Revitalizing that part of downtown STL isn't worth the 6 mil a year to you? STL is the biggest form of income in the state, you would think you'd want to strengthen the city as much as possible.
Then we throw in the abysmally low turnout for special elections, and you'd have such a small turnout that less than half of the people get their say. Maybe Rams fans can take over the election and push it over the edge.
The revitalization, I would think, would be very popular to the city residents and probably the state itself. That kind of thing is still generally voted on in most areas. I can certainly see those in favor of the Rams staying would want the extension. It just appears that it is really stretching the intent of the bond issue because it is now extremely time sensitive.
I have been involved in many elections. The elections you want to target for getting your issue passed are specifically the low voter turn out elections. This thing about it being difficult because of it being a low turn out, special election is a pure fabrication.
We actually passed an initiative that stated that taxes and bonds could NOT be put on anything but the general elections where voter turn-out was higher. The reason being was that every gov't entity and special interest new that they could get their tax measures passed much more easily and less expensively in those elections where they only needed to marshal a modicum of support to go out and vote for their issue in order to pass it.
As you in St Louis do not have such a law in place, the stadium proponents could have gone the special election route when they had time - and they did - and at least been able to show public support through a vote.
I want the stadium built too but I think the way the funding is being devised is plain slimy.
NOPE, that's not why. Nixon and Co. want to have the financing wrapped up as fast as possible and instead of scrambling to put it to a vote, he wants to extend the bonds, which is something that was voted on by the people long ago (someone correct me if I'm wrong). Are you a St. Louisan?
So when you voted on the Dome, you were thinking, "and if they need another stadium they can just use this same money."? I'm not saying you wouldn't be ok with it. I just highly doubt anyone who voted for building the Dome had any thoughts of building another stadium through extending those same bonds.
When the judge rule, this back and forth about letting the people vote and whatever else should be put to rest.
Except that there are two more cases to be ruled upon. There is a counter suit relating to this suit and the suit being pressed by the state senate. So while it would be nice to have the issue behind us, I don't believe it will be for a while yet.
The issue with the vote I think is timing - it would delay it, which in turn the delay could kill the chances of keeping of the team.
At this point, it seems you may be correct. However, they could have had a special election by now if they wanted to go that route. They are using the timing excuse now but IMO that is BS as the excuse was only made valid by not doing it earlier in the process.
