New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[ChrisW]

The judge is toying with the ambiguity of the law. This issue of "severing" particular parts is coming up. So the judge could throw out the vote, but the stadium would still have to go through a hearing of the alderman.

 

[The Ripper]

The judge is toying with the ambiguity of the law. This issue of "severing" particular parts is coming up. So the judge could throw out the vote, but the stadium would still have to go through a hearing of the alderman.

This may be a win but not a win and cause more issues.

 

[ChrisW]

This may be a win but not a win and cause more issues.

I think it would be a huge win. The St. Louis Aldermen wouldn't want to be tasked with losing the rams. The city proper can't lose out on any more revenue. Especially when the bond expert said the the Hotel/Motel tax more than covers the 6 million per year.

 

[ChrisW]

They are arguing over the "adjacent" law now. The city says that the new stadium isn't adjacent to the convention center. The RSA came back with the law says that any part of the complex needs to be adjacent including parking. If that's true it would essentially kill the city arguing anything to do with the sites being "adjacent".

 

[Legatron4]

My head hurts from all this. Who do we want to win? The city or the RSA?

 

[RamFan503]

Pretty impressive political move by the Mayor. Appointing somebody he knows is in over his head to argue the case. He gets seen as somebody who's defending the people yet isn't a danger to winning the argument and potentially hurting the chances of a stadium being built.

Done all the time unfortunately. If the voters pass a measure/initiative/ordinance that takes power out of the hands of the government, the gov't entity does their obligation to defend it but generally throws the case with ineptitude. I'm sure this is why the professor wants to intervene. No doubt he saw this coming. I've watched it happen numerous times here in Oregon. And the courts will make statements that make them appear impartial while ruling against the voters.

 

[RamFan503]

They are arguing over the "adjacent" law now. The city says that the new stadium isn't adjacent to the convention center. The RSA came back with the law says that any part of the complex needs to be adjacent including parking. If that's true it would essentially kill the city arguing anything to do with the sites being "adjacent".

Where is Fenton compared to the dome? Blitz's atty is apparently saying that the CVC could define Fenton as adjacent to the "complex" by the definitions they are using.

 

[OldSchool]

Where is Fenton compared to the dome? Blitz's atty is apparently saying that the CVC could define Fenton as adjacent to the "complex" by the definitions they are using.

Looks like about 20 miles west of St Louis city.

 

[The Ripper]

I think it would be a huge win. The St. Louis Aldermen wouldn't want to be tasked with losing the rams. The city proper can't lose out on any more revenue. Especially when the bond expert said the the Hotel/Motel tax more than covers the 6 million per year.

The problem will be the public hearings.

 

[RamFan503]

Looks like about 20 miles west of St Louis city.

And the Stadium Authority is arguing that the ordinance is ambiguous and unclear?

 

[OldSchool]

They're arguing that a parking lot more than half a mile from the EJD is adjacent. These guys are trying to bend laws and get around laws the citizens voted in.

 

[bluecoconuts]

My head hurts from all this. Who do we want to win? The city or the RSA?

I wouldn't worry about it, its a dog and pony show to make it seem like they're arguing over it, when in reality all sides want the same thing, to circumnavigate the vote.

 

[ChrisW]

They're arguing that a parking lot more than half a mile from the EJD is adjacent. These guys are trying to bend laws and get around laws the citizens voted in.

They are arguing that the parking across the street from the dome is adjacent to the complex. Which is true since there is no other land between them.

 

[ChrisW]

Where is Fenton compared to the dome? Blitz's atty is apparently saying that the CVC could define Fenton as adjacent to the "complex" by the definitions they are using.

I didn't see that comment. All I saw was about the parking lot across Broadway.

 

[Irish]

The problem will be the public hearings.

Assuming they happen. The judge can, in one fell swoop, rule that the hearing, vote of the alderman, financial note, and public vote are unnecessary. The city is doing everything it can to make each item separate from the others, to give them more of an opportunity in the "democratic process" as it is seemingly being called. A blowout victory for the stadium would be the judge ruling on everything being unnecessary and empower the Stadium authority, with each item chipping away from the victory little by little.

 

[The Ripper]

I didn't see that comment. All I saw was about the parking lot across Broadway.

 

[RamFan503]

I didn't see that comment. All I saw was about the parking lot across Broadway.

 

[D L]

I don't understand what is happening.

 

[The Ripper]

Here's another one. She's from Public radio
https://twitter.com/rlippmann

 

[ChrisW]

View attachment 7312

Frawley is the judge, no? So he drew that connection to Fenton.