CAPF Appeals for Funds for Appeal
Friends,
Last week the Appellate Court ruled against the Coalition Against Public Funding for Stadiums by a vote of 3-0. This is news that disappoints and angers, but we always assumed that the Missouri Supreme Court is our greatest hope for obtaining justice.
We must have financial help immediately to press forward with an appeal to the Supreme Court. We appreciate that our donors have given repeatedly and very generously, but this case is so important. So far we have raised $2,000 of the $10,000 that we need for hard costs anticipated in carrying out the appeal to the Supreme Court! Please read the details about the ruling below, and then immediately mail the largest check made out to “CAPFS” that you can to P. O. Box 2142, St. Louis, MO 63158.
The appellate court’s ruling says two mutually contradictory things. On one hand, it says the whole financing agreement happened in December, 2003. If this is true, the deal violates the debt-limitation provisions of the Missouri Constitution, which limits long-term debt to less than 20 years without a vote of the people. But later in the decision the court rules that the County really had only a moral obligation to request appropriations, so did not incur any “unconditional indebtedness.” If that is the case, then the argument that the financial assistance occurred in 2003 obviously cannot be true. Why did the prospectus on the bonds warn of the petition drive and possible future votes and/or litigation if this was not understood by the bondholder and the County?
Courts have no right to invalidate a legally carried out citizens’ petition initiative process that was validated by the County as having enough signatures and then passed by a 72% Yes vote in November ’04.
The court failed to rule on our contention that the lawsuit was a SLAPP suit against Fred Lindecke and me. (SLAPP stands for Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation, and it’s the term for illegal lawsuits meant to silence critics of injustices carried out by politicians &/or wealthy and powerful corporate interests.)
We can’t let the issue die here with the appellate court loss. The people have spoken through Prop A. We must stand together and demand justice from the Supreme Court. If you can't send a check immediately, then at least please call me at 314-8882 with a pledge and the date that you'll be able to send a check.
Jeanette Mott Oxford
I feel for CAPF, for I supported Prop S in the City. At the same time, however, I fear the future bond rating for every Missouri public entity, including our schools, would be seriously jeopardized if CAPF were to win their appeal.
Posted by Brian on Thu., Jan 26, 2006 at 12:51 PMI agree. I sympathize with them and questioned the need to build a new stadium, but these folkss are going to have to give up, they LOST.
If they haven't been downtown lately, Busch Stadium is gone, and half of a new, modern, and good looking stadium has been erected.
Get over it people, the new stadium will bring more revenue to St. Louis, and has already brought a lot of good union jobs in construction.
Posted by Gregg on Thu., Jan 26, 2006 at 4:29 PMIs Jeanette Mott-Oxford Anti-Union? I'll bet that the Building Trades and the AFL-CIO won't be happy to hear a Democratic State Rep. wants to mess with hundreds of union members paychecks.
Posted by The Southsider on Thu., Jan 26, 2006 at 4:32 PMGreat spin, Southsider!
Posted by spinner on Thu., Jan 26, 2006 at 5:51 PMHorse is out of the barn.
Game, set, match.
These babies need a dry one.
Posted by Heh on Thu., Jan 26, 2006 at 6:38 PMGood looking?
I guess it is, in the same way a blank sheet of paper is attractive.
Posted by Michael Allen on Thu., Jan 26, 2006 at 6:50 PMYou guys don't get it. CAPFS needs money now just to pay for what it is required to do in order to appeal, not counting lawyer fees (he's doing it pro bono). Important principles are at work here. I sense that many of the naysayers above who think that inability to pursue further court action due to lack of funds is a good idea are Democrats who ordinarily scorn at such a thought. You should be ashamed.
Jeannette isn't risking a single union paycheck, and you know it. The stadium will be built, and all those construction jobs will be over anyway, by the time the court rules.
Posted by St Louis Oracle on Thu., Jan 26, 2006 at 9:43 PMI didn't spin the CAPFS appeal effort as anti-union. Rather, I pointed out the obvious. If a petition drive or referendum can discredit any previously authorized bonds by a Missouri public entity, then the bond rating of all Missouri public entities -- schools, fire, sewer, library, cities, counties, universities, etc, etc -- will all be jeopardized. In other words, why would I as an investor put my money into muny bonds of Missouri entity, if our state allows that bonding to be challenged by a later vote at any time?
Posted by Brian on Fri., Jan 27, 2006 at 8:35 AMIsn't this the Coalition Against *Public Funding* for Stadiums?
The last I checked, it was not the Coalition Against Stadiums.
No one in the Coalition is against union jobs or shiny new ballparks -- just public financing of these private spaces.
Posted by fact checker on Fri., Jan 27, 2006 at 11:42 AMIf the lawyer is working for free, then what in the world is going to cost $10,000 to appeal to the Supreme Court? In fact, the brief to the Supreme Court will probably be rather similar to the prior brief so there shouldn't be much work left to be done.
Plus, I don't think they have to file a bond or anything so, other than the filing fee, I can't really see what the "hard costs" of appealing to the Supreme Court would be?
Posted by Left in MO on Fri., Jan 27, 2006 at 12:34 PMThe costs include transcripts, for one thing. Perhaps someone from CAPFS (Jeannette, Fred, are you reading this?) could fill us in.
Posted by St Louis Oracle on Fri., Jan 27, 2006 at 5:59 PMOracle, I believe that whatever transcripts would be needed would have already been ordered for the appeal to the Supreme Court.
I'll be interested to hear what the $10K is for.
Posted by Left in MO on Sat., Jan 28, 2006 at 7:02 AM
Right a Wrong. Submit any tips or story ideas by using our anonymous email form. Confidentiality is guaranteed.