[Elvis]

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... cc253.html

Thursday's scheduled hearing about stadium funding will be rescheduled

MAY 27, 2015 9:30 AM • BY DAVID HUNN

UPDATED at 4:30 p.m.: The hearing on stadium funding has been canceled, and will be rescheduled later. Judge Dowd is "under the weather," an assistant said.

ST. LOUIS • A judge has scheduled the first hearing on a lawsuit about use of city tax dollars for a new $985 million football stadium downtown. The ultimate outcome will either fast-track financing or cool its progress.

Judge David L. Dowd will hear arguments at 10 a.m. Thursday from attorneys for the city, the Edward Jones Dome and three city residents seeking to intervene.

The public board that runs the Dome filed suit last month in state court here, arguing that a 2002 city ordinance requiring a public vote prior to the use of tax dollars on a new stadium is “overly broad, vague and ambiguous.” The board wants the judge to rule that the city law doesn’t apply, conflicts with Missouri statutes or is unconstitutional.

City tax dollars are key to the stadium funding plan, and could help sway coming National Football League decisions. Gov. Jay Nixon’s two-man task force is counting on at least $250 million from the state and city, not including extra taxes, tax incentives and seat license fees.

Mayor Francis Slay’s staff said in April that city attorneys would energetically defend the public-vote ordinance, despite the mayor’s enthusiastic support for the stadium.

A few weeks later, St. Louis University law professor and legal clinic supervisor John Ammann filed on behalf of three city residents who seek to intervene. His filings say city ordinance requires a fiscal note, a public hearing and a public vote. He said the three residents fear the city will provide money for the stadium without fulfilling those.

It is possible Dowd could rule on any or all parts of the case on Thursday, but attorneys do not expect it.

[Hacksaw]

Perhaps Dowd called in sick so he could work the phones on this. Time for ESK or Peacock to contribute to his campaign.... lol

[den-the-coach]

Perhaps Dowd called in sick so he could work the phones on this. Time for ESK or Peacock to contribute to his campaign.... lol

I think like everyone here I want this to be over including the tea leaves so the news about Spanos & San Diego sitting down is great news and I truly believe the Chargers are staying in San Diego Spanos wanted this all along. If the STL stadium has to go to public vote the writing will be on the wall.

Now maybe an August announcement (which would shock me) is not too far fetched. In the end my hope is somehow the Raiders end up staying in Oakland, but if they're back in LA no issue as long as our boys are home and back in blue and gold.

[/quote]

[moklerman]

In the end my hope is somehow the Raiders end up staying in Oakland, but if they're back in LA no issue as long as our boys are home and back in blue and gold.

I really don't understand this piece of the puzzle. Why are the Raiders supposedly willing to share a stadium with SD? I thought they had the opportunity to share the Santa Clara deal and wanted no part of it? But now they're willing to share with the Chargers and play on a toxic landfill(not sure which would be more disturbing for Raiders fans). And if that falls through, they're willing to share with the Rams?

I don't see it. If they don't get something done in Oakland, I think they'll head for San Antonio before they play second fiddle to the 49ers, Chargers or Rams.

[den-the-coach]

In the end my hope is somehow the Raiders end up staying in Oakland, but if they're back in LA no issue as long as our boys are home and back in blue and gold.

I really don't understand this piece of the puzzle. Why are the Raiders supposedly willing to share a stadium with SD? I thought they had the opportunity to share the Santa Clara deal and wanted no part of it? But now they're willing to share with the Chargers and play on a toxic landfill(not sure which would be more disturbing for Raiders fans). And if that falls through, they're willing to share with the Rams?

I don't see it. If they don't get something done in Oakland, I think they'll head for San Antonio before they play second fiddle to the 49ers, Chargers or Rams.

Great points and IMO The Carson Project was always about leverage especially based on the posts on this site pertaining to that area. In the end Davis wants to stay in Oakland even if it's a small venue with 55,000 capacity seating. Hopefully with the assistance of the NFL they can stay where they belong, but I doubt San Antonio will be an option because I'm sure Jerry Jones and Texan owner Robert McNair will not want a third team in Texas.

[moklerman]

In the end my hope is somehow the Raiders end up staying in Oakland, but if they're back in LA no issue as long as our boys are home and back in blue and gold.

I really don't understand this piece of the puzzle. Why are the Raiders supposedly willing to share a stadium with SD? I thought they had the opportunity to share the Santa Clara deal and wanted no part of it? But now they're willing to share with the Chargers and play on a toxic landfill(not sure which would be more disturbing for Raiders fans). And if that falls through, they're willing to share with the Rams?

I don't see it. If they don't get something done in Oakland, I think they'll head for San Antonio before they play second fiddle to the 49ers, Chargers or Rams.

Great points and IMO The Carson Project was always about leverage especially based on the posts on this site pertaining to that area. In the end Davis wants to stay in Oakland even if it's a small venue with 55,000 capacity seating. Hopefully with the assistance of the NFL they can stay where they belong, but I doubt San Antonio will be an option because I'm sure Jerry Jones and Texan owner Robert McNair will not want a third team in Texas.

I can see that but wouldn't Texas pride work against them? California can handle 4 teams but Texas can only handle 2? San Antonio's metro population would be more than 11 other NFL teams.

[den-the-coach]

I can see that but wouldn't Texas pride work against them? California can handle 4 teams but Texas can only handle 2? San Antonio's metro population would be more than 11 other NFL teams.

True funny how not too long ago San Antonio was considered too small of a market far smaller than St. Louis for example, but it is a city on the rise.

[Hacksaw]

I forget who said it, but taking the notion that SD and Oakland want to stay in their respective markets and Stan want's the LA market, does Carson make since? If that was the choice, then all 3 teams world be playing in their 2nd choice. That doesn't make any sense as a primary target.
If Carson is leverage, it seems to be working, at least in SD.

[Elvis]

http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/co ... 97f8f.html

NIXON'S HAIL MARY PASS MAY BE BATTED DOWN.

Editorial: The governor's arrogant tactics may doom the stadium project

MAY 29, 2015 4:00 PM • BY THE EDITORIAL BOARD

Grace Murray Hopper, mathematician, computer pioneer and rear admiral in the United States Navy, is generally credited with coining the adage, “It’s easier to beg forgiveness than ask permission.”

The effort by Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon and the state-appointed members of the St. Louis Regional Convention and Sports Complex Authority to barge ahead and spend public money on planning a new football stadium is a Hopper Ploy. It almost surely contravenes a state law and a city ordinance.

But if somehow the effort succeeds, and the city keeps an NFL franchise in a new stadium and redevelops its north riverfront, Mr. Nixon and the RSA commissioners can smile and say, “Please forgive us. How ‘bout those (Rams) (Raiders) (Chargers) (Jaguars)?”

Right now the public has at least $800,000 in the project, money spent by the RSA to pay architects, planners, lawyers and other professionals. It’s money that’s supposed to pay for various costs at the Edward Jones Dome. The law authorizing that spending says nothing about using it for any other purpose.

So last week, six state lawmakers — five Republicans and one Democrat — sued the Democratic governor and the RSA. The lawsuit cites five ways in which the governor and the commissioners allegedly are violating the 1989 state law that created the stadium authority and authorized spending $12 million a year in state money to build and maintain the dome.

The lawsuit says (1) spending on a new stadium would exceed the principal owed on the dome; (2) that it would extend the debt beyond the statutory 50-year payback limit; (3) that the RSA has no authority beyond the immediate area of the downtown convention center; (4) that while the law stipulates that no more than six RSA board members can come from any one party, currently it’s stacked with Democrats and (5) state appropriations for 2014 were specifically allocated to the Edward Jones Dome.

This lawsuit is not to be confused with one the RSA filed in April seeking to pre-empt any challenge to its authority to spend city money on a new stadium without a public vote. In 2002 voters passed an initiative giving them a vote on any future stadium spending. The RSA wants a judge to declare the ordinance “overly broad, vague and ambiguous.”

A hearing on that suit was canceled Thursday when St. Louis Circuit Court Judge David L. Dowd called in sick. No wonder.

St. Louis is being steamrolled by St. Louis Rams owner and real estate tycoon Stan Kroenke, who could see the value of his team double or even triple if he’s allowed to move into a mega-stadium in Inglewood, Calif. Location, location, location.

NFL rules pay lip service to keeping franchises in their current locations as long as good-faith efforts are underway to accommodate stadium demands. The league is playing nice with new stadium proponents here; its unfair deadlines have boxed St. Louis in. Whatever the legal merits of these lawsuits, they portend lots of delay.

As we’ve previously noted, basic math indicates that the presence of the Rams in the Edward Jones Dome amply repays the city and state investment. Furthermore, if the city and state can keep an NFL team in a new stadium on a redeveloped north riverfront for $18 million a year, that’s not a bad deal.

But process is important and the law is the law. Ignoring the process, and the law, is arrogant. Angry people are unlikely to forgive.

[Hacksaw]

so we have senators Sylvie writing a bill and trying to put it into the budget to disallow funding of the stadium. there's a lawsuit stating that certain terms are vague and broad which allows the funding to be extended from the bonds. there's a lawsuit it started in San Diego against Carson. Native Americans are complaining about the riverfront site disturbing ancient burial grounds. now this suit is being filed.

What does this all tell you? in contrast the only thing that came up against Inglewood waa the rapidly quelled union thing.

I don't know,, but it sounds to me the football gods are dropping major hints but nobody in Saint Louis is listening