Sounds like civil procedure bull crap within the Missouri Development Finance Board. I'm not yet worried about this. Something tells me the last thing any elected official wants to do is piss off the altruistic, civic-minded new venture by the Kavanaugh and Taylor families, as well as the giant private companies they own.
- 221
For anyone interested, there's the official request from the LCRA. I wonder who didn't get the memo on this? It seems like some political posturing on the part of a few people. I'm sure it will all get resolved in the end.
https://stlouist.com/resource/lcra-mls- ... pplication
https://stlouist.com/resource/lcra-mls- ... pplication
Agreed, but I also think they may be getting some pressure from the legislators on the western side of the state. After looking more deeply into this, however, you're right. What government official who's running for re-election is going to want to PO potential donors with deep pockets?gone corporate wrote: ↑Dec 16, 2019Sounds like civil procedure bull crap within the Missouri Development Finance Board. I'm not yet worried about this. Something tells me the last thing any elected official wants to do is piss off the altruistic, civic-minded new venture by the Kavanaugh and Taylor families, as well as the giant private companies they own.
^ I’m not so sure about the western side of the state pushing back (though that would be totally on brand for them), KC’s Truman Sports Complex already receives a significant state subsidy every year.
- 2,419
If the state makes the group and city think up a different solution, fine, but they better remember that if/when the Royals come crawling for their downtown ballpark.
- 2,386
*SHOCKER* Stay away from the StLToday comment section on this one. My god. I forgot what a cesspool that place is. Might be the only thing on earth that makes me wish FaceBook were still involved.
- 6,123
^Is it just possible they canceled it because of the weather? I got the idea central Missouri took it harder than we did.
It's official now, Charlotte got herself an MLS team.
ESPN - Sources: Charlotte to become MLS' 30th franchise for record $325 million
ESPN - Sources: Charlotte to become MLS' 30th franchise for record $325 million
- 221
So, the State is willing to pay almost $6 million and the City wants $30 million. There we have the floor and the ceiling of this economic price range. Stay tuned until January...maybe.
Article Link
Article Link
- 2,929
Goddammit...
From the article:
From the article:
It seems the ghost of Eric Greitens still haunts Jeff City through his past appointments to the Missouri Development Finance Board, whom Governor Parsons retained when he succeeded Missouri's former Governor and noted sex-photo blackmailer. I'm not saying that Gov Parsons could have seen this coming from the MDFB, but damn this is going to hurt him come November unless he can fix it really quickly. Because if he screws up STL's MLS team, then he's giving up a lot of his potential constituency in STL - and making powerful new enemies - and risks throwing the race to Auditor Nicole Galloway to succeed him as Governor.“This is an exciting project. The ownership group should be commended for their leadership and initiative on this project and longstanding support for the St. Louis region. We understand they are disappointed with this decision. While we support the project, we do not believe that increasing program caps to authorize $30 million in tax credits for a stadium is the right decision for Missouri,” said a statement issued by the Missouri Department of Economic Development...
Despite receiving positive reviews about the proposed stadium development north of Market Street and just west of Union Station, members of Republican Gov. Mike Parson’s administration blocked the financing package floated by the City of St. Louis’s economic development arm.
The move comes after past administrations have been criticized for suggesting the use of state dollars to build a soccer stadium.
In 2016, even before he had taken office, former Gov. Eric Greitens called a plan to spend $40 million in state credits on a stadium “welfare for millionaires.” A different ownership group seeking that money pulled the request...
The finance board cannot approve more than $10 million in credits without the consent of the directors of the departments of economic development, agriculture and natural resources, each of whom were originally appointed by Greitens, who left office in 2018 under a cloud of scandal.
“Last week, the project applicants were informed that cabinet officials would not authorize the tax credit cap increase,” the administration statement said. “They were invited to return to MDFB in January where the board could hear and consider approving a smaller request for credits within its existing cap.”
Rather than the $30 million, the administration is expected to support a $5.7 million infusion of state money if the ownership group asks.
"I'm not saying that Gov Parsons could have seen this coming from the MDFB, but damn this is going to hurt him come November unless he can fix it really quickly. Because if he screws up STL's MLS team, then he's giving up a lot of his potential constituency in STL - and making powerful new enemies - and risks throwing the race to Auditor Nicole Galloway to succeed him as Governor."
Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd guess that the number of "I would have voted for Parsons but for the soccer stadium screw-up" voters (in St. Louis City and County?) is much, much smaller than the number of "Why should a St. Louis team owned by billionaires get more of our tax money?" voters in rural Missouri.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd guess that the number of "I would have voted for Parsons but for the soccer stadium screw-up" voters (in St. Louis City and County?) is much, much smaller than the number of "Why should a St. Louis team owned by billionaires get more of our tax money?" voters in rural Missouri.
- 474
Weren't these tax credits part of the deal to transfer the land from the state to the city to make up for the fact that the land, as is, isn't in a fit state for redevelopment with the highway ramps and elevation changes? The state basically can't sell it for a decent value without fixing it and they don't have the money to fix it so this arrangement was made somewhat independent of what the final use of the property was. Am I just making that up?
- 2,929
That's not yet an issue in out-state MO. In STL Metro, it's now becoming a concern because of real actions that have been taken by the MDFB. Should Governor Parson step in and work to resolve this, it would save him face, although damage has already been done through the actions of certain members of his Administration (i.e.: the MDFB).cngrant wrote: ↑Dec 17, 2019Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd guess that the number of "I would have voted for Parsons but for the soccer stadium screw-up" voters (in St. Louis City and County?) is much, much smaller than the number of "Why should a St. Louis team owned by billionaires get more of our tax money?" voters in rural Missouri.
For it to become a rallying point in out-state MO as you propose, Parson would not only have to claim responsibility of action for this but would have to champion it as something that he led. I very highly doubt he'd pursue such a flip-flopping strategy. To do so, he'd have to deny his previous efforts in furthering the MLS ownership group. That would include his past explicit efforts to further this financing, something the out-state MO voters would have verified to them by any of his political opponents (the tv adverts would be killers here). Concurrently, doing so would be putting the sign "traitor" across his chest to Metro STL voters. And you can't remain a governor if you become known for not keeping your word or turning on your allies.
He hasn't, and won't, do these things. Gov Parson's administration is definitely in damage control mode right now.
Again, it's not Parson's active decisions that led to this, but his passive decisions to retain the members of the MDFB. It's really not that clear how much this could have been anticipated, but it's certainly coming up to bite him in the tail today.
Edit: Parson, not Parsons. Whoops. Thanks dbInSouthCity
- 221
^^^ Exactly.gone corporate wrote: ↑Dec 17, 2019That's not yet an issue in out-state MO. In STL Metro, it's now becoming a concern because of real actions that have been taken by the MDFB. Should Governor Parsons step in and work to resolve this, it would save him face, although damage has already been done through the actions of certain members of his Administration (i.e.: the MDFB).cngrant wrote: ↑Dec 17, 2019Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd guess that the number of "I would have voted for Parsons but for the soccer stadium screw-up" voters (in St. Louis City and County?) is much, much smaller than the number of "Why should a St. Louis team owned by billionaires get more of our tax money?" voters in rural Missouri.
For it to become a rallying point in out-state MO as you propose, Parsons would not only have to claim responsibility of action for this but would have to champion it as something that he led. I very highly doubt he'd pursue such a flip-flopping strategy. To do so, he'd have to deny his previous efforts in furthering the MLS ownership group. That would include his past explicit efforts to further this financing, something the out-state MO voters would have verified to them by any of his political opponents (the tv adverts would be killers here). Concurrently, doing so would be putting the sign "traitor" across his chest to Metro STL voters. And you can't remain a governor if you become known for not keeping your word or turning on your allies.
He hasn't, and won't, do these things. Gov Parsons' administration is definitely in damage control mode right now.
Again, it's not Parsons' active decisions that led to this, but his passive decisions to retain the members of the MDFB. It's really not that clear how much this could have been anticipated, but it's certainly coming up to bite him in the tail today.
I don't know if Parson's people are already in damage control mode, but if they aren't they should be. What a complete embarrassment to all involved.
I dont believe this project will fall apart over $24m. MLS has been forgiving to Miami. MLS2STL counted the money before the deal was closed.
They’ve been awarded a team. They’ve lined up 90% of the funding. The city is bragging about a rare budget surplus. The republican state called a bluff.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
They’ve been awarded a team. They’ve lined up 90% of the funding. The city is bragging about a rare budget surplus. The republican state called a bluff.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- 221
I agree, partially because Parson has to save some face here. As I stated, the price floor is about $6 milllion and ceiling is $30 million. They'll most likely meet in the middle. The article states they can authorize $10 million per year. I bet if the state comes up with this amount, the City will find the the rest. Remember, it's future tax credits, not tangible dollars.addxb2 wrote: ↑Dec 17, 2019I dont believe this project will fall apart over $24m. MLS has been forgiving to Miami. MLS2STL counted the money before the deal was closed.
They’ve been awarded a team. They’ve lined up 90% of the funding. The city is bragging about a rare budget surplus. The republican state called a bluff.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- 99
Bump.Black02AltimaSE wrote: ↑Dec 17, 2019Weren't these tax credits part of the deal to transfer the land from the state to the city to make up for the fact that the land, as is, isn't in a fit state for redevelopment with the highway ramps and elevation changes? The state basically can't sell it for a decent value without fixing it and they don't have the money to fix it so this arrangement was made somewhat independent of what the final use of the property was. Am I just making that up?
I always thought there were state funds earmarked for the revamp of the 22nd Street Interchange?
" I bet if the state comes up with this amount, the City will find the the rest."
Why shouldn't the County come up with the money? City voters have spoken loud and clear about money for this stadium through the last vote. Or, if $10 million is all that separates the parties, then maybe the Taylors can pay. $10 million is less than 1% of the Taylor's $5 billion family net worth. On the other hand, $10 million of deferred tax money is $10 million that can't go to snow plows, or garbage trucks, or to give City workers a raise (when they almost never get raises) or to services for the homeless on the streets, or for police officers, or for youth jobs programs, or for treating opiod addicts, etc. . . .
Why shouldn't the County come up with the money? City voters have spoken loud and clear about money for this stadium through the last vote. Or, if $10 million is all that separates the parties, then maybe the Taylors can pay. $10 million is less than 1% of the Taylor's $5 billion family net worth. On the other hand, $10 million of deferred tax money is $10 million that can't go to snow plows, or garbage trucks, or to give City workers a raise (when they almost never get raises) or to services for the homeless on the streets, or for police officers, or for youth jobs programs, or for treating opiod addicts, etc. . . .
^ Why should the County come up with the money? It's state controlled land which was the reasoning for using state tax credit programs to clear the property of the old highway infrastructure and prep the site.
Also the whole "but what about the plow trucks, raises, etc" isn't really how this works. The city isn't likely to just cut a $10 million check out of their general fund (which pays for most of those things you mention), never mind that a large majority of the city's public safety funding comes from the E tax anyway and wouldn't be touched.
But if you want to talk about the County kicking in some cash for a regional solution to homelessness, then we can talk
Also the whole "but what about the plow trucks, raises, etc" isn't really how this works. The city isn't likely to just cut a $10 million check out of their general fund (which pays for most of those things you mention), never mind that a large majority of the city's public safety funding comes from the E tax anyway and wouldn't be touched.
But if you want to talk about the County kicking in some cash for a regional solution to homelessness, then we can talk
- 2,929
STL Biz Journal: Top St. Louis firms among first construction partners named for MLS stadium
The project's total costs are now estimated at $461MM...
The freshly disappeared pledged $30MM in State tax credits certainly isn't a death knell here, but it sure is a kick in the pants.
Like others, I'm damn interested in how the MDFB will square off the tax credits with the revamp of the 22nd Street Parkway's reconstruction, especially as it ties into the reconstruction of the Jefferson Interchange.
The project's total costs are now estimated at $461MM...
The freshly disappeared pledged $30MM in State tax credits certainly isn't a death knell here, but it sure is a kick in the pants.
Like others, I'm damn interested in how the MDFB will square off the tax credits with the revamp of the 22nd Street Parkway's reconstruction, especially as it ties into the reconstruction of the Jefferson Interchange.
- 3,762
different circumstances, i know, but isn't that pretty much what happened with the Enterprise Center upgrades?sc4mayor wrote: ↑Dec 17, 2019The city isn't likely to just cut a $10 million check out of their general fund (which pays for most of those things you mention)...
To pay off the municipal bonds they issued for the renovations, yes. I'm not aware of the city issuing any bonds for the stadium project and I think a one time payment for work that should be completed by the state is unlikely. Stranger things have happened though.urban_dilettante wrote: ↑Dec 17, 2019different circumstances, i know, but isn't that pretty much what happened with the Enterprise Center upgrades?sc4mayor wrote: ↑Dec 17, 2019The city isn't likely to just cut a $10 million check out of their general fund (which pays for most of those things you mention)...
My uneducated guess would be that the Taylor's will take what the state offers and pay the rest themselves. After all the talk and press about not using any city general funds, I really don't think they'll go down that road.
- 3,762
^ right. i doubt it will happen again until everybody forgets about that fiasco. give it 20 years or so. and i'm definitely not saying that i condone it—just that city management is a dumpster fire so i wouldn't put past them.
No argument from me there haha.urban_dilettante wrote: ↑Dec 17, 2019^ right. i doubt it will happen again until everybody forgets about that fiasco. give it 20 years or so. and i'm definitely not saying that i condone it—just that city management is a dumpster fire so i wouldn't put past them.