (If it's for 30 years, that's like giving away $120 and getting 17 bucks back.)
[/quote]

Here is a link to the Economic Impact Study
http://www.saintlouisfc.com/mls/Economic_Impact_Study
^ thanks... I have to take a closer look, but at first blush they aren't taking into account bond payments to arrive at that $17M figure. I think they got the figure via $77M in the present value of 33 years worth of taxes & fees - $60M in city contribution = $17M. But the city would be paying interest on the $60M bond offering so unless I'm missing something this looks very misleading.
STLrainbow wrote:
Wed Mar 01, 2017 3:34 pm
^ thanks... I have to take a closer look, but at first blush they aren't taking into account bond payments to arrive at that $17M figure. I think they got the figure via $77M in the present value of 33 years worth of taxes & fees - $60M in city contribution = $17M. But the city would be paying interest on the $60M bond offering so unless I'm missing something this looks very misleading.
So first off - I'm very skeptical of stadiums on the public dime and still undecided on the vote so don't take my criticism as a "Stadium supporter".

So yes I agree with you that the $77M looks like they calculated the net present value of Taxes/Fees, using a 4% discount rate. So for a apt comparison you would have to take a NPV of the bond payments the city expects. If the City's bond rate (Interest Rate) is 4% their $60M Present value for the city is accurate and their net value is also accurate.
Obviously - we have no idea if the taxes will work out better or worse then projected. Also if the citys interest rate is higher than 4% then they would have a greater Net Present Value than $60M. They would have to issue more bond notes/make larger payments to get $60M worth of present dollars.
^ I'm hoping we'll get an analysis from Comptroller Green like she did for the riverfront stadium plan; and ideally an solid analysis from the city or at least a neutral party of the socio-economic benefits of spending the use tax on alternatives such as the affordable housing trust fund and some of the other mentioned items.
Here it comes. Let's all remember what John Stewart told us at the end of his last show

STL BJ - MLS group plans to spend $1 million on stadium campaign

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news ... adium.html
quincunx wrote:
Thu Mar 09, 2017 4:19 pm
Here it comes. Let's all remember what John Stewart told us at the end of his last show

STL BJ - MLS group plans to spend $1 million on stadium campaign

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news ... adium.html
They Should just offer every registered voter 5 bucks. Actually they only need a majority of the people who will actually show up to vote, so they could probably stretch it to at least 20 dollars per yes vote. If you could deduct the people who would have voted yes anyway it could be 50 bucks per person.
Labor endorses City Prop 1 & 2; police Prop P in the County

http://labortribune.com/labor-endorses- ... he-county/
MLS supporters were out in force at the St. Gabriel's fish fry on Friday night. Can't speak for other parishes in south city, but I have to imagine they were at Joan of Arc, Epiphany and St. Steven's as well.
Messenger: Downtown MLS stadium boosters believe St. Louis has momentum

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/colu ... ec28b.html
Tony seems to come just short of endorsing a flat out Yes vote on this MLS stadium proposal, the opposite of his position on the Rams stadium. He points to the downtown growth and momentum, and the use of extensive private dollars as a substitute for outer regional dollars in other cities. Good column.
Anyone know how to get "Yes on 1 & 2" yard signs?
mattonarsenal wrote:Anyone know how to get "Yes on 1 & 2" yard signs?
supportmls2stl.com
mattonarsenal wrote:
Tue Mar 21, 2017 9:14 am
Anyone know how to get "Yes on 1 & 2" yard signs?
They had a whole bunch right inside the front door of the offices at the Soccer Park in Fenton. I picked up two for me and a neighbor.
Does anyone know if anyone has done any recent polling on this?
I polled myself and Props 1 & 2 passed by a landslide.
^ I got a "hell no" on 2 and a "whatevs" on 1.
Amusingly, I had a conversation with someone a week ago who was planning to vote no on 1 and yes on 2. As they explained it to me, they wanted the soccer stadium, but no new taxes.
The only recent poll I've seen has been one on Nextdoor. A little over 900 respondants, 47% no, 43% yes, 9% undecided. Entirely unscientific, but I think some things can be taken away from it. This is for neighborhoods like TGS, Lindenwood, CLifton Heights, etc. 'No' winning those regions is not at all good for Prop 2, especially when you consider that Nextdoor's demographic is exactly the type that Prop 2 should be winning. Take into account older people (who get out to vote, and don't take Nextdoor polls) and neighborhoods to the north and east that have a much higher African-American population, and Prop 2 really, really needs very high turnout for it's suporters and low turnout for everyone else.
hiddeninput wrote:
Thu Mar 23, 2017 12:25 pm
Amusingly, I had a conversation with someone a week ago who was planning to vote no on 1 and yes on 2. As they explained it to me, they wanted the soccer stadium, but no new taxes.
What?!?! There are people in St. Louis who want nice stuff but don't wanna pay for it!?!? ;)
Not giving citywide sales taxes to a public stadium which would principally benefit private enterprise is quite different from not paying for something. I'm all for the stadium . . . as long as they pay for it themselves. Which is to say you can count me no on 2. Sales tax is just the wrong way to fund it. End of story. I'm . . . not thrilled about 1 either. That should be a bond issue, not sales tax. Make it property tax. (Which I also pay, mind you.) Make it blinking income tax if it weren't for Wrecks. The benefit of improved transit . . . might justify it. But I don't like it. It's definitely hold my nose territory.
P-D editorial board recommends NO on 1 and 2.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/co ... 20c36.html
Sad that the editorial board can get the simple facts straight.

Image