urbanSTL

Aesir wrote: ↑

Mar 26, 2017

P-D editorial board recommends NO on 1 and 2.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/co ... 20c36.html

Positive sign for the passage of 1 and 2!

Ebsy wrote: ↑

Mar 26, 2017

Aesir wrote: ↑

Mar 26, 2017

P-D editorial board recommends NO on 1 and 2.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/co ... 20c36.html

Positive sign for the passage of 1 and 2!

Well that's certainly one way to look at it.

Nobody listens to the PD Editorial board


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If I were a city resident, I would probably vote yes on both, but I also understand a no vote solely due to the county not paying anything for the soccer stadium. What would the chances be that a no vote would lead to the county being asked to fund part of the project?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The Prop 2 will not pass. At least that's what I think.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

moorlander wrote: ↑

Mar 26, 2017

Sad that the editorial board can get the simple facts straight.

That's pretty egregious; but otoh Slay and some of the Prop 1 proponents should tamp down expectations about Metrolink expansion even if the proposition passes... there are a lot of hurdles to overcome to get that expansion (federal match, operating costs secured, etc.) and I think most folks will feel duped again if Prop 1 passes yet N/S Metrolink doesn't come to be.

imthewiz wrote: ↑

Mar 27, 2017

If I were a city resident, I would probably vote yes on both, but I also understand a no vote solely due to the county not paying anything for the soccer stadium. What would the chances be that a no vote would lead to the county being asked to fund part of the project?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Zero percent chance. The same for the State. Its entirely up to the city if the region is going to be a two pro sport town or a three pro sport town but think the city has to the most to gain on a yes vote & seeing a pro soccer stadium in West Downtown.

My fear for the city is the county won't commit to CVC convention upgrades that are needed and absolutely positively they should be part of the equation. I also think it would be much more wiser for the city to pursue cost sharing & keeping the city/county CVC together.

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/ ... 6b079.html

I understand that there are deadlines and you need to submit a column but some of this Hochman article is rubbish.

St. Louis has a chance to be "progressive"? I mean, why even go there, for starters, especially in the headline. Why frame it in a completely political way. It's not going to help.

Hochman then twists the phrase "the average age of an MLS is under 39" for a flowery tale about millennials rather than the average IS 39 which is what it means. I know MLS skews younger, yes that's great, but last I checked 39 isn't the average age of a millennial. But fine, whatever.

Somewhere along the line the word "inclusion" shows up in the article in some meaningless way.

The city has 66 square miles to worry about (62 if you don't count water) and about 20% of that 66 square miles is vacant. That's a tiny fraction of the land and people that other cities are responsible for.

On top of that, the city gets 1% of everyone's paycheck, a luxury most other cities don't have.

Yet, every year they need more. If I could see just once that the city is highly concerned about controlling costs maybe I'd feel better about voting for more taxes and not complain about property taxes going up. But I never see that. Everyone knows you can cut 1000 jobs off the city payroll today with no impact on services and put some security on Metrolink. It's just totally mismanaged beyond recognition.

I'm grudgingly, probably going to vote yes on these two Props because I'd like to have an MLS team and I guess this is what it takes. But it will be the last time ever. If I wake up in a bad mood I'll vote no because watching people gloat about how "progressive" St. Louis is because the Props passed is going to sickening. Yay, you can vote for a tax increase! Congratulations.

^
The Hochman article was trash, but so was the piece from the editorial board earlier in the weekend. Both were full of assumptions and flat out had their facts wrong.

I'd encourage you to do some research on the earnings tax. It's a tool that several large cities use. Many at a much higher rate than St. Louis:

https://www.thebalance.com/cities-that- ... es-3193246

I'll be voting yes on both as well. I am a long-time city resident and I want both amenities, and I want them in the city. To me, any additional tax is a small price to pay for city progress and I believe both projects are just that, progress. We are a better, stronger city with them than we are without them.

robertn42 wrote:^
The Hochman article was trash, but so was the piece from the editorial board earlier in the weekend. Both were full of assumptions and flat out had their facts wrong.

I'd encourage you to do some research on the earnings tax. It's a tool that several large cities use. Many at a much higher rate than St. Louis:

https://www.thebalance.com/cities-that- ... es-3193246

I'll be voting yes on both as well. I am a long-time city resident and I want both amenities, and I want them in the city. To me, any additional tax is a small price to pay for city progress and I believe both projects are just that, progress. We are a better, stronger city with them than we are without them.

This. Well said.

So I looked at the comments on that article - yes, I know the comments on that site are 99% garbage and cause cancer, but sometimes you can't look away from the train wreck. There was actually one comment that I thought was pretty great:

Stop with the overpromises and just say you want an MLS team like every other bratty sports fan. It's okay, I'm a bratty sports fan too, I wanted my NFL stadium, but I never posited it as the future of everything St. Louis. Okay millenials like soccer, but we wouldn't be the only city with soccer. You can't only offer soccer in a decaying city when there's Atlanta, Denver, and Dallas out there, when Kansas City is down the road lapping us.

The heavy lifting St. Louis needs to do has little to do with sports and everything to do with fragmentation, sprawl, low-growth, racial inequities, education and a litany of other issues. St. Louis can have it all, we want sports but we can't keep kicking the can, not after decades of kicking the can. Vote for your stadium, have your soccer matches just stop. blowing. smoke. and get serious about what really makes the difference. That's what 2037 is really about and there better be a unified St. Louis or it won't matter what leagues call St. Louis home.

A lot of the reasoning and justification that proponents of the stadium give for supporting it are ridiculous. Just be honest: you really like soccer and want a team here. That's fine. I would love a team too (but not quite enough to swallow this pill).

The idea that this will be a panacea for Downtown is laughable. I'm not even sure it will be much of a net positive. There are 17 MLS home games a year. We can probably count on 2 to 3 other big events per year along with a handful of small events that won't move the needle. This will likely be a giant dead space for over 90% of the year. This isn't on the level of the Cards, bringing 40k people 82 times a year, or Scottrade with 41 Blues games and plenty of concerts and other events.

Perhaps the most ridiculous justification for the stadium is that it will be a job creator, claiming 428 "permanent" jobs, but what is the breakdown on those? I'm guessing the large majority will be stadium vendors, ushers, security, etc who will only be working a handful of days each year, getting paid barely over minimum wage. Of the rest of the jobs, many of those will be soccer players, coaches and staff - not exactly jobs for the common people of St. Louis.

The other absurd excuse that soccer supporters use is the claim that this will be a great investment and money maker for the city. Investing $60M to make $17M over 30 years is not a good investment. And that return is using rosy projections that history shows tend to over estimate income. That doesn't even factor in that the vast majority of people spending money in the stadium will be locals who would have likely spent that money somewhere else in town, if not for the stadium.

robertn42 wrote: ↑

Mar 27, 2017

I'll be voting yes on both as well. I am a long-time city resident and I want both amenities, and I want them in the city. To me, any additional tax is a small price to pay for city progress and I believe both projects are just that, progress. We are a better, stronger city with them than we are without them.

I totally respect this opinion. Call this as an amenity you want to have. But those who say this is a jobs and tax revenue creator, or some savior for Downtown are being disingenuous.

Grover wrote: ↑

Mar 27, 2017

That doesn't even factor in that the vast majority of people spending money in the stadium will be locals who would have likely spent that money somewhere else in town, if not for the stadium.

This depends on if you count St. Louis city or region. Since a fair amount the soccer crowd money is coming from people who don't live in the city (some don't even live in the state) you could argue that their money wouldn't be spent in the city without soccer. If you want to compare it on a region level, I would assume your guess is mostly true though. You can argue if people spending money in the city is better than in the county/metro east and if that is worth whatever the cost/return on the stadium deal is though.

I had Rams season tickets and now the money I am saving on them I use pretty much all on travel to other cites, it isn't getting spent here. Even though there is no way to measure it, I would be curious how people are using their money they put towards the Rams now. I probably actually am spending more out of state now because I am gone for 3-4 days at a time and not blocking off 8-10 weekends a year where I couldn't travel, so I could be here for games. If we get a soccer team some of my Rams/travel money will go back towards soccer. I might be in the minority with this though.

jshank83 wrote: ↑

Mar 27, 2017

This depends on if you count St. Louis city or region. Since a fair amount the soccer crowd money is coming from people who don't live in the city (some don't even live in the state) you could argue that their money wouldn't be spent in the city without soccer. If you want to compare it on a region level, I would assume your guess is mostly true though. You can argue if people spending money in the city is better than in the county/metro east and if that is worth whatever the cost/return on the stadium deal is though.

That's definitely true. However, you would also need to take into account that the soccer stadium would only be charging 50% of the amusement tax, so it would only take half of the potential soccer fans attending other events in the city to potentially reap similar tax revenue.

What's everyone's predictions on vote?
Prop 1: 58% pass
Prop 2: 45% fail


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

^ tough call but I think Prop 1 & 2 both will fail.

I think they'll pass, but close. I understand both sides to the argument, but it is going to be a HUGE black eye to the city (again) and a giant middle finger to outside investors.

robertn42 wrote: ↑

Mar 27, 2017

I'll be voting yes on both as well. I am a long-time city resident and I want both amenities, and I want them in the city. To me, any additional tax is a small price to pay for city progress and I believe both projects are just that, progress. We are a better, stronger city with them than we are without them.

Same on my end. I was at least pleased to see the BOA push back enough to make some progress on it and, frankly, I'd like to have a team here.

As much as anything, I've convinced myself to vote yes based on weighing the opportunity cost. If Prop 2 fails, the opportunity cost is an MLS team. Unless something major changes, we lose out on the chance and there is no certainty it will ever present itself again. That cost obviously carries a different weight for each voter.

If Prop 2 passes and, even assuming that the return on the annual use tax revenue funneled towards the stadium is essentially nothing, what was the opportunity cost? What did we lose out on by redirecting that money into bringing a sports franchise to the city? Leaders of this city have spent decades mismanaging public money and certainly bear some of the responsibility for the major issues that we all flag as needing more financial attention. I'm not anti-government, but I have no faith that the money is better off being handed to City Hall's general fund with the hope that they maximize it to benefit city residents. The opportunity cost would be that a notoriously inefficient City Hall gets a few million to spend on...something?

Probably just a cynical way of justifying my yes vote.

Overall, if Prop 2 fails the finger should be pointed directly at Stenger, who it appears made no effort (or rebuffed any overtures from the ownership group) to get involved. It will have died because the County let the City hang out with no support in an attempt to bring an undoubtedly regional asset to St. Louis.

I believe both propositions will pass by slim margins based on voter enthusiasm in southwest city. There's more pro prop 1 and 2 yard signs out than the 2016 general election, don't underestimate the soccer mom/soccer dad crowd. Remember, with the same turnout as the 2013 city municipal general election, the props would only need 12,500 votes to pass.

LordOfLindenwoodPark wrote: ↑

Mar 28, 2017

I believe both propositions will pass by slim margins based on voter enthusiasm in southwest city. There's more pro prop 1 and 2 yard signs out than the 2016 general election, don't underestimate the soccer mom/soccer dad crowd. Remember, with the same turnout as the 2013 city municipal general election, the props would only need 12,500 votes to pass.

Precisely. The voter enthusiasm on the side of those for it is wayyyy more intense than those against. From an outsider, this is what it looks like

Those for the stadium: WOOOOOOOOO YESS LETS GO VOTE #MLS2STL WOO WOOO!!!!

Those against: meh.

Albeit a childish view, that's honestly what it looks like. There also is no organized get out the vote to say 'no'.

I think it will pass but obviously be close. I think the changes the board made at the last minute will be enough for people on the fence to be yes votes. Had they not made those changes, and let it through anyways (which they weren't going to do), I don't think it would have passed. I think the yes votes are more motivated than the no votes to get out and vote.

I think if this fails it will be a giant missed opportunity for STL. It provides us with a great new venue and amenity for the city. Healing part of the wound that the Rams created when they left us with just 2 sports teams. In addition to MLS games, we should get some international games, and possibly some D2 football playoff games. I'm for any reasonable development that brings more people from outside the region to spend their money here. Plus it replaces an ugly inefficient interchange. Over time it will likely spur other developments in the area.

Isn't there an opportunity for the national mens and women's teams to be located here if we get a team? Or at least a significant amount of training and exhibition games? I'm not sure why I believe that but I think I read that somewhere


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

user28 wrote: ↑

Mar 28, 2017

Isn't there an opportunity for the national mens and women's teams to be located here if we get a team? Or at least a significant amount of training and exhibition games? I'm not sure why I believe that but I think I read that somewhere


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes if the stadium is built STL will be a major player in USMNT and USWNT games for both friends and WCQ.

FYI, in Costa Rica right now and their WCQ game is about to start. The place is crazy. Everything is packed. Can only hope STL can experience this if the stadium passes.

cardinalstl wrote: ↑

Mar 28, 2017

I think if this fails it will be a giant missed opportunity for STL. It provides us with a great new venue and amenity for the city. Healing part of the wound that the Rams created when they left us with just 2 sports teams. In addition to MLS games, we should get some international games, and possibly some D2 football playoff games. I'm for any reasonable development that brings more people from outside the region to spend their money here. Plus it replaces an ugly inefficient interchange. Over time it will likely spur other developments in the area.

The Atlanta Falcons and Atlanta FC are both owned by Arthur Blank, they share a stadium together, there's 3% overlap between the two fanbases. SC STL isn't going to heal the wound of the Rams leaving. I wish people would stop bringing that up. Is this whole thing about getting over the Rams? Are we giving away $60M just for not being Kroenke? I'm sick of hearing about it. We're down to 1 black-american major league professional athlete in St. Louis and he just got here. MLS isn't going to come in and replace that for me.