Senator Silvey Throws the Red Challenge Flag on St. Louis Radio Host’s Open Letter
Dear Mr. Karraker,
Thank you for your email dated 3/3/2015 where you graciously offered to help me “fact check” my capitol report on SB 460 requiring a vote of the General Assembly or the people to issue or extend bonds backed by the state of Missouri on any project.
Due to the current situation in St. Louis surrounding the potential departure of the Rams, and the plan put forth to build a new stadium in the hopes they won’t leave, this issue has become oversimplified to be about whether we should or should not spend state resources to assist in building a new stadium. For you, a sports commentator, I see the benefit of reducing the argument in that way as it riles up your audience and therefore pleases advertisers. However, you have completely missed the point.
The question before the legislature in SB 460 is not about a stadium in St. Louis. It is about checks and balances. It is about whether one man, in this case the Governor, has or should have the ability to put the other 6 million Missourians in debt without a vote of the people or their representatives. This argument could just as easily be about a state level incentive package to build a corporate world headquarters, or a racetrack, or a new building at Mizzou.
The first of your “fact checks” is that I stated “the Rams organization announced its intention of leaving.” You assert in your letter, “In fact, the Rams have not announced their intention to leave, and have never asked for a stadium.” Perhaps I should have chosen my words differently. You are correct that the Rams organization has not formally announced an intention to leave.
However, you insult the intelligence of all Missourians to suggest that just because the Rams haven’t held a team press conference yet, that this isn’t the reason for the stadium proposal. As a member of the media, I would assume that you are familiar with the numerous press accounts that indicate the owner’s apparent desire to leave. Look no further than an article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on 1/16/2015 with the headline:
NFL Exec: St. Louis must build new stadium to keep NFL. The first line of the article is “Local planners must build a new football stadium here, or St. Louis will not hold on to its franchise, a key National Football League executive said Thursday.” Further, it goes on to say, “Grubman confirmed, for the first time by a league official, that St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke is indeed ‘looking’ elsewhere.”
The reality is, according to the same article, “Two years ago, the team won a lengthy battle over upgrades required by its lease at the Jones Dome. An arbitration panel ruled in favor of the Rams’ request for publicly financed renovations worth perhaps $700 million. Dome authorities declined, giving the Rams the option to go year-to-year on their lease.” Therefore, due to local authorities not fulfilling their end of the lease by being willing to invest what is needed in required improvements, the Rams are free to begin looking at other options. To imply that they aren’t is irresponsible.
Secondly, you question the need for a vote. Specifically you ask “Question; why are you there? Don’t we elect officials to make these decisions for us? And where does your idea stop? If we’re going to vote on each and every state expenditure, do we really need elected officials in Jefferson City? If we do as you propose, shouldn’t the people simply vote on every expenditure?”
On this, I must conclude that you haven’t read SB 460 at all or were in such a rush to judgment to rile up your listeners that you didn’t read it clearly. The bill clearly states “legislative
or voter approval.” Yes, we do elect officials to make those decisions for us. They are called Senators and Representatives. I have never proposed putting every expenditure to a vote of the people. In fact, in order to give any future bond proposals the best chance of passage, I provided flexibility by allowing either the legislature or the public at large to have a vote on the proposal. That way, the governor could decide to whom to make the case. Either make it to the people directly, or to their elected representatives. If the case is a good one, surely logic will prevail and the necessary votes will be secured.
Finally, you take issue with my assertion that without SB 460, “we’d be allowing one individual to unilaterally put Missouri millions of dollars in debt.” On this point you make the case that the Rams provide a net benefit to the state. However, again you are missing the point of the proposal. Whether or not the Rams provide a net benefit to the state and are therefore worthy of the state taking on an additional $200 million in debt is exactly the debate that needs to be had. The question about whether the issuance of bonds is putting the state in debt, on the other hand, is not debatable. The very definition of a bond is debt investment to be paid in the future.
In 2005, the KC Chiefs and Royals came to Jefferson City and asked for the state to pay for part of the renovations to Arrowhead and Kaufman stadiums using money from the Athletes and Entertainers tax. Ultimately, their case for state funding was not convincing and I along with 84 of my colleagues expressed written opposition to the proposal. At the end of the day, it did not pass and the voters in Jackson County voted to raise their own local taxes to pay for the renovations. I mention this to illustrate that a debate was had, facts were presented, both sides made a case and ultimately the people’s representatives made a decision. All I ask is that the St. Louis Rams stadium proposal, and all future projects seeking the support of the state taxpayers, are treated the same.
http://www.senate.mo.gov/media/15info/Silvey/releases/030415.html
