urbanSTL

Financing 40% of costs is a bad deal for the city.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

^ It doesn't really seem like they have a handle on how they want that public side funded:

St. Louis lawmakers cautious on soccer stadium plan as financial details remain scarce
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... 81b1a.html

Sales tax or parking tax are mentioned as possibilities and while the article doesn't mention it, it appears that these funds would back up front bonds... for me, no way, jose, if that is the case. The ownership group needs to dig deeper with more corporate support... get more on board, get the Taylor family to buy naming rights, etc. to keep public support minimal and more reflective of a typical TIF project.

STLrainbow wrote:^ It doesn't really seem like they have a handle on how they want that public side funded:

St. Louis lawmakers cautious on soccer stadium plan as financial details remain scarce
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... 81b1a.html

Sales tax or parking tax are mentioned as possibilities and while the article doesn't mention it, it appears that these funds would back up front bonds... for me, no way, jose, if that is the case. The ownership group needs to dig deeper with more corporate support... get more on board, get the Taylor family to buy naming rights, etc. to keep public support minimal and more reflective of a typical TIF project.

I can see arrangement afforded to Busch stadium and then later to redevelop the Peabody Theater. Ticket tax/sale tax revenues back to the owner/bond payments . Understand that it gives the impression of a much larger commitment by owner and less so by public even though at end of day it is diverted tax revenue.

I would say it is worth it. You essentially got underutilized and undeveloped MoDOT property of a failed inner parkway being converted back to street grid that will certainly support more people coming and going, add hotel occupancy at Union Station among other hotels, so forth while finally creating the situation where you have real opportunity to bookend the Gateway Mall west end with development. Yes, you will have a parking lot north of Market street to start with. But extending 22nd street to Market and maybe just maybe they could extend Chestnut to 22nd will make a big difference for West Downtown in the years ahead. Not to mention surface lots are easy to build on once you get have the lots level and underground infrastructure taken care.

^ The problem is our local taxes are already jacked and especially any sales tax increase for non-essential purposes comes with an substantial opportunity cost.. something like a parking lot tax or auto rental tax might be more justifiable, but what happens if they don't cover the costs or the league or team folds a decade down the road?

Again, I'd be much more comfortable if this was a TIF-like structure for south of Market, even a generous one, where things like on-site sales and admissions and property taxes help pay for the damn thing, but it appears we're going well beyond that with some kind of citywide tax being contemplated. And that doesn't even cover upcoming Scottrade or Convention/Dome asks.

STLrainbow wrote:^
Again, I'd be much more comfortable if this was a TIF-like structure for south of Market, even a generous one, where things like on-site sales and admissions and property taxes help pay for the damn thing, but it appears we're going well beyond that with some kind of citywide tax being contemplated. And that doesn't even cover upcoming Scottrade or Convention/Dome asks.

Or is that what the end game is for a summer ballot... a all in one deal with MLS, Scottarde upgrades and city share of Convention Center ballroom expansion/upgrades??

^ I think either that or at least knowing what each ask will be before approving public funding for any of those three is a must. Ideally we'd have a regional tax to do it; something like the Cuyahoga Co. "sin tax" that goes to maintaining their 3 major pro sports facilities (Cleveland Cavs/Browns/Indians) although my preference would be for something like a car rental tax or similar.

STLrainbow wrote:although my preference would be for something like a car rental tax or similar.

I do like the idea of a car rental tax, and I do think most citizens would find it more palatable than other tax increases. However, that would risk getting on the wrong side of Enterprise/the Taylors. I don't know if they have any current plans to be involved or any interest in stadium naming rights, but funding with car rental taxes would likely end that possibility.

can't delete

Oh, I am entirely agreed jshank83. And I'm not against MLS. I've enjoyed sports in general and soccer in particular. I'm probably as much of a Cardinals fan as anyone I know. I follow the team and have an opinion on players and management alike. I can think of few moments so memorable as watching Holiday hammer one off the wall just above the aisle one fine sunny September day taking one back from the Reds. (In 2011 I believe it was.) I've enjoyed Blues games, though I don't follow them closely. I loved the Steamers as a kid. I have friends in Germany and Vietnam who enjoy soccer. I'm generally in favor of a team. And I'm generally suspicious of tax giveaways for private enterprise, but I'm willing to make an exception if it accomplishes a public good by creating development that would otherwise not occur. I'm a little disappointed right now, because there'd been a sense that the funny business was over after the Rams, and that MLS would do better by us, and now it looks like some of that was fantasy or spin. My vote isn't locked in, in any case. I just want a better and more reliable understanding of the numbers; a more honest process, if you will. There's a lot of noise masking the signal. I'm quite certain there are some footballer that leave town to watch games. I'm willing to accept that the number is notably higher per game than soccer fans, but also, there are fewer games. So maybe there are hundreds of folks leaving town on the average football game day; a few busloads maybe. The amount of money going out is real, but probably hundreds of thousands of dollars in the average year, not millions. Sheerly a wild guess there, but the Rams never seemed to have the out of town draw (or draw in general) that the Tigers do, for instance. Some of that is a difference of scale, but again, I worked for a while in a hotel a few blocks from the stadium for a while. Game days weren't a real boon to us. Cardinals game days were a different story, but Rams games just created traffic. We'll see what happens I expect. And if'n we end up with a soccer team, I expect I'll go catch a game or two.

jshank83 wrote: I guess in my mind any sports team is a business just like any other business here. We give all of them TIF money like it grows on trees so how is giving it to a sports "business" different than giving it to Centene or one of these rehabs downtown. Just because you aren't a customer of the sport shouldn't matter. If you are against every TIF or incentive than that is fine but don't just say no money to MLS because it is a sport. As we learned with the Rams, sports are businesses just like anything else.

The problem here is sports facilities aren't treated as normal business getting some subsidies; they've sucked up more public $$ than regular stuff does and usually get direct backing... that is what's so frustrating for a lot of folks like me. I doubt there is anyone who generally supports traditional incentives like TIF and special on-site sales taxes, etc. who would oppose an MLS stadium for getting the same kind of treatment, but when it comes to assessing a general tax to be imposed on all and potentially riskes the city's credit-worthiness that raises things to a whole new ballgame.

So what happens if this gets voted down? I feel like we can be pretty positive that it will, considering there will definitely be people and ads attacking it non stop. I doubt many people will be informed well enough to make a decision beyond "this should go to our police or our schools".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

user28 wrote:So what happens if this gets voted down? I feel like we can be pretty positive that it will, considering there will definitely be people and ads attacking it non stop.

i feel pretty positive that it will pass....easily, the pass can easily raise money for a campaign considering who is involved....who is going to raise money and run attack ads in 3 months?

Yup they're a reason they want this on the April ballot and also why they've been pretty tight lipped about what exactly they're asking for to be on the ballot. The less we know about it before it's on the ballot the less likely an organized opposition can occur.

I think it will be a difficult ask if it's a general sales tax or similar.... if it's something that proponents can say largely will fall on visitors that will be the better way to go.

dbInSouthCity wrote:i feel pretty positive that it will pass....easily, the pass can easily raise money for a campaign considering who is involved....who is going to raise money and run attack ads in 3 months?

I think there are a number of groups that could mount a "no" campaign. An obvious one would be the Foundry group, if they do have the amount of funding they claim. Rex Sinquefield or any other general anti-tax crusader could launch opposition. If the tax targets any specific industry, they would oppose.

It is hard to speculate on the vote's outcome without having any details, but I don't think this will be easy. I think it will be a fight. As much as many of us may love soccer, and like to think of St. Louis as a "soccer town", the reality remains that it is still not a mainstream professional sport. A lot of people are apathetic, or even hostile towards soccer. Then, you add in the people who do like soccer, but would vote no because they oppose the tax in principal, or due to the details of the funding, or perhaps they support the Foundry plan. Also, it seems every article has at least a couple comments saying "why can't they use the dome". If those people aren't educated on why that would never work, they will vote no.

I think it will come down to turnout, both raw numbers and demographics. I think the lower the turnout, the more likely this is to pass. If the vote had happened in November, I think it would have failed spectacularly. The level of interest in the Mayoral race will have a big impact on this vote.

^ mayoral race will be decided in march....

dbInSouthCity wrote:^ mayoral race will be decided in march....

Maybe. You're assuming everyone files as a Democrat, and not as an independent.

I thought March was the primary for mayor and the runoff would be April. Edit: I get what you're saying now.

Detroit also is expecting good news on official MLS announcements, perhaps as soon as a few days.

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/sports ... /94309750/

Like STL, Detroit still would need to figure out the stadium site; not sure about the other contenders.

Mark Groth wrote:So this will come up for a vote to help fund the stadium construction with St. Louis tax dollars; will the County help fund this with their tax dollars as well? Or, are we in it alone just like the NFL stadium pitch by a similar group? Based on the news that the County is backing out of the Transportation Museum in Kirkwood, it's reasonable to believe they will want nothing to do with this:

the County will not participate in the MLS Stadium, its the City and the State via the NGA funding package.

Yea seems like this group and the city are wanting to tie the NGA improvements at Jefferson at interstate 64 with this so cost can maybe be reduced in that regard