SC STL postpones State vote today, wants to meet with Greitens.
Why not go ahead with the vote, if they think they can get this done under the current administration? Why delay it and risk pushing this off until Greitens takes over? Wouldn't they want to get this done with the pro-stadium regime still in power?
Our conclusion, and that of nearly all academic economists studying this issue, is that professional sports generally have little, if any, positive effect on a city's economy, Humphreys and Coates wrote … The professors based their report on new data as well as previously published research in which they analyzed economic indicators from 37 major metropolitan areas with major-league baseball, football and basketball teams. The net economic impact of professional sports in Washington, D.C., and the 36 other cities that hosted professional sports teams over nearly 30 years, was a reduction in real per capita income over the entire metropolitan area, Humphreys and Coates noted in the report. The researchers found other patterns consistent with the presence of pro sports teams. Among them, a statistically significant negative impact on the retail and services sectors of the local economy, including an average net loss, an increase in wages in the hotels and other lodgings sector (about $10 per worker year), but a reduction in wages in bars and restaurants (about $162 per worker per year).
I think we are beating a dead horse with the economic impact argument. To me, things like this add to the amenities a city can offer it's residents. It creates something that we can bond over, something to be proud of and something that unites. Now, whether or not a community is willing to pay for that, economic benefits aside, is up to that community. If we don't pay for a stadium, some other City will. Even if the State and City break even, your adding a great amenity, a great development Downtown and filling a development gap in the City. All goes back to adding positive things to our big cities. I think MLS has been great for Kansas City. I think it will be a great thing for STL. Of course I'd rather have no public money used. I prefer ownership owning the building 100% so they cannot pick up and move as easily as the Rams did. In this case, I think this venue is a bargain compared to the Rams deal. It will generate more tax revenue, due to hosting more team-related games and non- MLS events (World Cup, EPL, La Liga etc tours, FIFA friendlies etc.) and not tying up the convention center. This venue would be the go-to stadium for major soccer events in the US. It will hold up to 28K, so it could attract more events than a KC or Columbus, for example, where the USMNT plays a lot of games. This is a tough sell because the Rams deal was a mess and was handled very poorly. I would venture to guess, all of the people that oppose the stadium, will be there with there jerseys on, supporting our MLS team. I think all sides can sit down and hammer out a deal.
A community can more than pay for it with ticket surcharges. That would be even better for the community, as the people who actually use and receive a direct benefit from it can pay their fair share, while those who don't, don't need to have an increased financial burden for something they have no interest in and no use for.
The state’s economic research and information center estimates that the stadium would generate over $64 million in general state revenue over 33 years.
Sounds like a good deal for the state.
well there's some big footnotes there... even if the analysis is sound, net benefit would only be $24M over that very long-term period and would only be generated in the last ten years. I also believe a significant portion of the tax credits would crowd out other potential and possibly more beneficial projects if they are received. But unlike the old NFL proposal, no state bonds would be issued so that is a plus. Anyway, I'm glad things were postponed and not rushed out the door, but at the same time the proposal deserves a fair hearing.
I would also be in favor or something like that as well. The question is why did the ownership group go for a city wide tax instead? My guess is it wouldn't cover it or they want the amusement tax waived like the Cardinals did.
I would also have season tickets day one but I also understand it's entertainment and the $4 million+ use tax increase could be used for much more. It could be added to the Metrolink expansion so instead of $10M a year it's $14M. I just see way more opportunities that would benefit the city more then a MLS team
Fun fact. Section 6 of Ordinance 65609 (https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/c ... ?ord=65609), which is the ordinance which tied the use tax to the sales tax, specifically prohibits any of its monies from being used on sports stadiums. The money is supposed to go towards programs like affordable housing and public safety.
There is nothing in either of the Board Bills which changes this. To do so, the Aldermen would need to make a public case that a soccer stadium deserves the funds more than directly funding affordable housing and public safety. In St. Louis. Good luck with that.
DogtownBnR wrote:In this case, I think this venue is a bargain compared to the Rams deal. It will generate more tax revenue, due to hosting more team-related games and non- MLS events (World Cup, EPL, La Liga etc tours, FIFA friendlies etc.) and not tying up the convention center.... This is a tough sell because the Rams deal was a mess and was handled very poorly.
A big difference between the NFL and MLS proposals is that with the former it was a question of what the return from existing taxes might be; here we're being asked to assess yet another tax. It's this additional extraction that makes it pretty much a non-starter for me, especially when we have no clear idea on how Scottrade and Convention Center/Dome needs will be taken care of.
As the effort to bring a Major League Soccer franchise to St. Louis heats up, the Missouri Economic Research and Information Center (MERIC) has conducted a stadium economic impact study which concludes the project would result in $24.5M in net state general revenue over 33 years. This number represents the estimated impact after accounting for requested tax credits of $40M and is separate from predicted local economic impact. The full set of assumptions and revenue table are below.
^Is it safe to say that an $80 million investment for a $24.5 million return over 33 years is not a good investment? I don't think any individual would accept such a paltry sum. Hard to see why a municipality or government should.
^Is it safe to say that an $80 million investment for a $24.5 million return over 33 years is not a good investment? I don't think any individual would accept such a paltry sum. Hard to see why a municipality or government should.
wabash wrote:^Is it safe to say that an $80 million investment for a $24.5 million return over 33 years is not a good investment? I don't think any individual would accept such a paltry sum. Hard to see why a municipality or government should.
$80mil is the requested city contribution, right? The $24.5 is the stadium benefit to the state, if I understand the article correctly.
Now Kavanaugh, along with the rest of the SC STL leadership team, are scratching their heads in an attempt to find a Plan B.
“We’re re-evaluating our options at this point,” Kavanaugh said.
Those options could include asking St. Louis County or St. Charles County for financial support, though Kavanaugh said SC STL has not reached out to those governments yet.
1. Agreed with Dogtown p&R above. I wish stadium advocates would stop the ridiculous economic arguments and argue it on community and making a city with more activities and amenities.
2. I think SCSTL has blown this badly so far. Incredible knowing how peacock was here the last time. I could still see it passing but the press is really bad right now. Unbelievable they have never thought to reach out to STL county or st chuck.
3. We need a better explanation of how the $80 mill will work and how the staduum lease and costs are shared before anyone can vote
^ & ^^, I don't see how reaching out to the county would have gone anywhere considering that it went nowhere with Rams/NFL and their you already had a team in town. If anything, I think the city is much better off for the county to be engaged with CVC renovations/ballroom expansion since they share a common tax on that already.
I can't see why MLS stadium can't happen the way that new Busch stadium was financed, or Scottrade, and or even Peabody coming back to live. To me any bond, sales tax should revolve around street & in the ground infrastructure that supports NGIA, full Jefferson interchange and west downtown street grid. That will only help get a stadium site as well as open the area to future development to book end the gateway mall. Might have to bite the bullet again and offer up exclusive development rights like BVP. But even though Its taken quite a while, nor a fan of Cordish, but you have to appreciate that phase II renderings are starting to show a grid coming back with high rise construction proposed.
^ I'm not so sure that approaching the County early on would have proven to be fruitless... I see MLS as something that county residents would be more likely to support with tax $$ than NFL as 1) the ask would be less and 2) it really is a "County" sport with loads of participation from all those soccer families Also you can argue that supporting downtown MLS with a bit of county money would catalyze the county government's own significant efforts in developing a strong soccer community/economy. If the Saint Louis region solidifies itself as a leading soccer town with MLS advancing that cause, the County arguably stands to gain the most.
Anyway, it never hurts to ask and when you know going in things won't be easy it's best to cover all your bases... instead they act almost entitled to this money from the city as the lone local funder and are hurting their own cause.
As for the development rights, since this is in Northside Regeneration and part of the TIF agreement, Paul McKee already has those. Others can come in but he gets certain financial benefits if TIF is used:
whitherSTL wrote:This deal is dead on arrival.....Nashville stepping in now with big-time investor. Sports-wise we keep getting passed by...Oh well.
It is all over we better just give up and not try. Some other city has a guy with money. MLS really doesn't like St. Louis is was all a bluff to make other cities apply. Probably should just give up on the Cardinals also because their move is inevitable........
I am tired of people in this city with defeatist attitudes. MLS WANTS to be here and we have the people that can make it happen if they really want to make it happen. This stuff isn't easy, let's see how it plays out before we all just give up on one roadblock.
whitherSTL wrote:This deal is dead on arrival.....Nashville stepping in now with big-time investor. Sports-wise we keep getting passed by...Oh well.
We'll figure out soon enough. Either our ownership group will go full in privately if the ballot fails (which I expect it to) or we don't get a team. Personally on how the ownership group has acted I really don't know what to believe.
This is the same question I had when the Rosenblooms were selling the Rams. Where are the money people in STL? You have August Busch sitting out there with over a billion in money from the sell out. You have his father that made even more, while hurting STL with the sale to Inbev. You have the Taylors. You have countless other wealthy people in town, that have no interest in STL sports.
Is Foundry legit... Could they help get this done. What would be the impact on SC STL's control, if Foundry paid the $80 million. (again, assuming they have the money). Is this an issue of control, at the expense of what is best for STL. Why can't SC STL look for another investor, instead of claiming this could be a dead deal, if they don't get public money. I do not know the financials, but I wonder if this is a losing proposition, if the they spend another dime of private money. Who knows, but $80 million (to extremely wealthy folks) seems to be a drop in the bucket, considering the alternative, losing the entire deal.
It's basically our ownership group doesn't want to dilute the investor's pool or they are just cheap. We're seeing privately funded stadiums in San Jose, Orlando, Minnesota, and Sacramento. City of Sacramento is paying roughly $45 million in infrastructure improvements but it covers more then just the stadium itself.
I'm fine with infrastructure improvements and changes to that intersection. Is SC STL wanting the $80 million for the stadium, on top of infrastructure improvements/interchange redo?
I hate the idea of the City owning the stadium and a 30 year lease being signed. That gives the franchise an escape when the lease is up, assuming the franchise wants to move. I know 30 years is a long time, but when a team owns the facility, they are vested in the City. It forces them to make it work in the market. That is my biggest beef with the City owning the stadium.
Now, saying that, again, I also believe that a City has to determine whether or not they will pay up for amenities, even if they are not generating a net positive for the City/State. Do we want to pay for a great amenity, that will make our City better and offer more to newcomers. Since the City is trying to attract and retain young professionals, this is one way to do it. Soccer is very popular with everyone, but especially younger generations. Soccer is a growing sport in the US and could be the next big time US sport, if the sport stays on it's current trajectory. I think we want to be a part of that. We have to determine if the sport's growth potential will make the $80 million investment look like a bargain in 25 years, just as building Bill Bidwell a stadium in the 80s, would have been a bargain and solidified our City as an NFL city. We only have so many chances regarding big time sports. I think this has to be thought through, long and hard. As you can see, I am back and forth on this topic. I can see the benefits, yet also see the flaws. I think we just have to look ahead 25 years and decide if this decision will look better down the road, even though it may not look so hot today.
Why not go ahead with the vote, if they think they can get this done under the current administration? Why delay it and risk pushing this off until Greitens takes over? Wouldn't they want to get this done with the pro-stadium regime still in power?
