Post editorial: no on props 1 and 2... (Miller: salaries, sales tax, cost)

[MUTGR]

City voters gave us their answer: yes on metrolink sales tax, no on soccer stadium.

ELECTION RESULTS: Soccer stadium defeated; MetroLink sales tax passes | Political Fix | stltoday.com

[phoenixmike11]

St. Louis voters approve sales-tax hike, reject giving it to an MLS stadium | Field of Schemes

[1grin_g0]

Originally Posted by MUTGR

City voters gave us their answer: yes on metrolink sales tax, no on soccer stadium.

ELECTION RESULTS: Soccer stadium defeated; MetroLink sales tax passes | Political Fix | stltoday.com

It's easy to understand why the city voted down the stadium.


Instead of expanding the metrolink, they could have used that money for a metrolink police dept.

[FrankMiller]

Originally Posted by 1grin_g0

It's easy to understand why the city voted down the stadium.


Instead of expanding the metrolink, they could have used that money for a metrolink police dept.

Metrolink PD is not allowed under state law.

[1grin_g0]

Originally Posted by FrankMiller

Metrolink PD is not allowed under state law.

I'm assuming metrolink can't run a PD because of its legal structure? But I don't think there are any laws that stop the county and city from getting together and forming a PD dedicated to the metrolink.

I just don't see the sense in expanding the system when the security is already insufficient. It seems like crime is a major factor that deters people from visiting the city and spending money there. That's just my opinion based on my metrolink experiences. There is no way in hell I'd ever get on that thing again. It reminds me too much of the time when I worked with juvenile felons. Anyhow, the voters have spoken.

[FrankMiller]

Originally Posted by 1grin_g0

I'm assuming metrolink can't run a PD because of its legal structure? But I don't think there are any laws that stop the county and city from getting together and forming a PD dedicated to the metrolink.

I just don't see the sense in expanding the system when the security is already insufficient. It seems like crime is a major factor that deters people from visiting the city and spending money there. That's just my opinion based on my metrolink experiences. There is no way in hell I'd ever get on that thing again. It reminds me too much of the time when I worked with juvenile felons. Anyhow, the voters have spoken.

Unless you only ride Metrolink on late nights, I don't understand how your experience could be so reliably negative compared to mine. It seems to fit the general transit rule that transit crime is comparable to the crime of the surrounding areas, i.e. if you're okay with going to somewhere with Metrolink you should be okay going there via Metrolink.

Regarding the law:

70.378. 1. The bi-state development agency shall have the power to employ or appoint personnel to maintain safety and order and to enforce the rules and regulations of the agency upon the public mass transportation system, passenger transportation facilities, conveyances, and other property that the agency may own, lease, or operate, except bi-state may only employ peace officers through contracts with law enforcement agencies within the bi-state service area.

Section: 070.0378 Power to employ persons to enforce rules--power of personnel, jurisdiction--issuance of citation--procedure upon arrest--training--agency may adopt rules--violation of rules, penalty. RSMO 70.378

[FrankMiller]

Originally Posted by kcmo

No they don't.

But they should considering NYC metro is 20 million.

This is too bad for StL. Few things seem to be going right for that city right now. Although that stadium should have been funded by the city/county, not just the city.

The problem is that the county can't recoup the costs. The city would be investing in future tax dollars, the county would not directly see any additional revenue to fund the costs. It's another sad consequence of the city/county divide.

The state should've gotten involved, as it can leverage fairer taxation methods (i.e. income tax) to benefit from the investment. But of course, GunGun Greitens is categorically opposed to all stadium deals sight-unseen, as apparently much of the electorate is as well. I think this would've been a pretty good stadium deal and a net positive for city finances, but I can't blame people for being sick of stadium deals. Institutional trust is at a low nation-wide.

And yes, there are many problems with having a population of 20 million, but finding butts to put in seats is not one of them.

[RisingAurvandil]

Originally Posted by kcmo

This is too bad for StL. Few things seem to be going right for that city right now. Although that stadium should have been funded by the city/county, not just the city.

I'm actually pleased with the vote. Instead of a stadium, voters chose to invest in another Metro line, public safety, and neighborhood programs.

This is a win for City residents, who correctly realized that an MLS stadium should require metropolitan support. For obvious reasons, MLS supporters should have waited several years.

[FrankMiller]

Originally Posted by RisingAurvandil

I'm actually pleased with the vote. Instead of a stadium, voters chose to invest in another Metro line, public safety, and neighborhood programs.

This is a win for City residents, who correctly realized that an MLS stadium should require metropolitan support. For obvious reasons, MLS supporters should have waited several years.

Well, metropolitan support doesn't make sense because the county can't recoup its investment through city taxes due to the city-county divide.

And waiting several years will likely mean missing out on MLS altogether.

[marigolds6]

Originally Posted by RisingAurvandil

Instead of a stadium, voters chose to invest in another Metro line, public safety, and neighborhood programs.

The neighborhood programs part was contingent on the stadium passing, so that is not going to happen any more.

While the sales tax passed for metrolink, none of that was going to go to the stadium and the sales tax is only $12M per year towards a metrolink line anticipated to cost $2.2B. I would be pretty surprised if the tax is used for more than a mile of the proposed line. The public safety money is the same thing, none of that was "instead" of the stadium but "in addition" to the stadium. (And, as it turns out, the BoA has already revealed that they are not _required_ to spend that money on public safety and likely will not.

Their was a widely spread misconception that the use tax would go to the affordable housing program if the stadium failed because the stadium bill referenced the ordinance that set up the affordable housing use tax trust fund. This was because the bill had to override the part of that ordinance that forbid any use tax from being spent on parks or recreational facilities.

This use tax does not go there. For now, it goes to the state of Missouri until the city allocates it somewhere.
In the meantime, the state of Missouri will collect banker's fees of 1% per year against it until then.

So, really, the voters, so far, choose to invest in bank fees to the state of Missouri. Where that $4M/yr actually goes will be another fight now. Odds are it goes to police salaries because of Prop P passing in the county.