urbanSTL

It's a shame that that partial interstate interchange land, like North Riverfront, will likely sit there another 20 years as a monument to dysfunction.

shadrach wrote: ↑

Apr 05, 2017

I see two failures in this MLS endeavor: 1, Lack of County participation. The current form of government/divorce is killing us. 2, No plan B in case the of the 'no' vote carries the day. That is was what I'm upset up most of all.

p.s. MLS saying that awarding a franchise to STL rests on the vote struck me as a classless, bully tactic. If MLS really wants to be in STL, they'll understand the nuance that a vote against public funding is not a vote against MLS.

I find the part of 'No Plan B' absolutely appalling.

The folks having a meltdown on twitter about how this vote went aren't really making a strong case for themselves. Pretty sure I don't want to be asking every city resident to fork over $200 to get those folks into the city.

They're done

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news ... antle.html

Less than 12 hours after St. Louis voters rejected a ballot initiative that would have helped pay for a $140 million Major League Soccer stadium downtown, Jim Kavanaugh said the hopeful local ownership group is likely to disband and abandon its plan to bring a franchise here.

Also mentions that other investors might partner with other MLS expansion groups as icing on the cake

gary kreie wrote: ↑

Apr 05, 2017

It's a shame that that partial interstate interchange land, like North Riverfront, will likely sit there another 20 years as a monument to dysfunction.

That was big plus of the stadium plan
MoDOT could right its wrong if it was a priority for them.

Well maybe if modot adds in a useful streetgrid we could see investment between the new hotel and union station. Hopefully this doesn't deter some surrounding development


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

joelo wrote: ↑

Apr 05, 2017

They're done

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news ... antle.html

Less than 12 hours after St. Louis voters rejected a ballot initiative that would have helped pay for a $140 million Major League Soccer stadium downtown, Jim Kavanaugh said the hopeful local ownership group is likely to disband and abandon its plan to bring a franchise here.

Also mentions that other investors might partner with other MLS expansion groups as icing on the cake

Everyone thought there would be a plan B. Well here is your plan B, invest their money in another city.

I see the Foundary twitter is tweeting again after 4 months off.

joelo wrote: ↑

Apr 05, 2017

They're done

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news ... antle.html

Less than 12 hours after St. Louis voters rejected a ballot initiative that would have helped pay for a $140 million Major League Soccer stadium downtown, Jim Kavanaugh said the hopeful local ownership group is likely to disband and abandon its plan to bring a franchise here.

Also mentions that other investors might partner with other MLS expansion groups as icing on the cake

These former execs from Express Scripts, Anheuser-Busch, World Wide Technology, and Bain Capital couldn't shut up about how much money the City was going to make from "investing" $60,000,000 in this stadium, but apparently that's too much of a risk for them to take up themselves.

I hope these great fathers, these Prophets of Capital, don't let the door hit them on the way out to latching onto Orlando's team, or whatever.

This is disgusting. These men weren't serious about this proposal. If they WERE we would see them coming out and pleading for further investment. Obnoxious.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The whole thing was a farce from the start. Check out this article from last year:

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metr ... 0ca06.html

“If the vote fails it’s in many ways a referendum on behalf of the community on whether or not they want to support a plan for a stadium downtown,” Garber said. “The St. Louis ownership group needs to determine whether public support exists.”

What a ***** joke. You're going to equate a STL Business use-tax increase to fund a regional amenity levied upon a City of 300,000 in a region of 2.8 million as a "referendum" on "whether public support exists." Apparently no input was necessary from the 1.3 million people who live in St. Louis County and St. Charles County. No offers of support from any of those parts of the region. And the icing on the cake is everyone gets to sh*t on us for not playing along and taxing ourselves to build a toy for them to enjoy.

It's a sick ***** joke.

Pretty crazy we're now hearing from SC STL that the County government indeed was asked to participate with funding but absolutely would not and that their polling showed less support in County than City.

STLrainbow wrote: ↑

Apr 05, 2017

Pretty crazy we're now hearing from SC STL that the County government indeed was asked to participate with funding but absolutely would not and that their polling showed less support in County than City.

Seems to suggest that maybe the narrative of St. Louis as some great Soccer Mecca in the year 2017 (as opposed to 1950s-1980s) is perhaps more of a myth than some would like to admit.

STLrainbow wrote: ↑

Apr 05, 2017

Pretty crazy we're now hearing from SC STL that the County government indeed was asked to participate with funding but absolutely would not and that their polling showed less support in County than City.

Not at all, it just means those soccer fans don't think the public should have to pay for it. I voted yes on it but lots of people my dad's age who grew up and played soccer in St. Louis back in the day voted against it

Dogtown dog wrote:
"Seems to suggest that maybe the narrative of St. Louis as some great Soccer Mecca in the year 2017 (as opposed to 1950s-1980s) is perhaps more of a myth than some would like to admit."

I am not sure that the 'soccer mecca' label fading has anything to do with it. MLS brass are smart enough to know a great market when they see it. That to me, is enough to know that we are still a great market. IMO, the Rams debacle soured the STL region in general on investing in sports. The City is having issues investing in a sports venue that they own, Scottrade. This would have passed before NFL stadium debacle poisoned the well. Also, there is a new self-proclaimed "progressive" movement that is anti-stadium in the City. This movement was underestimated in the Mayoral elections and again prior to Prop 2 failure. With the City needing so many more pressing things, it was perceived that this would take away from those services. That was not my perception, but it was a very prevalent view with people I spoke to about it. I even heard some were upset that the "community benefits" only benefited minorities, but not the general population. It is really time to drain the swamp with regards to our region's politicians. I think we can all agree on that!

If the number they thought they could make work was total total project investment -60 million then I don't know why they would be begging for more investors if that then dilutes the pot. That would throw those numbers off. The reason it was "good" for the city to put in 60 is because they would get some/all of that back in taxes revenues. If the team throws in 60 million more, the team wouldn't be getting those revenues. It would just be 60 more on their cost without any extra returns.

All that said I think they should have done some kind of TIF financing instead of this setup and I think they should have pushed the county more for at least some money.

It is a shame it isn't working out. I was really excited for it to happen, but life goes on and I am not going to call the group names or say they didn't care or whatever because they don't feel like they can sink more money into it. Everything still comes down to money and return on investment, for them it doesn't make sense. I am happy they tried, its not like there was a better option unless the Foundry group somehow really has money.

Wouldn't the stadium have to be owned by them and not the city for TIF to work or is that a separate thing altogether?

Some valid points raised in this article.....

http://www.101sports.com/2017/04/05/st- ... ange-city/

But the defeat of Proposition 2 will not prevent one crime, or save one life, or enhance unstable neighborhoods, or reshape public education.
It may have made some of you feel good to swat down Prop 2 — but that’s all you did.
You blocked our shot. Congratulations, I guess.
But in denying Prop 2, you did absolutely nothing to improve city life.
You had every right to say no to Prop 2. And despite my dissent here, I cherish living in a democracy. But the truth is, this victory is worthless and meaningless.
It will not solve one problem. Everything will remain the same.
No one who lives within city limits will benefit from the voting outcome.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's a sad loss but it looks like our city is still headed in the right direction. Maybe those funds will be appropriated in the right ways and even show cause for further funds and taxes to help the causes they are appropriated to


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

user28 wrote: ↑

Apr 05, 2017

It's a sad loss but it looks like our city is still headed in the right direction. Maybe those funds will be appropriated in the right ways and even show cause for further funds and taxes to help the causes they are appropriated to


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not to be a Debbie Downer, but the funds will probably end up being used to pay the costs of the Scottrade Center deal (maybe not directly, but indirectly filling the budget gap created by that deal).

joelo wrote: ↑

Apr 05, 2017

Wouldn't the stadium have to be owned by them and not the city for TIF to work or is that a separate thing altogether?

Yes, it would have to be privately-owned so as not to be property tax exempt. With city owning it, it'd be property tax exempt which was another subsidy no one wanted to account for.