iced
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2013
- Messages
- 6,620
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_85ff570a-10a5-5353-8f35-751cbe3857ac.html
Judge hears public vote arguments on St. Louis NFL stadium funding
ST. LOUIS • Attorneys argued in court Thursday that the Edward Jones Dome could build its replacement stadium nearly anywhere — in Fenton, for example, 20 miles away — and still call it “adjacent” to the downtown dome.
The public board that runs the Dome gets to draw the boundaries of the stadium complex, attorneys said.
The argument — one piece of a 3½-hour hearing — is a central point in the fight to build a new football stadium here.
The Dome authority filed suit against the city in April, challenging a 2002 city ordinance requiring a public vote before spending tax money on a new stadium.
On Thursday, Circuit Court Judge Thomas Frawley heard opening and closing arguments in the case. He drilled Dome attorneys on the use of the city’s hotel-motel tax to pay down the Jones Dome debt. He quizzed City Counselor Winston Calvert on the “vagueness” of the public vote ordinance.
And, while Frawley didn’t rule on any of the issues in front of him, he told attorneys representing a group of citizens, more than once, that they couldn’t intervene in the case simply because they’re city taxpayers.
Attorneys said after the hearing that they didn’t know when to expect a ruling, though several said they expected it to come quickly.
Proponents of a new stadium hope it does. Gov. Jay Nixon’s two-man stadium task force is relying on the city to pay for some of the bonds needed to build the proposed $985 million open-air, riverfront arena. If Frawley rules that city residents must vote before that money can be spent, the city and task force will have to scramble to get the measure on the ballot.
And if residents vote it down, most expect the National Football League to greenlight St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke’s move to Los Angeles.
Frawley didn’t express his opinions at Thursday’s hearing. But his lines of questioning made some of his interests clear:
He dug into the funding sources for the existing Jones Dome. Bob Blitz, Dome attorney and a member of Nixon’s task force, said the city’s portion of stadium funding is covered by a hotel-motel tax. City residents, he said, already voted on the issue when they approved that tax.
The city’s public vote ordinance, he argued, contradicts state law and the city’s own charter.
And state law, he said, trumps city law. “Stadium financing is a matter of statewide impact and concern,” Blitz told the court.
Blitz said he might have to present the riverfront stadium plan to NFL owners as early as August. How will the NFL know the plan is reliable, he asked, if the ordinance says a public vote is required but state law and the city’s charter gives legislative authority to the Board of Aldermen?
This uncertainty, Blitz said, will do continuing damage to the stadium effort until the court rules.
Calvert, the city counselor, countered quickly — his argument took about 10 minutes — that the city’s ordinance does not conflict with state law.
But Frawley drilled him on the meaning of several words in the ordinance.
What governing body is referenced in the ordinance? What financing plan has to be presented to voters? Can aldermen reverse the ordinance? What if a fire truck shows up at the stadium? Isn’t that, Frawley asked, “indirect financial assistance,” forbidden by the city ordinance without a public vote?
Calvert said the ordinance refers to financial assistance toward building a new stadium, not operating one. But he acknowledged that the law is at times difficult to interpret.
The smoothest part of the hearing came over the adjacency issue. Calvert had added the argument to the case in briefs earlier this month.
The state law that allowed for the building of the Jones Dome — and is being used to authorize construction of a new stadium — required the dome to be located “adjacent to an existing convention facility,” the law says. But the proposed new stadium, Calvert argued in the briefs, is “located on the other side of a road” from the America’s Center and Jones Dome, where the city currently hosts conventions.
But Chris Bauman, an attorney at Blitz’s firm, picked apart that logic on Thursday in his presentation to the judge.
The stadium itself doesn’t have to be adjacent to the Jones Dome, Bauman said — the stadium “complex” does. And that includes parking lots, which, he noted, are right across the street from the Dome.
And “adjacent” doesn’t necessarily mean “adjoining,” he continued. It can mean “near” instead of “touching.”
Finally, he showed the judge on a map, the Dome authority owns a plaza directly across from the Dome itself. That plaza, Bauman said, is envisioned to connect to the new stadium by an over-highway path, making it part of the new stadium “complex.”
Therefore, he argued, the new stadium is indeed adjacent to the old.
So could you build it in Fenton, asked Frawley, and draw the complex boundaries to fit the definition of adjacent? Yes, answered Bauman.
In fact, Bauman added, every building the Dome authority builds has to be multi-purpose, by law. So is its own convention center, he said.
Calvert spent less than five minutes rebutting. “The statute just does not contemplate building a stadium that is not next to the convention center,” he concluded.
Frawley asked relatively few questions.
The court spent the last hour hearing the pleas of St. Louis University law professor and legal clinic supervisor John Ammann to allow three city residents to intervene in the case. Ammann expressed concerns that city counselors would not adequately defend the ordinance. Mayor Francis Slay has said repeatedly that he supports the proposed stadium.
Frawley offered little sympathy, but did not turn Ammann down on the spot.
Judge hears public vote arguments on St. Louis NFL stadium funding
ST. LOUIS • Attorneys argued in court Thursday that the Edward Jones Dome could build its replacement stadium nearly anywhere — in Fenton, for example, 20 miles away — and still call it “adjacent” to the downtown dome.
The public board that runs the Dome gets to draw the boundaries of the stadium complex, attorneys said.
The argument — one piece of a 3½-hour hearing — is a central point in the fight to build a new football stadium here.
The Dome authority filed suit against the city in April, challenging a 2002 city ordinance requiring a public vote before spending tax money on a new stadium.
On Thursday, Circuit Court Judge Thomas Frawley heard opening and closing arguments in the case. He drilled Dome attorneys on the use of the city’s hotel-motel tax to pay down the Jones Dome debt. He quizzed City Counselor Winston Calvert on the “vagueness” of the public vote ordinance.
And, while Frawley didn’t rule on any of the issues in front of him, he told attorneys representing a group of citizens, more than once, that they couldn’t intervene in the case simply because they’re city taxpayers.
Attorneys said after the hearing that they didn’t know when to expect a ruling, though several said they expected it to come quickly.
Proponents of a new stadium hope it does. Gov. Jay Nixon’s two-man stadium task force is relying on the city to pay for some of the bonds needed to build the proposed $985 million open-air, riverfront arena. If Frawley rules that city residents must vote before that money can be spent, the city and task force will have to scramble to get the measure on the ballot.
And if residents vote it down, most expect the National Football League to greenlight St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke’s move to Los Angeles.
Frawley didn’t express his opinions at Thursday’s hearing. But his lines of questioning made some of his interests clear:
He dug into the funding sources for the existing Jones Dome. Bob Blitz, Dome attorney and a member of Nixon’s task force, said the city’s portion of stadium funding is covered by a hotel-motel tax. City residents, he said, already voted on the issue when they approved that tax.
The city’s public vote ordinance, he argued, contradicts state law and the city’s own charter.
And state law, he said, trumps city law. “Stadium financing is a matter of statewide impact and concern,” Blitz told the court.
Blitz said he might have to present the riverfront stadium plan to NFL owners as early as August. How will the NFL know the plan is reliable, he asked, if the ordinance says a public vote is required but state law and the city’s charter gives legislative authority to the Board of Aldermen?
This uncertainty, Blitz said, will do continuing damage to the stadium effort until the court rules.
Calvert, the city counselor, countered quickly — his argument took about 10 minutes — that the city’s ordinance does not conflict with state law.
But Frawley drilled him on the meaning of several words in the ordinance.
What governing body is referenced in the ordinance? What financing plan has to be presented to voters? Can aldermen reverse the ordinance? What if a fire truck shows up at the stadium? Isn’t that, Frawley asked, “indirect financial assistance,” forbidden by the city ordinance without a public vote?
Calvert said the ordinance refers to financial assistance toward building a new stadium, not operating one. But he acknowledged that the law is at times difficult to interpret.
The smoothest part of the hearing came over the adjacency issue. Calvert had added the argument to the case in briefs earlier this month.
The state law that allowed for the building of the Jones Dome — and is being used to authorize construction of a new stadium — required the dome to be located “adjacent to an existing convention facility,” the law says. But the proposed new stadium, Calvert argued in the briefs, is “located on the other side of a road” from the America’s Center and Jones Dome, where the city currently hosts conventions.
But Chris Bauman, an attorney at Blitz’s firm, picked apart that logic on Thursday in his presentation to the judge.
The stadium itself doesn’t have to be adjacent to the Jones Dome, Bauman said — the stadium “complex” does. And that includes parking lots, which, he noted, are right across the street from the Dome.
And “adjacent” doesn’t necessarily mean “adjoining,” he continued. It can mean “near” instead of “touching.”
Finally, he showed the judge on a map, the Dome authority owns a plaza directly across from the Dome itself. That plaza, Bauman said, is envisioned to connect to the new stadium by an over-highway path, making it part of the new stadium “complex.”
Therefore, he argued, the new stadium is indeed adjacent to the old.
So could you build it in Fenton, asked Frawley, and draw the complex boundaries to fit the definition of adjacent? Yes, answered Bauman.
In fact, Bauman added, every building the Dome authority builds has to be multi-purpose, by law. So is its own convention center, he said.
Calvert spent less than five minutes rebutting. “The statute just does not contemplate building a stadium that is not next to the convention center,” he concluded.
Frawley asked relatively few questions.
The court spent the last hour hearing the pleas of St. Louis University law professor and legal clinic supervisor John Ammann to allow three city residents to intervene in the case. Ammann expressed concerns that city counselors would not adequately defend the ordinance. Mayor Francis Slay has said repeatedly that he supports the proposed stadium.
Frawley offered little sympathy, but did not turn Ammann down on the spot.
