Biondi speaks out against critics of school deal

[thetorch]

In all of the recent coverage about Saint Louis University's purchase of the Waring School, I believe several key points have been omitted or misunderstood regarding the purchase. I'd like to set the record straight.

First, SLU did not need the Waring School to build our proposed new arena. When it became clear that acquiring the needed property for the arena in Grand Center would not be economically feasible, we identified university-owned property currently occupied by our baseball and softball fields as an alternative location for the arena. We were examining that site when we learned Waring School might be available.

It has been reported widely that the purchase of Waring School saved the university $28 million. This simply isn't true. What we have said is that to locate the arena in Grand Center, we believe it would have cost $28 million to purchase the needed properties, relocate current occupants, do environmental remediation and complete demolition. That's before any construction.

That sum - $28 million - was unreasonable and unacceptable, and we never would have spent it even though Grand Center was our preferred location for the arena, in large measure because of our civic commitment to the area.

That is why we identified university-owned property for the arena. I want to clarify again that it was the St. Louis Public Schools that first approached us about acquiring Waring School. Last May, school district representatives told us they were interested in "swapping" the school for a parcel of property the university owns in Grand Center. This "offer" was made prior to William Roberti taking over as acting superintendent.

Did SLU pay a fair price for the Waring School property? I believe paying more than the asking price and more than the value set in two separate, independent appraisals is more than fair. While some have questioned the asking price set by the school district, the two independent appraisals each valued the property at less than the $1.251 million SLU paid. Preparing the site for the new arena will cost the university several times that amount.

Finally, Post-Dispatch columnist Bill McClellan raised the issue of whether the university should be providing services and assistance to the school district. The fact is, we already do.

SLU's Department of Educational Studies provides tutoring, augments clinical services, provides counseling and diagnostic services for children with learning disabilities and their parents and has developed technology for ensuring school safety in a crisis. Our community relations division is actively involved in a host of projects that benefit local schools. Other areas of the university also provide free legal assistance, health screenings and summer camps for public school students.

In sum, what SLU has done with respect to the Waring School property is express interest in a property that was offered to us, bid on that property when it was being sold and pay a price for the property that everyone on the School Board agreed was fair and voted to accept.

We are excited about plans for our new arena, and we want to continue to work with the community on projects that benefit the entire St. Louis area.

[AlumniFan]

Like many large cities, St. Louis has a penchant for attacking any company, person, institution, etc. that is succeeding. It is always assumed that for someone or something to have been successful, there was cheating, favoritism, unfair deals, etc. involved. We have seen it with the new ballpark, with the Dome 10 years ago, and now, with the BiondiDome (I really like that name).

I am just happy we are finally moving forward with the arena and that the team is doing well at the same time. Saint Louis University is really in a renaissance and it just irritates some of our critics to death even though, ironically, most citizens will benefit from what Saint Louis University is doing for the city.

[bonwich]

In the case of the SLU deal, "St. Louis" is hardly attacking SLU. One well-known eccentric, a Harvard-trained lawyer who works as a clerk at Wal-Mart, attacked SLU. He was promptly sued by the superintendent of schools, and -- with the exception of the usual conspiracy theory fringe cases -- no one else has paid him much mind.

That said, I'd submit that if anything, St. Louis *doesn't* question public deals enough, and is way too accepting of anything that has to do with sports. For example, this article (the beginning is quoted), from about 20 pages prior to the page that the Rev. Biondi appeared on, detailing how many of St. Louis "leaders" have quietly milked the public teat as part of a totally useless and irrelevant oversight agency.

Need for board that oversees Dome is questioned

By Carolyn Tuft

©2004, St. Louis Post-Dispatch

01/20/2004

They recently spent $24,000 in tax money sprucing up their luxury box at the Edward Jones Dome, where they can watch the Rams games for free.

They hired their own board chairman last year as executive director and paid him $114,000, twice what his predecessor made.

And they are paying hundreds of thousands of tax dollars a year to consultants, lobbyists and lawyers.

Meet the 11 board members of the St. Louis Regional Convention and Sports Complex Authority, a government agency formed in 1989 to build the Dome so St. Louis could land an NFL team.

Today, those board members are set to vote on a $17 million investment to ensure the authority can keep itself operating for at least two more decades.

[Billikan]

It is ridiculous to compare what happened with the Dome committee with SLU and it's committment to the city. I thought Biondi's statement was excellent and the city should be forever grateful for what the school has done to anchor the redevelopment of an entire section of the city that was blighted and a mess.

The problem with the city, and I have had to deal with similar issues in the past, is that no one ever seems to have any vision whatsoever and any project, no mater how great for the city, must be subject to attack and people must be "taken care of" in some way in order to get anything done. The "taken care of" might be nothing more that continued positive publicy for certain aldermen but in many cases it involves more. I never cease to be amazed at how our city struggles to accept good things because of petty bickering!

[AlumniFan]

I would submit, based upon my conversations with other business owners and developers, that St. Louis can be a VERY frustrating city in which to conduct business (I have built out a business with locations in 12 different St. Louis area municipalities so I am not speaking out of ignorance). It is difficult to get things done. This is ultimately to the detriment of the metropolitan area. It means fewer jobs, less tax revenue, and ultimately fewer services provided to the populace. Now, I don't know about scrutiny regarding "public" deals NOR do I know precisely how you define "public" deals, but many deals receive, in my humble opinion, exceedingly intense scrutiny by non-financially interested parties who simply have a public ax to grind (see Larry Rice, Bill McClellan, etc.).

In the case of the BiondiDome, Mr. Haas, despite his reputation, has begun the public ax grinding, but he is far from the only person critical of the new arena. I have encountered many people who have voiced various objections to the BiondiDome. My opinion, again humbly submitted, is that this is typical in St. Louis.

There is a reason St. Louis is behind the curve compared to so many other similar midwestern cities. Our riverfront remains, after 25 years of incessant debate, embarassingly underdeveloped. Our airport is a disaster; just ask any business traveler (you can start with me). In the past, St. Louis was a major hub for fortune 500 companies. Now...it is an afterthought.

I love St. Louis (and Saint Louis University), but it is what it is. I think Billikan said it best: "no one ever seems to have any vision whatsoever". Until this changes, St. Louis will not change. But that doesn't mean that Saint Louis University has to stop its remarkable transformation into one of the premier Catholic Universities in the United States. And, this will benefit St. Louis whether St. Louis likes it or not...how ironic.

[slufanskip]

It is even small business ... I just recently split up with my partner on our car lot and was looking to open another in the city. I will probably end up south because the city is so hard to deal with. They would rather have empty spaces then work with you to make it easy.

Official Billikens.com sponsor of H. Waldman

[Box and Won]

I think it's unfair to say that no one in this city has any vision. I live in the city of St. Louis and see the results of visionaries on a daily basis, whether it be all of the work that Joe Edwards has done/is doing on Delmar, the lofts under construction downtown, or even my own neighborhood which was brought back to life by Leon Strauss in the early 80's. The Forest Park Parkway corridor, just west of SLU, is quickly becoming the biotech hub of St. Louis (and possibly even the midwest) thanks to visionaries in both the private and public sectors. All over the city, neighborhoods are making comebacks and property values are at all-time highs. There's definitely good reason to be excited about the future of St. Louis.

[bonwich]

Billikan, in his/her rush to get the word "ridiculous!" into every post, missed the point entirely. ALL transactions involving public money should be subject to scrutiny. The fact that one unpaid, previously-noted-to-be-less-than-stable school board member went off the deep end with his accusations doesn't mean that SLU should be given a free pass to do whatever it wishes without any accountability.

And for those of you who would canonize St. Larry and SLU for the marvelous "redevelopment" -- the SLU campus itself, is, in fact, a modern miracle of redevelopment. But thus far, the benefits to the surrounding area have been modest, at best. Despite SLU's population of 20,000+ potential consumers, the adjacent primary theatre and entertainment district of St. Louis is still yet to even come close to reaching its potential. (To put it more succinctly: Grand Center is still a dump, especially in the day time.) One potential argument for this is that, for many years, SLU has made itself into a self-contained fortress. Some of you also seem to have forgotten that part of this process also included the threat of eminent domain to force private property owners of successful businesses to sell out to SLU. The degree of the City being "uncooperative" frequently is inversely proportional to the size of the entity with which it is cooperating.

As for civic "vision" in St. Louis, do we not have a new football stadium, new hockey/basketball/rodeo arena, new baseball stadium in process, new convention center hotel, new $2B runway in process for an airport whose interior is a dump and whose flight load doesn't justify the expansion -- and, of course, our own new $70M arena? Stuff actually does happen, occasionally.

[AlumniFan]

nm

[Billikan]

To give you the benefit of the doubt I must assume that you have had many positive dealings with the city that give you this warm and fuzzy feeling and feeling of entitlement to challange any project, regardless of its positive impact on the city.

You are unique and unusual if that is the case. I personally know many businessmen who were located in the city for years and finally gave up and moved to the county because they could not ever get anything they wanted to do approved unless they jumped through hoops and they were often pestered for money from people who were opposing the projects. the delays and the costs made them furious and they just left. These were businesses with hundreds of employees and a bright future.

With regard to SLU and Grand Center, I would suggest you are uninformed. I am very involved in a number of projects in the area and am very close to the Cardinal Ritter project. It was not SLU that threw up the roadblocks to the project, an incredible wonderful high school created by the join efforts of the community and the archdiocese. Becuase those of us that were involved had the guts and the intensity of purpose needed, we waded through the problems. The neighborhood was a huge mess, yet the property owners in the area wanted to make huge profits on their houses and the local politicans felt pressured and the project languished. Yet we persevered. We jumped through the hoops and over the roadblocks and we got the job done.

But this was a fantasic jewel for the city and the Grand Center area and it was like pulling teeth to get it done. SLU was a supporter of the project. It was the other people that always seem to be around, casting negative aspersions and false criticisms in order to get something they want that making it so hard to do business in the City.

If you want to see what the school has done just drive around the areas near the main campus and the medical school campus. SLU is the anchor in every sense of the word, including attracting other development. I used to live in Laclede Town and I saw it deteriorate into a big cess pool. Slu, working with Henry Givens, was instrumental in cleaning up the entire area. SLU cannot do everything but is has done remarkable things. It is attitudes like those you offer here that make virtually everything more difficult in the city.

[bonwich]

...is that, at the top of this thread, you jumped in and made the blanket statement that "St. Louis has a penchant for attacking any company, person, institution, etc. that is succeeding. It is always assumed that for someone or something to have been successful, there was cheating, favoritism, unfair deals, etc. involved. We have seen it with the new ballpark, with the Dome 10 years ago...." Yet on the very same day Father Biondi offered his rebuttal, there was a story that certainly could have been construed to point to "cheating, favoritism, unfair deals" at the Jones Dome.

And, in fact, if you know the history of the Savvis Center, it's quite clear that there was "cheating" and "unfair deals" when the virtually the entire local big-business establishment pledged to reopen the Kiel Opera House as part of the redevelopment, and never did.

Neither of these sleazy transactions in any way indicate that anything has been done improperly in the plans for the BiondiDome. However, your initial post seemed to indicate that the main fault locally is that St. Louisans complain too much and that main problem is that they, and the City government, are obstructionist. I think the weight of evidence is to the contrary -- St. Louisans complain superficially, and allow for, to use one poster's favorite word, "ridiculous" misuses of public funds, such as the most recent example of a redundant commission that awards contracts to its own members and needs an annual budget of $1M.

Thus it's incumbent upon the University to do exactly what Father Biondi did, and rationally rebut critics. (My personal view is that the acquisition of the school property has shifted focus away from the two key issues regarding the public funds involved, which are a) where the incremental public revenues are coming from in this project to offset the TIF funds allocated and whether an arena a good ten blocks from the generally accepted boundary of Grand Center should even be considered part of Grand Center in the first place.

Do you think these are irrelevant questions, or am I simply being a typical St. Louisan and attacking everything that's "successful"?

[Box and Won]

I can't speak for Mr. Bonwich, but I think when he was referring to the fact that while the improvements to the SLU campus have been amazing, the campus really is not integrated into the Grand Center district; in many ways it is an island unto itself. Grand Center has never capitalized on the thousands of SLU students and employees who are right at its doorstep. The new Ritter, the museums and performing arts centers are all wonderful, but for the district to be a true success, it needs more residents and ammenities to serve them (as well as the patrons of the arts).

[NashvilleBilliken]

"b) whether an arena a good ten blocks from the generally accepted boundary of Grand Center should even be considered part of Grand Center in the first place."

Well, I think "a good 10 blocks" might be a bit of a stretch. From the fox theatre to the Waring school is 1 mile at most. And should it be considered part of the Grand Center in regard to the TIF, definitely. The city needs to do their part in cleaning that area up. I used to live in the Drake apartments and the area is basically trash. In the year and a half I lived there, we saw 4 car break-ins in progress in the Drake Parking area alone (one of which we caught, chased down, and detained until the cops arrived ) Every week, i get an email from SLU telling of another mugging or car jacking in the area. SLU is doing all it can to make the area safer, but it needs help. It's been discussed on here what a new arena can do for the surrounding area (living, eating, entertainment), and this in turn will begin to eliminate the sleeze from the area. SLU has done wonders for mid-town; a few $$ from the government to help combat the problem is the least it can do.

[bonwich]

"To give you the benefit of the doubt I must assume that you have had many positive dealings with the city that give you this warm and fuzzy feeling and feeling of entitlement to challange any project, regardless of its positive impact on the city."

And I must assume that Logic was not three of the nine hours of philosophy that you took at SLU, also assuming you're a graduate. This sentence makes no sense whatsoever. My "entitlement" to challenge any project comes simply from the fact that I live here, and I pay taxes here, and so I have full right to "challenge" any use of my funds. Plus I care about the city and its future, which is painfully obvious to anyone who's read the tens of thousands of words that I've published on the subject.

As for my "experiences," I used to own a 12-person small business that started in Powell Square (look right when you cross the Poplar Street Bridge out of Illinois, although it's no longer much to look at) into the Park Plaza, in the process overseeing the marketing that transformed the Park Plaza from a poorly occupied part of the Chase to a 98-percent occupied building with rents ranging up to about $3K a month. During that process, I saw quite well how back-room dealings frequently superceded official process. Thus I come down quite squarely on the side of public accountability, which is basically what this thread is all about. (By the way, I was also vice president of a 200-person company based in Olivette, and if you think that red-tape stupidity and back-room dealings are limited to the City, you should try to, for example, expand your parking lot two feet to accommodate your company's growth. You also might want to read how Creve Coeur runs its government.)

As for Grand Center, has the opening of Ritter, or the Pulitzer, or the Contemporary, or the Continental Building, or any of the other rehab projects, caused the SLU community to start to shop or dine or otherwise contribute to the microeconomy of the area? Do you think that an arena at Compton and 40 is going to cause any incremental improvement to the economic environment or streetscape in Grand Center? (I'm not, by the way, saying that Grand Center hasn't improved greatly, nor that there's no chance that the need for regular pedestrian traffic will not finally be fulfilled when the other buildings get rehabbed and the retail and restaurant spaces finally get filled. But if you contrast what Wash. U. did with the Loop and the CWE in the past 20 years and what SLU has done with its surroundings -- well, we have a very nice campus now.)

[davidnark]

I live and work in the city. I have worked on portions of several of the major projects in the city, as well as on projects in other municipalities in the metro area. Historically, it has been difficult to complete projects in the city. Over the last five plus years, however, the city has made enormous strides in simplifying and encouraging development. In recent years, there have been tens of projects in downtown, the west end, and other areas that the mayor and board of alderman have put their support behind. It is still not perfect--it is ridiculous that each city department acts as a separate body. Nonetheless, I have found that most of the "city is difficult" rhetoric is overblown, particularly since Slay has been in office.

BTW, just because a project is in the "county" doesn't mean it is smooth sailing. The counties’ numerous municipalities can be more difficult to deal with than the city.

[AlumniFan]

The city is getting better. The county can be a nightmare. I know from a current deal I am working on.

P.S. Did someone move the Waring School? According to the map on the Grand Center's web site it looks pretty plainly to be about two blocks. What's up with that?

[AlumniFan]

I commend your passion for the city and Grand Center. I share that same passion. I also think that you want to see things done right and see that all parties benefit. I commend you for this as well. Grand Center is a jewel that is not yet entirely unearthed.

I wish that the BiondiDome had been located in Grand Center proper, but as I have pointed out indirectly, there were several parties that wanted to use the BiondiDome real estate requirements as their own personal lottery. They took a chance by jacking up the prices and they lost. It was, in retrospect, a poor decision on their part and it hurt Grand Center and the owners of the real estate themselves (but I guess they had it coming).

As a student at SLU in the 1980s, my car was stolen, I was mugged twice, a fellow student was raped, and another fellow student was beaten pretty badly for his Walkman. All of this happened OFF CAMPUS, around the periphery of the University. I don't blame students if they are afraid to leave a VERY secure campus. If Grand Center wants to attract the populace at the University they need to make it safe. I still feel uncomfortable attending the symphony, the Sheldon, and even the Fox. So, to your point regarding economic development in the area and Saint Louis University, I think it is more Grand Center's responsibility to do more on their part than the reverse.

[bonwich]

The Grand Center "map" is, shall we say, not exactly to scale.

Note that the College Church appears to be next to the Grand entrance to Highway 40 and that Forest Parkway is missing.

Do a Mapquest on 25 S. Compton, 63108 to find the location of the school. (I reiterate my serious doubts that anyone is going to walk to Grand Center from there, or even from the garage at Compton and Lindell, before or after BiondiDome events.)

[bonwich]

Since none of us have first-hand knowledge of who was asking what for the property, we'll never know the accuracy of your "lottery" statement. However, one thing we do know anecdotally is that the U. wanted to acquire and tear down the Drake, a fully occupied building that had recently been through a multimillon-dollar rehab, so it is possible to deduce that the U. had a specific Grand Center location in mind that didn't correspond to where the bargain-basement real estate was available.

As for a "secure campus," I again cite Wash. U. I grew up in U. City, and the Loop in the '70s -- especially the area just north of it -- was every bit as scary as what is now Grand Center. Even moreso, in that it was a decaying residential area (Grand Center had very few residences), and there was a major drug trade in the area around Eastgate.

Wash. U., which isn't even contiguous to the Loop, came in and bought and rehabbed many apartments -- there, and also over in St. Roch's parish, to the east of Skinker. The student population, and the student traffic in the Loop, were two of many factors that made that area strive. Wash. U. performed similar redevelopment in the CWE -- some rehabs of which, ironically, stretched almost as far as the western edge of the SLU campus.

SLU, on the other hand, has focused almost exclusively inward, even to the point of driving some small businesses at the west end of campus away. SLU also bulldozed the northeast corner of Grand and Lindell -- at the time claiming plans for redevelopment, but we haven't seen those materialize yet.

There is theoretically a strong cooperation between Father Biondi and Vince Schoemehl, but quite frankly I'm surprised both of their egos can fit in the same room, and thus far that cooperation has led to minimal tangible results. Is Grand Center better now that it was five years ago? Absolutely! Is it the kind of entertainment district that St. Louis could point to with pride against similar districts in other cities? I don't think so. Is the BiondiDome going to contribute to Grand Center's continuing revitalization? As noted, I have serious doubts.

[Quality Is Job 1]

You might want to read that again.

[AlumniFan]

nm

[SLUNATE]

for what it's worth, bon, I think the hometown SLU initiative is a step in the right direction, in terms of creating the neighborhood stabilization that occured at wash u. That said, what is there to do in Grand Center? Fox/Sheldon/Symphony/Black Rep...great...but what is there for a college kid to do? Where can one shop? I'm not denying that SLU kids stay on campus, I'm just wondering why they would leave?

Maybe the BiondiDome will be a catalyst of some degree for affordable restaurants and other forms of entertainment geared at a younger crowd?

[AlumniFan]

I can be open-minded about some of these issuses and amenable to your positions to a reasonable extent, but trying to compare the area surrounding SLU and Grand Center to the area surrounding Wash U. is utter and complete nonsense!!!!!!!!!!!

To the east of Wash. U. you have the largest city park by acreage in the U.S. To the south and west you have million dollar homes, and a lot of them. To the north you have a mixed area that is largely buffered by the Loop. Much of the gentrification in the northeast portion has been undertaken by private developers.

Until SLU made their changes which included significant purchases of real estate and demolition of highly undesirable multi-family housing, the campus was bordered on the east, partially on the south and partially on the north by very, very dangerous areas. North of Grand Center is an especially unpleasant area; just ask any of the docs that interned or worked the emergency room at the VA.

I lived in Grand Forest in the early 1980s. I was mugged twice (and I'm not exactly a little guy). When my car was stolen, the police officer who gave me a ride back to my apartment (I had to go to the police station, look at the car thieves, and state that I had not loaned them my car - no joke!) was at least 6'6. He was huge. He told me when he caught the car thieves he was hoping they would try to run. In other words, he had little fear and didn't mind mixing it up. HOWEVER, when it came to Laclede Town which virtually bordered SLU's eastern edge, he told me he would not go in there.

SLU led the charge in redeveloping those areas, bought most of the housing south of laclede and has, in fact, developed other area on the periphery of the old campus (some of which is now "on-campus").

Consequently I find your statement to be either disingenuous or in error. And, with all due respect, please don't try to tell me that I'm too young to remember the decrepit nature of Wydown, Westmoreland, Forsyth, Brentmoor Park, Clavarach Park, Fauquier, Aberdeen, Maryland, Ellenwood, Cecil, etc. I don't think decrepit would be a word used to describe these areas in the last 100 years if ever.

I guess I am surprised at how negative you sound toward SLU. I know you are a Billiken supporter, but some of your comments could easily be construed as very anti-SLU which was largely the point of my original post, but certainly not with you in mind. But, hey, we all have a right to our opinions and while I don't agree with yours, I respect your right to say it. I really don't want to argue about it, but I do want to try and be fair to SLU (not partisan, just fair)

P.S. If you talk to the right people, you can probably find out fairly easily what happened to property values in the area where the BiondiDome was initially likely to be built. This is a small town and there were plenty of non-SLU people involved who are all too happy to talk. I stand by my "lottery" comparison.

[bonwich]

I suggest that your description of "utter nonsense" better applies to your rebuttal. I said:

"I grew up in U. City, and the Loop in the '70s -- especially the area just north of it -- was every bit as scary as what is now Grand Center. Even moreso, in that it was a decaying residential area (Grand Center had very few residences), and there was a major drug trade in the area around Eastgate.

"Wash. U., which isn't even contiguous to the Loop, came in and bought and rehabbed many apartments -- there, and also over in St. Roch's parish, to the east of Skinker. The student population, and the student traffic in the Loop, were two of many factors that made that area strive. [as noted, this was supposed to be "thrive"] Wash. U. performed similar redevelopment in the CWE -- some rehabs of which, ironically, stretched almost as far as the western edge of the SLU campus."

You said:

"And, with all due respect, please don't try to tell me that I'm too young to remember the decrepit nature of Wydown, Westmoreland, Forsyth, Brentmoor Park, Clavarach Park, Fauquier, Aberdeen, Maryland, Ellenwood, Cecil, etc. I don't think decrepit would be a word used to describe these areas in the last 100 years if ever."

I'd never try to tell you that, because those neighborhoods are totally, utterly irrelevant to anything I said. Once again, I was talking about the extensive redevelopment activities undertaken by Wash. U. in the Loop and the Central West End (and Skinker-DeBaliviere, which is technically not the CWE). Wash. U. actually had a redevelopment corporation (WUMCRD?)that purchased and then mandated redevelopment standards for numerous properties in the 42xx through 49xx blocks of Forest Parkway, Laclede and West Pine. I lived in that neighborhood from '82 to '87; many of those blocks could very easily have slipped into the same level of disrepair as the residential blocks behind Lewis Hall, but in large part thanks to Wash. U.'s intervention, they didn't. Same thing with the apartment blocks on Kingsbury south of the Loop, and large chunks of multi-families in All Saints parish north of the Loop.

As for purchase of the Grand Center properties, one of my best friends recently bought and rehabbed the building on the NE corner of Compton and Lindell. His building wasn't one that would have been purchased, but there are numerous owners in that immediate area that have plowed millions of dollars into rehab very recently. I have no doubt that *some* owners of the more decrepit properties were holding out for too-high sums, but I also have pretty strong anecdotal evidence that the U. underestimated the level of improved property in the zone it identified as the best Grand Center location for the arena. (We can certainly agree that the U. wanted the Drake, and I believe that indicates that their philosophy was flawed from the start. Tearing down a fully occupied recent multi-million-dollar renovation goes against virtually every rational tenet of urban planning.)

Anti-SLU? Hardly. As I said in a previous post, the place is a modern miracle. At least three of my kids want to go there. There's been a weird undercurrent on this board, and in St. Louis in general, that criticizing and questioning is the equivalent of being "against us."

However, in terms of the new arena, at least a year ago I said on this board that the building of a SLU arena is an exercise in ego and nothing more. Part of that ego involves better facilities, better recruiting, better home-court advantage. During this whole process, however, we've gotten into public financing (the TIF) and claims of some sort of ancillary economic development benefits. I submit that the preponderance of evidence (e.g. draw a half-mile radius around Busch Stadium, the Jones Dome and the Savvis Center and cite the "ancillary development" they've engendered) shows that such claims are utter crap.

Finally, to AlumniFan (and everyone else, for that matter) -- please remember that there is no tone of voice on the 'Net. Everything I write on this board is stream-of-consciousness, and there's no nuance the way we'd be talking back and forth over a beer. You, too, are obviously a passionate SLU supporter, and I would be quite pleased to start at Vito's or somewhere similar and walk and drive around and point out everything we're talking about and maybe find some mutual ground.

[Billiken Rich]

The Biondidome for the benefits to the program. I couldn't give a crud less about the benefits to Grand Center. I'll take the Tiff money, smile, and think about all the other tax money gushing out of the seams of city hall. For once some of it will go to something I care about rather than something like putting 1000 cast iron light poles on a goofy little bridge.