Rams Fans United - Los Angeles Rams Fan Discussion Forum

Elvis wrote:

SO the NFL tells St Louis to keep the details private from the local elected officials but allows SD to post it online for everyone to see.

http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLcom/R ... rians.aspx

Mo. Sen. Schaaf (R-St. Joseph): Building Stadium with Taxpayer Money a 'Loser' for Missourians

Brendan Marks posted on November 12, 2015 11:45

Missouri State Sen. Robert Schaaf, R-St. Joseph, earlier this year became one of the first members of the legislature to voice his concerns about Gov. Jay Nixon issuing state bonds for the $1 billion St. Louis stadium project without a legislative or statewide vote.

Schaaf joined the Hollywood Casino Press Box Thursday to further discuss his issues regarding financing of the riverfront stadium project.

We typed up a few excerpts from the interview, which you can listen to in full below:

How do you feel about St. Louis possibly getting the stadium done?

"First of all, I was born in St. Louis. I like St. Louis. If you guys want to build a stadium, that's great. But if you want to have the legislature pony up $415 million...then the legislature has to give its approval. That's the whole issue."

How is the area better without the Rams?

"The stadium does not pay for itself. Here's the thing. When an average citizen has $100 in his pocket and he spends it at the bar (instead of somewhere else). How much is the substitution effect in this case? If there is a substitution effect, it's more than 0. And if it's more than 0, don't you think it should be taken into account?"

On the timing of the lawsuit in relation to the stadium project:

"I believe building a stadium with taxpayer money is a loser for the people of Missouri. It might be great for some very wealthy people in St. Louis. How about let's put the rule of law and the idea not one person has the right to put the state's in debt for $415 million by himself. How about having the governor call a special session of the legislature? He could've done this (in February). But you want to know why he didn't do it? Because the legislature probably wouldn't have passed it."

Here's the complete segment:

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... io.twitter

Stadium proponents present financing plan to St. Louis aldermanic committee

By Nicholas J.C. Pistor

ST. LOUIS • Proponents of building a new riverfront football stadium appeared before a skeptical aldermanic committee on Thursday with hopes of gaining approval for a crucial portion of the project's financing.

The hearing, conducted by the city's Ways and Means committee, came a day after the St. Louis stadium task force appeared at a meeting in New York where NFL owners pledged to exhaust "every option" before allowing a team to leave its current home.

While those NFL negotiations occurred largely in private at the whims of billionaire team owners, task force members faced stiff questions in public on Thursday from St. Louis aldermen, who must approve financing about $145 million of the $1 billion project. The state would cover the rest of the public portion.

Aldermen questioned the specifics of the financing proposal, ticket price increases, and lamented the struggle of building football stadiums while grappling with crime and poverty. Proponents believe keeping an NFL franchise in the city is important to its overall image.

Thursday's meeting was the first of several that will occur over the next few weeks. Aldermen will hold a rare public input session on Saturday. It's unclear when they will vote on the proposal.

Aldermanic approval is crucial to the project, and stadium proponents appeared to acknowledge that by showing considerable deference to committee members.

"I've never been in this forum, so it's quite an honor," task force co-chairman David Peacock told the aldermen, saying the city is important to him.

Peacock added: "This project is way more than football to me. You're going to see a vision that's greater than football."

The financing bill before the committee, sponsored by Aldermen Jack Coatar and Tammika Hubbard, calls for the city to pay an average of $6 million a year toward a new riverfront football stadium, plus rebate about two-thirds of the taxes generated by the new stadium to the team that plays in it. St. Louis County, which financed a portion of the Edward Jones Dome, bowed out of the funding plan.

"I'm supporting this project not only to create thousands of construction jobs, but careers," Coatar said.

The plan has received significant support from construction unions, which have considerable weight with the all-Democrat body.

Peacock told the aldermen the plan would limit the city's risk and preserve its credit rating.

Peacock is attempting to gain support from the eight-person committee, which must recommend the bill before it goes to a vote before the full Board of Aldermen.

Little new information came out of the hearing. Still, the event allowed stadium proponents to gauge the aldermanic political temperature, which is often volatile. The committee meeting was well-attended, but it lacked the raw emotion of other recent issues before the board, such as raising minimum wage or establishing a civilian oversight board of police.

The committee is made up of several vocal skeptics of the plan, including Aldermen Antonio French and Scott Ogilvie.

Ogilvie questioned Peacock and the city's economic team, made up of development director Otis Williams and Mayor Francis Slay's assistant Nahuel Fefer. The economic team focused on construction jobs that would be created by the project (as well as a considerable diversity effort in hiring).

Several aldermen have sponsored a bill to require a public vote for the financing package, but it has moved slowly through the legislative process, taking a backseat to the financing bill. Ogilvie questioned Peacock as to why stadium proponents successfully fought to invalidate a former city ordinance requiring a public vote for sports stadiums.

"I think the issue was time," said Peacock, explaining that the original timetable given by the NFL required a financing plan much earlier. Peacock said forging ahead without a public vote was the most expedient way of handling that.

French, the alderman who has threatened to filibuster the bill unless certain crime issues aren't addressed in the city, focused on the economic details of the plan. He questioned who would be liable for cost overruns of the stadium and asked to see the so-called "term sheet" the task force gave to the NFL outlining the full economic scope of the financing.

Peacock said the city wouldn't be on the hook for the overruns. He indicated that burden could fall to the state.

"Seems they've promised taxpayers will pay for construction cost overruns, but no one seems to know which taxpayers," French later Tweeted.

The tone of the hearing was largely pleasant, aside from one outburst by committee member Alderman Sam Moore, saying some city residents are living in third world conditions while taxpayers fund stadiums.

"Shame on you, shame on you, shame on you," Moore yelled.

But perhaps there was a silver lining in Moore's words for stadium proponents. He predicted the stadium will get the necessary financial backing.

"This will pass," Moore said. "But I want you to put me on the record that I'm fighting for the forgotten."

The Ripper wrote:

Elvis wrote:

SO the NFL tells St Louis to keep the details private from the local elected officials but allows SD to post it online for everyone to see.

Probably another case of the "skip a vote" that the NFL supposedly told the Task Force... Except that they didn't. If the Rams move, I wouldn't be shocked if the NFL later says they never told them to keep it private.

However it can also mean that they know the public wont go for the sheet, so keep it hidden, where as San Diego wouldn't vote for anything unless they know what it is.