RiseAndGrind Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 4 hours ago, thetorch said: As a city resident I am truly disappointed tonight. The vote makes no sense. Just flushing money down the toilet. I voted no for both. Have no idea how you could vote yes for one and no for the other. Because you want metro link but not soccer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMM28 Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 4 minutes ago, RiseAndGrind said: Because you want metro link but not soccer Some of the soccer folks, like Ankiel here, approaches didn't help their cause. Shockingly calling people idiots doesn't work out well. good for STL voters for saying no to these boondoggles. Hopefully the city will prioritize basic public services now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufan13 Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 5 minutes ago, RiseAndGrind said: Because you want metro link but not soccer I thought I read somewhere that prop 1 won't be used for the metrolink since the stadium failed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tilkowsky Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 20 minutes ago, slufan13 said: I thought I read somewhere that prop 1 won't be used for the metrolink since the stadium failed? It will be used for a Metrolink feasibility study. Plus some security cameras in the City. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufan13 Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 6 minutes ago, Tilkowsky said: It will be used for a Metrolink feasibility study. Plus some security cameras in the City. Exciting! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiseAndGrind Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 31 minutes ago, Tilkowsky said: It will be used for a Metrolink feasibility study. Plus some security cameras in the City. No. The projected bond proceeds would pay for the first portion of north south metro link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufan13 Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 The metrolink is great if you like getting shot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierPal Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 Yeah, MetroLink can be used to get all the fans to the new soccer stadium....oh, wait. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tilkowsky Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 6 minutes ago, RiseAndGrind said: No. The projected bond proceeds would pay for the first portion of north south metro link Prop I only generates about 20 million dollars per year. Not enough money to pay for any portion of MetroLink. St. Louis will need to get federal matching funds after a feasibility study. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiseAndGrind Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 4 minutes ago, slufan13 said: The metrolink is great if you like getting shot. Just now, HoosierPal said: Yeah, MetroLink can be used to get all the fans to the new soccer stadium....oh, wait. Or it's great for people who don't have cars and need to get to a job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiseAndGrind Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 Just now, Tilkowsky said: Prop I only generates about 20 million dollars per year. Not enough money to pay for any portion of MetroLink. St. Louis will need to get federal matching funds after a feasibility study. Lol you are so adverse to facts. You're right, the $20 million in annual sales tax will definitely only be used to produce a feasibility study Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianstl Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 I wouldn't have been upset if the bill passed. I would love to have MLS soccer here. That said, passing this bill would have been the equivalent of getting your wife a boob job when what she really needs is cancer surgery. It would look great and be fun to play with, but wouldn't fix the problem that is killing her. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoctorB Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 10 minutes ago, slufan13 said: The metrolink is great if you like getting shot. Speaking of which: here is the SLU email I got this morning from SLU DPS: containing, evidently, no irony whatsoever: I though some on here might find this "visitor's" story of interest: At 12:09 am DPS was notified of the following incident. An individual who was visiting campus was standing on the sidewalk at 3822 Laclede Avenue when he was approached by three black males ranging in age from 17 to 20 years old, wearing dark pants and hooded sweat shirts. The individuals engaged the visitor in conversation and were offered a ride home by the visitor. Once they reached the area near Vandeventor and Finney Avenues, which is approximately one half mile north of campus, the three males, each pulled out a weapon and robbed the victim. The subjects stole the victim’s property and vehicle. They were last seen driving the victim’s vehicle west on Finney. The visitor walked back to campus and contacted DPS. The visitor was not injured and St. Louis Police are investigating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwyjibo Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 For the record this improves St. Louis's chance of having a viable MLS franchise. If the owners needed public money then they surely were not that committed. However, there is nothing to prevent the ownership group from spending their own money to build a stadium. The blame, if there is no MLS franchise in the near future, mostly goes to the MLS for their extortionate franchise fee and their inflexible stadium model (which really is not inflexible). The second level of blame would go to the ownership group for not being truly committed to the great soccer fans of St. Louis. Shun those losers if they do not get me the stadium and franchise I deserve. The public had no business being involved (unless they were going to be the owners). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufan13 Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 I think it would have been cool to have a MLS team but it didn't impact me in any way so I don't actually have any complaints. You are never going to get people to be in favor of public funding even if this was going to be a good deal for the city. St Louis needs to find a way to bring more people into the city. I don't know what the next step is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianstl Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 12 minutes ago, kwyjibo said: For the record this improves St. Louis's chance of having a viable MLS franchise. If the owners needed public money then they surely were not that committed. However, there is nothing to prevent the ownership group from spending their own money to build a stadium. The blame, if there is no MLS franchise in the near future, mostly goes to the MLS for their extortionate franchise fee and their inflexible stadium model (which really is not inflexible). The second level of blame would go to the ownership group for not being truly committed to the great soccer fans of St. Louis. Shun those losers if they do not get me the stadium and franchise I deserve. The public had no business being involved (unless they were going to be the owners). Exactly. This is all goes back to the failed joke of an effort to keep the Rams. That was a huge waste of tax payers' money that was nothing more than Peacock's effort to set himself and his Vitaligent/Jambajuice business partners Edgerly and Matlock up to get public financing for a soccer stadium. The whole bid is for the benefit of them. A terrible location was chosen so they could trade a minority stake in the franchise for a share of the O'Loughlin's Union Station. The process wasn't open to anyone else besides Peacock's group, because he convinced the MLS he could deliver public financing for the stadium. That now hasn't happened and hopefully the MLS will open the process up. The best hope is the the DeWitts get involved. That would set the team up for long term stability and success. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kmbilliken Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 31 minutes ago, DoctorB said: Speaking of which: here is the SLU email I got this morning from SLU DPS: containing, evidently, no irony whatsoever: I though some on here might find this "visitor's" story of interest: At 12:09 am DPS was notified of the following incident. An individual who was visiting campus was standing on the sidewalk at 3822 Laclede Avenue when he was approached by three black males ranging in age from 17 to 20 years old, wearing dark pants and hooded sweat shirts. The individuals engaged the visitor in conversation and were offered a ride home by the visitor. Once they reached the area near Vandeventor and Finney Avenues, which is approximately one half mile north of campus, the three males, each pulled out a weapon and robbed the victim. The subjects stole the victim’s property and vehicle. They were last seen driving the victim’s vehicle west on Finney. The visitor walked back to campus and contacted DPS. The visitor was not injured and St. Louis Police are investigating. Welcome to the big city. Reminds me of when I was in school 40 years ago.. Some kid just arrived from Nebraska and was washing his car at a local car wash. Three guys gratuitously helped his wash his car, then asked for a ride. The grateful student obliged. Same result. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slu72 fan Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 46 minutes ago, RiseAndGrind said: Or it's great for people who don't have cars and need to get to a job. The only time I see or experience a crowded MetroLink train is on the way to or from Cardinal games. Most of the time they're basically empty. The buses in the county are always nearly empty. Just out of curiosity, do you consider MetroLink a subsidy to the rich business owners that don't pay their people enough to purchase cars? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianstl Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 33 minutes ago, slufan13 said: I think it would have been cool to have a MLS team but it didn't impact me in any way so I don't actually have any complaints. You are never going to get people to be in favor of public funding even if this was going to be a good deal for the city. St Louis needs to find a way to bring more people into the city. I don't know what the next step is. It is more important that the City figures out a way to convince people to move into the City and to keep living in the City than to visit the City. Sports stadiums and arenas have proven over the last 50 years to not accomplish that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old guy Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 OK guys let's look at the actual numbers from St. Louis City. The total number of people that actually voted was highest in the vote for the St. Louis School Board, about 100,000 votes for this purpose, more than the total number of votes for the mayor's race. The total number of votes for prop 1 was about 63,000, about 35,000 yes and 28,000 no (again the bulk of this apparently earmarked for Metrolink). The total number of votes for prop 2 was about 58,000, about 30,600 no, and 27,400 yes. This allows you to estimate what the residents of the city of St. Louis consider to be important enough for them to get them to vote, in order of importance: School board, Mayor election, Prop 1 (Metrolink), and Prop 2 (MLS stadium). The numbers show literally that what appears to be the vast majority of St. Louis citizens do not care to vote, and that there are issues that are much more important to them than the MLS stadium. Who is out of touch now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianstl Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 3 minutes ago, slu72 fan said: The only time I see or experience a crowded MetroLink train is on the way to or from Cardinal games. Most of the time they're basically empty. The buses in the county are always nearly empty. Just out of curiosity, do you consider MetroLink a subsidy to the rich business owners that don't pay their people enough to purchase cars? It should be considered an infrastructure subsidy just like roads, bridges and sewers that benefit the whole community. Also, the trains are pretty full headed through the central corridor during the morning and evening rush. Which makes sense since there is population density there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyRican Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 When do I get to ride the $50M Loop Trolley for a few blocks? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old guy Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 2 minutes ago, DirtyRican said: When do I get to ride the $50M Loop Trolley for a few blocks? Isn't the Loop located in U City?, what does this have to do with St. Louis City funding? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyRican Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 Just now, Old guy said: Isn't the Loop located in U City?, what does this have to do with St. Louis City funding? Sorry bud, it was a joke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kshoe Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 8 minutes ago, Old guy said: OK guys let's look at the actual numbers from St. Louis City. The total number of people that actually voted was highest in the vote for the St. Louis School Board, about 100,000 votes for this purpose, more than the total number of votes for the mayor's race. The total number of votes for prop 1 was about 63,000, about 35,000 yes and 28,000 no (again the bulk of this apparently earmarked for Metrolink). The total number of votes for prop 2 was about 58,000, about 30,600 no, and 27,400 yes. This allows you to estimate what the residents of the city of St. Louis consider to be important enough for them to get them to vote, in order of importance: School board, Mayor election, Prop 1 (Metrolink), and Prop 2 (MLS stadium). The numbers show literally that what appears to be the vast majority of St. Louis citizens do not care to vote, and that there are issues that are much more important to them than the MLS stadium. Who is out of touch now? Don't you get to vote for multiple members of the school board? Hence 100,000 votes for this purpose is not the equivalent of 100,000 people voting for school board and only 60,000 voting on the soccer stadium. In Kirkwood, I got 3 votes for the school board so if that is the right number it means ~33k people cared about the school board and 60k voted for the soccer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.