urbanSTL

pdm_ad wrote: ↑

Mar 29, 2017

9ine Runner wrote: ↑

Mar 29, 2017

pdm_ad wrote: ↑

Mar 29, 2017

Seems as if this poster doesn't care for sports that do not have large numbers of athletes that look like him or her. It's the same way in the NFL and NBA, you don't see many white fans at those games...oh wait.

No, it was a random passing realization, I love my Cardinals just fine but for blacks seeing ourselves represented has always been important. It just so happens the two leagues we're more present in aren't in St. Louis anymore. In St. Louis we went from dozens of black athletes to 1 (or 2) just like that. I'm sorry if that being important to me is a problem for you.

And look man, facts are facts, in regards to soccer in St. Louis you don't see a lot of black people in the crowds. So cut the noise about it being a team that'll unify St. Louis across racial lines or heal a wound left by the NFL.

I never said it was a problem for me, you are projecting. What I am saying is that it doesn't matter to me if the athletes on the teams that I root for are White, Black or any other race.

And I never said anything about MLS healing racial wounds. Other than that, spot on!

Going by your first post, it seemed to be a problem for you, judging from the mocking trajectory it took, but okay, thanks for clarifying otherwise for me, it's hard to gauge tone over the internet. Pardon me if I misread you.

And while you personally haven't said it'll heal racial wounds/divisions - it's been a talking point by supporters. Cynically, I suspect mostly to drum up support in a half-black city for a vote that doesn't include county voters.

Anyway, if no one has anything else to say to me on this matter I will leave it alone. In the end I'll be happy for soccer fans to have a team, even if I disagree on what it'll do for St. Louis.

Not getting an MLS team would pretty much seal the deal on St. Louis losing its status as one of America's premier soccer towns. It's not the end of the world, but I think it would be a sad footnote alongside losing our position in cars, shoes, beer, trains, planes, population, etc.

I think 9nineRunner/Arch Genesis is doing an impressive bit of subtle trolling. I get what he's saying on a few levels though like how the word "inclusion" magically appeared in the Hochman article a few days about how "progressive" St. Louis could be by voting YES and YES. Maybe not Hochman particularly, but the Democrat machine is just doing what they do and sort of using the black community for whatever their agenda is calling for at the moment. I'm sure efforts are being made by the local machine to "inform" people on a how a good Democrat should vote on this particular ballot. 9nine Runner/Arch Genesis is also right about that the vast majority of blacks could care less about soccer, especially in St. Louis. I get it though, maybe some would like see a black "hometown hero" and it's unlikely going to be an MLS player (but who knows!).

But the true real answer to that last point is "so what". Vote no. Don't go to games. Hate on it, make fun of dudes with beards, point out the racial makeup of all the players on the field at any given time, whatever. Side note, I wonder how many black (and white) NBA fans recoil in horror when they're watching a game and realize that the makeup of the rosters don't accurately reflect the general population at large. That's just the way it is.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Watching the mayoral roundtable prior to the election, all the candidates were throwing around the phrase "everything must be viewed through a racial equity lens" (paraphrasing) like a football. Had to be said about 25 times before I turned the channel. I mean, I get it. But sometimes this is why St. Louis ends up with nothing. Everything is racialized, politicized and scrutinized on a strictly racial level that it's impossible to do anything in St. Louis when you can do it in Denver or KC or pretty much anywhere without the psychic madness.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

At the end of the day we're talking about a fairly popular game (in the US) of dudes running around a field chasing a ball and trying to kick it into a net - a game that's been played for centuries all over the globe. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. I hear that MLS teams, like most pro teams in their respective cities, are pretty good partners to their communities. I'm sure efforts both financially and otherwise will be made to help grow soccer in the city for kids of all backgrounds.

This particular vote is not strictly left/right. It's somewhat unusual and should be interesting. I'll be voting YES and YES (I really hate that interchange where the potential stadium would be). And I'll vote for Andrew Jones who I think is against both Props. Funny eh.

leeharveyawesome wrote: ↑

Mar 30, 2017

But sometimes this is why St. Louis ends up with nothing. Everything is racialized, politicized and scrutinized on a strictly racial level that it's impossible to do anything in St. Louis when you can do it in Denver or KC or pretty much anywhere without the psychic madness.

...

This particular vote is not strictly left/right. It's somewhat unusual and should be interesting. I'll be voting YES and YES (I really hate that interchange where the potential stadium would be). And I'll vote for Andrew Jones who I think is against both Props. Funny eh.

Not to get off on a tangent, but I believe your point here is absolutely correct, and can be applied to many many issues beyond just this stadium. In short, Black/White, Dem/Rep, left/Right, gay/straight etc. are all just means by which the top divides the bottom, keeping us fighting among ourselves while they take the prize. It's all a distraction from what really matters, which is who's interests are served and who's left holding the bag. Follow the money, etc.

As relates to the stadium, I highly doubt the ownership group cares who votes for or comes to the stadium, just so long as they get their green ($). To do so, they'll use whatever words they believe will manipulate us into doing their bidding (i.e. "progressive," "racial equity," etc.). That's why they get to own an MLS team, while we struggle to fund basic city services for all residents.

Okay, enough paranoid ranting. I can't decide what to do on this vote. Soccer is my favorite sport, I've always wanted to have an MLS team, and think it would be great for my children, who I hope will fulfill all my failed athlete dreams;-) But I also live and work in the City, and realize there are a million other things our taxes should be funding over another sports stadium.

I'm with you on Andrew Jones. Will be first ballot I've ever cast for a Republican since I cast my fake ballot for Bob Dole '96 in Junior High.

Forbes article on the the stadium issue. I am a little surprised Forbes would write about it, but I think its a good article.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/prishe/201 ... f1ced26f2b

jshank83 wrote: ↑

Mar 30, 2017

Forbes article on the the stadium issue. I am a little surprised Forbes would write about it, but I think its a good article.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/prishe/201 ... f1ced26f2b

Dr. Rishe is the Founder and President of Sportsimpacts, and the Director of the Business of Sports Program within the Olin Business School at Washington University in St. Louis.

STLEnginerd wrote: ↑

Mar 30, 2017

I can see the arguments against but I think any alternative development of the site is probably a decade away at best and I don't think the next proposal will be looking less for handouts.

I agree with this. If STL was short on land it would be one thing, but there is plenty of available land to build on if the demand was there. If this doesn't get built either it will sit empty or I fear someone will come in and build something with a suburban layout that would be just as bad as leaving it empty.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metr ... user-share

More games from the woman side.

Really nice article from Patrick Rishe at Forbes - I know that those of you who are philosophically opposed to this will not be swayed, but it is compelling argument

https://www.forbes.com/sites/prishe/201 ... db086b6f2b

Forbes article is great.

I think it was always sort of a given that these massive sports-based projects were a private-public endeavor. I think the problem started when it turned out that these brand new stadiums had a life span of 15 years before they came asking for more money and people were left scratching their heads like "hey, the other stadium was 85 years old and just fine what's the deal here?".

It would be nice if this stadium and metro expansion could be the start of the city doing things smart and right...and fast!

I know some lean righters who are voting yes and yes on this. It would be nice not to screw this up.

Side note fun fact: Dodger Stadium is the oldest stadium in MLB not named Fenway or Wrigley. That's pretty wild.

jshank83 wrote: ↑

Mar 30, 2017

Forbes article on the the stadium issue. I am a little surprised Forbes would write about it, but I think its a good article.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/prishe/201 ... f1ced26f2b

I wish Stltoday.com and the Post-Dispatch would publish this article.

cardinalstl wrote: ↑

Mar 31, 2017

jshank83 wrote: ↑

Mar 30, 2017

Forbes article on the the stadium issue. I am a little surprised Forbes would write about it, but I think its a good article.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/prishe/201 ... f1ced26f2b

I wish Stltoday.com and the Post-Dispatch would publish this article.

Instead they stick with rag pieces from Ortiz and Hochman filled with inaccuracies to pander to either side.

Does "best deal ever" equal a good deal?
Where would we be if every development got a similar deal?
39% public support is still way more than the portion TIFs and abatements contribute to a development.
No mention of the $0 dollars in property tax for SLPS, ZMD, MSD, etc.
$78M > $60M, but the $60M is bonded. So there's interest and the risk of debt downgrades
No attempt to calculate and factor in the cost of providing public infrastructure and services to the stadium.

I am voting Yes on Prop 2. I like soccer. thats it.

the Forbes article was decent until he got into the letters. saying that St. Louis isn't being "collaborative", "cooperative", and "progressive" because the city isn't dumping millions and millions of dollars of public money into sports infrastructure in order to keep up with other cities is disingenuous, especially after proclaiming that your argument is so sound and reasonable.

quincunx wrote: ↑

Mar 31, 2017

Does "best deal ever" equal a good deal?
Where would we be if every development got a similar deal?
39% public support is still way more than the portion TIFs and abatements contribute to a development.
No mention of the $0 dollars in property tax for SLPS, ZMD, MSD, etc.
$78M > $60M, but the $60M is bonded. So there's interest and the risk of debt downgrades
No attempt to calculate and factor in the cost of providing public infrastructure and services to the stadium.

I understand your argument - but currently this site is generating zero for SLPS, ZMD, MSD etc.. and most likely will for years, if not decades to come

They were in my neighborhood offering free signs. If nothing else they do seem well funded.

They used a bit of our footage in one of their Facebook ads without permission. Kind of irked me. They're grown adults and they know they probably shouldn't do that, right?

^ gag.

not only is there a bunch of stolen footage, it's basically just a f*cking tourism video.

exactly the kind of marketing that will appeal to those who just want more sports stuff and don't care to think more deeply about it.

Here is a piece from Howler Magazine, a national soccer magazine. I think the author is right on with many of his points, and in my opinion, it is one of the best articles I have seen on the stadium debate:

https://whatahowler.com/debate-over-soc ... 6fa91fc497

bwcrow1s wrote: ↑

Apr 02, 2017

They used a bit of our footage in one of their Facebook ads without permission. Kind of irked me. They're grown adults and they know they probably shouldn't do that, right?

Watching the ad I have a funny feeling you're not the only one. There's quite a lot of older stock footage in there: of Union Station, a World Series victory parade, of the Botanical Garden, Powell Hall, and probably the brewery. It's . . . a strange little montage of many many things that have nothing whatsoever to do with soccer. Heck,even the newer footage looks like glossy promo footage. Probably someone else's gloosy promo footage of their privately funded chess dealio. But hey, I'm sure you (and Rex S) support them and would gladly donate your footage, right?

I'm about ready to vote in favor of the stupid thing, even though I'm not at all happy with the way it's being sold. But man, they really want to make sure I change my mind at the last minute and do my part to vote them down. Now and forever and to heck with their footieball. I can follow the Vietnamese team with a completely clean conscience. Or the German team. Or even the US national women's team. No need to support this FCSTL nonsense.

(I will probably hold my nose and vote for it as it actually sounds like it might make economic sense, maybe. Possibly. But man, I wish my FCSTL friends would back the frick off before I change my mind yet again.)

^Haven't made up my mind yet, either. I agree that the marketing for it so far has been a turn off. I'm not religiously opposed to public support for stadiums (and desperately want a MLS team), but I'm just not convinced this is the best deal the City could have negotiated. Afterall, (1) the ownership group didn't blink when it dropped its request from $80m to $60m and (2) there was no reduction in the request after MLS announced the expansion fee would be $150m and not $200m.

Since we're questioning their advertising, their TV Ad really annoys me. They say "Most of the money will go to expanding MetroLink and making it safer" and "a small portion will go to a Major League Soccer Stadium"
Half of one Proposition is SUPPOSED to go to MetroLink, I'm fairly sure nothing in the bill mentions MetroLink security.
The entirety of Prop 2 goes to the MLS Stadium. I heard someone say 2-3% of the cities budget. Far from a small portion.