urbanSTL

Of course, it still wouldn't have made a difference. The vote margin in 15 was all of two hundred votes and the thing lost by five points and more than three thousand votes per the unofficial results. Not really all that close. So I gave it an extra four hundred by accident. Sorry.

Cardinals: 3 yr Yadi contract 60 million. Done
St. Louis: Dinky tax for a professional MLS franchise that a group is willing to pay the franchise fee and the stadium would become a city/regional asset. Forget about it

I think Molina is probably a bigger asset to the city than an MLS franchise. Also . . . that's the team's money. They can do as they wish. Not asking for any more of my tax money to do it. Simple. If you asked us to vote on pro-sports salaries things would probably look a LOT different. (And probably a lot more amateur.)

[/quote]
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....
[/quote]

I might be inclined to agree with you in sentiment, but your facts are incorrect, which is why I voted no. Check out Board Bill 290, which establishes the funding and requirements for the stadium. We most definitely would have been issuing bonds to provide the city's $60M share of the upfront construction costs, meaning that $60M is actually quite a bit more when you include the cost of borrowing. Lets say we're able to get a 4% APR, (which is itself wishful thinking given our recently downgraded credit rating) and we're going to pay it off in 3 years, which is the estimated time to complete the project (again, more wishful thinking). That still comes out to an additional $7.2M in interest, taking us to a real cost of $67.2M. That right there is 40% of the estimated ROI ($17M), which itself doesn't turn positive until the third decade of operation. And that's only if some very rosy assumptions in the STLFC-funded impact study prove true.

And city residents would absolutely be giving something up, namely all the other city services that can be bought for $4M/year, without having to enter the bond market. We have an understaffed and underpaid police force, dilapidated infrastructure, a growing homeless population, substandard schools, not to mention a current budget deficit of $20M. The city needs residents, desperately, and sports stadiums have zero impact on people choosing to live in the City (the last 30 years of stadium building and population decline - the dome, scottrade, and Busch III - are proof of that). It might, might make a difference at a regional level, i.e. people move to the MSA for its regional amenities (like pro sports), but that's an argument for County participation, not for the City to go it alone.

I don't know what "progressive" means in the context of municipal finance and economic development. I thought it meant something like racial/gender/economic equity, in which case saying no to this stadium and directing the money to those who truly need it is super progressive. The way its being used on this thread and in STLFC PR, it sounds like "progressive" really means publicly funded toys for middle-class whites.

Slay tweeting he doesn't think MLS is dead here yet.

Foundry group tweeting they sent a letter to Slay today.

Might not be related but we'll see.

SB in BH wrote: ↑

Apr 06, 2017

I might be inclined to agree with you in sentiment, but your facts are incorrect, which is why I voted no. Check out Board Bill 290, which establishes the funding and requirements for the stadium. We most definitely would have been issuing bonds to provide the city's $60M share of the upfront construction costs, meaning that $60M is actually quite a bit more when you include the cost of borrowing. Lets say we're able to get a 4% APR, (which is itself wishful thinking given our recently downgraded credit rating) and we're going to pay it off in 3 years, which is the estimated time to complete the project (again, more wishful thinking). That still comes out to an additional $7.2M in interest, taking us to a real cost of $67.2M. That right there is 40% of the estimated ROI ($17M), which itself doesn't turn positive until the third decade of operation. And that's only if some very rosy assumptions in the STLFC-funded impact study prove true.

And city residents would absolutely be giving something up, namely all the other city services that can be bought for $4M/year, without having to enter the bond market. We have an understaffed and underpaid police force, dilapidated infrastructure, a growing homeless population, substandard schools, not to mention a current budget deficit of $20M. The city needs residents, desperately, and sports stadiums have zero impact on people choosing to live in the City (the last 30 years of stadium building and population decline - the dome, scottrade, and Busch III - are proof of that). It might, might make a difference at a regional level, i.e. people move to the MSA for its regional amenities (like pro sports), but that's an argument for County participation, not for the City to go it alone.

I don't know what "progressive" means in the context of municipal finance and economic development. I thought it meant something like racial/gender/economic equity, in which case saying no to this stadium and directing the money to those who truly need it is super progressive. The way its being used on this thread and in STLFC PR, it sounds like "progressive" really means publicly funded toys for middle-class whites.

lol

Spending 4 million dollars a year is going to hardly do a thing to attract a single resident to the City. If people really wanted more residents, they would have voted for Prop NS, but I heard rumblings from the same corners that opposed the stadium that increasing property values on the north side would price people out, that we should be more spending money on what I assume would be handouts to the wards so that aldermen can enrich their friends. I talked to an incoming alderman from the north side who wanted to spend more money to knock more buildings down before spending a penny to stabilize the LRA properties. I honestly could not care less what the "progressive" side of City politics is at this point. The so called progressive tried to elect scion of a corrupt political family from the north side as mayor, and those of us that supported French or Reed were castigated for our lack of "vision" for St. Louis. You are of course right about the 4 million going to purchase bonds (I meant that Prop 2 wasn't going to be collecting any additional taxes if it passed or failed), but using bonds to pay for things is not necessarily a bad deal, especially when it is leveraging so much private investment and giving new life to long neglected stretch of our central business district. That 4 million is still going to be spent, but after 10 years, we will have spent 40-45 million dollars and maybe we will have something to show for it with lower crime, maybe not, but there certainly won't be a concrete stadium that would serve as an asset to our City and our region.

STLEnginerd wrote: ↑

Apr 06, 2017

^Umm he was trying to make a relative point and have a little fun besides.

Also I think Yadi is at minimum the greatest catcher of his generation but i would still take 30+ years of MLS over 3 more years of Yadi. duh. That they could be at all comparable in terms of net returned to the city and region is just silly.

I didn't take it as a joke. It sounded rather angry to me. And my response was intended to be deadpan, but funny because it was obviously not an apples to apples comparison. But honestly, three more years of Cardinal money for Molina might keep him in town after he retires. Our retired star players have mostly been a heck of an asset to the city. And I'd take that easily over an expensive bet on a longshot league. It's a shot I'd like to see pay off. And I voted in favor of the stupid thing, against my better judgment. But that doesn't change the fact that it was a big ask for public money from a town with bigger problems than sports. And where much much much bigger sports have not been the solution to . . . well . . . anything. If you want to throw eighty million dollars at something throw it at solving homelessness, violence, unemployment. Hell, throw it at transportation. It probably won't solve anything, but at least it will be pretty. We have a lot of options. I like circuses as much as the next guy, but historically they haven't solved all that much . . . though they do make pretty ruins after society collapses.

Didn't realize it was a joke. It wasn't funny to me. And my response wasn't funny to you, I guess. Water under the bridge. For what it's worth, I do hope we can find common ground. We really do have things to fix. And I really would enjoy watching some good old fashioned football played with . . . feet. And a ball.

Podcast- Phill and Spencer respond to interviews from Union Station before and after the announcement of Proposition 2’s failure by popular vote.

http://www.bgn.fm/2017/04/07/stl-soccer ... mcdermott/

Would the state consider getting involved? They now provide about $12M per year to pay off the dome. After 2021, those payments will end and the dome will be paid off. The state won't be paying on any St. Louis stadiums or arenas after that, but will continue to provide at least $5M per year to KC, forever I believe, for their stadium upkeep.

Two MOLEG legislators from KC area, (Schaaf and Silvey) handed the NFL the only excuse the NFL cited as rationale for moving a team out of our existing home market -- the threat of a lawsuit to end approved state stadium funding. Maybe MOLEG could see its way to providing the $4M per year turned down by city residents to bring the MLS to St. Louis.

During Rams new stadium discussions, the state said that, as of 2015, Rams players and staff would pay the state more than the $12M in income tax yearly, but that ended when the team left. It would be interesting to see how much income tax MLS staff and players would pay to into the state coffers each year from an MLS team, now and in the future.

^No. I don't think so. The dome can be considered a failure as an investment, the payroll for MLS is a fraction of NFL, soccer just doesn't have the same social or economic impact as the four major sports and comes off as somewhat elitist, and the moleg generally has little interest in providing money to the states urban centers.

gary kreie wrote: ↑

Apr 06, 2017

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?

Doubtful. He lives in Boston.

gregl wrote:

gary kreie wrote: ↑

Apr 06, 2017

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?

Doubtful. He lives in Boston.

How many St Louisans cashed in big time from buying stock early? There will be a lot of cash around town soon.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My how far we've fallen out of favor. The only positive is the fact that none of the cities on the list are a done deal or close to 100%. While San Diego and Phoenix seem to be the front runners, nobody has a done deal. I truly believe MLS very much wants to be in St. Louis. They've just got to solve that $60 million gap. That is a lot of money to us, but to multi-millionaires and billionaires that is a drop in the bucket. There's no reason that $60 million should keep their league from adding the city they really want.

Also, I would like to know what the situation is with Foundry STL. If this thing is a fraud, somebody needs to expose it and finally put it to rest. If this group is legit, then we need to explore how this group can assist or join the cause. It is absolutely baffling to me that SCSTL put so much into their effort and apparently does not have a Plan B. I know they've denied having one, but it seems absolutely asinine that they would put so much into their effort knowing the vote would likely fail or at the best was only a 50-50 proposition. I would have to think that City leaders are working behind-the-scenes to try and figure out a way to get something done. Krewson and Slay have expressed a desire to try and figure out how to get this done. Slay has come out and tweeted that soccer is not dead in St. Louis. The other thing, is the fact that SCSTL has still not "Officially" disbanded. Unless I missed something, they have yet to come out and speak about A "Plan B" or "way forward". I did hear a lot of negative comments from everybody on the pro stadium side after the election loss. There were also some negative comments from Dave Peacock and others a day or so afterwards. However, the group hasn't put that final stamp on their demise. It would be awesome if The City could get this project done privately. That would mean that our franchise would not be able to relocate like the Rams did. Like I've said before, if the Rams would have owned the dome, they would have been pretty much stuck here. While I'm not overly optimistic, I still have some small level of hope. Hope that we will be in play after the fall expansion.

http://www.thebluetestament.com/2017/4/ ... r-rankings

PS- Watching St. Louis on the national stage today and seeing how great the crowd was at the Blues game, not only fortifies our reputation as a sports city, but also should encourage potential investors in MLS. That crowd today was unbelievable!

gary kreie wrote: ↑

Apr 16, 2017

If one were to build an MLS stadium outside the city, what are the best sites? I looked at Google maps and keyed on the large parking lot on the South side of Galleria at 64 and 170. Galleria could construct another parking structure on the North or East side to make up for the lost parking. That location would be very central, highly visible, and with metro link a short walk away.
https://goo.gl/maps/iPj1PCbnAVF2




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

1. Richmond Heights would never allow it.
2. IF RH allowed it, no way Brentwood, Clayton, Ladue would stand for it

DogtownBnR wrote: ↑

Apr 17, 2017

My how far we've fallen out of favor. The only positive is the fact that none of the cities on the list are a done deal or close to 100%. While San Diego and Phoenix seem to be the front runners, nobody has a done deal. I truly believe MLS very much wants to be in St. Louis. They've just got to solve that $60 million gap. That is a lot of money to us, but to multi-millionaires and billionaires that is a drop in the bucket. There's no reason that $60 million should keep their league from adding the city they really want.

I assume kicking in an extra $60mil from the owners would reduce their ROI to a level they don't consider acceptable.

Mayor Slay's tweet was nothing more then fanfare. His PR person said it was based on "hope"....yea hope doesn't cover $60 million

DogtownBnR wrote: ↑

Apr 17, 2017

PS- Watching St. Louis on the national stage today and seeing how great the crowd was at the Blues game, not only fortifies our reputation as a sports city, but also should encourage potential investors in MLS. That crowd today was unbelievable!

I'm not a hockey fan, but I happened to see the last five minutes of that game on TV and was captivated by the enthusiasm and energy of the crowd. Very inspiring. As the game ended, and that sea of blue spectators went nuts, it seemed absolutely baffling how the St. Louis region has no more than two professional major sports teams.

I think it is safe to assume that professional soccer will not be in St. Louis for at least another decade, similar to our hopes of metrolink expansion. Not that things similar are necessarily out of range.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

user28 wrote: ↑

Apr 17, 2017

I think it is safe to assume that professional soccer will not be in St. Louis for at least another decade, similar to our hopes of metrolink expansion. Not that things similar are necessarily out of range.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Depends on your definition of professional soccer. STLFC has players under contract so they are professional status versus amateur status. So STL already has "Professional Soccer" with the USL.

If you mean professional as in MLS, then yes is it dead. STL will be a 2 sports team for a long time. No NBA team wants to move here, definitely no NFL, and we said no to a MLS public-private partnership.

It's funny that we approved funds for something a decade off that may never happen but shot down MLS which would start construction asap because you know "sportsball".

^ I dunno, I'm more optimistic on MLS than that.... if the effort completely folds after one setback then that seems rather odd. It's not like other cities except Sacramento are ahead of us with nailing down funding plans even for this first round of expansion. Heck, even Beckham and Miami can't get their act together. I think things can be learned from the failed vote and if the majority of that hopeful ownership group doesn't have the interest to work on new ideas with the new Mayor and possibly regional efforts then that's pretty weird, especially when the announced league expansion fee came in at the low end of their expectations.

As for SC STL, that's a great point... there's nothing preventing that professional club from growing and growing and hopefully being able to one day set up shop at a venue that can host five figures attendance as some USL teams currently enjoy,

RuskiSTL wrote:

gary kreie wrote: ↑

Apr 16, 2017

If one were to build an MLS stadium outside the city, what are the best sites? I looked at Google maps and keyed on the large parking lot on the South side of Galleria at 64 and 170. Galleria could construct another parking structure on the North or East side to make up for the lost parking. That location would be very central, highly visible, and with metro link a short walk away.
https://goo.gl/maps/iPj1PCbnAVF2




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

1. Richmond Heights would never allow it.
2. IF RH allowed it, no way Brentwood, Clayton, Ladue would stand for it

That parking lot is really only used around Christmas, when there is no MLS soccer. And nobody shops there in the summer. I don't know why Ladue or Brentwood would care or have a say in this. Clayton could make up some revenue now that malls have regressed to Amazon showroom status. And it could spur development of Boulevard II finally, as the stadium in Kansas has done. What is a better site? Maryland Heights near the Page Bridge or near Riverport?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

^ Gary, I would also add that the Galleria site is one of the few good county spots where you would have reasonable access via metrolink. Which offers a great no car option for out of town/opposing fans who might make a long weekend out of it. Think KC and or Chicago fans taking a cheap Southwest airlines flight and or River Runner/Linclon Amtrak service to get to town/hotel and the metrolink and short walk on game day.

For better or worse, I can see this site also attracting or being part bigger part of a Galleria redevelopment plan if the mall owners are interested. I think you could easily incorporate more square footage, a repurposed entertainment area (think of competing BPV mega sports bar) as well as a fair size hotel next door at Galleria with structured parking. Not sure if it would be enough to tip the financing scheme to make it happen and or convince ownership team to chip in more of their own dollars.

You would have some significant change & built environment added to the area if a stadium also encourages square footage/structured parking at Galleria, The Boulevards Phase II & the proposed second hotel at the corner of Clayton & Brentwood breaking ground. Add in a great streets program to Clayton CBD

So, has SCSTL come out and disbanded? I don't think they have. I'm confident we will hear something soon..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk