Precisely. I tend to try not to side with the meth-using, alleged-rapist camp.
- 1,610
Behind paywall so not sure if their is anything new in the BIz Journal article about state commission to consider soccer stadium this Friday or what if anything the state commission brings to the table to keep things going forward
https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/new ... adium.html
The plan to bring a Major League Soccer team to St. Louis could move forward at a state meeting Friday.
https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/new ... adium.html
The plan to bring a Major League Soccer team to St. Louis could move forward at a state meeting Friday.
- 6,123
Looks like MODOT is considering giving the new team the option to buy the site, as the old option expired. They do talk a little more about the ownership group. (Taylor and Kavanaugh families led by Carolyn Kindle Betz of Enterprise.) There's also mention that MLS is set to meet in December.
City option to buy site for soccer stadium renewed. Anyone with insight on comments in last paragraph of Post Dispatch article.
https://www.stltoday.com/business/local ... d36a4.html
The city's Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority previously secured an option for the land in 2016, during the first effort to lure an MLS stadium, which stalled after voters rejected contributing a portion of sales tax to the effort. That expired in September.
A timeline on this MLS effort is unclear, though owners were supposed to meet with city leaders last week to develop final details on a stadium financing plan, which would be presented to the Board of Aldermen for a vote. The group says it will contribute more to the stadium construction than the prior proposal.
The MHTC voted to allow the LCRA to purchase the property within 18 months for "fair market value."
https://www.stltoday.com/business/local ... d36a4.html
The city's Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority previously secured an option for the land in 2016, during the first effort to lure an MLS stadium, which stalled after voters rejected contributing a portion of sales tax to the effort. That expired in September.
A timeline on this MLS effort is unclear, though owners were supposed to meet with city leaders last week to develop final details on a stadium financing plan, which would be presented to the Board of Aldermen for a vote. The group says it will contribute more to the stadium construction than the prior proposal.
The MHTC voted to allow the LCRA to purchase the property within 18 months for "fair market value."
- 2,056
I believe the last option for "fair market value"
DB said earlier in this thread, "Land give away aint happening if the site is still 22nd street, by federal law MoDOT (state of MO) cant give away that land. It can be sold or leased at fair market value...for sale thats $8-10 million."
DB said earlier in this thread, "Land give away aint happening if the site is still 22nd street, by federal law MoDOT (state of MO) cant give away that land. It can be sold or leased at fair market value...for sale thats $8-10 million."
- 474
^But who will own the land going forward? Will the city buy it for market value and then lease to the team for some tiny amount? I can't remember what the details of the last deal were.
Updated with PD article outlining help and timeline the coming months. Seems to match up and be in place for December MLS league meeting if I recall past posts correctly
Owner group rep states that they will build stadium with no debt. So assuming similar deal that DeWitt got for Busch stadium if I understand what is being asked for. Will build stadium but get a cut of the ticket sales tax revenue back to pay off the cost of stadium. The one difference I take away for soccer stadium is the ownership group is putting up their own money instead of a loan to be repaid back in part with a cut of the ticket sales tax.
https://www.stltoday.com/business/local ... op-story-1
The Kavanaugh-Taylor group is asking for tax-dollar help. The city of St. Louis has proposed giving the owners a 50-percent break on ticket taxes, a full tax exemption on stadium construction materials, a $30 million tax break from the state, a 3 percent sales tax on stadium goods, and the free use of land — just west of Union Station on Market Street — for the stadium.
A city development board, the Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority, could approve some of the incentives Thursday. City aldermen are set to vote on a resolution outlining the deal in coming weeks. And the Missouri Development Finance Board could approve state incentives in December.
But Betz said there were still many unknowns. The league has not discussed a franchise or expansion fee — which could crest $150 million — with the owners, she said.
Owner group rep states that they will build stadium with no debt. So assuming similar deal that DeWitt got for Busch stadium if I understand what is being asked for. Will build stadium but get a cut of the ticket sales tax revenue back to pay off the cost of stadium. The one difference I take away for soccer stadium is the ownership group is putting up their own money instead of a loan to be repaid back in part with a cut of the ticket sales tax.
https://www.stltoday.com/business/local ... op-story-1
The Kavanaugh-Taylor group is asking for tax-dollar help. The city of St. Louis has proposed giving the owners a 50-percent break on ticket taxes, a full tax exemption on stadium construction materials, a $30 million tax break from the state, a 3 percent sales tax on stadium goods, and the free use of land — just west of Union Station on Market Street — for the stadium.
A city development board, the Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority, could approve some of the incentives Thursday. City aldermen are set to vote on a resolution outlining the deal in coming weeks. And the Missouri Development Finance Board could approve state incentives in December.
But Betz said there were still many unknowns. The league has not discussed a franchise or expansion fee — which could crest $150 million — with the owners, she said.
- 1,292
Intrigue abounds.
Aldermen in dispute over who would own MLS stadium
St. Louis Alderwoman Christine Ingrassia said she withdrew a Major League Soccer stadium plan Friday after the board’s president threatened to make public her past payment dispute with Enterprise Rent-A-Car.
The ownership group pursuing an MLS team includes members of the Taylor family, which also owns the car rental company.
Ingrassia said David Sweeney, a lobbyist for the potential MLS ownership group, "confirmed" to her that Aldermanic President Lewis Reed would say during a public board meeting that Ingrassia wants to kill the stadium deal out of "spite" because of the dispute.
Sweeney said he gave Ingrassia procedural advice on how to withdraw her resolution — nothing more.
Ingrassia's campaign finance report dated March 15 shows a $3,364 "disputed charge to account" with Enterprise. The charge is dated Jan. 1, 2017.
Ingrassia said she has not talked to Reed about the alleged threat.
Reed is sponsoring a competing resolution, released Wednesday, that outlines a financing package for the stadium. Reed's resolution says the city would own the stadium, and that, among other things, the ownership group would put money into a fund for stadium improvements or demolition. Ingrassia's resolution says the ownership group would own the stadium. The issue has become closely watched after the St. Louis Blues last year fought for and won public funds for Enterprise Center upgrades. The board can make endorsements via resolutions; they are not binding.
Ingrassia said the city should not own the stadium, in part because the improvements fund would total only $9.5 million after 30 years, "which doesn't come close to the significant money needed for (stadium) rehabilitation."
Ingrassia said she withdrew her resolution Friday because the board is not the place to discuss her dispute with Enterprise. She said she could reintroduce it if Reed's resolution is not amended in committee to say the team's owners group will also own the stadium. Reed's resolution is scheduled to go before the Housing, Urban Development and Zoning Committee.
"I think it's inappropriate and absurd to suggest that I would kill a soccer deal because of a disputed credit card charge," Ingrassia said, adding that she has worked with Taylor family members on another project, in Fox Park.
Reed and his chief of staff did not respond to requests for comment.
A spokesperson for the ownership group, #MLS4THELOU, had no immediate comment. Its leader, Carolyn Kindle Betz, Enterprise Holdings Foundation director, said earlier this week that there will likely be a hearing on Reed's resolution sometime in the next two weeks and that the ownership group hopes the Board of Aldermen votes to approve the resolution by the end of the month.
- 3,762
Wow... this is pretty blatant blackmail. Reed is a ***** a**hole. No reason for the city to own this. How many times do we have to get ***** over before our dumb-ass, Podunk politicians get a ***** clue. I wonder how much $ the Taylors are promising to Reed's crooked ass.
I can't say who is telling the truth or the full story but obviously you have decided her words are the truth and we get a cuss filled rant posted. Thanks for taking the low roadurban_dilettante wrote: ↑Nov 16, 2018Wow... this is pretty blatant blackmail. Reed is a f***ing a**hole. No reason for the city to own this. How many times do we have to get f***ed over before our dumb-ass, Podunk politicians get a f***ing clue. I wonder how much $ the Taylors are promising to Reed's crooked ass.
- 3,762
^ yeah b/c Reed's not a career politician and has never done anything crooked or taken money from deep-pocketed donors before. what does Ingrassia have to gain by lying about this? her resolution is the one that doesn't potentially put tax payers on the hook for another Savvis Center fiasco. you seriously think she'd put forward this resolution just because she's having a payment dispute with Enterprise? give me a ***** break. oh, sorry, forgot your kids are reading.
Since you want to go down the road of why would she lie as a basis of your argument. You can also ask, why didn't she follow through instead of pulling her item from the agenda? She is in the same game. As by your comments, she could probably bring up a fair share of dirt on Reed.
As far as this thread goes, Merits of city owning the stadium or not? She is bringing up a legitimate point and should be discussed by the city council. Maybe I don't understand all the math involved but have a tough time believing only $9.5 in revenues after 30 years of tax revenue collection. So would like to understand that number
Personally, I think city is far better off with this proposal then what was voted upon and MLS is better proposition then trying to lure NFL/Chargers. I also think the city owning this asset is a not bad deal when it comes to anchoring West Downtown/Union Station when old 22nd pkwy goes away next year. it will bring x fans per year over the next several decades downtown, add hotel bookings & opportunity for additional soccer/NCAA events in what I would rebrand as sports alley (Clark Ave) with Busch/BPV & MLS/Union Station book ending Scottrade in the middle..
As far as this thread goes, Merits of city owning the stadium or not? She is bringing up a legitimate point and should be discussed by the city council. Maybe I don't understand all the math involved but have a tough time believing only $9.5 in revenues after 30 years of tax revenue collection. So would like to understand that number
Personally, I think city is far better off with this proposal then what was voted upon and MLS is better proposition then trying to lure NFL/Chargers. I also think the city owning this asset is a not bad deal when it comes to anchoring West Downtown/Union Station when old 22nd pkwy goes away next year. it will bring x fans per year over the next several decades downtown, add hotel bookings & opportunity for additional soccer/NCAA events in what I would rebrand as sports alley (Clark Ave) with Busch/BPV & MLS/Union Station book ending Scottrade in the middle..
- 3,762
what game? you mean working on the taxpayers' behalf? maybe she doesn't want to be dragged through the mud by Reed and the Taylors' lobbyist and she knows it'll go to committee where they'll have an opportunity to change it before it's perfected. i'll put Ingrassia's integrity up against Reed's any day of the week.
People always are going to argue over these but we all know it will get passed. Way worse deals get passed so I don't think this one will have much trouble.
- 3,762
Oh, gosh. I'm shocked.
![]()
Posted by @Beganovic_85 on Twitter.
Posted by @Beganovic_85 on Twitter.
dredger wrote: ↑Nov 15, 2018Owner group rep states that they will build stadium with no debt. So assuming similar deal that DeWitt got for Busch stadium if I understand what is being asked for. Will build stadium but get a cut of the ticket sales tax revenue back to pay off the cost of stadium. The one difference I take away for soccer stadium is the ownership group is putting up their own money instead of a loan to be repaid back in part with a cut of the ticket sales tax.
The Taylors-Kavanaughs will build the stadium with their own money AND the City will own it? This doesn't sound right. Can someone explain?urban_dilettante wrote: ↑Nov 16, 2018Wow... this is pretty blatant blackmail. Reed is a f***ing a**hole. No reason for the city to own this. How many times do we have to get f***ed over before our dumb-ass, Podunk politicians get a f***ing clue. I wonder how much $ the Taylors are promising to Reed's crooked ass.
It is so they don't have to pay property tax on it.stlien wrote: ↑Nov 18, 2018dredger wrote: ↑Nov 15, 2018Owner group rep states that they will build stadium with no debt. So assuming similar deal that DeWitt got for Busch stadium if I understand what is being asked for. Will build stadium but get a cut of the ticket sales tax revenue back to pay off the cost of stadium. The one difference I take away for soccer stadium is the ownership group is putting up their own money instead of a loan to be repaid back in part with a cut of the ticket sales tax.The Taylors-Kavanaughs will build the stadium with their own money AND the City will own it? This doesn't sound right. Can someone explain?urban_dilettante wrote: ↑Nov 16, 2018Wow... this is pretty blatant blackmail. Reed is a f***ing a**hole. No reason for the city to own this. How many times do we have to get f***ed over before our dumb-ass, Podunk politicians get a f***ing clue. I wonder how much $ the Taylors are promising to Reed's crooked ass.
- 9,571
Lewis Reed has taken $100,000 from World Wide Tech owners and $5,000 from enterprise in campaign donations. And another $10,000 from blues ownership group. So he is paid for and will not stop regardless if the city gets screwed.
Don't all the politicians take money from big corporations/people? Ingrassia has taken donations from Enterprise as well as private developers. With your logic, all politicians are "paid for."dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑Nov 18, 2018Lewis Reed has taken $100,000 from World Wide Tech owners and $5,000 from enterprise in campaign donations. And another $10,000 from blues ownership group. So he is paid for and will not stop regardless if the city gets screwed.
- 3,762
The tax will not be enough. For comparison, the Savvis Center renovation cost city tax payers over $100 million–more than 10 times what this 2.5% tax is expected to raise after 30 years. If the city owns the stadium city tax payers will end up getting screwed again. The lease agreement will conveniently get lost.
Ingrassia hasn't accepted anywhere near the amount of money that Reed has. And not sure how her donations from Enterprise matter in this scenario given that she's opposing their favored resolution. She's trying to protect the city/city taxpayers from another criminal pilfering of general revenue by a wealthy franchise owner.
Really you only need to know how much it would cost to demolish. If they don't pay for upgrades after 30 years and walk, then you just demolish it. The city didn't put any money into it, so who cares if they walk at that point. Tear it down and sell the land.urban_dilettante wrote: ↑Nov 19, 2018The tax will not be enough. For comparison, the Savvis Center renovation cost city tax payers over $100 million–more than 10 times what the 2.5% tax is expected to raise after 30 years. If the city owns the stadium city tax payers will end up getting screwed again. The lease agreement will conveniently get lost.
People can claim the Taylor's are evil and want to rip off the city all they want, but ultimately they are plunking down ~$200 million in cash to build a downtown facility on land that will remain a dead end highway exit otherwise. That's putting a lot of skin in the game, especially when dealing with a government that has shown no hesitation in showering tax abatements and other incentives on any and everyone willing to put a shovel in the ground over the last 20 years.
STL is always comparing ourselves to our peer cities and envious of those who have passed us by. Well our peer cities would be drooling over a privately financed stadium deal being dropped on their doorstep. Take everyone's golden child - Nashville - for example - they just approved a $225 million deal financed by city revenue bonds to be re-paid by a combo of the team and ticket tax any shortage of which is eaten by the city. Cincinnati just agreed to come out of pocket over $30 million on Day 1 and will also own the stadium.
The risk in the deal being proposed by the Taylor's is that in 25 years, the city may have to pony up to maintain/upgrade parts of the stadium. Not ideal, but to help fund that, City Hall is being handed a revenue stream in the form of ticket tax and ultimately ancillary revenues w/ minimal short term expense on their end. That number might fall short of the costs but this doesn't have to be viewed as a zero sum game where the only way it works is if the revenue generated directly covers the costs. With a 25 year runway, you'd hope that they could find a way to use some combination of the added revenue, the state-of-the-art facility, the increased traffic and development in Downtown West and the general improved morale/momentum of the city to capitalize on it for what it is - a quarter of a billion dollar private investment in your backyard.
Or, we can let it move to the County (which the MLS absolutely will let happen this time)and probably won't hear a peep when it's called on to upgrade/maintain it in 2045.
STL is always comparing ourselves to our peer cities and envious of those who have passed us by. Well our peer cities would be drooling over a privately financed stadium deal being dropped on their doorstep. Take everyone's golden child - Nashville - for example - they just approved a $225 million deal financed by city revenue bonds to be re-paid by a combo of the team and ticket tax any shortage of which is eaten by the city. Cincinnati just agreed to come out of pocket over $30 million on Day 1 and will also own the stadium.
The risk in the deal being proposed by the Taylor's is that in 25 years, the city may have to pony up to maintain/upgrade parts of the stadium. Not ideal, but to help fund that, City Hall is being handed a revenue stream in the form of ticket tax and ultimately ancillary revenues w/ minimal short term expense on their end. That number might fall short of the costs but this doesn't have to be viewed as a zero sum game where the only way it works is if the revenue generated directly covers the costs. With a 25 year runway, you'd hope that they could find a way to use some combination of the added revenue, the state-of-the-art facility, the increased traffic and development in Downtown West and the general improved morale/momentum of the city to capitalize on it for what it is - a quarter of a billion dollar private investment in your backyard.
Or, we can let it move to the County (which the MLS absolutely will let happen this time)and probably won't hear a peep when it's called on to upgrade/maintain it in 2045.
- 1,864
If the stadium deal is as good as some are trying to make it appear, why isn’t the county going all out for it? And if it’s truly good for the entire region, then why would it be some unspeakable option for it to not be downtown?
Im always amazed at how quick some are to defend any sports (and specifically did this thread) soccer stadium proposal. Some of the arguments are irrational and then the debate spirals into a never ending game of moving goal posts or arbitrary benchmarks. Yes, a soccer stadium would be great for a region that’s obsessed with the sport but no, we shouldn’t just line up behind this proposal as is and without trying to get the absolute best deal for the city. I would love to see it get built but also approve of those who want to limit any financial risk to the city. You can have both.
Im always amazed at how quick some are to defend any sports (and specifically did this thread) soccer stadium proposal. Some of the arguments are irrational and then the debate spirals into a never ending game of moving goal posts or arbitrary benchmarks. Yes, a soccer stadium would be great for a region that’s obsessed with the sport but no, we shouldn’t just line up behind this proposal as is and without trying to get the absolute best deal for the city. I would love to see it get built but also approve of those who want to limit any financial risk to the city. You can have both.
^ My understanding is the new ownership as well as MLS league to be in the thick of it, urban setting. Yes, everyone could pack up and easily drop it in the county on the easy to build, level floodplain protected by subsidized levee.
However, I do think it is fair to say that the city is not simply bending over. An ownership group with a lot less financial resources tried the old fashion way of getting the city/voters of not only owning the stadium but financing a good chunk of it outright, That didn't even answer the question if the old ownership even could afford the franchise fee. Essentially, city voters pushed back from a bad deal and getting something much more solid in return.
My two cents is downtown St Louis is going have to be all the above going forward including Office, Residential, Convention and Entertain/Sports. In this case, you got a family(s) with big bucks to front a new MLS soccer stadium & the franchise fee and the possible bad outcome is a city owned paid for by ticket taxes (revenues that won't be there if you don't build the stadium) in the heart west downtown on property that is already publically owned non-taxable. In addition you add a significant recreational/open air event space a short walk away from Metrolink, Union Station, Scottrade, BPV, Busch Stadium. Having the foot traffic from a different fan base in and around this area plus additional hotel bookings including the hotel being built right next it as well as the one existing at Union Station..
Tweak this deal and the outcome is not that bad for the city especially when you consider recently upgraded Scottrade keeps you eligible for NCAA events & the new soccer stadium expands the number/scope of NCAA & other sport related events. Or as you noted, it ends up in the county. Most likely Chesterfield or next to the new Blues practice facility or the new Hazelwood sports plex. The added revenues from the Restaurant, bar and hotel bookings will follow the stadium.
However, I do think it is fair to say that the city is not simply bending over. An ownership group with a lot less financial resources tried the old fashion way of getting the city/voters of not only owning the stadium but financing a good chunk of it outright, That didn't even answer the question if the old ownership even could afford the franchise fee. Essentially, city voters pushed back from a bad deal and getting something much more solid in return.
My two cents is downtown St Louis is going have to be all the above going forward including Office, Residential, Convention and Entertain/Sports. In this case, you got a family(s) with big bucks to front a new MLS soccer stadium & the franchise fee and the possible bad outcome is a city owned paid for by ticket taxes (revenues that won't be there if you don't build the stadium) in the heart west downtown on property that is already publically owned non-taxable. In addition you add a significant recreational/open air event space a short walk away from Metrolink, Union Station, Scottrade, BPV, Busch Stadium. Having the foot traffic from a different fan base in and around this area plus additional hotel bookings including the hotel being built right next it as well as the one existing at Union Station..
Tweak this deal and the outcome is not that bad for the city especially when you consider recently upgraded Scottrade keeps you eligible for NCAA events & the new soccer stadium expands the number/scope of NCAA & other sport related events. Or as you noted, it ends up in the county. Most likely Chesterfield or next to the new Blues practice facility or the new Hazelwood sports plex. The added revenues from the Restaurant, bar and hotel bookings will follow the stadium.