New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[Prime Time]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/03/06/raiders-staying-in-oakland-for-a-year/

Raiders staying in Oakland . . . for a year
Posted by Mike Florio on March 6, 2015

Getty Images

Good news, Raiders fans in Oakland and the Bay Area. The team isn’t leaving.

Bad news, Raiders fans in Oakland and the Bay Area. They still might.

The Joint Powers Authority in Oakland hasapproved a one-year lease that will allow the Raiders to play at O.Co Coliseum, via NBCBayArea.com. The move was expected because the window for submitting a relocation application has come and gone. It was a given that the Raiders would remain in Oakland for one more year.

The question becomes what they’ll do in 2016. The Chargers and Raiders are collaborating on a stadium they would share in Carson, California.

The powers-that-be in Carson and Inglewood currently are racing for the ability to build an NFL stadium in the L.A. area. The Chargers, Raiders, and Rams hope to be the two teams that end up there.

At least one of those teams will be the odd man out. If it’s the Raiders, they may be stuck in Oakland for a lot longer than 2015.

 

[bluecoconuts]

And no, that's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that the city would likely come out further ahead if they had more housing/retail/entertainment to bring in revenues 24-7-365 without paying these "reimbursements" than they would with a limited-use stadium.

How do you figure that? All the things that the reimbursements pay for are all things they would need for housing/retail/entertainment, so why wouldnt they need to pay for those?

Plus how do you figure they can get more by adding more retail/housing/entertainment into the already over saturated market in LA? What would set them apart from all the other retail or entertainment hubs in LA to draw those crowds?

 

[RamFan503]

Are you looking at the full Initiative which is nearly 200 pages? If so, do a search for 'tax increment' to find the section.

And no, that's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that the city would likely come out further ahead if they had more housing/retail/entertainment to bring in revenues 24-7-365 without paying these "reimbursements" than they would with a limited-use stadium.

Thanks. I'll check it out tomorrow. Gotta go deliver beer and hopefully get a few hours with me misses on a rare sunny day in the great NW. But again - thanks for the info.

 

[tonyl711]

It was pretty obvious how the public in Inglewood would have voted by the ease of collecting more than twice the required signatures in support of the project. So the representatives elected by the citizens to make decisions affecting the city voted unanimously to sign off on the project that requires no monetary outlay by the taxpayers. And yes they also had an open public meeting to discuss it.

There is not such an obvious support by the voters of the entire state of Missouri for a stadium in one of its cities and the idea that the Governor can make that unilateral decision without going to either the assembly or the voters is being challenged. The two are not even close to the same thing.

If the Governor is successful in fighting off this challenge and is able to secure funding then I would assume he is doing it legally. And in reality, that is probably the way he should go if he can do it, as it would mean far less delays. But his being able to do that is anything but guaranteed at this point. That the elected officials and the mayor of Inglewood have voted to pass the stadium initiative is guaranteed as it is already a done deal. It can go forward without a further vote and is not contingent on public funding in order to build it.

BTW - I don't remember Den saying what the Governor is trying to do is wrong. Maybe I missed it.

if its so easy to know that support, why not put it to a vote then?

 

[8to12]

That statement is 100% false.

Read the section of the HP Initiative titled 'Tax-Increment Funding.'

It specifically outlines how it will be paid for. I can guarantee 80% of those people that signed their names never read that part of the Initiative, and that's probably too low of a percentage.

I will look into it. Thank you for pointing it out. However, the following is from the Championsinitiative.com site :

... " No Cost to Taxpayers The City of Champions Revitalization Project will be funded entirely with private funds – that means Inglewood residents and the city will pay no taxes or subsidies for stadium construction. "

Based on what you say above, would they be lying with what I quoted?

 

[BuiltRamTough]

I will look into it. Thank you for pointing it out. However, the following is from the Championsinitiative.com site :

... " No Cost to Taxpayers The City of Champions Revitalization Project will be funded entirely with private funds – that means Inglewood residents and the city will pay no taxes or subsidies for stadium construction. "

Based on what you say above, would they be lying with what I quoted?

Free money baby!

 

[bluecoconuts]

I will look into it. Thank you for pointing it out. However, the following is from the Championsinitiative.com site :

... " No Cost to Taxpayers The City of Champions Revitalization Project will be funded entirely with private funds – that means Inglewood residents and the city will pay no taxes or subsidies for stadium construction. "

Based on what you say above, would they be lying with what I quoted?

Technically no, they're not lying. With the word construction they are telling the truth, but they do gloss over the reimbursements. However as far as I can tell no residents will see a tax increase whatsoever, since the reimbursements come from profits the city sees from the project. The paybacks are for the sewage, water, power, general infrastructure costs, which are expected to be about 60 million (I believe) and then they will reimburse them for the beefed up security for the park and such to keep it nice, expected at about 8 million per year (again, I believe, going off the top of my head).

Its a technicality, but there isn't an increase in taxes, and the money that goes back to them is money they wouldn't get without the project anyway. Plus they only reimburse after they made 25 million in revenue, and its a percentage of what they get after that, that is capped.


All in all, a very good deal for Inglewood.

 

[LesBaker]

A stadium and bringing people to the site for 10 days in a season doesn't generate as much revenue for Inglewood as having a large shopping center with other retail in addition to extra housing

Naming rights, sponsorship deals and the like will bring a lot of money to Stan Kroenke, but not the surrounding community.

@ZigZagRam
It's refreshing that someone has taken the time to review the details, and I wanted to thank you for that because as you can see not everyone knows much other than the surface stuff. And thee is WAY more to this than meets the eye LOL. It isn't as simple as "his team will be worth more and he will have a killer new stadium"

@8to12

It isn't technically a lie. The funding will be done privately. What they aren't saying out loud (they are burying it in legalese and fine print ) is that significant portions of the build out for infrastructure will be handed back, and that money will come from the citizens. They aren't getting all of this done "free". Portions of it come with a cost. It's a lie by omission, or rather a lie by burying the truth under loads of stuff.

" No Cost to Taxpayers The City of Champions Revitalization Project will be funded entirely with private funds – that means Inglewood residents and the city will pay no taxes or subsidies for stadium construction. "

But they will for infrastructure (roads, sewage, lighting and some other stuff if I read correctly) to the tune of who knows how many millions. I think the estimate was a couple of hundred mil but who knows right. Either way there are 100,000 residents in that town and I doubt if they would want to kick in tens of millions in taxes to pay for anything.

 

[LesBaker]

Technically no, they're not lying. With the word construction they are telling the truth, but they do gloss over the reimbursements. However as far as I can tell no residents will see a tax increase whatsoever, since the reimbursements come from profits the city sees from the project. The paybacks are for the sewage, water, power, general infrastructure costs, which are expected to be about 60 million (I believe) and then they will reimburse them for the beefed up security for the park and such to keep it nice, expected at about 8 million per year (again, I believe, going off the top of my head).

Its a technicality, but there isn't an increase in taxes, and the money that goes back to them is money they wouldn't get without the project anyway. Plus they only reimburse after they made 25 million in revenue, and its a percentage of what they get after that, that is capped.


All in all, a very good deal for Inglewood.

You may be correct and I replied before reading your posts. 60 mil actually sounds more accurate.

Though profits the city sees from the project is a bit nebulous. Good luck have accounts agree on what that number actually is.

 

[RamBill]

Missouri state senator Ryan Silvey has responded to Randy Karraker’s letter regarding Silvey’s questioning of the governor’s authority to grant bonds in support of an NFL stadium project in St. Louis. Michalle Smallmon brings you the latest in this week’s Fast Lane highlight.

Watch Smallmon Talk Karraker/Silvey

 

[8to12]

@ZigZagRam
It's refreshing that someone has taken the time to review the details, and I wanted to thank you for that because as you can see not everyone knows much other than the surface stuff. And thee is WAY more to this than meets the eye LOL. It isn't as simple as "his team will be worth more and he will have a killer new stadium"

@8to12

It isn't technically a lie. The funding will be done privately. What they aren't saying out loud (they are burying it in legalese and fine print ) is that significant portions of the build out for infrastructure will be handed back, and that money will come from the citizens. They aren't getting all of this done "free". Portions of it come with a cost. It's a lie by omission, or rather a lie by burying the truth under loads of stuff.

" No Cost to Taxpayers The City of Champions Revitalization Project will be funded entirely with private funds – that means Inglewood residents and the city will pay no taxes or subsidies for stadium construction. "

But they will for infrastructure (roads, sewage, lighting and some other stuff if I read correctly) to the tune of who knows how many millions. I think the estimate was a couple of hundred mil but who knows right. Either way there are 100,000 residents in that town and I doubt if they would want to kick in tens of millions in taxes to pay for anything.

Thank you for the explanation. I think this helps clarify my intent of my original post that there is a difference between having a vote in Missouri and not needing one in Inglewood ; they are 2 different situations. As opposed to Missouri, the city of Inglewood would not need to borrow and/or raise taxes to their residents in order to help finance costs of construction. They will eventually reimburse the costs of infrastructure only after the project is complete and they are receiving revenue from the project.

 

[BuiltRamTough]

St. Louis Plans to Welcome Raiders With New Stadium

This photo, released today, depicts a concept rendering of the new $900M stadium St. Louis plans to build to lure the Oakland Raiders to move the Gateway City.

“We believe we’ve made a very appealing overture to the Raiders Ownership group.” Said Jay Nixon, who is spearheading the effort to get a football team in St. Louis. Nixon presented the following reasons why St. Louis would be a perfect fit for the Raiders.

1. Expectations? – We have none!
2. Gullible fans? – More than we know what to do with!
3. A bottomless pit of taxpayer’s money? – At your disposal!

The only issue that Governor Nixon could see with the Raiders moving to St. Louis is the possibility that if enough of Oakland’s Raider Nation fans follow the team, they just might make the Ferguson riots look like a toddler’s tantrum, and steal the Arch while they’re here.

 

[Dodgersrf]

if its so easy to know that support, why not put it to a vote then?

Simply put. It saved them time, money and avoided all environmental research.

 

[bluecoconuts]

St. Louis Plans to Welcome Raiders With New Stadium

This photo, released today, depicts a concept rendering of the new $900M stadium St. Louis plans to build to lure the Oakland Raiders to move the Gateway City.

“We believe we’ve made a very appealing overture to the Raiders Ownership group.” Said Jay Nixon, who is spearheading the effort to get a football team in St. Louis. Nixon presented the following reasons why St. Louis would be a perfect fit for the Raiders.

1. Expectations? – We have none!
2. Gullible fans? – More than we know what to do with!
3. A bottomless pit of taxpayer’s money? – At your disposal!

The only issue that Governor Nixon could see with the Raiders moving to St. Louis is the possibility that if enough of Oakland’s Raider Nation fans follow the team, they just might make the Ferguson riots look like a toddler’s tantrum, and steal the Arch while they’re here.

The onion, right?

 

[RamFan503]

Are you looking at the full Initiative which is nearly 200 pages? If so, do a search for 'tax increment' to find the section.

And no, that's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that the city would likely come out further ahead if they had more housing/retail/entertainment to bring in revenues 24-7-365 without paying these "reimbursements" than they would with a limited-use stadium.

OK - I read the section you were talking about. So the entire 238 acre original project was projected to raise $14 million in annual revenues to the city of Inglewood toward the payment of city services and maintenance - fire, police, traffic control, grounds keeping, etc... after the developers made the infrastructure improvements. Adding 60 acres and the construction of the stadium is set to net the city an additional $11 million to be used toward the same end. I don't know how much added stress the stadium puts on these services but I'm guessing a additional $11 million per year should cover it. That is over 3 times as much revenue per acre going into the city to cover the added services required. Looks like the projections would have this stadium creating far better revenues than other uses.

And because each year the developers wish to retain an amount that is less than 1/100th of the cost of the stadium/concert hall portion of construction alone, there is a problem? Sure looks like a net gain to the city in just this one aspect of the project. And that is not even mentioning other axillary net gains the city will receive in revenues such as increased jobs - many of which are to be prevailing wage (See ridiculous) and required to be Inglewood residents, added casino proceeds, new business in adjacent properties, added real estate values of neighboring properties (mainly going to county and state but some returning to the city), and much more.

The return to the developers is what has been negotiated as an excess in revenues. In other words, the $11 million is a best estimate of the additional costs that would be incurred by the city to maintain the new CFD. The estimate is that the city will require $25 million annually to fund the CFD - not the $44 million projected to be raised from the associated taxes. Therefore, the overage ($19 million) is returned to the developer to offset expenses that they would have already incurred. Am I reading this correctly?

Another note - in my dealings with local gov'ts and the initiative process, I have looked into city, county, and state budgets pretty extensively. It costs a municipality far more to provide services to residences than to businesses. In fact, most of the resources spent by municipalities and counties is spent on residential properties. That is why occupied and profitable business properties are the life blood of most cities/counties. The cities receive more in revenue per acre and expend far less in resources. And putting business in close proximity to business is considered a double win. So I would buy that more retail could provide the city with decent revenues but only if occupied and profitable. Adding an additional million square feet of retail/manufacturing sounds great and all but only if you are not creating a glut and in best case the businesses can hire local citizens to fill those jobs.

BTW - I left out soccer in one of the most soccer friendly regions of the country as one of the proposed stadium's revenue streams. Chuh-ching. Can you hear that adding machine at city hall just a ringing along?

 

[RamFan503]

if its so easy to know that support, why not put it to a vote then?

Delays. And that not only puts you potentially behind another project but costs huge amounts of money. So if you don't have to, and you feel pretty confident that the citizens are behind the project, you definitely don't. And Nixon shouldn't either if he doesn't have to. Why the heck would you?

 

[RamFan503]

Free money baby!

OK - now that is a statement I would never trust.

 

[RamFan503]

@ZigZagRam
It's refreshing that someone has taken the time to review the details, and I wanted to thank you for that because as you can see not everyone knows much other than the surface stuff. And thee is WAY more to this than meets the eye LOL. It isn't as simple as "his team will be worth more and he will have a killer new stadium"

@8to12

It isn't technically a lie. The funding will be done privately. What they aren't saying out loud (they are burying it in legalese and fine print ) is that significant portions of the build out for infrastructure will be handed back, and that money will come from the citizens. They aren't getting all of this done "free". Portions of it come with a cost. It's a lie by omission, or rather a lie by burying the truth under loads of stuff.

" No Cost to Taxpayers The City of Champions Revitalization Project will be funded entirely with private funds – that means Inglewood residents and the city will pay no taxes or subsidies for stadium construction. "

But they will for infrastructure (roads, sewage, lighting and some other stuff if I read correctly) to the tune of who knows how many millions. I think the estimate was a couple of hundred mil but who knows right. Either way there are 100,000 residents in that town and I doubt if they would want to kick in tens of millions in taxes to pay for anything.

Actually, they won't if it's built. The city just won't get the entire tax windfall that they would normally get as a percentage. The current residents and businesses will not pay any additional taxes or fees to pay for this stadium except in that their property taxes may go up slightly as their property values rise. But businesses in the area will profit from the increased commerce and therefore the city will actually gain even more in revenue that the costs of services will require. It is not a zero sum game where the stadium sits by itself. Money changing hands creates revenues and enhances the economy.

 

[RamFan503]

The onion, right?

First thing I thought of too.

 

[ZigZagRam]

You're missing the point. These reimbursements were not included in the original Hollywood Park project that were already approved. And no, not every developer is handed free infrastructure improvements to make it work.

Now no matter how you slice it, they're going to be handing over money to the developers.

Is this a net positive for the people of Inglewood? IF a stadium gets built, it looks promising. Just like if the MO legislature approves re-financing the EJD bonds it will be a positive.

Yet some think one deserves a vote and the other doesn't.

There's no new taxes with a STL stadium either. That's what this little debate is about: consistency.