New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[RamFan503]

The Mayor also said it was not passed, just approved for ballot.

The clip I listened to he said, "We have the verified signatures in and the initiative did pass." No biggie - I just think he mis-spoke.

 

[bluecoconuts]

The clip I listened to he said, "We have the verified signatures in and the initiative did pass." No biggie - I just think he mis-spoke.

I'm assuming he meant it "passed" as in they got the votes they needed. I saw an article with an editors note that said he clarified it was only approved to go on the ballot.

 

[Boffo97]

I'm assuming he meant it "passed" as in they got the votes they needed. I saw an article with an editors note that said he clarified it was only approved to go on the ballot.

But all along they've said there's an option that the city council could just approve it. I have to think that if the February 24th hearing goes well (IE no significant opposition), they'll just go ahead and do that instead of bother with a vote all but guaranteed to pass.

 

[bluecoconuts]

But all along they've said there's an option that the city council could just approve it. I have to think that if the February 24th hearing goes well (IE no significant opposition), they'll just go ahead and do that instead of bother with a vote all but guaranteed to pass.

If they go that route, they may decide to just go "by the books" so to speak, or he may have been just saying they could, similar to Nixon saying he thinks he could move forward with the St. Louis stadium without voter approval. If everything goes well, maybe they do go that route, but you'd have to imagine they'd rather have it move forward via vote, especially as they're bypassing environmental surveys.

 

[blue4]

Right but it is in virtually every one of his pieces. He has to make some jackass remark about someone in almost everything he writes.

Compared to political writers, he's not so bad. There are a few times when I agree with some of his jackass remarks. Like when he calls out fans who act like douchebags when any Rams QB fails to perform like Kurt.

 

[ChrisW]

Yeah man - I admit to having Bernie over sensitivity. I just think the guy is a jackass and probably so in real life too so I have almost no patience for him.

I can't stand his videos. I think it's his voice that gets to me more than anything. It always has that condescending tone.

 

[RamFan503]

But all along they've said there's an option that the city council could just approve it. I have to think that if the February 24th hearing goes well (IE no significant opposition), they'll just go ahead and do that instead of bother with a vote all but guaranteed to pass.

If they go that route, they may decide to just go "by the books" so to speak, or he may have been just saying they could, similar to Nixon saying he thinks he could move forward with the St. Louis stadium without voter approval. If everything goes well, maybe they do go that route, but you'd have to imagine they'd rather have it move forward via vote, especially as they're bypassing environmental surveys.

If I were the Mayor and wanted this thing for my city, I would forgo the public vote in a special election. First of all, all bets are off on what the outcome would be, second, it sounds like he has political capital if he won his election with 80% of the vote, third it would delay the approvals, and the big one I see is that the initiative could be thrown out in the courts as containing multiple amendments. Oh yeah and Inglewood is supposedly broke and special elections are expensive.

I was reading the initiative title and summary and it sure looks like it amends more than one item of the approved plan. For example, the initiative amends the approved plan to allow for the stadium AND a concert venue. Those two items could be considered one but it also adds in a provision to put a cap on the ticket tax. That would be difficult to defend as a closely associated change having to do with adding a stadium. This may not seem like a big deal but many initiatives get thrown out by the courts for this very reason. And the rationale goes that the public can not be expected to know they were voting on more than the main purpose of the initiative.

When I was involved in the initiative process, we passed 4 statewide initiatives one year and had 3 of them thrown out by the courts under multiple amendment decisions. And in these cases, the court decisions were bogus because the changes were part and partial to each other and passed statewide votes by large margins. One of the measures, the legislature went back and implemented (mostly) through statute rather than suffer voter backlash.

 

[RamFan503]

It always has that condescending tone.

Everything he does has that tone. That is the jackass in him to which I refer.

 

[Dagonet]

Can the riverfront proposal host a Super Bowl then? I thought I heard someone said they may be able to get more parking, but from first glance it doesn't seem to be the case.

St. Louis would have a difficult time hosting a superbowl. Not enough hotel space. It's limited us on other events too. That's been the excuse at least.

 

[bluecoconuts]

If I were the Mayor and wanted this thing for my city, I would forgo the public vote in a special election. First of all, all bets are off on what the outcome would be, second, it sounds like he has political capital if he won his election with 80% of the vote, third it would delay the approvals, and the big one I see is that the initiative could be thrown out in the courts as containing multiple amendments. Oh yeah and Inglewood is supposedly broke and special elections are expensive.

I was reading the initiative title and summary and it sure looks like it amends more than one item of the approved plan. For example, the initiative amends the approved plan to allow for the stadium AND a concert venue. Those two items could be considered one but it also adds in a provision to put a cap on the ticket tax. That would be difficult to defend as a closely associated change having to do with adding a stadium. This may not seem like a big deal but many initiatives get thrown out by the courts for this very reason. And the rationale goes that the public can not be expected to know they were voting on more than the main purpose of the initiative.

When I was involved in the initiative process, we passed 4 statewide initiatives one year and had 3 of them thrown out by the courts under multiple amendment decisions. And in these cases, the court decisions were bogus because the changes were part and partial to each other and passed statewide votes by large margins. One of the measures, the legislature went back and implemented (mostly) through statute rather than suffer voter backlash.

So do you think they just go ahead and pass it via city council then? To be honest I'm not really sure how that all works, especially when we're talking the local level, so I don't know how they go about doing that.

 

[RamFan503]

So do you think they just go ahead and pass it via city council then? To be honest I'm not really sure how that all works, especially when we're talking the local level, so I don't know how they go about doing that.

I don't know how that particular thing works either. From what the two attorneys specializing in this said, it apparently something they can legally do. The only problem apparently would be possible voter backlash.

 

[Dodgersrf]

So do you think they just go ahead and pass it via city council then? To be honest I'm not really sure how that all works, especially when we're talking the local level, so I don't know how they go about doing that.

From what I've read, the city council can hold their own vote on it.

 

[bluecoconuts]

I don't know how that particular thing works either. From what the two attorneys specializing in this said, it apparently something they can legally do. The only problem apparently would be possible voter backlash.

My googlefu says the city council members just vote on it, and if it passes it passes. If that's the case then as boffo said I can see them passing it soon. Especially if he won by that much, and there is that much support for the stadium. Then the question is if/when it passes how soon do they start building.

 

[Dodgersrf]

My googlefu says the city council members just vote on it, and if it passes it passes. If that's the case then as boffo said I can see them passing it soon. Especially if he won by that much, and there is that much support for the stadium. Then the question is if/when it passes how soon do they start building.

I doubt there are even architectural plans for it yet.
I'm not sure how long a stadium takes to engineer and draw up. I would think a few months.

 

[RamFan503]

I doubt there are even architectural plans for it yet.
I'm not sure how long a stadium takes to engineer and draw up. I would think a few months.

Yeah - I have to wonder how far along anything like that is. I'm sure they'd have to have pretty extensive review just on earthquake standards alone - especially in CA. You don't so much as remodel a building in Southern Cal without pretty extensive earthquake mods and reviews. I'm sure Stan can hire the best and the city could rubber stamp as much as they can but I can't imagine that kind of a complex would be left to the city to review and approve. Maybe but I doubt it.

 

[RamFan503]

BTW - did anyone read the initiative summary? Stan is picking up the tab for all infrastructure improvements, job training programs, and a couple other boons to the local economy. He is making it extremely difficult to say no to.

I get the idea that LA is a much more lucrative market but I can't help but feel a little pissed that he couldn't just do something similar in St Louis and build a complete state of the art facility there. It might not increase his value as much as in LA but how could he not own the entire deal in St Louis like he is supposedly doing in LA? I can't imagine the Governor or city has said that they wouldn't let him own the facility the Rams played in if he agreed to build it on his dime.

Makes you wonder just how much more lucrative the LA site is going to be for him if he builds it.

 

[Dodgersrf]

Yeah - I have to wonder how far along anything like that is. I'm sure they'd have to have pretty extensive review just on earthquake standards alone - especially in CA. You don't so much as remodel a building in Southern Cal without pretty extensive earthquake mods and reviews. I'm sure Stan can hire the best and the city could rubber stamp as much as they can but I can't imagine that kind of a complex would be left to the city to review and approve. Maybe but I doubt it.

If it works similar to other construction projects, the plans will have to be inspected by the planning departments engineers.if there are any corrections the plans will be sent back for correction.
The seismic zones should already be set in place and engineered accordingly.
The biggest issue with remodeling old structures is that everything you touch must be brought up to current code.

 

[RamFan503]

If it works similar to other construction projects, the plans will have to be inspected by the planning departments engineers.if there are any corrections the plans will be sent back for correction.
The seismic zones should already be set in place and engineered accordingly.
The biggest issue with remodeling old structures is that everything you touch must be brought up to current code.

Right. Any idea if Inglewood even has a planning department advanced enough to handle this kind of a project?

 

[Dodgersrf]

Right. Any idea if Inglewood even has a planning department advanced enough to handle this kind of a project?

I have no idea. Maybe they have to send something like this to LA ' S engineers to inspect.

 

[BuiltRamTough]

BTW - did anyone read the initiative summary? Stan is picking up the tab for all infrastructure improvements, job training programs, and a couple other boons to the local economy. He is making it extremely difficult to say no to.

I get the idea that LA is a much more lucrative market but I can't help but feel a little pissed that he couldn't just do something similar in St Louis and build a complete state of the art facility there. It might not increase his value as much as in LA but how could he not own the entire deal in St Louis like he is supposedly doing in LA? I can't imagine the Governor or city has said that they wouldn't let him own the facility the Rams played in if he agreed to build it on his dime.

Makes you wonder just how much more lucrative the LA site is going to be for him if he builds it.

Just moving the team to LA will double or triple the value of the team. That alone is enough. The team would be top 5 in value overnight. Right now they are 32