Inglewood to hold public vote on NFL stadium this summer so Kroenke can evade environmental review

Citizens for Revitalizing the City of Champions — I swear, that is honest to god the name that St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke and his development partners came up with for their astroturf citizens’ group to push for a new stadium in Inglewood, California — has delivered 20,000 petition signatures to put a vote on the ballot this summer to approve their development plan. That’s more than double what they needed, and nearly 20% of the entire city population, which bodes well for getting this thing actually passed.

As the L.A. Times’ Tim Logan explains it, approving the plan through a voter initiative “would avoid the need for time-consuming, costly and potentially legally-risky environmental review,” which would be required by the normal planning process. The exact finances of the plan are still a bit hazy — as you may recall, Kroenke is seeking tax kickbacks that could be worth anywhere between a few tens of millions of dollars and $180 million — but hopefully this will all be explained before the vote. Though not that that’s required or anything.

Meanwhile, Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon freaking out lawmakers in his state by asserting that he can sell stadium bonds without consulting them if he wants to. Not that he wants to:

At a state House budget hearing, Doug Nelson, Office of Administration commissioner, said a law passed more than 20 years ago allows the Nixon administration to issue such bonds. The law states that Missouri or any agency or department of the state can enter into a contract, agreement or lease to finance or develop a convention or sports facility.

“This is not an indication of what we’re going to do,” Nelson said. “This is an indication that we believe we have that authority.”

State Sen. Rob Schaaf immediately introduced a bill to say the governor does too have to ask the legislature’s permission before going and building a stadium. Today is truly a great day for democracy.


14 comments on “Inglewood to hold public vote on NFL stadium this summer so Kroenke can evade environmental review

  1. I don’t understand why the tax payers have to pay to build a stadium to house a nonprofit organization.

  2. Kroenke’s move is not a bad one, considering that most environmental reviews are for the purpose of preventing anything from being built, or extracting some cash from the builder. Or both. It’s amazing how quickly principled opposition melts when a few green palms are greased.

  3. Tax payers are not building this stadium. It will be built with private money and it’s a great deal for the city of Inglewood.

    Bring back our Rams!

  4. When you need to stuff a ballot box, it helps if you can get lists of people buried in local cemeteries and find a way to have their “votes” added to the count.

    Just a tip from your friendly Public Stadium Cash advisor!

  5. The taxpayers would be reimbursing Kroenke for infrastructure spending. Infrastructure is not the stadium.

  6. David Benz, did you click through on the link to the subsidy estimates? A lot of what Kroenke would be billing Inglewood for would not be infrastructure costs, though it’s tough to say exactly how much, because the agreement doesn’t provide a breakdown.

  7. Yes, I clicked through the link and read about reimbursement for “public roads and infrastructure, park construction and maintenance, as well as event day public safety costs of retaining City police, EMT, and other services and operating public shuttles from off-site public parking lots.”

    None of the potential reimbursement expenses are stadium construction costs. This belongs on infrastructurespendingofschemes.com

  8. None are stadium construction costs, but some are operating costs. Money’s money.

  9. I would find it hard to find a better deal than the city of Inglewood is getting. For 40 years plus the city stands to gain about over $1 Billion in revenue from this area. The money to be reimbursed would be “excess revenue”. Excess revenue only occurs after the city recoups its first $25 Million annually. For instance if Inglewood only generates $22 Million annually the Rams are not allowed to recoup any infrastructure costs for that year. Having said if that area produces $33 Million, then the Rams can apply for infrastructure rebates of up to $8 Million. The amount of rebates will be capped to around $100 Million at top figures. This project will invest $3 Billion in private investment to this project. It will produce 1.7 Million square feet of office and retail space. It will spur more private investment in surrounding areas along blighted Century Ave and Prairie Ave. The city will gain in substantial increased property values resulting in higher revenues garnered from property taxes. Gentrification will happen on some main corridors, and that will bring in investment the city has never seen before. A win-win for the city and this isn’t counting the Super Bowl that can occur in Inglewood.

  10. @Taxpayer and Football Fan: Have you not read the articles in the blog you are posting your comment to?

  11. One significant aspect of the stadium—for which the mayor has received more than $100,000 in campaign cash to promote (http://www.ocregister.com/articles/butts-651115-campaign-hplc.html) and which will certainly cost Inglewood taxpayers a great deal (http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-stadium-tax-break-20150113-story.html)—is the destruction of the Fabulous Forum (and all the jobs that were promised by Gerard MacCallum (http://www.spoke.com/people/gerard-mccallum-3e1429c09e597c100831c9d8) when he worked to promote the Forum and his former employer’s $18 million “redevelopment loan” that helped Faithful Central Bible Church get out from under the foreclosure: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2010/09/smg-settles-lawsuit-with-church-over-the-forum.html)
    This is the video that has been edited to omit 20 seconds of Butts’ comments (at about the 1:40 mark) regarding the destruction of the Forum to make way for the stadium: http://www.wzzm13.com/video/4057465347001/1/Mayor-Football-LAs-NFL-savior
    The same video was taken down from Daily Motion after it was mentioned to a USA Daily sports writer.