That is correct. There was originally a concern that the proposal would not even been revenue neutral because the use tax increase might not cover the city's payment obligations. The fear was the city would possibly have to dip into general funds to pay this and the city's credit rating would drop.STLrainbow wrote: ↑Jan 27, 2017Grover, I may be wrong but I believe the reason that the amended bill is now seen as "revenue positive" by some is that an amusement tax would be assessed on ticket sales and part of the TIF money that would otherwise have gone to McKee would now go to pay for the stadium (although he would have to agree to that). It's these new revenue streams that make the burden less and may return an actual surplus through overall tax receipts.. I believe they also are supposed to have an agreement that SC STL would make up the difference if use tax revenue was less than projected so that no money would come from the city's general revenue.
Once the amendment was added the SC STL would make up any difference if the use tax comes up short, that guaranteed this would be revenue neutral. Adding back 50% of the ticket tax and reclaiming the TIF money shifted this to "revenue positive".
But again, all of this is viewed through the lens of the use tax increase being a new revenue source generated by the MLS proposal (which is stretching the truth, if you ask me).
- 103
So what do we think the odds of this passing the city wide vote are?
- 249
MLS expansion: why cities are deciding stadiums are 'welfare for millionaires'
https://www.theguardian.com/football/bl ... ums-soccer
https://www.theguardian.com/football/bl ... ums-soccer
- 9,566
Jason Rosenbaum @jrosenbaum 3h
ICYMI: St. Louis' #mls2stl stadium hinges on involvement from entity that @EricGreitens doesn't control:
http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/st- ... ment-state
ICYMI: St. Louis' #mls2stl stadium hinges on involvement from entity that @EricGreitens doesn't control:
http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/st- ... ment-state
- 11K
Very, to very very high, IMO.cardinalstl wrote: ↑Jan 31, 2017So what do we think the odds of this passing the city wide vote are?
- 9,566
^ Only poll im aware said 21% in favor, 62 against & 17 undecided.
- 7
For some perspective, in the 2013 St. Louis municipal general election, 25,256 votes were cast. Should turnout be similar this year, only 13,000 votes may be needed for a yea on the measure.
Was that the BJ poll? I believe that was polled before the new amendments were added to the bill. My understanding is SC STL feels very confident this will pass in an April vote.dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑Jan 31, 2017^ Only poll im aware said 21% in favor, 62 against & 17 undecided.
- 2,430
^ If they're confident they are going to win they are going lose... it's an uphill climb imo. We''ll see how Comptroller Green feels about the numbers.
Hopefully we'll see considerably more people voting this time around... with Slay out, a couple important tax measures and a general sense of renewed activism post-Trump inauguration I'll be really disappointed if we have same ole low turnoutLordOfLindenwoodPark wrote: ↑Jan 31, 2017For some perspective, in the 2013 St. Louis municipal general election, 25,256 votes were cast. Should turnout be similar this year, only 13,000 votes may be needed for a yea on the measure.
I don't think the amendments will make that big of a difference in the eyes of most voters. But even if the amendments cause 90% of undecided voters to say yes, and swings a few percent of the no to yes, this proposal would still lose by 20 points.dmelsh wrote: ↑Jan 31, 2017Was that the BJ poll? I believe that was polled before the new amendments were added to the bill. My understanding is SC STL feels very confident this will pass in an April vote.dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑Jan 31, 2017^ Only poll im aware said 21% in favor, 62 against & 17 undecided.
I think the best thing SC STL can hope for is low turnout. The more people vote, the more likely this fails. I think it is much easier to motivate a small group of passionate soccer fans to turnout and vote than it is for the opposition. For those reasons, I think the vote will be fairly close, but as of today, I would bet on it failing.
Was that poll done before or after the latest committee hearings? The legislation has changed quite a bit over the last two weeks.
I'd be surprised if it passes. It would have to be a massive swing in the polling numbers for it even be close. Grover is right, assuming even 100% of the undecideds go for the stadium, it's still at 61% no.
- 3,767
There will be a massive advertising campaign, TV, radio, billboards, etc. I would guess of a lot of grassroot efforts in favor will also sprout up. The Louligans will be very active in getting this thing passed. There will be a strong young/millennial turnout in favor. I think the Alderman that are opposed to this, will have to really work hard to get their constituents to show up at the polls. I think these polls can swing big time, with some help from extensive ads. Not to mention, many of those polls were taken before this went from a revenue negative deal to revenue positive. I would not put too much in to the polls, prior to the negotiated deal last Thursday down at City Hall. A lot has changed in the last several days. Even Alderman Ogilve is on board. That is saying something. He did a great job in negotiating a deal that made this a revenue positive for the City. That should help boost the perceptions that this is a bad deal.
- 1,610
Interesting that an STL bid isn't yet up on the MLS Expansion Bid page: http://www.mlssoccer.com/topic/expansio ... ities-bids even though the deadline is today...
- 1,864
Watch Peacock et al to miss the deadline and/or try to put in a bid with actual documents being delivered at a later date.
I'm seeing reports on Twitter that it's been officially submitted, so I'd expect to see that page updated soon.
It is slow. A bunch of teams announced they submitted this morning and still aren't on therericke002 wrote: ↑Jan 31, 2017Interesting that an STL bid isn't yet up on the MLS Expansion Bid page: http://www.mlssoccer.com/topic/expansio ... ities-bids even though the deadline is today...
- 9,566
Back to what poll it was; it was done as part of a mayoral race poll, no an online business journal poll
Also the April race could be very different than past April races.
Also the April race could be very different than past April races.
- 2,634
I want to see a rendering of the stadium looking from the intersection of 20th and Eugenia streets. Hopefully there is an entrance that goes right into the Union Station train shed
Personally, I would like to see a fly around similar to the one used for the Rams Proposal.GoHarvOrGoHome wrote:I want to see a rendering of the stadium looking from the intersection of 20th and Eugenia streets. Hopefully there is an entrance that goes right into the Union Station train shed
- 2,430
Sounds like the presentations will be made to MLS in late Spring, per a report from Detroit. I imagine they'll take their time to make a decision... it appears that just about everybody except perhaps Sacramento has some deficiency either in site procurement or financing at the moment. Having another MIami situation probably is something they want to avoid.
- 1,054
From looking at the several proposals, I see St Louis and Sacramento getting the picks. I did some sleuthing and no one else has received as much personal attention from the MLS as St Louis has. St Louis also has what appears to be one of the few that has a site picked out, while the rest are "focusing" on sites. If all goes to plan, St Louis will get it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk