New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[den-the-coach]

Unions, always part of the problem never part of the solution. Who the freak does this dolt think he is.

With the exception in the Gateway City as the Unions are ready to work 24/7!

 

[den-the-coach]

I have a 1000 stories of how unions have benefited my family on both sides dating back almost 70 years to little "startup" teamster type unions. Can we not do the anti/pro union stuff outside the off topic section? I'd hate to get political and ugly on a Rams board.

Great points @blue4, however, absolute power corrupts absolutely at any level....All of us understand how Unions have benefited this country and so has politics, but some people just can't help themselves.

 

[RamFan503]

I have a 1000 stories of how unions have benefited my family on both sides dating back almost 70 years to little "startup" teamster type unions. Can we not do the anti/pro union stuff outside the off topic section? I'd hate to get political and ugly on a Rams board.

Sounds like a plan.

 

[blue4]

Great points @blue4, however, absolute power corrupts absolutely at any level....All of us understand how Unions have benefited this country and so has politics, but some people just can't help themselves.

Sounds like a plan.

Thanks. To be clear, I have no problem with posting the news articles. Just hoping to avoid the inevitable misunderstandings and angry comments. Myself included definitely.

 

[BuiltRamTough]

Labor group wants say in Inglewood stadium plan - LA Times
The NFL stadium plan that sped through Inglewood City Hall last month now faces its first major obstacle: A petition drive launched by a powerful labor group that could delay the project unless developers guarantee more union jobs and better wages.

Even as it negotiates deals for construction and long-term work at the stadium backed by St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke, the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor is gathering signatures to force a public vote on the project.

An election could slow the stadium by months and cost Kroenke his lead in the race to return a professional football team to Los Angeles.

The Federation's main concern, executive secretary Rusty Hicks said, is that the development agreement that Inglewood's City Council unanimously approved Feb. 24 doesn't mandate well-paying, long-term jobs during and after construction of the $1.86 billion stadium and the entertainment and retail complex around it.

"The developer should make good on its promise and provide signed, written agreements committing to good jobs for the project's construction and operations," said Hicks, whose group represents about 300 labor unions. "We've got enough poverty jobs. We don't need any more."

The Federation has until March 25 to qualify the measure for a referendum, Inglewood City Clerk Yvonne Horton said. If the labor group can get about 6,000 verified signatures, the Inglewood City Council has two choices: It could repeal its earlier vote, which would kill the initiative. Or it could schedule a special election for a public vote on the initiative — likely in August or September.

Inglewood Mayor James T. Butts Jr. said he's confident the issue won't get that far.

"I'm certain within the next five to seven days everything will be worked out to everyone's satisfaction," Butts said.

Hicks echoed the optimism.

"I'm hopeful we will get to a resolution," Hicks said. "The developer says that they want an agreement and I know that we want an agreement so I'm hopeful."

Kroenke and his partners are pushing back. In response to the union's signature-gathering effort, Citizens for Revitalizing the City of Champions, a group funded by Kroenke and Bay Area-investment firm Stockbridge Capital, circulated an email to project supporters urging them not to sign "the anti-stadium petition" by "outside special interests backing competing stadium plans."

"Their goal is to first delay and then stop the project completely," the email said.

The Federation, though, says it has no favorite in the stadium race. It will seek the same agreements on the $1.7-billion stadium proposed in Carson by the San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders.

Mark Fabiani, the Chargers' point man on stadium issues, said supporters of the Carson project have no connection to the Inglewood referendum.

A spokesman for AEG, which teamed with labor to win approvals in 2012 from the L.A. City Council for the downtown Farmers Field stadium, said it is "not in any way involved."

The Federation has helped lead campaigns to raise the minimum wage in Los Angeles, and to boost pay at a number of private employers in the region. While many of its member groups represent service workers — including hotel maids, janitors, government employees and healthcare workers — the Federation has also allied with big developers to create construction jobs.

In this case, the Inglewood stadium project has already committed to use union labor to build the stadium and development around it at Hollywood Park. Negotiations over those contracts, however, are ongoing, Hicks said.

"We want to have it in writing before the first shovel hits the ground," he said.

The project's development agreement with the city sets a goal that 35% of post-construction jobs would go to Inglewood residents and promises outreach and training programs to help local residents get those jobs.

"We are proud of our commitment to union labor for construction, anticipate long-term union jobs after construction and also underscore the fact that local hiring provisions for the project will bring new opportunities to Inglewood residents and businesses," said Chris Meany, a senior vice president for the Hollywood Park Land Co., which controls the property.

Those agreements, and projections of more than 10,000 full and part-time jobs once the development is up and running, are a big reason why the stadium has broad support in Inglewood.

"This project will bring prosperity to our city," said Steven Johnson, pastor of business and finance at Faithful Central Bible Church in Inglewood. "It's an economic renaissance."

Johnson was one of dozens of citizens who spoke in favor of the project at a public hearing the night City Council members voted 5-0 to approve the stadium without a public vote. But a handful of opponents spoke up too, saying a development this complex deserved more study.

"I hope you allow the residents of this community to decide this," said resident Diane Sambrano.

Hicks wouldn't say how many signatures the Federation has collected but expressed confidence they would gather enough by the deadline.

When stadium supporters launched the project through an initiative petition in January, they collected more than 22,000 signatures in about three weeks.

Petitions began circulating Thursday in Carson in support of a ballot initiative that changes city zoning for the stadium that is supported by several unions.

"We're not taking a position in regard to supporting one stadium over the other," Hicks said. "We're looking for good jobs."

nathan.fenno@latimes.com

Twitter: @nathanfenno

tim.logan@latimes.com

Twitter: @bytimlogan

Times staff writer David Wharton contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2015, Los Angeles Times

 

[BuiltRamTough]

First AEG and now the Carson dudes trying to delay the Inglewood project so they could catch up. Some take this as a negative for Inglewood. I take this as a positive. Why? Bc the Ingelwood project is not a leverage ploy for STL to build a stadium. It's real. It's happening. Idk if the Rams will move in into the stadium or not but it's safe to say an NFL stadium will get built either in Carson or Ingelwood.

 

[bluecoconuts]

First AEG and now the Carson dudes trying to delay the Inglewood project so they could catch up. Some take this as a negative for Inglewood. I take this as a positive. Why? Bc the Ingelwood project is not a leverage ploy for STL to build a stadium. It's real. It's happening. Idk if the Rams will move in into the stadium or not but it's safe to say an NFL stadium will get built either in Carson or Ingelwood.

I think if Goodell doesn't get those three guys, mostly Spanos and Kroenke (Davis seems to truly want to stay) together to talk things out and figure out who will do what, I think he's failed. Once Kroenke starts building, in many ways its past the point of no return. Just a big headache they don't want.

 

[BuiltRamTough]

I think if Goodell doesn't get those three guys, mostly Spanos and Kroenke (Davis seems to truly want to stay) together to talk things out and figure out who will do what, I think he's failed. Once Kroenke starts building, in many ways its past the point of no return. Just a big headache they don't want.

I agree. I also think maybe they already have talked and planned on what to do behind closed doors and they're just playing us and the 4 city's into getting what they want. If Stans true end game is to stay in STL would you be surprised? Bc I wouldnt. History tells us that LA is used as leverage. Until they break ground I won't believe it. I tell my friends here in LA that the NFL is coming back and their response is "wasn't their supposed to be a team here years ago?" I will say this. The time line is perfect for the NFL. By December will know if SD OAK or STL has a deal in place. Or if Inglewood or Carson break ground. Then in Feb the owners will have everything nice and organized and will pick which team will move or stay. The timing of all this is brilliant. 3 teams need new stadium and LA is vacant. Seems like a master plan by the NFL. BUT maybe it isn't. Maybe Spanos and Stan hate each other and have beef and this is truly a race to LA?? There's to many moving parts. Every morning I wake up and I read or hear something that changes my outlook on this whole situation.

 

[rhinobean]

It'd have to be approved by the Senate, then approved by the House, then approved by Nixon, or else they'd need a 2/3 majority to override Nixon's veto.

I understand what you're saying but can Nixon ignore that and extend the bonds anyway? Just not that hip to what's shaking on the bond deal!

 

[Irish]

I understand what you're saying but can Nixon ignore that and extend the bonds anyway? Just not that hip to what's shaking on the bond deal!

Technically, no. The issue that these blow hard state Reps don't seem to grasp is that they, and by extensions the people, gave the governor the right to unilaterally extend existing bonds so long as the purpose of those bonds does not change. They could scratch and claw every single representative they want to over turn their law, but all Nixon has to do is wait until the assembly session is over to veto the bill. At that point, the General Assembly would have to either A) call an emergency session to override the veto (ain't gonna happen) or B) wait until the next session starts and override it, which is a mountain in and of itself.

This thing is funded. Peacock and crew cannot announce until they have the land, and they are working on that now. It comes down to whether or not the NFL allows Kroenke to ignore the proposal and move his team. If he is not allowed to move, I don't see how the NFL allows him to continue to own it, as the new stadium plan requires 450+ million from the team to make the finances work.

 

[BuiltRamTough]

Mayor Butts says the Union issue will be resolved within 4-5 days and he basically says the Rams and Stan have committed into playing in LA

http://kfwbam.com/2015/03/13/inglewood-mayor-everyone-knows-the-city-of-champions-project-is-solid/

 

[RamFan503]

Technically, no. The issue that these blow hard state Reps don't seem to grasp is that they, and by extensions the people, gave the governor the right to unilaterally extend existing bonds so long as the purpose of those bonds does not change. They could scratch and claw every single representative they want to over turn their law, but all Nixon has to do is wait until the assembly session is over to veto the bill. At that point, the General Assembly would have to either A) call an emergency session to override the veto (ain't gonna happen) or B) wait until the next session starts and override it, which is a mountain in and of itself.

I'm not sure but it would seem that the bond being used for a different stadium, is changing the purpose. I thought what Nixon was suggesting was that the law allowed him to spend on these kinds of things without going to the assembly or to a vote. If that is the case, IMO he'd be far better served by just doing it. He can't run for re-election anyway so he could do it without it being overly political from his end. But if the law states that the bonds can be extended only if the purpose doesn't change, that is a huge stretch IMO and will probably see a challenge by the ones making the ruckus now and also by the MO appropriations committee or whoever has control over paying the bond itself.

 

[RamFan503]

and he basically says the Rams and Stan have committed into playing in LA

Quite the contrary. At the end of the interview he specifically said there has been no arrangement for any NFL team to play in Inglewood. None.

 

[BuiltRamTough]

Quite the contrary. At the end of the interview he specifically said there has been no arrangement for any NFL team to play in Inglewood. None.

Ya it'll be chaos if he straight up says the Rams are coming. He does say that the 2 party's involved in the carson project have not committed into playing in la Bc they're trying to get stadiums in their cities. If you read between the lines it means that the Rams aren't trying to get a stadium in STL and that Stan has committed into moving in the ingelwood project. Listen I ain't no expert into politics and such. It's just my opinion.

 

[blue4]

I didn't see where he said the Rams are committed to LA, but if he did hint at it..well, my earlier comment about counting his chickens applies.

 

[RamFan503]

Ya it'll be chaos if he straight up says the Rams are coming. He does say that the 2 party's involved in the carson project have not committed into playing in la Bc they're trying to get stadiums in their cities. If you read between the lines it means that the Rams aren't trying to get a stadium in STL and that Stan has committed into moving in the ingelwood project. Listen I ain't no expert into politics and such. It's just my opinion.

Of course you are free to read between the lines but let's not put words in the guy's mouth. I'd rather you just state it as your opinion - not something Butts said by not saying something else. All you do with making an assertion like you did is get people riled up for what amounts to no good reason. Butts said pretty much what he has said all along. The only substance I saw really was his discussing the union and the signature gathering efforts.

As far as the signature gathering efforts, that is pretty low if that is what they are doing. In Oregon, that would be illegal. I have to suspect that it is in CA as well.

 

[ZigZagRam]

Mayor Butts says the Union issue will be resolved within 4-5 days and he basically says the Rams and Stan have committed into playing in LA

http://kfwbam.com/2015/03/13/inglewood-mayor-everyone-knows-the-city-of-champions-project-is-solid/

Total BS.

Don't be that guy. He specifically stated otherwise.

 

[TSFH Fan]

but all Nixon has to do is wait until the assembly session is over to veto the bill. At that point, the General Assembly would have to either A) call an emergency session to override the veto (ain't gonna happen) or B) wait until the next session starts and override it, which is a mountain in and of itself

Genuine question, because MO's not my state: Isn't the Veto Session a regular procedure for the GA to consider overriding vetoes done after session is over?

I've seen links refer to the MO Veto Session as an "annual" event, like it's a regular thing, I've read the results from last September, and I've seen this definition: "Veto Session A session of the General Assembly to consider overriding vetoes of the Governor. If any bill is vetoed late in or after the end of a regular session, a veto session is held starting on the Wednesday following the second Monday in September." I'm assuming that a red dominated Leg. and blue Gov. would provide lots of material to discuss at VS 2015, no?

Again, MO's not my state and input would be appreciated.

 

[BuiltRamTough]

Of course you are free to read between the lines but let's not put words in the guy's mouth. I'd rather you just state it as your opinion - not something Butts said by not saying something else. All you do with making an assertion like you did is get people riled up for what amounts to no good reason. Butts said pretty much what he has said all along. The only substance I saw really was his discussing the union and the signature gathering efforts.

As far as the signature gathering efforts, that is pretty low if that is what they are doing. In Oregon, that would be illegal. I have to suspect that it is in CA as well.

I did say "in my opinion" lol. You guys might be right. I just want them back so bad :/

 

[bluecoconuts]

Rabble rabble rabble!