- Joined
- Dec 31, 2013
- Messages
- 563
Just saw this on Facebook and thought it might be of interest to the board! Sorry if this is in the wrong section of the website, just trying to pass info along! Enjoy the read!
http://www.stlmag.com/news/state-money-crucial-for-new-open-air-stadium-north-of-downto/
The path to a new football stadium in St. Louis has to go through Jefferson City, although before the state takes on new debt for an open-air venue, the plan appears to have the city and county taking over the state’s annual payment on the Edward Jones Dome.
The fiscal sleight-of-hand would have the city of St. Louis and St. Louis County each pay half of the $24 million annual payment on the dome debt, freeing the state from its $12 million payment. Currently, the city and county each pay $6 million per year, so the change would be a $6 million increase for both. The entire cost of the $720 million dome is to be covered by public funds.
Thanks to Fred Lindecke, the citizen activist who led the Coalition Against Public Funding for Stadiums, separate yet nearly identical bans on public funding were passed more than 10 years ago by voters in the city of St. Louis and St. Louis County. Supporters of a new stadium are banking on those bans being interpreted as a prohibition on funding for a “new” stadium, rather than increasing payments on an existing facility.
The rumor of the day is that Gov. Jay Nixon will seek state financing for a third of the cost of an open-air stadium just north of downtown along the Mississippi River. The guesstimate of such a deal is in the $600 million range, though these projections are about as trustworthy as the Farmers' Almanac’s weather forecasts for 2015. Nixon’s legislative ally, at least for this mission, is rumored to be Republican Majority Leader Rep. John Diehl from Town and Country.
With the state purportedly picking up a third of the tab, the rest of the cost is to be split between Rams owner Stan Kroenke and the National Football League.
Another part of the proposal’s shell game has the state using bonds issued by a state authority, possibly the St. Louis Regional Convention and Sports Complex Authority. That might dodge the need for a legislative or public vote on the decision, though some enabling legislation is expected, including a bill that would allow the St. Louis Regional Convention and Sports Complex Authority to own a new stadium.
Under the plan, the dome would not have the Rams as a tenant and could be used for other events, including conventions, concerts, tractor pulls, and other sporting events. The long-held aspiration for a Major League Soccer team continues, with the hope that an MLS team could share the new stadium with the Rams. (In Seattle, for example, both the Seattle Sounders and Seattle Seahawks play at CenturyLink Field.)
The new arrangement, with the city and county doubling down and taking over the entire debt service on the dome, would allow the state to shift money for payments on a new stadium.
Even before hearing the rumors of what the city and county might do, Lindecke had worried that stadium supporters would come up with a way to circumvent the 2002 city and 2004 county referendums that banned public funding for new stadiums. Both passed by wide margins.
“I wondered what secret idea they had in their hip pocket that they were going to pull out in order to get around the referendums,” Lindecke says. “They’re doing an end run using the business about how the referendums do not apply to anything that is already built and in operation.”
The county gets money to pay for the dome and its commitment to Busch Stadium from its tourism tax. “Is there enough money in the county’s tourism tax to swallow 12 million bucks instead of six million? The same question goes for the city: Does it have the money?” asks Lindecke. “We already have Nixon on the record saying any proposal would not require a tax increase.”
Other attempts at fiscal prestidigitation will take place on the state level. Some type of bond issuance or refinancing looks to be the likely route, with the goal being to avoid anything that requires a public vote.
Lindecke, who was a reporter at the St. Louis Post-Disptach for 34 years and retired 17 years ago, is critical that most of the media coverage of the stadium issue is by sportswriters.
“Through all the speculative stories done by local sports media, never do they mention the two referendums passed in the city and county,” Lindecke says. “The paranoid part of me thinks the sportswriters have been told, ‘Don’t worry about that. We have a way around that.’ That’s my conspiratorial mind at work.”
Lindecke wishes someone other than sportswriters were covering this issue more consistently because sportswriters have a vested interest in the construction of a new stadium. It’s like taxpayers relying on cheerleaders to determine if the high school needs a snazzy new gymnasium.
“Their jobs are directly tied to professional sports teams,” Lindecke says. “Sportswriters go to all these other cities on their expense accounts and see other stadiums. Then, they come back here and bad-mouth the dome... There’s nothing wrong with the dome that a winning team wouldn’t fix.”
Despite the wide margin by which the anti-public funding referendums passed, Lindecke knows there is strong political and business support for keeping the Rams in St. Louis by building a new stadium.
“If they can’t get past the two referendums and the only option is the state, somebody has to pay off the bonds,” Lindecke says. “That would give an opportunity to refinance the bonds, which is a euphemism for borrowing more money and paying more interest." Lindecke believes that would be a "clear violation” of the referendums.
Whatever happens, it’s doubtful that any push for a new stadium would happen without litigation and public outcry. The push for the plan should start in January, when the Missouri legislature convenes.
Lindecke not only believes that sportswriters covering the stadium issue have vested interests, but he also believes that politicians who enable public funding do as well. Despite it not being a public record, Lindecke expects that many of the same corporations that donate to politicians’ campaigns also buy luxury suites at Rams games.
At least one national expert on sports and public policy believes the state is the proper public entity to decide what level of public funding should go to a new stadium, especially following the recent events in Ferguson and North County. Mark Rosentraub, the Bruce and Joan Bickner Endowed Professor of Sport Management at the University of Michigan, thinks the city of St. Louis and St. Louis County have more important and more immediate issues to address.
“With the city and county right now needing to focus on issues related to police-community relations, it is appropriate to let both address what has the potential to undermine and fray the social fabric of the region," Rosentraub says. "If it is appropriate to build a public/private partnership with the owner and the NFL to ensure the Rams' presence, then the state is the ally that would let the city and county maintain its focus where that focus now needs to be sustained, which is police-community relations, trust, and safety.
“That needs to be their highest priority, and it should not be diluted with a debate on the commitment of local tax dollars," he adds. "The region is at a vital crossroads that I sense requires everyone's undivided commitment and focus."
Rosentraub, who is the author of several books on the pros and cons of using sports as a tool for economic development, thinks the NFL’s attitude toward relocation gives the edge to the home city to keep the team, as long as the city makes sufficient attempts to satisfy the team’s perceived needs.
“The NFL's policies are clear: Relocation is indeed difficult unless there is no evidence of a partnership with a community,” he says. “If the state does decide it is in the public's interest to sustain the Rams' presence in St Louis, and I understand the NFL's guidelines, it would appear that a framework is emerging that conforms to my understanding of the NFL's existing policies.”
Lindecke is a football fan and was a season ticket holder when the Rams arrived. Lately, though, things have not gone as well. The Rams have not had a winning season since 2003.
As the years went by, Lindecke recalls the “grim experience” of attending home games. “The highlight of the day was the Bloody Mary before the game—it began not to be worth it to go,” Lindecke says. “It was awful.”
Promoters of the new open-air stadium studied the weather at game time for the history of home games for the Rams and football Cardinals. They found that only two or three games throughout that time would have had severe weather to threaten a game. Whatever the weather, chances are that the luxury suites and press box will be heated.
http://www.stlmag.com/news/state-money-crucial-for-new-open-air-stadium-north-of-downto/
The path to a new football stadium in St. Louis has to go through Jefferson City, although before the state takes on new debt for an open-air venue, the plan appears to have the city and county taking over the state’s annual payment on the Edward Jones Dome.
The fiscal sleight-of-hand would have the city of St. Louis and St. Louis County each pay half of the $24 million annual payment on the dome debt, freeing the state from its $12 million payment. Currently, the city and county each pay $6 million per year, so the change would be a $6 million increase for both. The entire cost of the $720 million dome is to be covered by public funds.
Thanks to Fred Lindecke, the citizen activist who led the Coalition Against Public Funding for Stadiums, separate yet nearly identical bans on public funding were passed more than 10 years ago by voters in the city of St. Louis and St. Louis County. Supporters of a new stadium are banking on those bans being interpreted as a prohibition on funding for a “new” stadium, rather than increasing payments on an existing facility.
The rumor of the day is that Gov. Jay Nixon will seek state financing for a third of the cost of an open-air stadium just north of downtown along the Mississippi River. The guesstimate of such a deal is in the $600 million range, though these projections are about as trustworthy as the Farmers' Almanac’s weather forecasts for 2015. Nixon’s legislative ally, at least for this mission, is rumored to be Republican Majority Leader Rep. John Diehl from Town and Country.
With the state purportedly picking up a third of the tab, the rest of the cost is to be split between Rams owner Stan Kroenke and the National Football League.
Another part of the proposal’s shell game has the state using bonds issued by a state authority, possibly the St. Louis Regional Convention and Sports Complex Authority. That might dodge the need for a legislative or public vote on the decision, though some enabling legislation is expected, including a bill that would allow the St. Louis Regional Convention and Sports Complex Authority to own a new stadium.
Under the plan, the dome would not have the Rams as a tenant and could be used for other events, including conventions, concerts, tractor pulls, and other sporting events. The long-held aspiration for a Major League Soccer team continues, with the hope that an MLS team could share the new stadium with the Rams. (In Seattle, for example, both the Seattle Sounders and Seattle Seahawks play at CenturyLink Field.)
The new arrangement, with the city and county doubling down and taking over the entire debt service on the dome, would allow the state to shift money for payments on a new stadium.
Even before hearing the rumors of what the city and county might do, Lindecke had worried that stadium supporters would come up with a way to circumvent the 2002 city and 2004 county referendums that banned public funding for new stadiums. Both passed by wide margins.
“I wondered what secret idea they had in their hip pocket that they were going to pull out in order to get around the referendums,” Lindecke says. “They’re doing an end run using the business about how the referendums do not apply to anything that is already built and in operation.”
The county gets money to pay for the dome and its commitment to Busch Stadium from its tourism tax. “Is there enough money in the county’s tourism tax to swallow 12 million bucks instead of six million? The same question goes for the city: Does it have the money?” asks Lindecke. “We already have Nixon on the record saying any proposal would not require a tax increase.”
Other attempts at fiscal prestidigitation will take place on the state level. Some type of bond issuance or refinancing looks to be the likely route, with the goal being to avoid anything that requires a public vote.
Lindecke, who was a reporter at the St. Louis Post-Disptach for 34 years and retired 17 years ago, is critical that most of the media coverage of the stadium issue is by sportswriters.
“Through all the speculative stories done by local sports media, never do they mention the two referendums passed in the city and county,” Lindecke says. “The paranoid part of me thinks the sportswriters have been told, ‘Don’t worry about that. We have a way around that.’ That’s my conspiratorial mind at work.”
Lindecke wishes someone other than sportswriters were covering this issue more consistently because sportswriters have a vested interest in the construction of a new stadium. It’s like taxpayers relying on cheerleaders to determine if the high school needs a snazzy new gymnasium.
“Their jobs are directly tied to professional sports teams,” Lindecke says. “Sportswriters go to all these other cities on their expense accounts and see other stadiums. Then, they come back here and bad-mouth the dome... There’s nothing wrong with the dome that a winning team wouldn’t fix.”
Despite the wide margin by which the anti-public funding referendums passed, Lindecke knows there is strong political and business support for keeping the Rams in St. Louis by building a new stadium.
“If they can’t get past the two referendums and the only option is the state, somebody has to pay off the bonds,” Lindecke says. “That would give an opportunity to refinance the bonds, which is a euphemism for borrowing more money and paying more interest." Lindecke believes that would be a "clear violation” of the referendums.
Whatever happens, it’s doubtful that any push for a new stadium would happen without litigation and public outcry. The push for the plan should start in January, when the Missouri legislature convenes.
Lindecke not only believes that sportswriters covering the stadium issue have vested interests, but he also believes that politicians who enable public funding do as well. Despite it not being a public record, Lindecke expects that many of the same corporations that donate to politicians’ campaigns also buy luxury suites at Rams games.
At least one national expert on sports and public policy believes the state is the proper public entity to decide what level of public funding should go to a new stadium, especially following the recent events in Ferguson and North County. Mark Rosentraub, the Bruce and Joan Bickner Endowed Professor of Sport Management at the University of Michigan, thinks the city of St. Louis and St. Louis County have more important and more immediate issues to address.
“With the city and county right now needing to focus on issues related to police-community relations, it is appropriate to let both address what has the potential to undermine and fray the social fabric of the region," Rosentraub says. "If it is appropriate to build a public/private partnership with the owner and the NFL to ensure the Rams' presence, then the state is the ally that would let the city and county maintain its focus where that focus now needs to be sustained, which is police-community relations, trust, and safety.
“That needs to be their highest priority, and it should not be diluted with a debate on the commitment of local tax dollars," he adds. "The region is at a vital crossroads that I sense requires everyone's undivided commitment and focus."
Rosentraub, who is the author of several books on the pros and cons of using sports as a tool for economic development, thinks the NFL’s attitude toward relocation gives the edge to the home city to keep the team, as long as the city makes sufficient attempts to satisfy the team’s perceived needs.
“The NFL's policies are clear: Relocation is indeed difficult unless there is no evidence of a partnership with a community,” he says. “If the state does decide it is in the public's interest to sustain the Rams' presence in St Louis, and I understand the NFL's guidelines, it would appear that a framework is emerging that conforms to my understanding of the NFL's existing policies.”
Lindecke is a football fan and was a season ticket holder when the Rams arrived. Lately, though, things have not gone as well. The Rams have not had a winning season since 2003.
As the years went by, Lindecke recalls the “grim experience” of attending home games. “The highlight of the day was the Bloody Mary before the game—it began not to be worth it to go,” Lindecke says. “It was awful.”
Promoters of the new open-air stadium studied the weather at game time for the history of home games for the Rams and football Cardinals. They found that only two or three games throughout that time would have had severe weather to threaten a game. Whatever the weather, chances are that the luxury suites and press box will be heated.
