urbanSTL

downtown2007 wrote: ↑

Apr 05, 2017

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.

So he assumes the revenues form the use tax will be burned in an incinerator?

quincunx wrote: ↑

Apr 05, 2017

STLEnginerd wrote: ↑

Apr 05, 2017

Plus I think the land is already part of the north-side TIF so thats probably part of the problem right there.

Personally i think seeing the county as the problem in so much as they didn't offer some money misses the mark entirely. The county has no way to recoup their investment so that would have been just charity and simply ridiculous. The State is a completely different story. They make investments to lure businesses to Missouri all the time and this should not have been any different. That the state would not contribute was the true deal killer.

Didn't the county participate in Busch III?

Yes - County concluded that visitors to Busch would also use hotels and restaurants in the County.

STLEnginerd wrote: ↑

Apr 05, 2017

Personally i think seeing the county as the problem in so much as they didn't offer some money misses the mark entirely. The county has no way to recoup their investment so that would have been just charity and simply ridiculous. The State is a completely different story. They make investments to lure businesses to Missouri all the time and this should not have been any different. That the state would not contribute was the true deal killer.

I agree with that. The state can raise money by income taxes, rather than place the financial burden on the poorest residents via sales taxes.

I honestly feel very bittersweet about this for one i feel its another big step backwards no matter how much anyone will try to justify by prop 2 getting defeated is a good thing. St.Louis is in some serious need of positive pr not from other parts of the country or the world however St.Louisan's themselves. I have this hunch that St.Louis is a very negative place not progressive by any means no matter how much i try to be optimistic about St.Louis itself. Even when the zoo was just ranked as the best zoo in the country it seemed like everyone was nonchalant about it. When people assess St.Louis either by their own physical experience or by methodology maybe they are right? The city itself is a crapper in a way and i agree St.Louis feels empty depressing negative and very non progressive.. Everyone seemed to have voted yes for Metro Link extension however that likely won't even be guaranteed till well over 10-15 years from now you might as well invest in a city wide street car system. I get the reasoning people voted no on the soccer issue however in a city thats in need of a lot of positives this could have gone a long ways not only carrying momentum into the 21st century specially building on land thats currently an eyesore next to our beautiful union station..Adding more police isn't going to stop people from causing harm to each adding higher wages for police and teachers isn't going to equate to a more focused police force or a more educated St.Louis when theres a will theres a drive either individually or in groups. I take pride in what St.Louis has to offer and what it can become however St.Louis's residents are its own worse nemesis you can't constantly keep wanting your slice of the pie but not wanting to chip in to make things better the same goes with St.Louis County. The biggest loser will always be St.Louis City no matter cause its own residents and leaders get in the way of potential progress much like the divorce. While I'm still highly optimistic about St.Louis's future right now i can sincerely say theres many reasons why St.Louis constantly ranks on the bottom end and not seen as a progressive place. The outcome of the soccer situation is very minimal and partial however civic pride is very therapeutic and can lead to many positive outcomes and economic development.
By the way i live in St.Louis County and i would have proudly voted yes on prop 2 anything thats a net gain and positive not only for the region but for the youth of the city.
St.Louis itself is a very self loathing region we can learn from the Portlands Austins Dallas's Kansas Cities Omaha's Pittsburghs maybe even the Buffalo's and Cleveland's
Maybe I'm wrong on all counts i always stand corrected.
I needed to express my emotions vent some my frustrations aggravations..

I couldn't agree more. We are all very much down on our city right now. We need something positive. Somebody at my office just said to me that he was in Indy and it felt so much more alive than here. It is so unfortunate that a city with so much potential is not living up to it. I'm not saying that the stadium would have solved all of our problems. Before we get over the negative perceptions nationally, we must get past our own negative feelings. I think we are all down on our city for obvious reasons, losing football, losing out on MLS and the loss of lots of corporate headquarters. Not to mention crime and negative publicity. You are right. We really need something to get us back on track. Hopefully the soccer group finds a way to make it happen without public money. St. Louis used to feel a lot more united in the past. I'm not sure where that changed. Maybe it's because a lot of longtime residents are leaving our city for the far-reaching suburbs or leaving the metro area in general. I just can't understand where things changed. We as a city need to get back on track. Unfortunately, when things go wrong people tend to overreact. That is what's happening around here due to the stadium vote.

I agree that, at least to those that supported the stadium, Prop 2 failing has been a real punch in the gut. I've been reading about people saying they are probably going to leave the City, leave St. Louis altogether, that the climate in the City is just too negative and toxic to handle anymore. It is very depressing to see this kind of fatalism, which definitely didn't seem to pervade everything before 2014.

First, I would have voted yes on prop 2 (if I lived in the city instead of an inner ring suburb).

2 months ago, I would have said there is no chance the vote would have been as close as it was. The mood in the public at large (see San Diego, Oakland, etc.) is to NOT fund sports franchises/stadiums. Why the ownership group thought it was a good idea to put this to a vote of the public (or put a million dollars into the campaign), I have no idea. (Early polls I saw on this showed 60% + disapproval). Ultimately, they came close, but still fell short (and I would guess that most other cities across the country would vote similarly). This is NOT an indictment on St. Louis or whether St. Louis is progressive, etc.. The public (across the country) in general has no appetite for these projects right now. (I know there are exceptions like Vegas but that is a different dynamic and unique). Wouldn't it have been more beneficial for the ownership group to have lobbied MLS to lower the expansion fee by 50M instead of spending 1M+ for a public vote to grab 60M? If St Louis MLS cannot be profitable without tens of millions in public support, how does the MLS expect other cites to step up at this stage? Seems like the league is a house of cards with its expansion goals and (much too high) expansion fee.

Ebsy wrote: ↑

Apr 06, 2017

I agree that, at least to those that supported the stadium, Prop 2 failing has been a real punch in the gut. I've been reading about people saying they are probably going to leave the City, leave St. Louis altogether, that the climate in the City is just too negative and toxic to handle anymore. It is very depressing to see this kind of fatalism, which definitely didn't seem to pervade everything before 2014.

the city's seeing more development than it's seen in years. what's more depressing is that the people saying it give no sh*ts about St. Louis outside of sports. THAT's our problem, not our lack of a soccer team.

urban_dilettante wrote: ↑

Apr 06, 2017

Ebsy wrote: ↑

Apr 06, 2017

I agree that, at least to those that supported the stadium, Prop 2 failing has been a real punch in the gut. I've been reading about people saying they are probably going to leave the City, leave St. Louis altogether, that the climate in the City is just too negative and toxic to handle anymore. It is very depressing to see this kind of fatalism, which definitely didn't seem to pervade everything before 2014.

it's more depressing that the people saying it give no sh*ts about St. Louis outside of sports. THAT is our problem, not our lack of a soccer team.

I really think that is way too simplistic a way to look at things. The deal for this soccer stadium was basically delivered to the City's voters on a silver platter and was still voted down. None of the people that voted against it was going to be paying a penny more in taxes, there were not going to be any new bonds issues, no obligations from the city for any of the costs beyond the 4 mil a year from the use tax. That St. Louis is such a backwards place that it would reject something like that really is a wake up call. I honestly don't think race is even the primary concern here: it's not like Prop 2 really did that well in much of white South City either, or it would have passed.

^ oh, it was certainly made to appear silver. so that 50 million from the increased business tax... how long would that take to raise? i suspect the stadium would have been built before it was collected, in which case it would have had to come from somewhere else in the meantime--an existing source or a loan. no?

DogtownBnR wrote: ↑

Apr 05, 2017

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.

You know, I figured that would have been a part of it, but looking at the numbers today I don't think it was. For no particular reason I drew up this graphic to see how the vote spread out. (And drew up similar ones for Prop. 1 and the vote spread between Andrew Jones and Larry Rice.)



Local scuttlebut would have it that Ward 15 is the big progressive hotbed. Prop. 2 won 60/40 in Ward 15, which was one of its better turnouts. Oops. I flipped a number there. It lost 60/40. However, this amounts to a difference of four hundred votes on my map, since two hundred no votes became yes votes, and the proposition would still have lost by nearly three thousand even after my mistake. Sorry about that. I'll leave the rest stand unaltered, since I think the basics remain unchanged.

It generally did better in wealthier wards and worse in poorer ones, but honestly, the breakdown is pretty conventional. It won the south side and lost the north side, just the same as Prop. 1. The difference was that support was weak on the south for 2 and opposition was strong up north. Prop 1 reversed that with strong support and weak opposition.



I don't see a "progressive" movement here. I see weak support for a badly pitched proposal that was thrown together at the last minute and was widely seen as . . . deceptive. It wasn't defeated because all the incentives went to "minority" communities. Quite the opposite. It was most soundly trounced in those communities, often losing by twenty points. There were but four wards where it had double digit support: 7, 15, 10, and 16. Downtown, Tower Grove South, The Hill, and Southampton. That's it. And those were also the wards where Jones beat Rice by the largest margin, for the record. (Rice's support is up north about where you'd expect it. Well, and in a few specific buildings down south where folks actually know him.)

It's a little hard to read the tea leaves, but I don't think it was a big "progressive" wave. I think it was just a lousy pitch. (And all the, whiny, holier than thou "If you don't vote for this you're not progressive and you're turning down the one thing that will save this fair city and it will magically do it for free" codswollop probably didn't help.)

Anyway . . . it will be interesting to see what becomes of the interchange. Didn't really like that site for the stadium anyway. It's too narrow. Much better suited to residential or commercial mid-rise. (And I would love to see the station in a sea of buildings again.)

Nothing will happen to that site. It will most likely remain vacant for decades. We should be building a stadium on it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So a lot of folks in the area are cashing in big on the Panera purchase. Any chance the CEO, Ron Shaich, who made $390 million might shave off a lousy $4 million per year for the stadium?

Stlbluejay11 wrote: ↑

Apr 06, 2017

https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbespr/2 ... c7601c4f85

One more post. Per above, the average MLS team is worth $180M. How would a $150 expansion fee ever make since when your time would likely be worth less than the expansion fee? Absurd.

Because the MLS is expected to continue to grow and a new TV contract I believe is up for renewal in 2020 or so. Ratings have been climbing pretty drastically as well for games so I'd imagine they'll command a much better TV contract

symphonicpoet wrote: ↑

Apr 06, 2017

DogtownBnR wrote: ↑

Apr 05, 2017

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.

You know, I figured that would have been a part of it, but looking at the numbers today I don't think it was. For no particular reason I drew up this graphic to see how the vote spread out. (And drew up similar ones for Prop. 1 and the vote spread between Andrew Jones and Larry Rice.)



Local scuttlebut would have it that Ward 15 is the big progressive hotbed. Prop. 2 won 60/40 in Ward 15, which was one of its better turnouts.

you have bad data there on the 15th; Prop 2 lost there 61-39. Not sure about other wards.

Ebsy wrote: ↑

Apr 06, 2017

urban_dilettante wrote: ↑

Apr 06, 2017

Ebsy wrote: ↑

Apr 06, 2017

I agree that, at least to those that supported the stadium, Prop 2 failing has been a real punch in the gut. I've been reading about people saying they are probably going to leave the City, leave St. Louis altogether, that the climate in the City is just too negative and toxic to handle anymore. It is very depressing to see this kind of fatalism, which definitely didn't seem to pervade everything before 2014.

it's more depressing that the people saying it give no sh*ts about St. Louis outside of sports. THAT is our problem, not our lack of a soccer team.

I really think that is way too simplistic a way to look at things. The deal for this soccer stadium was basically delivered to the City's voters on a silver platter and was still voted down. None of the people that voted against it was going to be paying a penny more in taxes, there were not going to be any new bonds issues, no obligations from the city for any of the costs beyond the 4 mil a year from the use tax. That St. Louis is such a backwards place that it would reject something like that really is a wake up call. I honestly don't think race is even the primary concern here: it's not like Prop 2 really did that well in much of white South City either, or it would have passed.

I disagree with your analysis:

1. Bonds would be issued. The bonds would payable from $4 million/year of use tax revenues.
2. The $4m in use tax revenues will exist with or without a stadium.
3. You will pay use tax when you order from Amazon - but that has nothing to do Prop 2.
4. The City has budget issues. Using $4m/year on a soccer stadium means those revenues can't be spent on other public services or simply filling the existing gap in the budget so our level of city-funded public services doesn't go down.
5. If we wanted a stadium and to keep existing-level or get better city-funded public services, the City would likely need to raise other taxes at some point.

I would love a soccer team, but this may not have been the best deal for the City.

south compton wrote: ↑

Apr 06, 2017

I would love a soccer team, but this may not have been the best deal for the City.

Certainly the best deal we were going to get. Now we get zilch and the property sits for 20-30 years with nothing productive happening. Hope you're happy.

^ Ebsy, I love you man but I do find the complete disregard that other folks may have a valid differing point of view unfortunate. I gladly would have supported this if it were a regular TIF type of project... owners own the stadium and receives public subsidy from taxes generated. But this is a case where we were asked to directly raise taxes and issue debt for the stadium. It may have been a better sports funding proposal than most, but it's not like folks who voted no had no good faith basis to question the economic benefits and desire that the increased Use Tax revenue be used for other purposes.

Also, Ward24 has a good take on the disastrous pursuit of the NFL took a toll on public trust. I'll try to dig that link up.

STLrainbow wrote: ↑

Apr 06, 2017

^ Ebsy, I love you man but I do find the complete disregard that other folks may have a valid differing point of view unfortunate. I gladly would have supported this if it were a regular TIF type of project... owners own the stadium and receives public subsidy from taxes generated. But this is a case where we were asked to directly raise taxes and issue debt for the stadium. It may have been a better sports funding proposal than most, but it's not like folks who voted no had no good faith basis to question the economic benefits and desire that the increased Use Tax revenue be used for other purposes.

Also, Ward24 has a good take on the disastrous pursuit of the NFL took a toll on public trust. I'll try to dig that link up.

I totally agree and with your point on the NFL fiasco poisoning the well for the stadium (for the record, I was against the NFL deal as it stood at the time). I expected for Prop 2 to fail, and it ultimately ended up being closer than I expected it to be. Still, its hard not to dismiss ridiculous prognosticating about this being a bad deal - it very clearly wasn't and was actually a lot better than what I would expect the BoA to produce, and far better than most of the TIF we have been handing out left and right lately. Definitely better than the proposal for the Rams.

Ultimately, we raised the taxes anyway, so any point about raising taxes for the stadium is sort of moot, especially when so many people who voted against Prop 2 voted for Prop 1. At least people in the North City that voted against both took a stand for something.

Ebsy wrote: ↑

Apr 06, 2017

south compton wrote: ↑

Apr 06, 2017

I would love a soccer team, but this may not have been the best deal for the City.

Certainly the best deal we were going to get. Now we get zilch and the property sits for 20-30 years with nothing productive happening. Hope you're happy.

This city has no shortage of empty land, another 9 acres of unproductive land isn't going to change much. If you want me to make a diagram of unproductive land in Downtown St. Louis, I can certainly do that. Especially if we're considering land used for high speed automotive transportation as unproductive. Don't get me wrong, it's a huge waste of land and needs to be returned to the street grid, there's just no demand right now.

Ebsy wrote: ↑

Apr 06, 2017

STLrainbow wrote: ↑

Apr 06, 2017

^ Ebsy, I love you man but I do find the complete disregard that other folks may have a valid differing point of view unfortunate. I gladly would have supported this if it were a regular TIF type of project... owners own the stadium and receives public subsidy from taxes generated. But this is a case where we were asked to directly raise taxes and issue debt for the stadium. It may have been a better sports funding proposal than most, but it's not like folks who voted no had no good faith basis to question the economic benefits and desire that the increased Use Tax revenue be used for other purposes.

Also, Ward24 has a good take on the disastrous pursuit of the NFL took a toll on public trust. I'll try to dig that link up.

Ultimately, we raised the taxes anyway, so any point about raising taxes for the stadium is sort of moot, especially when so many people who voted against Prop 2 voted for Prop 1. At least people in the North City that voted against both took a stand for something.

Those who voted in favor of Prop 1 and against Prop 2 did take a stand for something. They are okay raising taxes when it funds something they think if beneficial to everyone in the city and not a small subset of city/county residents. I voted yes on Prop 2 but I'll admit it was completely for selfish reasons. I would have voted yes on Prop 1 regardless if Prop 2 was involved though because I felt it benefit the city as a whole (also voted yes on NS)

The ownership group did their best but let's be realistic if the owners couldn't make it work financially 100% privately then so be it. Other cities have investors willing to pay the full amount or at least with TIF funding (but the ownership group would have to own the stadium...)

STLrainbow wrote: ↑

Apr 06, 2017

symphonicpoet wrote: ↑

Apr 06, 2017

DogtownBnR wrote: ↑

Apr 05, 2017

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.

You know, I figured that would have been a part of it, but looking at the numbers today I don't think it was. For no particular reason I drew up this graphic to see how the vote spread out. (And drew up similar ones for Prop. 1 and the vote spread between Andrew Jones and Larry Rice.)



Local scuttlebut would have it that Ward 15 is the big progressive hotbed. Prop. 2 won 60/40 in Ward 15, which was one of its better turnouts.

you have bad data there on the 15th; Prop 2 lost there 61-39. Not sure about other wards.

I stand corrected. I must have just flipped the numbers. (Pulled them off city elections board site.) Checked them several times as that always seemed fishy to me, but . . . the place is getting wealthier and whiter. The rest of the numbers look okay. I'll fix that. Thank you.