- 1,864
Not entirely true, but I get your point. SOME projects deserve a TIF, but I would agree that it's extremely overused.
- 2,430
You lost me there... TIF Capital USA?
- 1,868
Stadium names get dumber every year.
- 1,864
Hey, we could always sell the sponsorship rights to St. Louis County and stadium naming rights to the city of Chesterfield! "The city is full of crime, move to Chesterfield where there's strip malls and endless parking Veterans Memorial Stadium", host venue of your "FC STL of greater St. Louis County".
- 11K
We bargained away the amusement tax to the Cardinals to pay for their current stadium. That allows them to claim it's sefl-funded.hiddeninput wrote: ↑Jan 25, 2017So the idea is that the city ponies up $60m or more and we also turn off the revenue streams we could use to recoup that investment? Do we apply the amusement tax to Cardinals or Blues tickets?
Vote fails in committee, 2-6. Conway voted no to "be on the winning side".
- 734
Prevailing side can call for another vote. That's why he did that.
- 2,430
doesn't look like this is going to get out unless the use tax is eliminated and replaced with amusement tax and TIF (instead of going to McKee?).
My respect level for Ogilvie is increasing. I'm glad the Ways and Means is actually doing it's job now. Getting the best deal for voters before it goes to a vote
- 2,430
and now its back! with amusement tax and TIF (but I think those revs covering the use tax)
So, will this need a 2/3 majority at the full BoA? Could have a very tough time passing if it does. 5-4 means there are already 4 votes against, need 9 or 10 for it to fail 2/3.
It moves on but I don't expect it to pass with the voters in April. Why? A STLBJ Poll shows great opposition to the use of public money on the project
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- 8,912
SOCCER
NCAA: New stadium could bring soccer, FCS championships to STL
Sam Clancy and Frank Cusumano, KSDK
According to the letter sent from Jeff Jarnecke — the director of Championships and alliances for the NCAA — to Frank Viverito, The NCAA would be interested to bringing a number of championship events to St. Louis if a new professional soccer stadium is constructed.
Among the championships are:
Men's and Women's Division I, II and III soccer championships.
Football Championship Series Championship game.
Division II and III football championships.
Division I Men's Lacrosse Quarterfinals.
http://www.ksdk.com/mb/sports/soccer/nc ... /393677016
^ and there is a great argument for it
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- 3,767
The aldermen are now saying that this deal is a revenue positive for the City. If you can add a great amenity that will attract national and international events, connect downtown to midtown and provide many other benefits, I cannot see why it would not pass a vote, assuming the voters are educated. That can only happen if City representatives, as well as SC STL get the word out. I hope they have a sizable advertising budget to include TV and radio.
- 3,762
well, and assuming "the alderman" aren't overselling the project yet again. which alderman are saying that, exactly? and where are they saying it?
With SLU and SIUe having pretty good soccer teams it would be great to get soccer championships here. Hopefully one of them could somehow make it to them.moorlander wrote: ↑Jan 26, 2017SOCCER
NCAA: New stadium could bring soccer, FCS championships to STL
Sam Clancy and Frank Cusumano, KSDK
According to the letter sent from Jeff Jarnecke — the director of Championships and alliances for the NCAA — to Frank Viverito, The NCAA would be interested to bringing a number of championship events to St. Louis if a new professional soccer stadium is constructed.
Among the championships are:
Men's and Women's Division I, II and III soccer championships.
Football Championship Series Championship game.
Division II and III football championships.
Division I Men's Lacrosse Quarterfinals.
http://www.ksdk.com/mb/sports/soccer/nc ... /393677016
Christine Ingrassia says the plan is now 'revenue positive' for the city. Antonio French says it will generate $25M for the city, and Scott Ogilvie estimates $37M (French says the difference is there because Ald. Ogilvie is a bit more optimistic on tax revenue).urban_dilettante wrote: ↑Jan 27, 2017well, and assuming "the alderman" aren't overselling the project yet again. which alderman are saying that, exactly? and where are they saying it?
These have been mentioned on their individual Twitter feeds, in radio interviews on KFNS, and I believe in the P-D here.
-RBB
- 289
Am I the only one who is wondering why, if the deal is truly net positive to the City's bottom line, should this even go before the voters? At that point shouldn't the BofA/Mayor just decide this thing? Isn't that the point of our system of government, i.e. we hire them to make these decisions for us? If the deal was negative for the City's finances, I completely understand sending it to the voters. If this net positive development has to go before the voters, why weren't the voters asked to weigh in on tax subsidies for Cortex, BPV II, the Armory, City Foundry, all of the individual home owners who have tax abatements on their houses, etc.? At this point, it just seems like tax subsidies for sports are being singled out somewhat unfairly. Why the special treatment? If the voters do not pass this deal in April, I think there is a strong argument that literally every single dollar of tax subsidy needs to go before the voters, all the way down to folks who get sweetheart deals from their local Alderman to build a $500k house with tax abatement.
Because the law requires it, and the people want to have a direct say. One of the biggest criticisms of the NFL proposal is that they side-stepped the public vote requirement by stretching the 'adjacent development clause.
-RBB
-RBB
Is all that more or less than what we would get from a rise in the use tax without funding the stadium?rbb wrote: ↑Jan 27, 2017Christine Ingrassia says the plan is now 'revenue positive' for the city. Antonio French says it will generate $25M for the city, and Scott Ogilvie estimates $37M (French says the difference is there because Ald. Ogilvie is a bit more optimistic on tax revenue).urban_dilettante wrote: ↑Jan 27, 2017well, and assuming "the alderman" aren't overselling the project yet again. which alderman are saying that, exactly? and where are they saying it?
These have been mentioned on their individual Twitter feeds, in radio interviews on KFNS, and I believe in the P-D here.
-RBB
It looks like it would be less. I believe the last figure I saw for the amount of the use tax going to this would be $50 million, which is obviously more than those revenue estimates.
The reason this is "revenue positive" is because the use tax is considered a "new" revenue stream from this project. In reality, if and when the necessary tax increase for MetroLink passes, the use tax would become an existing revenue stream that would need to be diverted for the stadium, making this appear to be revenue negative.
The latest changes are definitely a step in the right direction and should help the city get back a decent portion of the $60 million it would be putting into this project, but just in terms of tax revenue spent vs generated, it still looks like the city would be losing revenue on the stadium. Now you can make a good case that amount of money spent is seen as a worthwhile investment for all of the other more intangible benefits for the city, and that is what the voters will have to decide on.
Is all the Use tax being used on the stadium or only certain dollar amount per year? My understanding it is only part of the use tax is being used for stadium and other parts for other programs.
https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/c ... BBId=10674
From Bill 226
https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/c ... BBId=10674
From Bill 226
So it's not all going to the stadium, other job programs will get money too from the Use Tax increase. That's what probably makes it Revenue positive.use tax levied by the City of St. Louis for the purpose of providing funding for minority job training and business development programs and a multipurpose stadium for soccer
- 2,430
Grover, 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.
A lot of this still needs to be fleshed out and analyzed but it does seem a lot better than what was put forth originally and goons like Alderman Conway wanted the Committee to pass.
A lot of this still needs to be fleshed out and analyzed but it does seem a lot better than what was put forth originally and goons like Alderman Conway wanted the Committee to pass.