Yeah, I read their site. Ambitious and plausible. London, Frankfurt and....Amsterdam. I can see it. Not relevant but Port of Rotterdam is the largest, IIRC, (or busiest) port in Europe. I’d be totally happy with a KLM STL/AMS flight.
Good. If this does happen I would want us to get someone with experience running an airport. That one sounds like a good one.dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑Nov 02, 2019Denver one did not submit a RFQ
A lot of those do, ie Royal Schiphol Group owns and operates Amsterdam’s airport (Schiphol), Rotterdam airport and they own and operate terminal 4 at JFK in NYC.
Amsterdam Schiphol has 71m annual passengers, 3rd busiest in Europe after Heathrow and Charles de Gaulle Airport
- 9,555
Surprised how many heavyweights are interested, Groupe ADP owns and operates Charles De Gaulle (72m) & Orly Airport (33m) in Paris. So operators of Europe’s 2nd and 3rd largest airports are on the list
- 6,119
^Well, this would be the largest and busiest airport in the US to be fully run by a private operator if this happens. It would be a good way to crack open a very large new market. If they can make it work. So I expect there's some motivation there. Where did you find that list db?
- 1,291
Of those, I'd say Royal Schiphol Group is the one I'd most like to see running the airport, should privatization actually happen. They have tons of experience with it, and Schiphol Airport is definitely one of Europe's best. Wouldn't mind the privatization as much if they, or a similarly experienced and highly rated group, won the bid (as long as it's not the CDG group - that's a disaster of an airport).
- 9,555
The way Grow Missouri has handled the process for this so far has been criminal, ultimatetly I think the pressure will be too much and the Mayor will have to pull the plug on this. But let’s say it keeps going and it gets to the Board of Alderman, I think right now it’s short of 15 votes it needs, 3-4 north side alders will decide it and if I was them I would leverage my vote for 60% of the proceeds to be invested in north city (10 central and 30 in south).
^In that scenario wouldn’t any Central Corridor or Southside aldermen withhold support?
- 9,555
If they have no shame, sure.wabash wrote: ↑Nov 04, 2019^In that scenario wouldn’t any Central Corridor or Southside aldermen withhold support?
Why would they have shame in wanting their constituents to benefit proportionally from the leasing of an asset owned by the entire City?
- 9,555
Because the entire city will benefit a lot more if the airport proceeds are invested in north city. 60% should be the floor
Perhaps it would have the greatest benefit, since the Northside has historically had a significant lack of investment. Although others could reasonably be of the opinion that the Central Corridor would create the greatest benefit (as the economic and employment center of the City) or that the Southside would create the greatest benefit (as the highest population area of the City).
Hence, in the case that there are lease proceeds, it might be best to spread investment proportionally across the City to support areas with a diversity of characteristics instead of picking favorites.
Hence, in the case that there are lease proceeds, it might be best to spread investment proportionally across the City to support areas with a diversity of characteristics instead of picking favorites.
- 2,419
Doing something to provide amenities and services to North City, to stop the population loss, seems pretty prudent to me.
We can't do this. This is STL, we're only allowed to think in terms of North & South. Any plan that makes sense just won't work here.Hence, in the case that there are lease proceeds, it might be best to spread investment proportionally across the City to support areas with a diversity of characteristics instead of picking favorites.
For sure. I think there’s unanimous agreement on that. There’s no lack of prudent investments across the city.KansasCitian wrote:Doing something to provide amenities and services to North City, to stop the population loss, seems pretty prudent to me.
- 9,555
Interesting- do you think in the last 30 years the City has proportionally pushed investment across the City?wabash wrote: ↑Nov 04, 2019
Hence, in the case that there are lease proceeds, it might be best to spread investment proportionally across the City to support areas with a diversity of characteristics instead of picking favorites.
which part of investing in depressed part of the City doesn't make sense to you?olvidarte wrote: ↑Nov 04, 2019We can't do this. This is STL, we're only allowed to think in terms of North & South. Any plan that makes sense just won't work here.Hence, in the case that there are lease proceeds, it might be best to spread investment proportionally across the City to support areas with a diversity of characteristics instead of picking favorites.
- 2,419
I'd say some investments are a bit more prudent than others.wabash wrote: ↑Nov 04, 2019For sure. I think there’s unanimous agreement on that. There’s no lack of prudent investments across the city.KansasCitian wrote:Doing something to provide amenities and services to North City, to stop the population loss, seems pretty prudent to me.
I don’t think you’re going to get any pushback on that one either.KansasCitian wrote: I'd say some investments are a bit more prudent than others.
DB, to your question, no I don’t think investment has been equally allocated over the last 30 years. This could be a great time to start.
- 9,555
Which is why 60-10-30 makes a lot of sense, to catch up for criminality of the past
This is like when that one white guy everyone knows says “the job should go to the best person for the job and nobody should get a leg up”.....ask that guy if he thinks in the last 100 years of every white persons that got a job if they were the best for it over a minority that also applied. There is no justice until the past wrongs have been accounted for.
This is like when that one white guy everyone knows says “the job should go to the best person for the job and nobody should get a leg up”.....ask that guy if he thinks in the last 100 years of every white persons that got a job if they were the best for it over a minority that also applied. There is no justice until the past wrongs have been accounted for.
^That would continue the same practices of the last 30+ years except with different winners and losers. You’d be maintaining the exact approach that generated the problems trying to be addressed, which seems irrational to me. But I get that you’d like to see airport funds address past imbalances.
Give some examples of city budget expenses that are disproportional across the city.dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑Nov 04, 2019Interesting- do you think in the last 30 years the City has proportionally pushed investment across the City?wabash wrote: ↑Nov 04, 2019
Hence, in the case that there are lease proceeds, it might be best to spread investment proportionally across the City to support areas with a diversity of characteristics instead of picking favorites.
- 9,555
The city has no money to invest anywhere, it’s spends 70% of its budget on personnel costs.flipz wrote: ↑Nov 04, 2019Give some examples of city budget expenses that are disproportional across the city.dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑Nov 04, 2019Interesting- do you think in the last 30 years the City has proportionally pushed investment across the City?wabash wrote: ↑Nov 04, 2019
Hence, in the case that there are lease proceeds, it might be best to spread investment proportionally across the City to support areas with a diversity of characteristics instead of picking favorites.
"I believe we ought to do all we can and seek to lift ourselves by our own boot straps, but it's a cruel jest to say to a bootless man that he ought to lift himself by his own bootstraps."flipz wrote: ↑Nov 04, 2019Give some examples of city budget expenses that are disproportional across the city.dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑Nov 04, 2019Interesting- do you think in the last 30 years the City has proportionally pushed investment across the City?wabash wrote: ↑Nov 04, 2019
Hence, in the case that there are lease proceeds, it might be best to spread investment proportionally across the City to support areas with a diversity of characteristics instead of picking favorites.
Parts of north St. Louis need 5x the annual ward budget for the next decade just to bring their capital improvement to a standard parts of south St. Louis demands/expects.
All of this to rebuild from assassination by urban renewal. All they’ve gotten in return so far is a “fair” budget.