Rams Fans United - Los Angeles Rams Fan Discussion Forum

Hmmm, I thought Nixon dismissed this all as just 4-5 Senators . . .might be off by a factor of 4-5.

Math does seem off..

The article specifically says "... for a new stadium before the existing stadium is paid in full". So what was it, $6M - $12M per year through 2022? Then $42M to $84M pays off the old bonds, yes? So then if someone ponies up, they meet THEIR goal. Still stinks like,,, downwind from the Carson site.
Still portrays the region as dysfunctional at best, and the home cities need all the help they can get.

21 out of 34 senators, for those keeping score, that's 62%, or two senators shy of 2/3rds....

23 senators just overrode a Nixon veto to raise Kansas City's minimum wage... It would still depend on the house, they would need 110 out of 163 house members for the override... I have no idea how many they have in the house who oppose it.. Assuming most Republicans would, there are 116 Republicans vs 44 Democrats.. Only three Republicans are from St Louis... There's also only one Republican from Kansas City, so there could be some bitterness there from Democrats to potentially push the veto over the threshold. It's likely that they are lobbying, especially since they have gotten more in the senate since the original story.

Now that they have the financing all sewn up, how's the land acquisition going?

http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2015/09/16/ ... nt-domain/

St. Louis NFL Stadium Backers Gain Power of Eminent Domain

Kevin Killeen (@KMOXKilleen)

ST. LOUIS (KMOX) – The Regional Sports Authority votes unanimously to allow the use of eminent domain for the St. Louis riverfront stadium project.

“We really at this point do not expect that we will need eminent domain,” said RSA Chairman Jim Shrewsbury. “However, when the time comes, if that has to be used as a tool to acquire property, we want the authority to take that action.”

Shrewsbury says the effort to get commitments from landowners to sell their properties for the stadium is “ahead of schedule,” but he declined to give specifics, or comment on whether any holdouts are refusing to sell.

Eminent domain can also be used as a tool to gain clear title on a property, even one the owner is willing to sell, if there’s a lien on a property, Shrewsbury said.

The RSA also confirmed that so far, $8.8 million has been spent on preliminaries for the possible stadium – legal fees, consultants and architectural work.

That’s almost $9 million for a plan that might work or might fail.

“I justify it by this – if we didn’t spend it, I can guarantee you we would not have a team,” Shrewsbury said. “We had to do this to be competitive.”
Shrewsbury admits there’s still no commitment from any NFL owner – Stan Kroenke or anyone else – to invest $250 million in the plan.

“Well, if we get a team, that NFL owner will put up the money,” Shrewsbury said. “That’s part of the project. It’ll be on third from NFL, one third from the owner and one-third from the city.”

The NFL announced this week it’s putting off a long-anticipated meeting in which officials from St. Louis and San Diego were supposed to make presentations about keeping their teams from leaving. The official explanation given for the postponement was to allow more time for an in-depth discussion at a later time.

Shrewsbury was asked if he takes that at face value or senses anything else afoot.

“There could be another reason, but right now I’m going to take it at face value,” Shrewsbury said. “We’ve received no indication that there’s any problem. We’ve not received any messages through the backwaters that there’s a problem with St. Louis, or that there may be a significant change in their position.”

The NFL is expected to announce is decision on the St. Louis stadium plan – and whether the Rams will stay or go – sometime in January.

A few of things.

Shrewsbury says the effort to get commitments from landowners to sell their properties for the stadium is “ahead of schedule,” but he declined to give specifics, or comment on whether any holdouts are refusing to sell.

Hack: Ahead of what schedule. Isn't the BIG meeting/presentation just a couple of weeks away and wasn't a presentation supposed to happen yesterday? Sounds to me like their 'schedule' was cutting things a bit close.

So they have spent $9M in preparation for this?

“I justify it by this – if we didn’t spend it, I can guarantee you we would not have a team,” Shrewsbury said. “We had to do this to be competitive.”
Shrewsbury admits there’s still no commitment from any NFL owner – Stan Kroenke or anyone else – to invest $250 million in the plan.

Hack: Is the cost still only $250M for some owner? Have over runs and add -on's been considered in those calculations? Notice again, they are not speaking specifically about the Rams.

Eminent domain can also be used as a tool to gain clear title on a property, even one the owner is willing to sell, if there’s a lien on a property, Shrewsbury said.

Hack: Boy I bet the lien holders of those properties wouldn't be happy with that. They don't expect to have to do it but they just let the folks know they will.

I have to admit, these guys are pulling out all of the stops to try and keep our Rams. Too bad for them they didn't try harder when the owner was still into it.

Hacksaw wrote:
I have to admit, these guys are pulling out all of the stops to try and keep our Rams. Too bad for them they didn't try harder when the owner was still into it.

I agree. What I dont get is how (IMO of course) part of the issue is that the Rams caame to St Louis and have been playing in a Brand X stadium. Its never been the Rams stadium, as it wasnt built for them. Now they're going full bore on St Louis for "an NFL team" and not necassarily the Rams. Seems like that adds fuel to the fire, like where the f$@# have you been when I was aasking for this?

I feel bad for the loyal fans but the political heiracrhy there has really screwed the pooch

Nicely put Legends. Spot on. This is in keeping with their effort to hang on to the NFL at all costs. No vote to extend bonds, now we will take your land for nothing so we can show the freakin NFL we have our stadium ducks in a row.
Is there any way in hell that the league could over look these tactics by MO government, especially after the arbitration fiasco? I just don't see how the needs of a few (Rams fans & task farce) could out weight the needs of the many.
The denial to meet with the NFL owners could have been helpful for all parties involved in StL because something didn't have to get done now, which may have forced these more dubious actions by the civic leaders there. Still
Inglewood = natural fit
Riverfront and Carson are like trying to fit square pegs into smaller round holes.

bluecoconuts wrote:21 out of 34 senators, for those keeping score, that's 62%, or two senators shy of 2/3rds....

23 senators just overrode a Nixon veto to raise Kansas City's minimum wage... It would still depend on the house, they would need 110 out of 163 house members for the override... I have no idea how many they have in the house who oppose it.. Assuming most Republicans would, there are 116 Republicans vs 44 Democrats.. Only three Republicans are from St Louis... There's also only one Republican from Kansas City, so there could be some bitterness there from Democrats to potentially push the veto over the threshold. It's likely that they are lobbying, especially since they have gotten more in the senate since the original story.

No need for a veto override as the legislature is responsible for appropriating funds. Any budget that gets sent to the governor will not include money to pay off the bonds that were not voted on. Who is going to buy those bonds? No one.