The unofficial online home for fans of the UAB Blazers. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

I think yes votes are Williams, Hilliard, Roberson, and Abbot. No votes are definitely Scales and Tyson. O'Quinn, Hoyt, and Parker are wild cards.

(03-26-2018 03:31 PM)Blzer4Life Wrote:  IMHO, he is doing what he can to protect his constituents. To shoehorn the stadium into nothing but underwriters and structural engineering firms is selling it short. There's a huge economic impact (as well ALL KNOW) and Darrell appears to be trying to set his constituents up for success. How he chooses to do that is up to him.

I know there's more than underwriters and engineers. The point is that he can't hold it hostage and ask for guarantees that all the jobs go to residents of his district, or that only firms in his district can take certain contracts or whatever. What's weird is that no one knows what's going on. What are these guarantees he's seeking?

Quote:You're making the assumption that he's opposed.

He hasn't done a whole lot to show that he's in favor, either

Quote:Again, having worked with Darrell on his campaign, I can tell you that he doesn't just go through the motions. He IS having a thoughtful, careful consideration of the proposal and (in his words) is "actively engaged in productive conversation with the Mayor's Office regarding this matter."


--------

I feel like a lot of people (including those who may be reading this thread) have framed their opinion of Darrell as being the "bad guy against the stadium". I promise you, he is not that. Darrell is a very thoughtful and deliberate PERSON who just happens to be on the council. Having seen him go door-2-door canvassing and talking with people throughout D5, I assure you he cares deeply what happens to all of his constituents in all parts of his district.

I have no problem with anyone and everyone showing him their support for the stadium (I know I have!). However, he is not an enemy. I can assure you that. Please don't paint him as one.

One extremely worrying aspect is that all of this is bubbling up now. He had reservations before the prior vote, but supposedly was reassured and voted yes. Why all of a sudden now is he having problems again? Why did he vote yes?

You're a good friend of mine and I respect you, but don't get blinded by the fact that you voted for him and supported him. I voted for Obama twice, even shook his hand, but was sincerely disappointed in a lot of things he did. This whole thing stinks to hell and it's just odd that it's being handled this way. Why is everything so cloak and dagger and last minute? Why can't he say publicly and release a statement? Why didn't all this get resolved before they voted yes before?

I get that he wants to look out for his district but sometimes you have to be a councilor for your district and sometimes you have to be a councilor for the whole city. What makes that argument even weirder is the fact that this is *in his district*.

From the get-go it seems like people have been against this because Bell and Austin were for it. This was a project of the previous administration. I get that. It doesn't mean it was a bad idea, though.

If the discussion is truly about how to divide revenue for neighborhood revitalization that's a perfectly legitimate discussion to have ....... in 2017. 24 hours before the vote in the full council is a horrible way to negotiate but then again it's the city council.

(03-26-2018 06:19 PM)biglizard Wrote:  If the discussion is truly about how to divide revenue for neighborhood revitalization that's a perfectly legitimate discussion to have ....... in 2017. 24 hours before the vote in the full council is a horrible way to negotiate but then again it's the city council.

Even then, it's something that can be hashed out after the project has been approved. It's not like the decision is between Birmingham getting the revenue or giving it to someone else. The revenue generated due the city will be coming to the city regardless.

(03-26-2018 06:24 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(03-26-2018 06:19 PM)biglizard Wrote:  If the discussion is truly about how to divide revenue for neighborhood revitalization that's a perfectly legitimate discussion to have ....... in 2017. 24 hours before the vote in the full council is a horrible way to negotiate but then again it's the city council.

Even then, it's something that can be hashed out after the project has been approved. It's not like the decision is between Birmingham getting the revenue or giving it to someone else. The revenue generated due the city will be coming to the city regardless.

+1

Everyone wants to go back to their districts and crow about how much of the pie they're getting

(03-26-2018 05:43 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(03-26-2018 03:31 PM)Blzer4Life Wrote:  I feel like a lot of people (including those who may be reading this thread) have framed their opinion of Darrell as being the "bad guy against the stadium". I promise you, he is not that. Darrell is a very thoughtful and deliberate PERSON who just happens to be on the council. Having seen him go door-2-door canvassing and talking with people throughout D5, I assure you he cares deeply what happens to all of his constituents in all parts of his district.

I have no problem with anyone and everyone showing him their support for the stadium (I know I have!). However, he is not an enemy. I can assure you that. Please don't paint him as one.

One extremely worrying aspect is that all of this is bubbling up now. He had reservations before the prior vote, but supposedly was reassured and voted yes. Why all of a sudden now is he having problems again? Why did he vote yes?

You're a good friend of mine and I respect you, but don't get blinded by the fact that you voted for him and supported him. I voted for Obama twice, even shook his hand, but was sincerely disappointed in a lot of things he did. This whole thing stinks to hell and it's just odd that it's being handled this way. Why is everything so cloak and dagger and last minute? Why can't he say publicly and release a statement? Why didn't all this get resolved before they voted yes before?

I get that he wants to look out for his district but sometimes you have to be a councilor for your district and sometimes you have to be a councilor for the whole city. What makes that argument even weirder is the fact that this is *in his district*.

From the get-go it seems like people have been against this because Bell and Austin were for it. This was a project of the previous administration. I get that. It doesn't mean it was a bad idea, though.

1) I think that this text debacle makes it appear to be last minute. I suspect that this isn't as "last minute" as it appears to be.

2) Our friendship has nothing to do with this. We'll be friends long after this decision is made, I promise you.

3) I'm not being blinded. I'm the one who ACTUALLY TALKED TO HIM today and have a relationship with him. I've had conversations with him about this and other issues, long before he was a city councilor.

4) I don't disagree about a stench (it's Birmingham, what's new?), but I'm just cautioning everyone not to be so quick to judge where the stench is coming from.

5) I disagree. You can be for your district and for the city. And frankly, since it's in his district, I think he has to be thinking of both. How do we being this to the city AND make sure that my district benefits.

6) And as Band Dad pointed out, Darrell has said he's for the stadium. But (again) he has to think about his entire district. That doesn't mean he's against the stadium.

(03-26-2018 06:33 PM)biglizard Wrote:  

(03-26-2018 06:24 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(03-26-2018 06:19 PM)biglizard Wrote:  If the discussion is truly about how to divide revenue for neighborhood revitalization that's a perfectly legitimate discussion to have ....... in 2017. 24 hours before the vote in the full council is a horrible way to negotiate but then again it's the city council.

Even then, it's something that can be hashed out after the project has been approved. It's not like the decision is between Birmingham getting the revenue or giving it to someone else. The revenue generated due the city will be coming to the city regardless.

+1

Everyone wants to go back to their districts and crow about how much of the pie they're getting

Darrell has been fighting for neighbourhood funding for YEARS. As I've said already in this thread, Darrell is a very deliberate man. I seriously doubt he is pulling last-minute shenanigans. That is not him.

For what it's worth, I just got a call from Darrell O'Quinn, responding to my calls earlier in the day. We talked a bit. He was concerned about the text message thing, and made sure he clarified that the text earlier in the day was not from him, and that it wasn't his views being expressed. He's catching fire from both directions over the stadium. He says that he has not yet had time to completely review the Mayor's neighborhood revitalization plan. I think that Mayor Woodfin found a way to split the baby in such a way that he'll get the votes to pass the stadium.

I get the impression that O'Quinn isn't a big sports guy, and that while he likes the BJCC refurb the stadium really wasn't his priority, but that he also sees what happened around Regions Park. That's good for his district long term, but he's also going to have some of the same problems that happened in Avondale. Rising property values mean that investors will want to jump in and buy cheap property. Rents start to rise and that pushes out low income people who have lived in the area for years. When that starts happening, he's going to catch hell about it, and I'm sure he knows it. Long term it will be good for Norwood and North Birmingham, but there will be pain along with the progress.

I think he'll vote yes, but he was still a bit non-committal, saying that until he read the Mayor's plan he could not commit one way or the other. As we were getting off the phone he mentioned that he still had twenty-four more calls to make.

I'm ok with him at this point. We'll know more in the morning.

(03-26-2018 07:10 PM)UAB Band Dad Wrote:  He says that he has not yet had time to completely review the Mayor's neighborhood revitalization plan.

Here's what I don't get. If we agree that the stadium will generate growth and be revenue positive, then it should be a yes vote. How that new revenue is spent can be decided later, not at the 11th hour and not while the council looks like they're making backroom deals. Nothing about this process has been rational at all. I hate politics, and I especially hate Birmingham politics.

Can't say I blame you... but it's the only game in town, right? Woodfin is basically making a commitment on paper to spend money on those districts. This lets those commissioners go home and brag about how they strong armed him into sending money to the neighborhood. Bringing home the bacon gets pols reelected. It also gives them some cover to vote for it if they wanted to but didn't want to get beat up over it.

Personally, I think the $9m/year figure is pretty optimistic, but I still think that it will bring in well over the three million per year. Besides, it is a long term investment in the city's future.

(03-26-2018 08:52 PM)UAB Band Dad Wrote:  Can't say I blame you... but it's the only game in town, right? Woodfin is basically making a commitment on paper to spend money on those districts. This lets those commissioners go home and brag about how they strong armed him into sending money to the neighborhood. Bringing home the bacon gets pols reelected. It also gives them some cover to vote for it if they wanted to but didn't want to get beat up over it.

Personally, I think the $9m/year figure is pretty optimistic, but I still think that it will bring in well over the three million per year. Besides, it is a long term investment in the city's future.

If the area north from Top Golf and beyond the old Carraway Hospital experiences even a small part of what has happened near Railroad Park... . Its a tremedous opportunity.

(03-26-2018 05:43 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  I know there's more than underwriters and engineers. The point is that he can't hold it hostage and ask for guarantees that all the jobs go to residents of his district, or that only firms in his district can take certain contracts or whatever. What's weird is that no one knows what's going on. What are these guarantees he's seeking?

This is the kind of nonsense that led to that recent pedestrian bridge collapse in...Florida, I think? "We have to use [insert whatever group of people here] because FAIRNESS!" Nevermind that [whatever group of people] may not be qualified to do the work.

This is politics at its absolute worst. There is no way to sugarcoat it.

What time does the council meeting start today?

Does anyone have the link to the live feed?

Here is the FB Link: https://www.facebook.com/citycouncilbham...T8OxcLVZMg

can someone go down to city hall and show them how to connect the output from the PA to the input on the camera?

(03-27-2018 09:55 AM)Blzer4Life Wrote:  Here is the FB Link: https://www.facebook.com/citycouncilbham...T8OxcLVZMg

thanks

What a clusterflop................. Someone should go sling poo on John Rogers.

wait, what just happened? I can't hear a thing they're saying. I did hear a vote though

(03-27-2018 10:59 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  wait, what just happened? I can't hear a thing they're saying. I did hear a vote though

The stadium talk has just begun.

(03-27-2018 10:59 AM)uabblazer2012 Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 10:59 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  wait, what just happened? I can't hear a thing they're saying. I did hear a vote though

The stadium talk has just begun.

No vote as of yet. Lots of public comments. Tim just spoke. Jim Hilyer speaking now.

Some guy just dropped the n word.