New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[Rmfnlt]

But the fact remains the CVC committed to the dome being a top tier stadium and failed to live up to that commitment.
Yup, they did sign it... of course, at the time, they had no idea how that would unfold... they wanted the Rams in STL, so off they went.

Fast forward 19 years and, when real numbers start getting tossed around, the TWO sides are far apart.

BUT, they signed it... so they they failed. Simple, right? Of course, anyone that's followed this whole thing knows it's not that simple... just like the team's record is the only thing that matters.

The Riverfront stadium will make no such commitment. The Rams didn't pay for the construction of the dome but are expected to pay for a substantial amount of the new stadium.
Not sure what this has to do with whether the CVC "failed". Technically, yes. But I'd submit that, when the Rams threw that $700 million out there, how the CVC reacted really wasn't surprising. In fact, no one was surprised.. the number was basically unachievable.... non-starter".

Did the Rams act in good faith there? Some would say no.

None of that is necessarily unfair or unreasonable but the question remains: How does the NFL feel about a city not living up to the terms of an existing lucrative contract, exiting it early and
tying to replace it with a less lucrative one?
And how would the NFL feel about a franchise that is presented with a complete stadium plan in their current market and still wants to move solely for additional revenue? Oh... wait... that's actually addressed in the by-laws (or whatever they're called)... such a move is actually prohibited.

To recap: One scenario not addressed in current NFL documentation... one clearly is... I'll go with the one that is.

It's been raised by a few people and i think it's a legitimate question.
For legitimacy, I'll go with what is actually documented in the NFL laws to what a few people say... but that's just me.

 

[MrMotes]

No, the CVC did not commit to the dome being top tier. I don't get how some you people don't understand this. It was simply a clause stating that if the dome wasn't in the top tier, the Rams could opt out and go year to year. How in the world is that so hard to understand?

We can argue semantics but if my point isn't clear by now, it's not going to be.

I'm not questioning the motives, good will or mechanics of the Rams being out of their long term lease with the CVC.

They are out of the long term lease because the dome failed to meet the top tier requirement. If the dome was still top tier the Rams wouldn't be free agents. Now the city is trying to sign a new long term lease with the Rams with worse terms than the previous lease.

Does this work or do you still have semantic problems with what i'm saying?

 

[RAMbler]

I'm quoting the Rmfnlt post here, but really I have seen this same sentiment several times, and I am asking this question to anyone who believes the assertion that Carson is an environmental nightmare...what is this "hunch" (or "feeling" or "I heard..") based on?

Is there real, actual non-biased or 3rd party data that shows this?
Or is it just projection from folks who want to see Carson go away to clear the way for a potential Rams return to LA or force the Chargers to stay in San Diego?
I get the feeling that the later is true, but can anyone provide a link or neutral evidence of the former?

The things I have seen in the wider media (ie. - outside of the LA/StL/SD/Oak relocation bubbles) all seem to indicate that the NFL has approved of the Cason site (not necessarily the project as a whole yet) as a viable stadium site.

If the NFL approved the site, who is lying or misinformed?

The league?
That seems unlikely since they would have commissioned a study of the site before making a public statement or allowing public statements of the site viability to go unchallenged.
I know the NFL has a propensity for shooting itself in the foot lately, but that seems to be a pretty big gaffe if the Carson site is really a toxic waste dump!

People saying Carson is something akin to a California Fukushima?
It just seems very weird to have such diametrically opposite viewpoints come up over and over...either Carson is a viable site or it is not.
It can't be both things simultaneously...

IMO, your questions regarding "hunch", "feeling", or "I heard" are based on 2 very simple terms: Common Sense & Toxic Waste. Notice I am not talking about reports, or projections because that isn't your original question.

But I'd ask this: With Billions at stake. If you heard they were going to build a new Soccer stadium in.... idk.... say.... Brazil, Germany, or even South Africa. And the 2 choices for location were only 10 miles apart. The first is a former race track where large crowds had gathered for decades to enjoy horse racing. The other is a decades old land fill with known toxic waste.

Where would you think the people in charge should build this stadium? There are no future health concerns on one site, but plenty of questions on the other.

I think Common Sense is where people would lean.

 

[Rmfnlt]

http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-carson-chargers-raiders-stadium-20150506-story.html

That article says it will take 18 months to clean up. Sounds like a pretty substantial cleanup effort. And having heard from people on other boards who live in the area you can actually find spots around there with pools of sludge bubbling up through the ground. So 18 months to clean up, if they are able to clean it, and another 6 months to cap it with more dirt. Two years at best before they can start construction. Personally the thought of laying the foundation for a huge stadium through toxic mess even if it's cleaned up doesn't sound good. And they're doing it in earthquake country too.

I'll tell you one thing: I wouldn't go see a game there! :eek:

 

[Moostache]

IMO, your questions regarding "hunch", "feeling", or "I heard" are based on 2 very simple terms: Common Sense & Toxic Waste. Notice I am not talking about reports, or projections because that isn't your original question.

But I'd ask this: With Billions at stake. If you heard they were going to build a new Soccer stadium in.... idk.... say.... Brazil, Germany, or even South Africa. And the 2 choices for location were only 10 miles apart. The first is a former race track where large crowds had gathered for decades to enjoy horse racing. The other is a decades old land fill with known toxic waste.

Where would you think the people in charge should build this stadium? There are no future health concerns on one site, but plenty of questions on the other.

I think Common Sense is where people would lean.

Fair enough, but Common Sense is not the same as scientific data. "Common sense" leads to people doing incredibly stupid, even dangerous things like not getting kids vaccinated because they think a bunch of 'woo' and people like a former Playboy Bunny know more than doctors and scientists who develop the vaccines. Its your right to have that opinion and I'm not trying to take that away or convince you otherwise, I'm still openly wondering if there is a published or peer-reviewed study that categorically states the Carson site is toxic?

As far as health concerns go, I think the NFL is clearly not overly concerned with that given the recent findings about artificial turf and its toxicity...yet stadiums around the league still use it with no widely anticipated plans of stopping...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/09/toxic-turf_n_7218728.html
http://www.ceh.org/get-involved/tak...-harmful-chemicals-in-artificial-turf-infill/
http://www.turfgrasssod.org/pages/r...neration-artificial-turf-that-require-answers

Thanks for the response, but I thought the Carson site was a former land fill. Land fills are not exactly the same thing as a Toxic Waste dump. There may certainly be nasty things in a land fill, but the quantity and severity or toxicity would be miles apart.

 

[Moostache]

I'm basing it on a poster on another board who lives 2 blocks away from the site and has lived there for something like 50 years.
Having read his posts for many years, I believe him when he says the thing is a mess and they are hiding the size and complexity of the clean-up.

Why would they lie? Who knows.. for sure.

But I believe that poster. If anything, his property would increase in value quite a bit... so he has no motivation to relay how bad it's been at that site for decades... other than to tell the truth.

Fair enough, but his reporting and then speculating that something is "hiding" without actual data beyond anecdotal evidence is hardly definitive; nor is it keeping with the fact that near as I can tell the NFL does not share the same outlook on the toxicity of the Carson site. Not saying I am right or you or he are wrong necessarily, just questioning the scientific basis for the assessment.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-carson-chargers-raiders-stadium-20150506-story.html
That article says it will take 18 months to clean up. Sounds like a pretty substantial cleanup effort. And having heard from people on other boards who live in the area you can actually find spots around there with pools of sludge bubbling up through the ground. So 18 months to clean up, if they are able to clean it, and another 6 months to cap it with more dirt. Two years at best before they can start construction. Personally the thought of laying the foundation for a huge stadium through toxic mess even if it's cleaned up doesn't sound good. And they're doing it in earthquake country too.

Again, not trying to pick fights about this, but it is heresy to rely on reports of "pools of sludge bubbling up through the ground" without some kind of scientific analysis of the sludge. I can go into my back yard, soak the ground and create a soupy, black sludge from nothing more than dirt and water...but if someone took a sample of that concoction, ran it through a LC/MS/MS or a Gas Chromtagraph and identified specific, harmful components and their concentrations, I would be a lot more incredulous about the Carson project.

Does such a study exist or not? If it does, then I would be interested in reading it and as a scientist reviewing the findings, I can't make a judgment one way or the other with no actual data to review though ... if such a report does not exist, then the whole issue of Carson's environmental viability is not as big a deal as some might be led to believe it to be.

 

[Moostache]

I'll tell you one thing: I wouldn't go see a game there! :eek:

Me either...but I don't like the Chargers or the Raiders or flying into LAX!

 

[RAMbler]

Fair enough, but Common Sense is not the same as scientific data. "Common sense" leads to people doing incredibly stupid, even dangerous things like not getting kids vaccinated because they think a bunch of 'woo' and people like a former Playboy Bunny know more than doctors and scientists who develop the vaccines. Its your right to have that opinion and I'm not trying to take that away or convince you otherwise, I'm still openly wondering if there is a published or peer-reviewed study that categorically states the Carson site is toxic?

As far as health concerns go, I think the NFL is clearly not overly concerned with that given the recent facts about artificial turf and its toxicity...yet stadiums around the league still use it with no widely anticipated plans of stopping...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/09/toxic-turf_n_7218728.html
http://www.ceh.org/get-involved/tak...-harmful-chemicals-in-artificial-turf-infill/
http://www.turfgrasssod.org/pages/r...neration-artificial-turf-that-require-answers

Thanks for the response, but I thought the Carson site was a former land fill. Land fills are not exactly the same thing as a Toxic Waste dump. There may certainly be nasty things in a land fill, but the quantity and severity or toxicity would be miles apart.

Who said anything about "scientific date".... you lead with a question about "hunch", "feeling", or "I heard".... which is all I was talking about. And I think Common Sense vs Toxic Waste is why folks go by "hunch", "feeling", or "I heard"....

Scientific Data? Admittedly, here are plenty of folks here that can debate that point better then I can.

 

[Rmfnlt]

Fair enough, but his reporting and then speculating that something is "hiding" without actual data beyond anecdotal evidence is hardly definitive; nor is it keeping with the fact that near as I can tell the NFL does not share the same outlook on the toxicity of the Carson site. Not saying I am right or you or he are wrong necessarily, just questioning the scientific basis for the assessment.




Again, not trying to pick fights about this, but it is heresy to rely on reports of "pools of sludge bubbling up through the ground" without some kind of scientific analysis of the sludge. I can go into my back yard, soak the ground and create a soupy, black sludge from nothing more than dirt and water...but if someone took a sample of that concoction, ran it through a LC/MS/MS or a Gas Chromtagraph and identified specific, harmful components and their concentrations, I would be a lot more incredulous about the Carson project.

Does such a study exist or not? If it does, then I would be interested in reading it and as a scientist reviewing the findings, I can't make a judgment one way or the other with no actual data to review though ... if such a report does not exist, then the whole issue of Carson's environmental viability is not as big a deal as some might be led to believe it to be.

You're certainly free to believe whatever you want...

But his desription of what has transpired at that site over the past 60+ years is detailed enough that I believe him over a bunch of folks that are more likely motivated by:
* Getting clicks on the internet (media)
* Pocketing as much cash as they can (owners)

Go to the Real Rams Fans site, thread titled "THE STL WILL BUILD A FOOTBALL STADIUM" and on page 29, you will find the first hand account (Bubbaramfan) of what a long time resident has witnessed. Check out page 33 as well.

That's enough for me... again, he has no motivation to tell anything but what he has seen for years and years.

Science? Pretty sure there are examples of "studies" that have been done to produce a certain "desired outcome"?
Introduce money and all bets are off.

Again, if they built a stadium on that site, I sure wouldn't attend and I wouldn't let anyone I cared about attend, either.

http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/sfund/r9sfdocw.nsf/vwsoalphabetic/Del+Amo+Facility

 

[The Ripper]

No, the CVC did not commit to the dome being top tier. I don't get how some you people don't understand this. It was simply a clause stating that if the dome wasn't in the top tier, the Rams could opt out and go year to year. How in the world is that so hard to understand?

Actually the dome was required to be top tier at all times and they had 2 measuring points.

 

[OldSchool]

Fair enough, but his reporting and then speculating that something is "hiding" without actual data beyond anecdotal evidence is hardly definitive; nor is it keeping with the fact that near as I can tell the NFL does not share the same outlook on the toxicity of the Carson site. Not saying I am right or you or he are wrong necessarily, just questioning the scientific basis for the assessment.




Again, not trying to pick fights about this, but it is heresy to rely on reports of "pools of sludge bubbling up through the ground" without some kind of scientific analysis of the sludge. I can go into my back yard, soak the ground and create a soupy, black sludge from nothing more than dirt and water...but if someone took a sample of that concoction, ran it through a LC/MS/MS or a Gas Chromtagraph and identified specific, harmful components and their concentrations, I would be a lot more incredulous about the Carson project.

Does such a study exist or not? If it does, then I would be interested in reading it and as a scientist reviewing the findings, I can't make a judgment one way or the other with no actual data to review though ... if such a report does not exist, then the whole issue of Carson's environmental viability is not as big a deal as some might be led to believe it to be.

Again this info is all out there for people to see and has been reported for months and months. Here's an article dated in February of 2015

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-nfl-carson-stadium-20150221-story.html

"It is safe," said Emad Yemut, a supervising engineer for the state Toxic Substances Control Department, which oversees the decontamination effort. "Everything is done."

Yemut said the site still needs a series of extraction wells to remove methane and other gases from 157 tainted acres, but it could be installed in six months to a year once a final plan for a stadium is approved.

The property, which includes an additional 11 acres outside the landfill, is already equipped with wells that pull out groundwater fouled with industrial solvents, he said. The water is then treated and piped into the sewer system.

Eventually, the parcel would be capped with high-density plastic to prevent garbage-spawned gases from leaking into the air. The cap would be topped with layers of new soil, Yemut said.

"It will be expensive," he said of the remaining work, estimating the monthly costs of operating just the gas extraction wells at $200,000 to $300,000.

Even this guy from the states Toxic Substance Control Department implies it won't ever be cleaned up. If it would be able to be cleaned up why the need for high density plastic to "prevent garbage spawned gases" from escaping. This is after years of having pumps to extract the methane and other gases from the "tainted" 157 acres and another 12 to 18 months estimated cleanup.

Here's an article where the mayor of Carson calls it "contaminated land" I guess he would know it's in his city.

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/spo...ium-Site-Its-Contaminated-Land-302480301.html

Here's another article dating back a whole 16 years about the "Toxic Carson site"

http://articles.latimes.com/1999/aug/07/local/me-63434

{QUOTE]A 1988 Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. report said Phillips Petroleum Co., Union Oil Co. and Unocal were among those potentially responsible for an alphabet soup of toxic substances dumped at the site. Federal law says that responsible parties must pay for cleanup before any development can ensue.

After making a commitment to the state to clean up the site, Commercial Realty filed suit against the oil companies.

According to the California Environmental Protection Agency, substances including nickel and vinyl chloride have seeped into the soil and ground water at the former landfill. The oil companies have filed claims against the 45 municipalities and Los Angeles County, seeking damages for their alleged roles in polluting the site. If no settlement is reached within three months, a letter accompanying the claims states, a lawsuit will follow. [/QUOTE]

They've been trying to clean this site up for 16 years now. And it's all the sudden going to be good to go and ready to build a stadium on?

 

[The Ripper]

The same can be said for Inglewood.

Inglewood was has been harder to purchase where as Carson has been on the market almost every year and the purchase price was a lot lower

 

[Moostache]

Again this info is all out there for people to see and has been reported for months and months. Here's an article dated in February of 2015

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-nfl-carson-stadium-20150221-story.html



Even this guy from the states Toxic Substance Control Department implies it won't ever be cleaned up. If it would be able to be cleaned up why the need for high density plastic to "prevent garbage spawned gases" from escaping. This is after years of having pumps to extract the methane and other gases from the "tainted" 157 acres and another 12 to 18 months estimated cleanup.

Here's an article where the mayor of Carson calls it "contaminated land" I guess he would know it's in his city.

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/spo...ium-Site-Its-Contaminated-Land-302480301.html

Here's another article dating back a whole 16 years about the "Toxic Carson site"

http://articles.latimes.com/1999/aug/07/local/me-63434

{QUOTE]A 1988 Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. report said Phillips Petroleum Co., Union Oil Co. and Unocal were among those potentially responsible for an alphabet soup of toxic substances dumped at the site. Federal law says that responsible parties must pay for cleanup before any development can ensue.

After making a commitment to the state to clean up the site, Commercial Realty filed suit against the oil companies.

According to the California Environmental Protection Agency, substances including nickel and vinyl chloride have seeped into the soil and ground water at the former landfill. The oil companies have filed claims against the 45 municipalities and Los Angeles County, seeking damages for their alleged roles in polluting the site. If no settlement is reached within three months, a letter accompanying the claims states, a lawsuit will follow.

Thank you for the links.

(Edit #1 - I have not yet had a chance to read all the linked articles, so I may have missed something critical at this point...)

This was interesting from one of them:

LA Times - State says Carson site ready for construction of NFL stadium:

"But Yemut and the department's manager for the Carson project, Daniel Zogaib, said a football venue would be ideal for the property, which runs along the 405's intersection with Del Amo Boulevard. That's because the wells and monitoring devices would not have to be pretzeled around numerous buildings, as they would in a housing or retail development."
"The football stadium is much easier," said Zogaib. "We could start remediating that right now."

(Edit #2)
The 1999 LA Times article:

Legal Battle Is Likely Over Cleanup of Toxic Carson Site
August 07, 1999

seems to indicate that the specific 1999 problem - namely who would be responsible for the clean-up - torpedoed the bid by Orvitz to put a stadium there. It implies that COST and not the problem itself was the issue, while the Chargers-Raiders plan is said to have already addressed that specific issue. So, yes, this apparently was an issue then as now, the difference being then it stopped things from proceeding, and now it appears to have been addressed to some degree or another.

I think it is pretty clear that we can all bring our preconceptions and biases to these reports, which is why I am looking to find the actual data - air quality and contaminants per cubic liter, g/kg of soil for specific carcinogens, etc. etc.

I would imagine that those things have to have been measured by SOMEONE over the course of all the years covered in the links and stories and rumors...why would the NFL publicly agree that site clean-up is not a deal breaker if it is so abundantly clear there is a problem?

Like everything else surrounding this entire sordid affair, the lack of transparency is maddening to me.

 

[OldSchool]

You know I was going to respond to that @Moostache, I had a whole thing written out and realized it would probably be taken as too harsh. I'll just suffice to laugh at the irony.

I think it is pretty clear that we can all bring our preconceptions and biases to these reports,

You can find countless sources that there were problems with this site from the states EPA dating back at least 16 years. That cleanup is ongoing and will require more cleanup. But because you haven't read the fine print on an EPA report you'll just brush it aside. There are enough people claiming there are problems with the site still to be addressed and will continue to need to be addressed. I'm pretty certain I'm not being biased here because if this was the Inglewood site, the St Louis site, San Diego, Oakland or a site in Kamchatka my reaction would be the same. But because this is being attributed to a site, that if built, would help keep the Rams in St Louis it's being treated as lies, innuendo and a non story by some.

 

[Rmfnlt]

I think it is pretty clear that we can all bring our preconceptions and biases to these reports, which is why I am looking to find the actual data - air quality and contaminants per cubic liter, g/kg of soil for specific carcinogens, etc. etc.

A lot easier to go with hunches...

 

[OldSchool]

Inglewood was has been harder to purchase where as Carson has been on the market almost every year and the purchase price was a lot lower

They've been trying to get something on this site for decades and can't.

 

[Moostache]

Found it!

http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/losangeles/Kast/docs/Kast_HHRA _RAP_FSR/Kast FS Report.pdf

That thing is a freaking monster...189 pages??? I am going to have to question my desire to actually understand this issue too I think! At the very least I understand more why anyone would be more inclined to take a summary of it without digging into it!!!

Can anyone confirm for me that the "Kast Property" in Carson, CA. is the same plot that is called the "Carson project" or "Carson site"?

EDIT - Ah crap....I don't think this is the same site at all...anywho, THIS is the knd of report I'm trying to find re: the proposed Carson site for the NFL...

 

[Rmfnlt]

Found it!

http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/losangeles/Kast/docs/Kast_HHRA _RAP_FSR/Kast FS Report.pdf

That thing is a freaking monster...189 pages??? I am going to have to question my desire to actually understand this issue too I think! At the very least I understand more why anyone would be more inclined to take a summary of it without digging into it!!!

Can anyone confirm for me that the "Kast Property" in Carson, CA. is the same plot that is called the "Carson project" or "Carson site"?

http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/sfund/r9sfdocw.nsf/vwsoalphabetic/Del Amo Facility

This might be easier to read... or... you can always listen to citizens who have lived there for over 50 years.

But, if you're into 189 pages of scientific mumbo-jumbo, that's cool too.

 

[The Ripper]

Found it!

http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/losangeles/Kast/docs/Kast_HHRA _RAP_FSR/Kast FS Report.pdf

That thing is a freaking monster...189 pages??? I am going to have to question my desire to actually understand this issue too I think! At the very least I understand more why anyone would be more inclined to take a summary of it without digging into it!!!

Can anyone confirm for me that the "Kast Property" in Carson, CA. is the same plot that is called the "Carson project" or "Carson site"?

Not the same site.

http://articles.latimes.com/2004/mar/18/business/fi-landfill18

 

[Moostache]

http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/sfund/r9sfdocw.nsf/vwsoalphabetic/Del Amo Facility

This might be easier to read... or... you can always listen to citizens who have lived there for over 50 years.

But, if you're into 189 pages of scientific mumbo-jumbo, that's cool too.

Thanks for the link. No offense to you (if you live in the area or know people who do) but I don't make it a habit to take anyone's word for it on damn near anything. Our society lost my trust decades ago and I am 100% skeptical of almost everything that I can't independently confirm. Drives my wife nuts!

The other thing about people who live in any area for a long time is they are subjected to "group think" where an idea takes hold and gains its own life like a game of "telephone" until the consensus opinion is far from reality. But thanks again for the link!