Lesson: Don't ask for actual financials if Conway is in favor of something.
- 2,430
^ funny how conway and vacarro, the two who boo-hood to KMOV about the $22,000 Jones spent on travel over four years were the ones in committee who didn't give two shits whether the stadium funding bill was fiscally responsible or not. this city needs sweeping change.
i dont have faith that this bill could pass in a public vote, even if it were $1 million. a surprising amount of people are outspoken against giving money to sports, no matter how much or what the impact could be.
- 1,864
And ironically many of those who are going insane for stadium don't even live in the city. This entire financial plan is BS and I'm glad that it's not being rushed through.
The tide has definitely swung away from public subsidies; people are just plain tired of developers asking for "handouts". Anecdotally, the vast majority of my Facebook friends - from all political persuasions - are strongly and vocally opposed to any more sports funding or TIFS.
Agree wholeheartedly on those two. Prime "Berniecrat" targets, IMO.STLrainbow wrote: ↑Jan 19, 2017^ funny how conway and vacarro, the two who boo-hood to KMOV about the $22,000 Jones spent on travel over four years were the ones in committee who didn't give two shits whether the stadium funding bill was fiscally responsible or not. this city needs sweeping change.
Same thing happened with the Rams stadium. The abuse hurled towards Green, French, Olgilvie, etc over various social media was insane. Upwards of 90% of the vitriol coming from west of Skinker or east of strip club land.chaifetz10 wrote: ↑Jan 19, 2017And ironically many of those who are going insane for stadium don't even live in the city. This entire financial plan is BS and I'm glad that it's not being rushed through.
I would say that we won't have a agreement until this time next year
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- 289
I'm sure this has already been discussed, but why can't they just put an extra sales tax solely on purchases made within the stadium like what Nashville wants to do? Seems like the fairest and easiest way to have County folks chip in.
They are for part of it 1/6th. I dont' know why they can't put it towards more of it though.SouthCityJR wrote: ↑Jan 19, 2017I'm sure this has already been discussed, but why can't they just put an extra sales tax solely on purchases made within the stadium like what Nashville wants to do? Seems like the fairest and easiest way to have County folks chip in.
- 516
Probably because taxes on popcorn and beer sold at the Stadium for 20 soccer matches a year won't cover $60 million.jshank83 wrote: ↑Jan 19, 2017They are for part of it 1/6th. I dont' know why they can't put it towards more of it though.SouthCityJR wrote: ↑Jan 19, 2017I'm sure this has already been discussed, but why can't they just put an extra sales tax solely on purchases made within the stadium like what Nashville wants to do? Seems like the fairest and easiest way to have County folks chip in.
^ South Compton makes a good point. You don't have nearly the attendance & say games of Busch Stadium nor do you have the nearly events/flexibility of the Scottrade/Blues to bring in additional sales tax revenues.
What little I have looked at for other MSL franchise expansion plans or deals appear to be either an outright ask for some help as in this case or some type of real estate deal attached. In some ways could see a new plan where the stadium proposal moves to south city industrial space with some type of future proposed development (Soccer Village). I still think having West Downtown stadium next to rebuilt 22nd street grid within proximity & walking distance of Metrolink/Amtrak, Scottrade/Peabody & Busch Stadium still the best overall plan for the city and the soccer franchise.
What little I have looked at for other MSL franchise expansion plans or deals appear to be either an outright ask for some help as in this case or some type of real estate deal attached. In some ways could see a new plan where the stadium proposal moves to south city industrial space with some type of future proposed development (Soccer Village). I still think having West Downtown stadium next to rebuilt 22nd street grid within proximity & walking distance of Metrolink/Amtrak, Scottrade/Peabody & Busch Stadium still the best overall plan for the city and the soccer franchise.
- 2,430
My understanding (from Scott O.) is that a lot of the sales tax that the team won't keep will go to Paul McKee and not the city. And also we'd give up the 5% amusement tax. Vultures all around.south compton wrote: ↑Jan 19, 2017Probably because taxes on popcorn and beer sold at the Stadium for 20 soccer matches a year won't cover $60 million.jshank83 wrote: ↑Jan 19, 2017They are for part of it 1/6th. I dont' know why they can't put it towards more of it though.SouthCityJR wrote: ↑Jan 19, 2017I'm sure this has already been discussed, but why can't they just put an extra sales tax solely on purchases made within the stadium like what Nashville wants to do? Seems like the fairest and easiest way to have County folks chip in.
I would think the alderman can amend the bill however they want. Cutting out Mckee shouldn't be hard to do. There is nothing that says they have to pass it as is. I get tired of excuses from them on things. They don't have to give out TIF money to everyone or just approve bills because their other alderman like something and want the favor back down the road. Change it to what makes sense and say this is what works for us, you can take it or leave it. If Mckee is a deal breaker than I won't feel bad not giving them money. He has stolen enough money from the city already.
My point was if a 1% tax is going to equal 10 million then why not say we are putting a 3% tax on it for 30 million of it. In theory you could put a 6% tax to pay all of it. I know 6% wouldn't happen but I don't know why 2% or 3% is out of the question.south compton wrote: ↑Jan 19, 2017Probably because taxes on popcorn and beer sold at the Stadium for 20 soccer matches a year won't cover $60 million.jshank83 wrote: ↑Jan 19, 2017They are for part of it 1/6th. I dont' know why they can't put it towards more of it though.SouthCityJR wrote: ↑Jan 19, 2017I'm sure this has already been discussed, but why can't they just put an extra sales tax solely on purchases made within the stadium like what Nashville wants to do? Seems like the fairest and easiest way to have County folks chip in.
I'm hoping this still goes to a vote. I mean it's basically the opposite problem of the Rams deal. The city voters didn't get a say in that stadium deal and it sounds like we might not get a voters say in this deal either. The whole point of that amendment was to let voters decide if we should pay for a stadium. Bad deal or not
- 170
The key element in my mind is that once it goes to the voters, it's just an up or down proposition. The alderman have the chance to negotiate such that they are presenting the best possible deal to their constituents. Just because it's going to a vote doesn't mean the alderman should bail out of the process. Instead, they should be using this as an opportunity to pull some concessions out of SC STL since the voters won't be able to do so. All that said, I hope it goes to a vote, too.joelo wrote: ↑Jan 20, 2017I'm hoping this still goes to a vote. I mean it's basically the opposite problem of the Rams deal. The city voters didn't get a say in that stadium deal and it sounds like we might not get a voters say in this deal either. The whole point of that amendment was to let voters decide if we should pay for a stadium. Bad deal or not
- 1,868
Wasn't the likelihood of non-MLS usage part of the justification for building? Seems a little contradictory.south compton wrote: ↑Jan 19, 2017Probably because taxes on popcorn and beer sold at the Stadium for 20 soccer matches a year won't cover $60 million.
Scott Ogilvie posted a great response to #LetSTLVote fervor: http://www.ward24stl.com/news/2017/1/21 ... ls-stadium
I doubt many of those people will read it.
I understand the sentiment behind wanting the vote, and I agree that it should happen, but not until we have all of the facts and details which are clearly missing.
I doubt many of those people will read it.
I understand the sentiment behind wanting the vote, and I agree that it should happen, but not until we have all of the facts and details which are clearly missing.
- 1,792
Can a TIF be modified after it is passed. I agree that Paul McKee who has contributed nothing to bringing an MLS team to St. Louis should not receive ANY tax revenue from a stadium. What are the legal restrictions to cutting him out of this.
You know what, if McKee presents a strong, actionable proposal on mixed use development in the land he owns near the stadium, I would be more than happy to consider him for tax revenue
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- 1,792
^id agree bid he came with his own development rather than just waiting until somebody came along who needed a big chunk of land. He basically did the same with NGA. Wait for the city to do all the work. It's a parasitic relationship.
- 1,864
And the city can't cancel the agreement them have with him because why exactly? If it's a bill or amendment they can easily enact new legislation overturning it. If it's due to contract law they can cancel the agreement for non-performance or possibly even convenience (I know it works for federal contracts). McKee has proven dozens (if not hundreds) of times that he can't hold up his end of the bargain. Just cancel/end it already.
Charlotte is in a county? Weird.
Charlotte Biz Journal - Mecklenburg County discloses details of Charlotte's MLS stadium proposal
Charlotte Biz Journal - Mecklenburg County discloses details of Charlotte's MLS stadium proposal
http://www.bizjournals.com/charlotte/ne ... ottes.htmlMecklenburg County released terms of the proposed Major League Soccer stadium on Friday, confirming previous reports by CBJ of a project totaling $175 million for a 20,000-seat stadium and costs divided evenly between team owners and local government.
- 3,767
Dave Peacock & Scott Ogilvie on 590 AM this morning:
http://insidestl.com/dave-peacock-talks ... is/1986392
Peacock said if the vote happens and fails to pass, SC STL and their efforts are done.
http://insidestl.com/st-louis-alderman-ogilvie/1986409
Ogilvie had a good point. WHY is this group not taxing the tickets and other stadium related revenues, to help pay for this and distribute the burden to residents outside the City, who's counties will not be contributing to this regional asset. Also, while McKee would get some of the tax money, he would have to reinvest it within the GIANT footprint of Northside Regen.
http://insidestl.com/dave-peacock-talks ... is/1986392
Peacock said if the vote happens and fails to pass, SC STL and their efforts are done.
http://insidestl.com/st-louis-alderman-ogilvie/1986409
Ogilvie had a good point. WHY is this group not taxing the tickets and other stadium related revenues, to help pay for this and distribute the burden to residents outside the City, who's counties will not be contributing to this regional asset. Also, while McKee would get some of the tax money, he would have to reinvest it within the GIANT footprint of Northside Regen.