If you believe that a city funding an NFL team has the same positive economic impact as other spending options, then that should be demonstrated. I don't believe that a city's ROI for pro sports matches that of other economic development tools.
- 2,386
^That is a fair point and I agree.
I cannot quantify it and even those who attempt to I imagine would never be able to precisely quantify the exact Return.
IMHO it is a pretty black and white issue, much like many other political points. You either want the team here or don't want any public money spent on it. There doesn't seem to be much convincing of the other side in any location around the country, especially right now. I guess it comes down to rather or not the elected officials in said regions are football fans
I cannot quantify it and even those who attempt to I imagine would never be able to precisely quantify the exact Return.
IMHO it is a pretty black and white issue, much like many other political points. You either want the team here or don't want any public money spent on it. There doesn't seem to be much convincing of the other side in any location around the country, especially right now. I guess it comes down to rather or not the elected officials in said regions are football fans
- 11K
^ I'm certainly in favor of spending some money to keep the Rams here. The question for me is how much. A small number say whatever it takes and a small group says none at all. Even though the exact return won't be agreed upon, it's incredibly important to understand what it is, even a ballpark figure.
If the Rams agree (they won't) to the $60M from St. Louis I'll rejoice and consider it a relative bargain!
If the Rams agree (they won't) to the $60M from St. Louis I'll rejoice and consider it a relative bargain!
- 396
Who knows how much it brings to the city and whether or not a company would move here for the Rams... It is about quality of life. People live in a place that has a variety of things to do. Some live by the mountains or the ocean, which we do not have. Some love gritty urban areas with mass transit etc. Some like suburban areas or rural communities. Some people like myself, buy loft condos in a downtown that has a variety of nightlife, cafe's, great architecture and is in within walking distance to 3 major sports stadiums. I happened to think that it was selling point in my purchase... Why? Quality of life!
When I go to my office and make money, I want to spend it on things that I like including entertainment such as the Rams. So not sure how you quantify it, or if we can host a super bowl, more concerts, boat shows etc with these improvements, but I love the Rams and I can't wait to walk over and have a beer on the beer garden while gazing at the skyline before the game!
When I go to my office and make money, I want to spend it on things that I like including entertainment such as the Rams. So not sure how you quantify it, or if we can host a super bowl, more concerts, boat shows etc with these improvements, but I love the Rams and I can't wait to walk over and have a beer on the beer garden while gazing at the skyline before the game!
- 2,386
^^That would be a bargain and I think the whole city should rejoice as stated if that happens.
The plan looks decent to me. I am surprised there is no murmur at all about removing I-70 especially considering the new "plaza" and building will basically look directly at the elevated lanes. Would make this proposed space MUCH more attractive and accessible to do so.
Think Stan K reads NextSTL?
The plan looks decent to me. I am surprised there is no murmur at all about removing I-70 especially considering the new "plaza" and building will basically look directly at the elevated lanes. Would make this proposed space MUCH more attractive and accessible to do so.
Think Stan K reads NextSTL?
- 3,433
- 11K
^ Also in the nextSTL story (of course): http://nextstl.com/downtown/st-louis-cv ... -keep-rams
I understand the "quality of life" issue, but again, if it's a significant force, it should result in added residents to the city or region, added jobs and corporate headquarters.
I understand the "quality of life" issue, but again, if it's a significant force, it should result in added residents to the city or region, added jobs and corporate headquarters.
I am sorry, but anyone who is questioning if spending $124 Million (half of it tax payer money) towards upgrading the dome and keeping the Rams is a good idea from an economics standpoint, but has no problems with spending $553 Million for the renovation of the Arch grounds, should now be quiet.
- 11K
^ Who has no problems with spending $553M for renovating the Arch grounds? And how much of that will be paid for by City/County/State taxpayers?
It would be nice to get Stan the message on I-70 and the effort/idea to remove it. It's hard to imagine that it wouldn't have a lot of appeal to him.newstl2020 wrote:^^That would be a bargain and I think the whole city should rejoice as stated if that happens.
The plan looks decent to me. I am surprised there is no murmur at all about removing I-70 especially considering the new "plaza" and building will basically look directly at the elevated lanes. Would make this proposed space MUCH more attractive and accessible to do so.
Think Stan K reads NextSTL?
- 3,433
This morning on the radio I believe CVC said they already have $22 million in reserve to apply to the upgrade. That leaves $38 million to raise. If they split the cost as they did before, the state's share would be $19 million, County $9.5 million, and the City $9.5 million.
The Post had this:
So the $1.5 million in taxes generated by the dome each year * 6.33 years = $9.5 million. I assume most of it comes from Rams games -- what else draws 66K people to the dome. So if the Rams leave, the city will likely lose most of the $1.5 million a year in amusement taxes forever after the 6.3 year diversion. You wouldn't want to vote against that would you? You would be depriving the city of $1.5 million per year (after 6.3 years) and that money could be used to lower your taxes. Of course, if you are opposed to lowering your own taxes, then forget this and let the Rams leave.
The Post had this:
Read more: http://www.stltoday.com/sports/football ... z1lF0Jcn00Rainford said a vote of the people also would be needed to direct city amusement tax generated at the Dome — about $1.5 million per season — towards paying for the improvements.
So the $1.5 million in taxes generated by the dome each year * 6.33 years = $9.5 million. I assume most of it comes from Rams games -- what else draws 66K people to the dome. So if the Rams leave, the city will likely lose most of the $1.5 million a year in amusement taxes forever after the 6.3 year diversion. You wouldn't want to vote against that would you? You would be depriving the city of $1.5 million per year (after 6.3 years) and that money could be used to lower your taxes. Of course, if you are opposed to lowering your own taxes, then forget this and let the Rams leave.
- 11K
^ If the Rams agree to stay and the public expense is $38M and amusement tax can be put toward that amount and the state, county and city agree to fund the improvements as you state over the course of 10yrs (the lease is up in 2025), then it would be a huge win for St. Louis, a real bargain. I imagine that the Rams ideas are going to greatly inflate the public money needed. We'll see. No one seems willing to say that it's worth $60M to keep the Rams, but not $300M... There's a number in there that matters - it's worth talking about what that is. With $22M in hand, and $1.5M/yr over 10 years (total $37M), a gap of $23M seems tiny, but again, the Rams will have their own numbers.
I believe that is what it is going to take at the end of the day. Powers to be from local to state to MoDOT are not going to pursue it until someone like Stan K tells them to get their head out of the sand and demand it. That is painstakingly clear and obvious with Arch Grounds Design. The reality is that Stan K needs an outline of development potential that revolves around an at grade Boulevard. It is simply the only place where he can derive a significant increase in revenues, if not indirectly, from keeping the Rams in St. Louis.Alex Ihnen wrote:It would be nice to get Stan the message on I-70 and the effort/idea to remove it. It's hard to imagine that it wouldn't have a lot of appeal to him.newstl2020 wrote:^^That would be a bargain and I think the whole city should rejoice as stated if that happens.
The plan looks decent to me. I am surprised there is no murmur at all about removing I-70 especially considering the new "plaza" and building will basically look directly at the elevated lanes. Would make this proposed space MUCH more attractive and accessible to do so.
Think Stan K reads NextSTL?
A billion dollar stadium in St. Louis won't make the Rams more valuable nor will 7 days of parking revenues be worth much to a billionaire. However, getting a shot at developing a piece of downtown might be the trick.
First, start by putting a slim high rise rendering next to the proposed VIP building/walkay. Tell him that the land is his for a buck if he builds it and whatever profits he derives from it is his. Second, show the rendering of the proposed at grade Boulevard and make a public statement to Pinnacle about taking back property for not holding up their end of the bargain, 60 million investment outside of the casino, and so on. Third, I think McKee basically stated this morning that he wanted the Bottleworks to be part of keeping Rams here. Why not, both Pinnacle's phase II and Bottleworks have retail components, right up Stan K's alley.
It seems not many. I haven't seen much outcry, or even solid research, about the cost vs. benefit of the Arch plans.Alex Ihnen wrote:^ Who has no problems with spending $553M for renovating the Arch grounds? And how much of that will be paid for by City/County/State taxpayers?
As you know, we don't know yet exactly where funding will be coming from. Some of it will come from the Federal Government (tax payers). State (MoDOT) and City funding will no doubt be involved (tax payers).
Even the money coming from private donations does not come out of thin air. This money can only be spent once and will surely empty the coffers, thereby diminishing or depleting funds for other local projects that depend on donations.
If he was interested in developing a piece of downtown he would have bought the Bottle District site.dredger wrote:A billion dollar stadium in St. Louis won't make the Rams more valuable nor will 7 days of parking revenues be worth much to a billionaire. However, getting a shot at developing a piece of downtown might be the trick.
The Urbanists that say the Rams should leave are severely discounting the "intrinsic" value of the having the Rams stay in St. Louis. A value, most of us agree, is almost impossible to calculate.
Quite frankly, the argument sounds all too similar to the Suburbanite argument against any improvement to "The City" (e.g.; merging the county and the city, MSA wide funding for mass transit, improving public schools etc.) because the "The City" is beyond help. An argument several Urbanists decry because the intrinsic value they see in "The City".
The irony is amusing to me.
Someone add up the dollars needed for rehabbing the Pevely Complex and all the time spent trying to lure a developer that has the $75M for Historic Preservation-friendly build-out. On paper, that is going to cost way more than Biondi and Co. who are tee'd up to develop that site as they see fit. However, accepting Biondi's plan would be discounting the intrinsic value of maintaining a Historic Building in the City.
The Rams (and the Pevely Complex, fwiw) are very much a part of the fabric of St. Louis. St. Louis is part of a very closed door collection of 32 cities (less than that, actually) that have NFL Franchises. I'm sorry I don't have a spreadsheet to somehow explain how cool that is. Of course there is a value.
Tax me as you see fit. I want the Rams to stay (and MSA wide mass transit, if you're asking)
Quite frankly, the argument sounds all too similar to the Suburbanite argument against any improvement to "The City" (e.g.; merging the county and the city, MSA wide funding for mass transit, improving public schools etc.) because the "The City" is beyond help. An argument several Urbanists decry because the intrinsic value they see in "The City".
The irony is amusing to me.
Someone add up the dollars needed for rehabbing the Pevely Complex and all the time spent trying to lure a developer that has the $75M for Historic Preservation-friendly build-out. On paper, that is going to cost way more than Biondi and Co. who are tee'd up to develop that site as they see fit. However, accepting Biondi's plan would be discounting the intrinsic value of maintaining a Historic Building in the City.
The Rams (and the Pevely Complex, fwiw) are very much a part of the fabric of St. Louis. St. Louis is part of a very closed door collection of 32 cities (less than that, actually) that have NFL Franchises. I'm sorry I don't have a spreadsheet to somehow explain how cool that is. Of course there is a value.
Tax me as you see fit. I want the Rams to stay (and MSA wide mass transit, if you're asking)
From today's P-D article by Tim Logan:
(Mckee) confirmed that his deal to buy a share of the Bottle District site from developers Clayco and Larry Chapman closed in December, and suggested it might play a role in the Edward Jones Dome plans.
“We’re so pleased with the potential there,” he said. “And with all the talk about the stadium, we’re willing to do whatever we can to support that.”
Source
(Mckee) confirmed that his deal to buy a share of the Bottle District site from developers Clayco and Larry Chapman closed in December, and suggested it might play a role in the Edward Jones Dome plans.
“We’re so pleased with the potential there,” he said. “And with all the talk about the stadium, we’re willing to do whatever we can to support that.”
Source
- 62
Thank you ttricamo. I couldn't have said it better. Just because a lot of urbanists on this forum don't see the value in keeping the Rams doesn't mean all of St. Louis doesn't. The NFL is the most popular sport in America. It's constantly being shoved down our throats 24/7 on ESPN and other networks (even during offseason). When the Rams regain prominence, which I think they will, more light will be shed on the city of St. Louis, which is what everyone on this forum begs for every day. And with more exposure comes more revenue, more developments, and more positivity for the city. If the option of letting the Rams go was tossed out there 12 years ago after we won a Super Bowl people would have looked at you like you were insane. I think the television statistics for the past 2 seasons prove that St. Louis is begging to see good football again. The viewership was the highest it's been in 10 years. People are very interested, but they just couldn't bear to bring themselves to a game this season because of how poorly it turned out. Give Fisher and his experienced staff a few years and we'll be back talking about good football again.ttricamo wrote:The Urbanists that say the Rams should leave are severely discounting the "intrinsic" value of the having the Rams stay in St. Louis. A value, most of us agree, is almost impossible to calculate.
Quite frankly, the argument sounds all too similar to the Suburbanite argument against any improvement to "The City" (e.g.; merging the county and the city, MSA wide funding for mass transit, improving public schools etc.) because the "The City" is beyond help. An argument several Urbanists decry because the intrinsic value they see in "The City".
The irony is amusing to me.
I think there is a general consensus in St. Louis, among "Urbanists" and "Ram fans" alike, that it would be best for the city if the Rams were to stay. The point that Alex and others are making is that there is a price that is too high. If we're not realistic with ourselves about that now, and if we're not prepared to let the Rams leave if they demand too high a price, then we will overpay.
Oh God, THIS. SO MUCH. All of it.ttricamo wrote:The Urbanists that say the Rams should leave are severely discounting the "intrinsic" value of the having the Rams stay in St. Louis. A value, most of us agree, is almost impossible to calculate.
Quite frankly, the argument sounds all too similar to the Suburbanite argument against any improvement to "The City" (e.g.; merging the county and the city, MSA wide funding for mass transit, improving public schools etc.) because the "The City" is beyond help. An argument several Urbanists decry because the intrinsic value they see in "The City".
The irony is amusing to me.
Someone add up the dollars needed for rehabbing the Pevely Complex and all the time spent trying to lure a developer that has the $75M for Historic Preservation-friendly build-out. On paper, that is going to cost way more than Biondi and Co. who are tee'd up to develop that site as they see fit. However, accepting Biondi's plan would be discounting the intrinsic value of maintaining a Historic Building in the City.
The Rams (and the Pevely Complex, fwiw) are very much a part of the fabric of St. Louis. St. Louis is part of a very closed door collection of 32 cities (less than that, actually) that have NFL Franchises. I'm sorry I don't have a spreadsheet to somehow explain how cool that is. Of course there is a value.
Tax me as you see fit. I want the Rams to stay (and MSA wide mass transit, if you're asking)
I echo all of these statements.
- 11K
I'll go ahead and assume that I'm one being referred to derisively as an "urbanist". I want the Rams to stay. I think they add value to the city. I want to know how much it's worth to keep them. I want to know how we are to know that "...with more exposure comes more revenue, more developments..." This is no more proven than saying that they have zero positive impact. So aren't we back to asking how much is it worth? $60M? Sold! $100M? Sure. $150M? Probably.... $500M? No.
The problem is that one person can't say "tax me as you see fit" - you can only say, "tax all of us as I see fit." There are absolutely the same questions for historic preservation and any public expenditure. I don't believe any building should be saved at all costs. I certainly don't believe that Pevely should be saved if it cost $75M. Again, no one seems willing to talk about HOW MUCH the Rams are worth to STL. And make no mistake, it's a money game for Kroenke and the city, so just saying your a fan and we should do whatever it takes is rather meaningless.
The problem is that one person can't say "tax me as you see fit" - you can only say, "tax all of us as I see fit." There are absolutely the same questions for historic preservation and any public expenditure. I don't believe any building should be saved at all costs. I certainly don't believe that Pevely should be saved if it cost $75M. Again, no one seems willing to talk about HOW MUCH the Rams are worth to STL. And make no mistake, it's a money game for Kroenke and the city, so just saying your a fan and we should do whatever it takes is rather meaningless.
LINK: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-0 ... -sour.html
Feb. 2 (Bloomberg) -- While Super Bowl fans are riding zip lines through downtown Indianapolis this week in the runup to the National Football League’s championship game, taxpayers are digging deeper in their pockets to pay for the stadium where the game will be played.
The $720 million Lucas Oil Stadium, where the New York Giants meet the New England Patriots on Feb. 5, has prompted local officials to raise hotel, restaurant and rental car taxes, and make other payments on top of about $43 million in unexpected financing costs related to their sports and convention facilities.
“They said, ‘We’re going to have one great fantastic party with an unbelievable advertisement for Indianapolis and it isn’t going to cost taxpayers a dime,’” said Pat Andrews, 60, a blogger and community activist who ran unsuccessfully for City Council last year. “Well, baloney.”
Plans for the 63,000-seat stadium that opened in 2008 as the home of the Indianapolis Colts were unveiled almost a decade ago. Since then, the collapse of the auction-rate bond market has led officials to restructure what grew to $666.5 million of public debt.
Interesting. From the comments section of that article, from a "Proud Indianapolis Resident":Alex Ihnen wrote:LINK: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-0 ... -sour.html
Feb. 2 (Bloomberg) -- While Super Bowl fans are riding zip lines through downtown Indianapolis this week in the runup to the National Football League’s championship game, taxpayers are digging deeper in their pockets to pay for the stadium where the game will be played.
The $720 million Lucas Oil Stadium, where the New York Giants meet the New England Patriots on Feb. 5, has prompted local officials to raise hotel, restaurant and rental car taxes, and make other payments on top of about $43 million in unexpected financing costs related to their sports and convention facilities.
“They said, ‘We’re going to have one great fantastic party with an unbelievable advertisement for Indianapolis and it isn’t going to cost taxpayers a dime,’” said Pat Andrews, 60, a blogger and community activist who ran unsuccessfully for City Council last year. “Well, baloney.”
Plans for the 63,000-seat stadium that opened in 2008 as the home of the Indianapolis Colts were unveiled almost a decade ago. Since then, the collapse of the auction-rate bond market has led officials to restructure what grew to $666.5 million of public debt.
Glad to see Indianapolis is more unified, and forward-thinking as a taxpaying-voter base.There are some mistakes in the reporting of this story. The residents of Marion County and the surrounding counties had the opportunity to vote on the tax increases for the new stadium and expanded convention center. People realized that in order to be able to keep large conventions coming to Indianapolis and to attract new conventions that the convention center needed to be expanded and updated. We approved the tax and now the CIB is in the operating black and our downtown is vibratnt with visitors from all over the U.S. and the world. I do not see these things happening in Louisville, St. Louis or Chicago.
More and more, I'm feeling that's the city to take my talents to once out of law school.
I know you want the Rams to stay and I'm not attacking you or any other Urbanist; I consider myself and Urbanist. I also agree that there is a ceiling or a limit to how much we as tax payers should spend for keeping the Rams here; Its definitely approaching Lucas Oil stadium prices.Alex Ihnen wrote:I'll go ahead and assume that I'm one being referred to derisively as an "urbanist". I want the Rams to stay. I think they add value to the city. I want to know how much it's worth to keep them. I want to know how we are to know that "...with more exposure comes more revenue, more developments..." This is no more proven than saying that they have zero positive impact. So aren't we back to asking how much is it worth? $60M? Sold! $100M? Sure. $150M? Probably.... $500M?
I'm merely pointing out the irony in the two situations.
Before I respond to this I want you and everyone else to know I think Pevely should be spared from the wrecking ball. The reaction from preservationists, while warranted, was done in haste (and had to be). If someone, even since the Preservation Board meeting, has put together the projected costs associated with building around and renovating the Historic portion of the Pevely complex in lieu of Biondi's plan I'll eat my hat. In the event that analysis has taken place, I'm willing to bet the cost to take the Historic Preservation route is getting towards double the cost of the proposed build-out. Either way, the Preservationists did not account for the added cost; they were concerned about maintaining the Urban fabric of STL, and rightfully so. Basically, I think we all can admit consideration for saving Pevely had almost nothing to do with cost (or the Saucer for that matter)Alex Ihnen wrote:I don't believe any building should be saved at all costs. I certainly don't believe that Pevely should be saved if it cost $75M. Again, no one seems willing to talk about HOW MUCH the Rams are worth to STL.
My point with all of this, by the way, is not meaningless. I completely understand there is tax payer money involved. And I'm fairly confident there will be some level of due diligence in reviewing the financials for the upgrades to the stadium(and apparently the opportunity to vote about the tax increase) I'm merely pointing out that I would happily give my fair share to keep the Rams in St. Louis.
More conversation fodder:
Arch Ground Revitalization = ~$500M
Rams Upgrades = (realistically) ~$250M
which one has the bigger impact on STL? For the money spent, the ROI, and especially considering the current iteration of the Arch Ground plans, LET'S GO RAMS!!!!
- 11K
^ I'll likely agree with you on the Arch grounds. Re: Pevely, the SLU proposal could stay the same, or they could move it toward Grand to make it more visible, or they could build the exact same building on the larger lot on the NW corner of Grand/Chouteau. No extra cost there. They could sell the Pevely complex. I don't necessarily want to force SLU to renovate Pevely, I want it in the hands of someone who will. And yes, there was a developer who tried. My stance is that it's worth waiting longer to find financing. (all in another thread, I guess)
Anyway, one of the points in Indy is that voters didn't vote for the now ballooning debt. They couldn't have foreseen bond market issues, but it was a real (and likely underestimated) risk. The city will pay more than what voters thought they were voting for.
Anyway, one of the points in Indy is that voters didn't vote for the now ballooning debt. They couldn't have foreseen bond market issues, but it was a real (and likely underestimated) risk. The city will pay more than what voters thought they were voting for.