Stay Tuned: The #STLNFL Stadium Proposal

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Reddit0Share on LinkedIn0Print this pageEmail this to someone

Streamed live online September 10 and airing September 11 this show focused on the effort to build a new National Football League stadium on the north riverfront in St. Louis City. Guests include former chief of staff to St. Louis mayor Francis Slay, and stadium advocate, Jeff Rainford, St. Louis City Treasurer Tishaura Jones, Alvin Reid of St. Louis Magazine and The Nine Network, and myself.

The latest on nextSTL: On Selling the NFL to St. Louis (again)

Guided by host Casey Nolen, the Nine Network’s StayTuned focuses on one topic each week, and participants contribute using a full range of technologies, from television to Twitter, Facebook and Google+Hangouts. The live broadcast relies on participation from the community and a seamless integration of social media.

Stay Tuned can be viewed from LiveStream Thursdays at 8:30pm and on air Fridays at 7:00 p.m. on the Nine Network of Public Media KETC-PBS St. Louis, Missouri.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Reddit0Share on LinkedIn0Print this pageEmail this to someone
  • Really wouldn’t have minded if this were 1-2 hours. Really good stuff.

  • Mike H.

    Rainford badly missed the point with his church subsidy analogy. First off, churches are given tax breaks because they are designated non-profits. Second, churches traditionally have been immune from taxation based on the free exercise clause of the 1st Amendment. Third, the government doesn’t “build” churches or even advocate for their development with tax incentives. On the other hand, this stadium would be built for the benefit and profit of a billionaire and his billionaire club. But I suppose if you carry Rainford’s analogy forward, the stadium is our new church and the NFL is our new religion. Yikes.

    • Alex Ihnen

      I actually think the worse datababble thrown out there was that “the group of people who most like and want an NFL team in St. Louis are African Americans under the age of 50.” This is also the group that would benefit the least from having team. Just because some polling data says that this is the demographic that likes the NFL the most should not create a talking point alluding that the stadium is really for them.

      • Mike H.

        I wonder which demographic would benefit most from expanded public transportation or 400 million in public school funding?

        • Alex Ihnen

          Yes, but what does polling say about how much African Americans under the age of 50 care about storm water runoff?

  • Aaron

    What was Rainford talking about regarding the reason the county was out of the discussion so soon, he says something about the need to upgrade the convention center, I don’t quite understand. What is this deal proposing to do exactly with improving the convention center and why would that preclude the county from being considered as a site for a stadium? Anyone know?

    • John R

      The Dome needs tens of millions of $$ in maintenance/upgrades — I’ve read $60 million or more — and I guess the thought is that the County would pay for it (or most of it) rather than City. But we definitely need more transparency on what the entire CVB/RSA/Dome/Stadium plan is.

      • doesn’t the lease require the upgrades… not sure if it needs 60 million, or if its just those upgrades required by the lease if/when it were kept as an NFL stadium?

        • John R

          No; these are expenses beyond the football related issues…. Dome maintenance and upgrades needed to keep it competitive for the bigger conventions and events..

          I’m pretty sure the CVB was pushing for substantial funds to be part of the city bond issue but the request ultimately did not make it into the failed measure, I’ll try to dig up a good article.

          • John R

            Here’s a good article from last year on the substantial Dome needs: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/million-hole-in-jones-dome-future/article_ffddcce5-b713-5586-8292-731b20fc7179.html

            “In a letter prepared for the three sponsors, McMurtry suggested continuing the $4 million annual upkeep payments, at a minimum. But that won’t be enough, he noted. To fund Dome maintenance for the next 15 years, government leaders will need to consider sending the Dome an additional $40 million in cash, or selling $40 million in new bonds.”

            If the City and State are tied up with a new stadium, it looks like the County would be needed to keep the Dome relevant. The other issue this brings up of course is who would pay for what surely will be expensive maintenance/upgrades for a new stadium. Fancier stadia have fancier upkeep.

          • thanks!

    • rgbose

      I think a county site for a new stadium didn’t get much consideration because it wouldn’t be “adjacent” to the convention center and therefore can’t be under the umbrella of the St Louis Regional Convention And Sports Complex Authority. Being under that authority is apart of the financing; the whole extending the bonds thing. Plus the curing blight/revitalization of the north riverfront bit is part of the sell.

      The tax in the county which is paying its share of the bonds of the dome, once the bonds are paid off, could go to spruce up the convention center including changes tot he dome to make it better for conventions.

  • matimal

    Subsidized single-owner development projects don’t work. Establishing a development structure that many can take advantage of, such as cortex, is the answer. This is ‘putting all your eggs in one basket.’ I would have thought St. Louis would see this clearly by now.

  • Guest

    Downtown St. Louis won’t go anywhere until corporate St. Louis does something about it. Alex said it well. We were promised the same thing with the stadium we got now. We were also told this with Busch Stadium, both the one we have now and the one before it. We were told this with Union Station. Where has corporate St. Louis gone during all these promises? They’ve so much as told us downtown St. Louis sucks. It certainly does in the corporate sense, only because they’ve made it so. My question is why?

    The stupidity of people who should know better is getting mighty old and tiring.

  • rgbose

    Glad to hear my home value is 8% higher from being an NFL city. Poor schools and high crime neg affect it to a greater extent methinks. The stadium won’t help either much since it won’t generate any property taxes.

    • Adam

      I wonder if this is the study to which Rainford was referring (dishonestly if so):

      https://www.phil.frb.org/-/media/research-and-data/publications/business-review/2004/q2/brq204jc.pdf

      Note how the “Potential Increase in Property Taxes” in the final table ASSUMED an 8% increase in median housing price. Also note how St. Louis performs the worst in that regard (both potentially and in reality as we’ve seen since this study was published in 2004) out of all cities listed with the potential increase in property taxes coming in at less than half the subsidies provided. Funny how even those studies purporting to demonstrate the efficacy of stadiums in promoting economic growth demonstrate the opposite in St. Louis’ case.

  • tbatts666

    Does Jeff Rainford make money for advocating the stadium?

    Wow Alex Ihnen kicked butt in this!