City vs Rams Lawsuit

chris fuller · PostJan 30, 2025#53762025-01-30T21:41+00:00

As Rams bill heads to a vote, a new spectre looms—Trump
Some aldermen wonder whether the city’s plans for Rams funding still makes sense in the post-Biden universe.
https://www.stlmag.com/news/rams-bill-st-louis-board-of-aldermen-trump/?utm_content=323338138&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&hss_channel=fbp-78564012083

Auggie · PostJan 30, 2025#53772025-01-30T22:13+00:00

I think it's so funny how everyone is so up tight about "how the city spends the moeny" meanwhile St. Louis County blew $40M of it on roads and everyone just accepted that as normal.

I do still strongly disagree with moving $14M from the downtown portion of the bill, that's just unnecessary as far as I'm concerned.

goat314 · PostJan 30, 2025#53782025-01-30T22:18+00:00

Apparently, the federal funding freeze has been rescinded. I believe that Biden's infrastructure money will be funded through the end of 2026. Trump will probably be in a lawsuit with many organizations that depend on federally funded grants for the duration of that time. If I had to guess, the last couple years of his administration will be the real fight but by then I'd imagine that Trump will probably lose the house in 2026. He'll either have to compromise or there will likely be status quo.

quincunx · PostJan 30, 2025#53792025-01-30T22:36+00:00

It's probably wise to hold back ~half until at least 2027 given the chaos in DC and Jeff City.

whitherSTL · PostJan 31, 2025#53802025-01-31T18:28+00:00

Discussion halted at City Hall.

addxb2 · PostJan 31, 2025#53812025-01-31T19:07+00:00

How and why did the discussions fall apart?

dbInSouthCity · PostJan 31, 2025#53822025-01-31T19:15+00:00

Alder from the 1st tried to separate $40m for water projects and pass it today and punt on the other $250m.

Some alders, including alder from the 7th (Sonnier) were upset with Green when she took away $14m from downtown during HUDZ committee meeting (Boyd was mad about that too). Sonnier started to make a motion to restore that original compromise bill with $74m for downtown and green abruptly gaveled the session in recess until Tuesday

addxb2 · PostJan 31, 2025#53832025-01-31T19:20+00:00

Interesting. WePower tell Green that their payday wasn’t big enough?

dbInSouthCity · PostJan 31, 2025#53842025-01-31T19:26+00:00

There is no money in bb131 nor 153 going to WePower

robertn42 · PostJan 31, 2025#53852025-01-31T19:29+00:00

Briefly looking into it, WePower seems to be an advocacy organization of ideas and ideals with very few, if any, real capabilities. Why should they receive any of the (our) money and what would they be doing with it other than funding their own organization?

addxb2 · PostJan 31, 2025#53862025-01-31T19:30+00:00

Not directly but inevitably the same people involved would’ve had a hand in drafting a fairly pointed RFP for program management.

dbInSouthCity · PostJan 31, 2025#53872025-01-31T19:30+00:00

robertn42 wrote: ↑
Jan 31, 2025
Briefly looking into it, WePower seems to be an advocacy organization of ideas and ideals with very few, if any, real capabilities. Why should they receive any of the (our) money and what would they be doing with it other than funding their own organization?

See my post above

Auggie · PostJan 31, 2025#53882025-01-31T19:44+00:00

$14M should go back into the downtown fund. Still cannot grasp why Green thought it was a good idea to move it.

dbInSouthCity · PostJan 31, 2025#53892025-01-31T19:45+00:00

addxb2 wrote: ↑
Jan 31, 2025
Not directly but inevitably the same people involved would’ve had a hand in drafting a fairly pointed RFP for program management.

I don't think so, they don't manage programs like that nor have the staff to do it. Their whole goal is increasing funded for early childhood education since SLPS only offers age 4 and up and nothing 0-3. Their lobbying on this bill is no different than GSLs. both advocating for something they care about. Although GLS does have a for-profit real estate fund that would benefits from some of the downtown pots but its indirect and the fund steps in to bridge gaps in funding for worthwhile projects

robertn42 · PostJan 31, 2025#53902025-01-31T19:49+00:00

dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑
Jan 31, 2025
robertn42 wrote: ↑
Jan 31, 2025
Briefly looking into it, WePower seems to be an advocacy organization of ideas and ideals with very few, if any, real capabilities. Why should they receive any of the (our) money and what would they be doing with it other than funding their own organization?
See my post above

Got it, so why are they being referenced so much and what is the money actually being appointed for or to?

dbInSouthCity · PostJan 31, 2025#53912025-01-31T19:55+00:00

robertn42 wrote: ↑
Jan 31, 2025
dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑
Jan 31, 2025
robertn42 wrote: ↑
Jan 31, 2025
Briefly looking into it, WePower seems to be an advocacy organization of ideas and ideals with very few, if any, real capabilities. Why should they receive any of the (our) money and what would they be doing with it other than funding their own organization?
See my post above
Got it, so why are they being referenced so much and what is the money actually being appointed for or to?

Starts on Page 15

From STL Maz coverage going into today

The debate over the proposed childcare program is just the latest in a series of such back-and-forths that have played out in the city and county in recent years over the government’s role in funding early childhood education and daycare.
In 2020, city voters approved Proposition R, raising property taxes by six cents to fund childcare in the city.
Since then, money raised through that tax has yielded about $2.3 million a year for early childhood education. Those funds are administered through the St. Louis Mental Health Board. Data provided by the MHB to SLM shows that while the money from Prop R does to hiring more staff and increasing programs offered at early childhood care facilities, it hasn't been used to defray costs of children's enrollment, as the money in the Rams settlement bill is supposed to do.
MHB’s executive director Cassandra Kaufman says that because the board operates under a specific state statute related to children’s mental health, they are somewhat limited in how they can use the funds.
The MHB board picks applicants who are funded on a three-year cycle. Some critics, including Pam Mitchell, who worked as a childcare professional for 30 years, complain that the money has disproportionately aided bigger players in the early childcare space.
The same year that Prop R passed in the city, a similar effort in St. Louis County failed to make it on the ballot after critics raised concerns about that proposal’s vague language as to where the money would actually go. One of the people raising that alarm was Saint Louis University political science professor Ken Warren, who said at the time, “With so much flexibility in it you don’t know where the money is going to be spent. They could even spend it outside the county.”
Warren tells SLM he doesn’t have the same level of alarm about the Rams settlement bill.
“This is a pretty well-written bill,” he says. “The allocations are pretty specific.”

Auggie · PostJan 31, 2025#53922025-01-31T20:14+00:00

robertn42 wrote: ↑
Jan 31, 2025
dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑
Jan 31, 2025
robertn42 wrote: ↑
Jan 31, 2025
Briefly looking into it, WePower seems to be an advocacy organization of ideas and ideals with very few, if any, real capabilities. Why should they receive any of the (our) money and what would they be doing with it other than funding their own organization?
See my post above
Got it, so why are they being referenced so much and what is the money actually being appointed for or to?

Smear campaign, that is largely why.

STLrainbow · PostJan 31, 2025#53932025-01-31T21:33+00:00

tbh I'm not too familiar with the proposed childcare fund but SLPS definitely has pre-K 3. Pre-K 3 is in almost all neighborhood schools and also is in most magnets. Not sure why the false information on that.
https://www.slps.org/Page/78757

Fraydog · PostJan 31, 2025#53942025-01-31T21:39+00:00

Seems like Green overreacted here. Sonnier was correct to protect downtown and that principle was in line with what Denis proposed.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

dbInSouthCity · PostJan 31, 2025#53952025-01-31T21:40+00:00

STLrainbow wrote: ↑
Jan 31, 2025
tbh I'm not too familiar with the proposed childcare fund but SLPS definitely has pre-K 3. Pre-K 3 is in almost all neighborhood schools and also is in most magnets. Not sure why the false information on that.
https://www.slps.org/Page/78757

“Neighborhood elementary schools offer pre-k programs to 3- and 4-year olds who have turned 3 or 4 prior to August 1st of the enrollment year.”

I was off by a year. But as stated on SLPS
website, there is nothing for 0,1,2 year olds. Also SLPS has made no request or put forward a proposal to start a program for those ages and make the ask for money from Rams settlement but should they start a program in the future, it would be eligible to get these funds if city employees send their children to that program

STLrainbow · PostJan 31, 2025#53962025-01-31T21:46+00:00

You said that it didn't offerpre-K for 3 yr. olds. It does Just correcting misinformation. That's all.

dbInSouthCity · PostJan 31, 2025#53972025-01-31T22:47+00:00

STLrainbow wrote: ↑
Jan 31, 2025
You said that it didn't offerpre-K for 3 yr. olds. It does Just correcting misinformation. That's all.

Misinformation is intentional. Being off by a year but getting the general point correct isn’t misinformation.

Debaliviere91 · PostJan 31, 2025#53982025-01-31T23:09+00:00

dbInSouthCity wrote:
STLrainbow wrote: ↑
Jan 31, 2025
You said that it didn't offerpre-K for 3 yr. olds. It does Just correcting misinformation. That's all.
Misinformation is intentional. Being off by a year but getting the general point correct isn’t misinformation.

Actually disinformation is intentional. Misinformation is not.

dbInSouthCity · PostJan 31, 2025#53992025-01-31T23:27+00:00

Take it up with the oxford dictionary

Debaliviere91 · PostJan 31, 2025#54002025-01-31T23:36+00:00

That’s not accurate. It doesn’t really matter, but if you want to use those two terms correctly, what I’ve shared is the difference. Misinformation is irregardless of intent. Disinformation is with the intent to deceive.

City vs Rams Lawsuit

Choose Display Mode