[OldSchool]

I think this really bugs the heck out of me. I think just as we have a separation of Church and State we need to have a separation of Business and State. This reeks of coercion and far past time we redo our eminent domain laws and limit to the use being only for the public good and welfare. When did we devolve into a society where unelected folks could feel proud and brag they took a vote and it passed for them to snatch your land from ya. Time for lawmakers to do what the original intent of the Constitution was, to empower and limit the power of government and time to set clear case lines and specifics as to when and only when government can acquire private land. It is a sad day when appointed parties feel proud enough in the light of day to vote and then make headlines how easily they can decide what can be done to a private individual. Way past time for restraint on elected government and so much more their appointed lackeys.

I agree RLI this bugs the shit out of me excuse my much practiced french. First they won't give the citizens a vote on how tax money will be spent. It's totally irrelevant that it's not taxes citizens are paying, it's taxes that both business and pleasure visitors to the area are paying. That's all well and good but there are so many things that tax dollars should go to before they get spent on pro sports stadiums.

Now if somebody won't sell their property they will seize it. I understand the area is a blight and it needs to be revamped. It's virtually a dead zone with little to no businesses operating in the area it's a warren for the homeless and crack houses. Those kind of areas need to be taken care of and cleaned up. Hey here's a thought those tax dollars you would spend on a stadium how about you put towards cleaning up this area of the city and helping the homeless. Reading into it this area has been like this for a long time and they finally now care enough to clean it up but the only way to do that is supposedly a new football stadium? Yeah sorry not buying it.

I truly feel bad for the true Rams fans in St Louis, though I think some over estimate the amount in the area. It can't be fun to go through losing a team. Let alone for some losing a team the 2nd time. But this is the 2nd time a team has tried to leave town for similar reasons(little fan support and shitty stadiums). And they're going about it all wrong to try to build a stadium. Plus the fact they insist on trying to make one of the biggest and best land developer/property managers a renter. IMO either do it right and work with him to build his own stadium or stop ripping off your citizens.

That's not even getting into the fact that they're getting a better chance to save their second franchise than the people of LA got to save the Rams. It's a restoration not a relocation.

[Rams the Legends live on]

I agree RLI this bugs the shit out of me excuse my much practiced french. First they won't give the citizens a vote on how tax money will be spent. It's totally irrelevant that it's not taxes citizens are paying, it's taxes that both business and pleasure visitors to the area are paying. That's all well and good but there are so many things that tax dollars should go to before they get spent on pro sports stadiums.

Now if somebody won't sell their property they will seize it. I understand the area is a blight and it needs to be revamped. It's virtually a dead zone with little to no businesses operating in the area it's a warren for the homeless and crack houses. Those kind of areas need to be taken care of and cleaned up. Hey here's a thought those tax dollars you would spend on a stadium how about you put towards cleaning up this area of the city and helping the homeless. Reading into it this area has been like this for a long time and they finally now care enough to clean it up but the only way to do that is supposedly a new football stadium? Yeah sorry not buying it.

I truly feel bad for the true Rams fans in St Louis, though I think some over estimate the amount in the area. It can't be fun to go through losing a team. Let alone for some losing a team the 2nd time. But this is the 2nd time a team has tried to leave town for similar reasons(little fan support and shitty stadiums). And they're going about it all wrong to try to build a stadium. Plus the fact they insist on trying to make one of the biggest and best land developer/property managers a renter. IMO either do it right and work with him to build his own stadium or stop ripping off your citizens.

That's not even getting into the fact that they're getting a better chance to save their second franchise than the people of LA got to save the Rams. It's a restoration not a relocation.

Interesting ya say ya are not buying it bro. Earlier today I just had one of those ok what the heck is really up since it appears they are trying to skirt the electoral process and now the article about the RSA saying they held a vote to use eminent domain if need be. I tried a couple searches and really any info on the the north riverside was sparse investigative wise. Another thing that has been bothering me in this is the total absence of any investigative journalism we would normally find in some kind of process like this. Naming names and who would stand to profit. Anyway I will dig up the couple articles I found and post them and the links later on Friday.

Anyway one thing I have cautioned friends from the boards is a repeat of what happened before using a one size fits all solution for the Rams like they did with the Dome. One article mentions how they have been planning to redo the area first and it was Peacock who came to the committee and dropped the idea since they where having a problem with certain plots of land and what to build or put there why not put the stadium there then bundle the whole idea and sale. Which is not illegal or even really suspect in ways it makes total sense.

However it just has me wondering if the Rams might be just secondary and they were added as part of the solution as a after thought. So their interest is really more on developing this area and the Rams just fit with what they wanna do. So would make the NFL G-4 money real important as they would have the Rams and the NFL ante up a portion for their plans. Would also make sense why they plan to own the stadium and lease it back. As the Rams and the NFL's money is vitally important. Would also make sense since many of us who do not live in the area has questioned why don't they just work a deal with Stan where he could just build his own stadium like he is gonna do in LA. Which again to many of us outsiders looks like it could be a solution for them keeping the Rams. Yet they refuse to have a dialogue on such a topic.

I have posted across 2 different boards now how Stan is a member of organizations in StL that has allowed him to have direct working experience with the affluent and the committees in St Louey. I am beginning to wonder if Stan is aware from his connections and experience that the Rams are just secondary and it is the money he as a owner would bring along with how he fits their plans that has turned him cold. As once again down the road this could present another problem such as it did for the Dome where the Rams were a up sell and a add on. Stan is a developer so he understands how future problems could happen and effect a developed area. Maybe what really sticks in his crawl is he knows if any of the future problems that he can forecast today if they do become a reality down the road he will back himself into a corner by allowing himself to just become part of their development plans.

[bluecoconuts]

I always took is as they want the Rams to fund fixing their city... For next to nothing. The billion dollars isn't just for the stadium, it's for everything... So if other things have cost overruns, that aren't the stadium who pays for it? Stan... They're using the NFL and Stan to fix up their ghetto, and putting up a few hundred million, which probably isn't enough to fix it up if they weren't putting a stadium there. You'd have to imagine that the NFL is smart enough to see this, but it's hard to say what the Rams are or aren't saying. If I was Stan, I would be putting up everything I could to show the NFL how the project doesn't work for him. On the top of that list (for me) would be that they want me to pay near 700 million, before overruns, to fix up their city and then pay rent because I wont even own it? Bullshit.

[Hacksaw]

I agree RLI this bugs the shit out of me excuse my much practiced french. First they won't give the citizens a vote on how tax money will be spent. It's totally irrelevant that it's not taxes citizens are paying, it's taxes that both business and pleasure visitors to the area are paying. That's all well and good but there are so many things that tax dollars should go to before they get spent on pro sports stadiums.

Now if somebody won't sell their property they will seize it. I understand the area is a blight and it needs to be revamped. It's virtually a dead zone with little to no businesses operating in the area it's a warren for the homeless and crack houses. Those kind of areas need to be taken care of and cleaned up. Hey here's a thought those tax dollars you would spend on a stadium how about you put towards cleaning up this area of the city and helping the homeless. Reading into it this area has been like this for a long time and they finally now care enough to clean it up but the only way to do that is supposedly a new football stadium? Yeah sorry not buying it.

I truly feel bad for the true Rams fans in St Louis, though I think some over estimate the amount in the area. It can't be fun to go through losing a team. Let alone for some losing a team the 2nd time. But this is the 2nd time a team has tried to leave town for similar reasons(little fan support and shitty stadiums). And they're going about it all wrong to try to build a stadium. Plus the fact they insist on trying to make one of the biggest and best land developer/property managers a renter. IMO either do it right and work with him to build his own stadium or stop ripping off your citizens.

That's not even getting into the fact that they're getting a better chance to save their second franchise than the people of LA got to save the Rams. It's a restoration not a relocation.

Great post OldSchool. I'm tight with you on every point. The last paragraph in particular struck me as I have been getting that same feeling lately...

[Rams the Legends live on]

Here are some of the articles I was able to find out of St. Louey that calls into question the logic of this and others that like I said dug a little deeper into things than the usual repeat Peacock verbatim reporters. An of course articles that show the redevelopment came first and the stadium is being incorporated in afterwards.

Then, in January, Gov. Jay Nixon’s two-man task force announced plans for an open-air football stadium, smack in the middle of the 180 acres being studied. The plan, said Edward Jones Dome attorney Bob Blitz and former Anheuser-Busch President Dave Peacock, was to build a $985 million stadium, and keep the Rams from leaving St. Louis. So the riverfront plan adapted.

“If the stadium plan was there before I was there, I did not know it,” said Susan Trautman, executive director of the trails district. “The north riverfront was on my radar from the day I was hired.”

As soon as Trautman knew the stadium effort was real, she said, Great Rivers and Forum began planning on two tracks: one with a stadium and one without.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... 59c7d.html

This past November it was announced that Great Rivers Greenway would commission a six month study of the city’s near north riverfront, a largely industrial area dotted with vacant buildings and lots, but also home to the $500M Lumiere Casino and Four Seasons Hotel, The Landing, the new Bissinger’s Chocolate factory and event space, and adjacent to the $350M Arch grounds renovation.

While there’s plenty of space to work with, there’s been an incredible amount of investment in the area over the past few years. The remaining vacancy is a testament to just how much empty land there is. If a stadium were to incorporate the vision here, reduce surface parking, and be built alongside parks, apartments, and offices, we might be onto something. (GRG is soliciting feedback via this survey – open until 7/24)

http://nextstl.com/2015/07/north-riverf ... l-stadium/

Jeff Rainford, Mayor Francis Slay’s former chief of staff, sent the Post-Dispatch his contract. He’ll make $5,000 a month as a consultant for the agency. His job, he said, is to organize support for downtown, and help the region remember why its central business district matters.
Woodruff, he said, is the right guy to lead the agency now.

“As soon as the Downtown Now! plan was completed, both city government and the region kind of went to sleep,” Rainford said. “We’ve got to wake up again.”

Business leaders such as Otis Williams, director of the city’s development arm, Dave Peacock, a former Anheuser-Busch executive spearheading the new stadium planning, and Steve Stogel, a developer who has pioneered the use of tax credits downtown, say Woodruff, 55, will drive development.

“Doug was born here. His dad was a great lawyer here. His family lives here. He knows everybody here,” said Stogel, one of Woodruff’s former business partners, who is now leasing Rainford space in Stogel’s Clayton offices. “He’s the kind of guy the partnership needs to take it in new and different directions.

“We need to figure out how to get them some more money,” Stogel continued, “so they can be the glue to put some of these other deals together.”

Not everyone likes the organization’s new focus.

Brad Waldrop, a real estate developer who led the effort to challenge the Rev. Larry Rice’s homeless shelter downtown, says Downtown STL puts more emphasis on stadiums than neighborhood problems.

“Isn’t the stadium a regional effort?” he asked. Downtown STL, he said, “should be focused on neighborhood issues, not regional sports team efforts.”

Downtown’s population has soared to about 18,000 over the last decade, yet young professionals and loft dwellers have little say, if any, in the operation of the taxing district, he said.

“Shouldn’t we be helping small businesses,” Waldrop continued, “instead of spearheading new giant projects like the stadium?”

http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/ ... 9b904.html

The drawings and vision from Forum Studio and Great Rivers Greenway are beautiful. The Innovation Park buildings sleek. The Energy Plaza, Mound Point, Great Lawn, Media Wall, Metro Plaza, Barge Park and Beer Garden…all very cool. A number of existing buildings appear to remain, including the Laclede Power building, the William A. Kerr Foundation, and others. Even the Cotton Belt building is show incorporated into an innovation district.

The bet is that some combination of public incentives and private investment can make it happen. Perhaps that, and an NFL stadium. The vision purportedly works with or without the NFL, and boards simply show the existing stadium proposal east of Lumiere Casino, with other infill development to the east and within Laclede’s Landing. In the end, it’s fun to envision an activated riverfront with half a dozen different activity hubs, but finding the thousands upon thousands of new jobs, residents, and visitors to make it a reality is the real challenge.

http://nextstl.com/2015/07/north-riverf ... l-stadium/

A stadium has never been part of the vision until now.

Great Rivers Greenway Executive Director, Susan Trautman, said she spoke with Peacock about the project for the 1st time Tuesday. He asked that her organization be involved in the process moving forward.

“If the stadium happens that’s terrific. If it doesn’t, we’ve got the conversation going,” Trautman said. “We want a place that you want to be; that you want to pack up a picnic with your kids and come down to the river and see what’s happening – music, theater, art, and all the things that draw people together and bring us together as a community…football would work,” she laughed.

http://fox2now.com/2015/03/03/new-devel ... -proposal/

Here are also the 6 stated goals of the task force.

1. PROTECTION
Strong protections for taxpayers and no new tax burden on Missourians.

2. JOBS
Construction of a stadium would need to provide good-paying jobs for Missourians.

3. COMMITMENT
A private financial commitment from the NFL and its local franchise.

4. REPURPOSE
There must be a plan to maximize the ongoing economic value of the existing Dome.

5. OWNERSHIP
The new stadium must be held as a public asset – owned by and for the benefit of the people.

6. REDEVELOPMENT
The project must result in the redevelopment of a blighted area that would remain blighted if not for the construction of a stadium.

http://stlstadium.com/

So anyway I come away after reading the various articles that leaders in St Louey feel more like the Rams belong to them and how they can use them to further any economic plans they have. So perhaps Stan reads this all as I do and he has a problem with that and their plans since he is the one who purchased them so he as a private citizen could own them and he feels he is the owner not the city of StL.

An here is a article out of StL back in May that I found interesting as it was the only real article I could find that questions Peacock and Co's logic.

http://showmeinstitute.org/blog/corpora ... be-bicycle

CORPORATE WELFARE | COMMENTARY / OP-EDS
IF THE RIVERFRONT STADIUM PLAN HAD TWO WHEELS, IT’D BE A BICYCLE

By Joseph Miller on May 14, 2015

Recently, Dave Peacock, the head of Missouri’s stadium task force, spoke at a Commercial Real Estate Women of St. Louis breakfast. He discussed changes to how a riverfront stadium would be publicly funded. He also talked about how a new stadium could not only keep the Rams, but also transform the North Riverfront.

Originally, the plan was for the state, the city, and the county to extend bonds meant for the Edward Jones Dome to raise about $350 million to fund a new stadium, with an additional $50 million in state tax credits making up the rest of the public support. This changed when Saint Louis County, which was threatening a public vote on the issue, was dropped from the funding plan. Peacock confirmed that with the county out it will be left to taxpayers statewide to pick up the $100 million bill—a bill unlikely to be offset by any economic activity generated by the team.

In a sense, the new funding plan is just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic; large public subsidies for sports stadiums do not make economic sense regardless of the city/state/county funding ratio. The growing list of contingencies—none of which local governments control—that Peacock’s plan relies on for everything from stadium funding to economic development is getting more preposterous. These include:

Getting a team owner and the NFL to cover $450 million in costs for a new stadium. No team owner, especially the Rams’ owner, has expressed any inclination to do this.

As things stand, a plan to fund a new stadium needs to go to a public vote in the city. Residents might vote no.

Getting an MLS soccer team in Saint Louis.

After getting an MLS soccer team, getting (and funding) a soccer hall of fame.

Funding an entertainment center at the Union Electric Light and Power Company building.

And finally, because Peacock thinks the Rams owner is committed to relocating to L.A., getting Kroenke to sell the Rams to another owner who will keep the team in Saint Louis.

You got all that? If city residents and the state government agree, against the advice of economists, to publicly fund a new stadium, and the Regional Convention and Sports Complex Authority (RSA) uses eminent domain to bulldoze the North Riverfront, we can then hope the NFL will force/convince Kroenke to sell the Rams to an owner who, along with the NFL, may decide to fund half the costs of a new stadium, which in turn might just convince an MLS team to move to Saint Louis, which then might prompt the MLS (no doubt with some tax dollars) to locate their hall of fame at a new entertainment complex (funded by…someone) at the old power building. That’s some plan.

[Hacksaw]

Amazing effort Legends.

[Elvis]

http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2015/09/21/ ... ium-bonds/

21 Missouri Senators Oppose Nixon’s Stadium Bonds

KMOX

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo (KMOX) – Missouri Governor Jay Nixon received a letter signed by 21 senators saying they will not support annual appropriations to pay bond holders for the new stadium deal without a public vote.

KMOX’s Jefferson City correspondent Phil Brooks wonders, then who is going to buy those bonds?

“It sure raises a question about how viable a market there will be for bonds,” Brooks says. “You have a majority of legislators and one of the two chambers that have to approve the payout on the bonds saying they won’t support it.”

The bonds would support some $300 million in state funding for the stadium.

(TM and © Copyright 2015 CBS Radio Inc. and its relevant subsidiaries. CBS RADIO and EYE Logo TM and Copyright 2015 CBS Broadcasting Inc. Used under license. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.)

[max]

So what exactly does this mean?

Does this really block Peacock or will he be able to get around it?

[bluecoconuts]

So what exactly does this mean?

Does this really block Peacock or will he be able to get around it?

They can likely get around it, but it's extra ammo for Kroenke. If St Louis couldn't fulfill their lease obligations before, how can the NFL know if they can do it now? How do they back their second richest owner, and best bet to make LA successful into a market that he doesn't want to be there, with any potential questions on their ability to have the necessary funds?

[TSFH Fan]

So what exactly does this mean?

Does this really block Peacock or will he be able to get around it?

The answer is as far as just issuing bonds, it probably doesn't mean anything . . . and for those connected to the financial industry, you can tell me if I'm 100% off or 150% wrong about this:

The last I checked, bonds don't magically generate cash on their own, you got to get people to invest in them. As part of the sales process, prospectives and/or other offering documents are issued which disclose pending litigation and other investment risks. If the gov. issues these bonds, the sales documents will be required to mention Schaaf's petition. Tax free muni-bonds are just one type of bond on the market -- I haven't checked my bond screener lately, but I'm guessing there are other tax free MO bonds with comparable return rates (or w/e it's called). So, if an investor has a choice between a bond with a risk of non-payment (no matter how remote) and another bond without that risk, which bond is going to be invested in? Also, bond investors, by nature, are risk-adverse and there's risk here. So, Schaaf's goal, to me, appears to be to dump the market for this bond, which will have the effect of rendering the bond insufficient to meet Nixon's goals. For us, this is also a positive in that it creates uncertainty in Nixon's ability to raise funds -- and I don't think there's an easy way to remove this uncertainty without a recanting-type pledge from Schaaf and all the other MO legislators -- fat chance on that.

The worst thing for Nixon isn't being blocked by internal politics, the worst things would be issuing the bonds and having no one invest in them and/or failing to raise sufficient funds, imho. That would be an entire egg farm on his face.