Twins Get Stadium

[thefriendlytipster]

Looks like the Twins might get a new deal. Funny how they don't want a referendum. It would be horrible if people decided which luxury taxes they wanted to pay. Anyone else mad they're talking about stadiums in times of deficits, tuitiion hikes, layoffs, and school closings?

Under the terms of the plan to be unveiled at a Metrodome press conference Monday, the Twins and the county would build a $360 million, 42,000-seat open-air stadium. The site is near the confluence of Interstate Hwy. 394, the end of the Hiawatha Light Rail line and the proposed Northstar commuter rail in downtown Minneapolis.

The total cost of the ballpark project is projected to be $478 million, including bonding costs, site preparation and surrounding infrastructure, such as road and pedestrian improvements. No state money would be required.

One group that probably won't be voting on the tax -- which would amount to three cents on every $20 in purchases -- is Hennepin County residents: County and team officials said that requiring a public referendum would kill the deal.

www.startribune.com/stories/462/5365857.html

my blog www.thefriendlytipster.blogspot.com

[Godai Kyoko]

1. I hate these stadium deals

They always seem to end up badly.

Here in Portland we had two of this kind of deal. On one, the team decamped before they even finished fixing the sadium for them, the other, the concessionaire went broke.

And I don't like basketball anyway. I don't see why I should be obliged to pay for it. Especially the local team. Bunch of druggies and wife beaters.

[oldtime dfl_er]

2. it's baseball

the sport of steroids! Wonder what part "Empty Suit" Coleman had in this deal. Im sure it'll turn out badly for the taxpayer.

www.cafepress.com/showtheworld

[SaveElmer]

19. Not true...

Camden Yards has been great for Baltimore...

[Spike from MN]

60. Camden Yards: annual benefit: $3 mil; annual cost: $14 mil.

Here's a quote and a link:

Hamilton and Peter Kahn, now an economist at Fannie Mae, examined public stadium financing for a chapter in Sports, Jobs & Taxes, a study published by the Brookings Institution. They found that Oriole Park at Camden Yards, for example, generates approximately $3 million in annual benefits to Maryland's economy. But the annual cost, they say, is $14 million. Hamilton estimates that each household in the metropolitan Baltimore area is paying $14.70 a year for the stadium, regardless of that household's interest in baseball. Neither the Orioles nor the Ravens provide many jobs in Baltimore, and since the baseball stadium opened, downtown hotel tax revenue has been flat. Hamilton believes that the Ravens' new football stadium will fall short of recouping its public investment by about $12 million per year.

Says Hamilton, "The only way that a stadium has a positive economic impact is by attracting growth from outside the area." That is, unless lots of people come from out of state to attend ballgames and spend their money in Baltimore, there's no new income for the city or state. But the Orioles and Ravens simply redirect existing commerce, adding nothing to the state or city economy; for every restaurant or tavern owner near Camden Yards who does a booming business on game days, there is a counterpart near the superseded Memorial Stadium on 33rd Street whose trade has declined. Survey data indicate the Orioles do draw 30-35 percent of their attendance from outside Maryland, but that's not enough to recoup the public investment.

http://www.jhu.edu/~jhumag/0299web/policy.html

[Lydia Leftcoast]

3. GGRrrrrr!

A dedicated sales tax to build a facility for a private business owned by millionaires. Meanwhile, Metro Transit is cutting back, and our Pawlenty-appointed Metro Council says it's "inevitable."

:argh:

[dissent1977]

91. Right on

We need light rail, not a stadium. Our transit system sucks.

[dflprincess]

4. Oh great - an open air stadium

Didn't the sleet outs in Detroit this weekend teach them anything? I can't imagine what April games will be like (no doubt there will be much wailing about attendance) and, if the Twins ever make the World Series again, wouldn't October night games be delightful?

You'd think they could get some corporate sponsorship for the extra $100 million the roof (retractable, I hope) would cost. If they're going to build a new stadium, I wish they'd do it right this time. Otherwise, the Twins will be in it a few years and then start whining that they need a new stadium with a roof on it.

In the meantime, I'll be planning my trips to Target to coincide with my other trips to Burnsville (Dakota County) to avoid paying taxes for a stadium.

[Karthun]

5. ya..

because saving 3 cents per 20 bucks is worth spending 2-3 bucks worth of gas.

[dflprincess]

7. As I said,

I'd time the Target trips with my other excursions to Burnsville. My brother's family lives there and I'm out there several times a week to help run kids around. They're quite close to the Target out there. Actually, I'll probably save on gas by not making an extra trips to the one in Bloomington.

[Sorwen]

10. a roof could be built later

They could build it so that a roof could be added later if they wanted.

[dissent1977]

90. And you know they will be back asking for more money for a roof

Right now they are leaving the roof out of the deal so it can look like they are giving us a workable deal, but you know after a few rainouts they will be back saying they need a retractable roof and we will need to spend another 100 million.

[CatholicEdHead]

6. There was also a Vikings stadium pressure story

tonight. I think it was KMSP's 9pm newscast. That the slid in that the Vikings could easily be gone a couple years after Red leaves.

[loveable liberal]

8. where can we help them pack?

take those effen vikings and let them move to oklahoma or somewhere else where people wont mind them losing for another 30 seasons. whiners and crybabys.

[Lindacooks]

39. Me 2.

we don't need them.

[Sorwen]

9. I think this is a great plan

It's just 3 cents per $20. I hope it passes. It would open just in time to take my son to his first major league baseball game.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

11. The point is, our "public servants" want to tax us

to benefit a private business run by millionaires. You may be a sports fan, but don't let that blind you to the fact that this is pure corporate welfare, letting rich cry babies eat from the public trough.

I'd happily pay even 3 cents on the dollar (never mind $20) more if it meant that Metro Transit would have a steady funding source and the working poor would have health care.

[Sorwen]

12. no, the point isn't that it would benefit Pohlad

It would benefit the public. It would benefit me and all the others in the state who enjoy going to outdoor baseball. It's the quality of life thing. (It would also benefit the people who build the stadium.)

I would love it if the private sector could entirely finance a new stadium, but the reality is that just won't happen. Given that, the corporate welfare really doesn't bother me because I think it is preferable to the alternative.

I would also happily pay even 3 cents on the dollar more for Metro Transit and health care for the working poor, but what does that have to do with paying 3 cents on every $20 for a stadium? The stadium won't take any money away from metro transit or poor people. If, for fun, you decide to spend a little money on entertainment of some sort, does it reduce the amount of money you give to charity? It shouldn't.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

14. So should every form of entertainment get a sales tax subsidy?

A lot of people enjoy shopping as a recreational pastime. Should shopping malls get sales tax subsidies?

I don't know about you, but I was around here twenty-two years ago when the Metrodome was supposed to be the answer to all our sporting prayers. If it's not adequate, that's the team owners' problem, not mine.

My position remains the same. Baseball teams are a private business, not a public service. If there's that much demand for their games, then they should be able to build a stadium on their own dime, borrowing against current property or future earnings like every other business owner.

If there's not enough ticket revenue to support the stadium of their dreams, then they should scale back their plans and build a more modest stadium.

What especially frosts me is that our govt. officials seem to think it's perfectly okay to tax the citizens (and the amount is irrelevant) for the further profit of rich team owners, but when you talk about raising taxes for public services that help the working poor, then everyone (except the team owners) is supposed to be self-sufficient.

Just the other day, the head of the Metro Council absolutely nixed the idea of new revenue for Metro Transit. The legislature refuses to raise taxes to keep the working poor on Minnesota Care. But a stadium--ah, now we're talking! Public subsidies for the skyboxes of the wealthy!

That "quality of life" argument doesn't work with me. I'm old enough to remember Minneapolis before either the Twins or the Vikings came to town. In many ways, the quality of life was higher then than it is now: a superb school system, libraries that were open every day, a low crime rate, very low tuition at the U of M, never a word about cutting back on park maintenance, much less urban sprawl, frequent bus service, more local businesses instead of chain stores. No, I'm not saying that the advent of pro sports caused the decline. Not at all. I'm just saying that there's more to the quality of life than the presence of a pro sports team, and many of the factors that make up a high quality of life--for everyone, not just sports fans-- are doing very poorly at the moment.

[Krupskaya]

15. Is it the subsidy you're mad about?

Because malls, museums and cultural centers get tax breaks all the time.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

16. It's the messed up sense of priorities

A private business gets a dedicated piece of the sales tax, but dedicated taxes for transit or health care are "impossible."

[SaveElmer]

21. As does just about every large business...

That moves into this or any jurisidction. Governments fall all over themselves giving out tax breaks to companies looking to move. Usually it is justified, sometimes they go too far. How many city conventions centers are privately funded...none that I can think of. Major league baseball can be a big money maker for a locality if it is properly planned. And the fact that the Twins are well established with a loyal (and often rabid) following, makes thier continued success that much more likely. The fact of the matter is that with major league baseball, teams need to be able to have multi use stadiums (like Camden Yards) to make money. Cities benefit from the team being there (in direct employment, tax revenue, and ancillary employment at bars, restaurants, and stores selling sports merchandise to name a few). It also attracts business traffic to the city. I'm sorry, but a $.03 tax on every $20 is well within reason, and worth it to keep the team in town. Also, this is not a statewide tax, it is only for Hennepin County, which is going to get the benefit of the stadium being there.

[Sorwen]

17. not if it isn't needed

I can't make any general statements on what should or shouldn't get subsidies, I have to look at them as individual cases, analyzing the costs and benefits.

I hear what you're saying. You make some good points. I'm pretty upset myself with the baseball owners and the economics of baseball that have created this situation. However, I just happen to think that it is worth it to pay the increased sales tax to fund the stadium.

[Lindacooks]

40. The point is there seems to be limited money for the things

that really matter, as Lydia has pointed out. Tim "ass" Pawlenty whines about how he has to cut Minnesota Care (health insurance for the working poor), but he's willing to raise taxes to fund a playground for millionaires. That does NOT contribute to a good 'quality of life'.

Repukes are always using that line 'it won't take money away from such and such' but the fact it is DOES, and this new tax proves my point. WHY won't repukes raise taxes for anything that would truly make lives better? WHY is it only for these ridiculous stadiums that are completely unnecessary?

[SaveElmer]

22. A shortsighted view in my opinion...

A thriving business community is essential for localities to thrive. This sometimes requires the help of government. By building the stadium (btw it is not strictly corporate welfare as the County would actually own the facility), Hennepin County stands to take in significantly more than is provided. The additional tax revenue which flows from this can then be used (if the politicians find the will), to provide the services that are needed. The problem is not that this tax will drain money from other priorities, it is that politicians will not spend that additional money wisely.

Governments provide incentive for all kinds of business activity. How many cities have a government provided convention center. Tax breaks are given to large corporations to move their operations into localities all the time. All of these, if handle properly are of financial benefit to the city. Major league sports are a part of this. A $.03 tax on every $20 in one county seems eminently reasonable and a good investment

[Love Bug]

36. I live in Minneapolis and pay $.07 tax because of the convention center

And that's been going on for years.

[SaveElmer]

37. How successful?

Helping the business environment and creating jobs. I imagine it has helped. Most large cities have one.

[Sorwen]

35. one other thing

I don't care if Pohlad benefits because of this. I really don't care. He'll be dead before too long, but the stadium and the team will be here for many years creating enjoyment for me and my son and thousands of Minnesota families.

[jean]

55. Pohlad has family who will survive him and there's no guarantee the

Twins will stay in MN.

[Sorwen]

57. Yes, it IS a guarantee

that the Twins will stay in MN. Why do you think there's any chance they could still move? Do you think the Twins will leave a brand new stadium to move to Portland or Charlotte or some other smaller city that doesn't have a new stadium? With this stadium, there would be no place for them to move that would be more attractive than Minneapolis. The Twins would be required to sign a 30-year lease. There's no chance they would break that lease and leave, if it's even possible to break the lease. Even without the lease, it would make no sense to move, and the baseball commissioner wouldn't even allow it. I can't predict anything beyond 30 years, but I predict with a high level of confidence that the Twins will not still be playing in Minnesota in 30 years if a new stadium is never built.

[jean]

63. Does the proposal include language requiring the 30-yr lease?

I'm not a lawyer, just a taxpayer - forgive my naivete...

We've got self-serving corporatists running amok in our state - I worry they're launching a strafe/pillage scenario against taxpayers because they've used Bush/Rove bully politics: Write the proposal in private, with no input from the minority, allow no taxpayer discussion/referendum and ram it through for a vote because - they've got a one vote majority.

What does their proposal really say? Have they got any bait and switch garbage in it? How else are they trying to ram their way through?

Who are "The Twins?" The owner of the team? Pohlad will pass away - what are his heirs obliged to do?

How will the roof be funded? The stadium alone will cost Henn. Co. taxpayers $900 million over the 30 years (according to Nick Coleman on this morning's AAR Minnesota) - that's nearly ONE BILLION DOLLARS and doesn't even include the roof!

I want to keep the Twins in Minnesota - but we're offered just one way to do it - their way or (the threat of) the highway. They're not allowing discussion, referendum, nothing. Just ram it through.

[Sorwen]

66. Yes, there is a 30-year lease

At least according to the media reports. For example, see this article which says the lease is "Thirty years, no escape clause, with unspecified penalties if it's broken. If the team's contracted, the county gets at least 50 percent of the owner's take and damages from unrecoverable ballpark costs."
http://www.skywaynews.net/articles/2005/05/02/news/news01.txt

There won't be a roof unless the state decides to fund it for $100 million (not likely), and my guess is that there will never be a roof. I thought that it would be built roof-ready, meaning a roof could be added later, but now I'm not sure if that's the case. It's not ideal, but it's okay. Baseball is meant to be played outside.

If Pohlad dies, the new owner would take over his obligations.

[jean]

70. no plans for roof sounds like no plans for A/C at the Metrodome...

[Krupskaya]

13. If one wonders why unions don't always jump up and cheer for democrats...

...read this thread again.

[dflprincess]

20. Do we know they'll hire union workers to build the place?

n/t

[Krupskaya]

31. I can't see how they wouldn't.

The Twins generally hire union for building and renovating projects. There are few non-union companies big enough to handle a stadium. If approved, the project would likely be covered under prevailing wage agreements. I couldn't find online if Hennepin has PLAs on all county projects, but it would likely cover a stadium.

Oh, and SEIU workers maintain the stadium.

[jean]

56. are the Twins doing the hiring of labor or the state, which has been

outsourcing to save a buck. No guarantee union labor would be used.

[eyepaddle]

62. I've been out of construction for a while

but MN is still a prevailing wage state. So any construction workers would be paid union scale--and be de facto represented by the apropriate union--whether they were members or not.

That's a stipulation for any state funded job. It removes the cost incentive to using non-union labor.

I had my personal introduction to this while working as a driller's helper building the Northwest Airlines Airbus Maintenance hangar at the Duluth airport.

That was pretty sweet. The union rep just came up to me when I was working and informed me my actual wage was more than twice I thought it was gonna be. It gets to be a long and pointless story after that--but let's just say I LOVE the prevailing wage! :)

[jean]

64. interesting union tidbit on AAR Minnesota today - there are now more

RETIRED union members than working union members in Minnesota.

[dpbrown]

74. So just because Hennepin Co. taxpayers would be paying unions?

Is that a good enough reason to support the stadium proposal all by itself?

Are unions that fickle and short-sighted?

Wait, unions supported drilling in ANWR. I guess that's a rhetorical question then, isn't it.

Unions should provide a counterbalance to corporate dominance, by bringing the many together to negotiate as equals with the rich - the many in number providing a perfect countervailing force to the many in dollar.

When unions can be bought off by the next environment-raping or infrastructure-razing idea that comes along, for the promise of a few pieces of gold, then there isn't much there to work with to start with.

[Krupskaya]

77. Obviously, that was not my point.

So don't pretend it was.

[dpbrown]

79. The danger in trying to be too cryptic is in becoming misunderstood

Tossing off a cryptic comment about how something is no suprise that unions don't support Democrats is asking to be misunderstood.

[SaveElmer]

18. Looks like a good solution

No government money...minor sales tax hike (3 cents for every 20$).

If it is well planned and put in a good area, would be a boon to downtown!!

[thefriendlytipster]

23. A good editorial

Here's a good editorial that was in the Star Tribune about the stadium.

But the fact is, Pohlad's $125 million isn't real money. The day the Twins would move into this new stadium, the Pohlad family likely would get back his investment -- and more.
According to Forbes magazine, the Twins were worth $127 million as of last fall, the lowest-valued franchise in Major League Baseball now that the Montreal Expos have found a home in Washington, D.C. A new stadium surely would raise the Twins' value to at least the level of the Milwaukee Brewers ($238 million) or the Pittsburgh Pirates ($242 million). It might push the value to as high as the Cleveland Indians ($360 million).

So, let's say a new stadium adds a minimum of $110 million to the team's value.

Then, there's the fee the Twins will receive for selling stadium naming rights. Those values range widely, according to Forbes. There's the $6 million the Houston Astros receive every year for calling their stadium Minute Maid Park, to the $2.7 million the San Diego Padres get each year for playing in a stadium called Petco Park to the $2.1 million the Brewers receive each year for playing in Miller Stadium.

So, let's say selling naming rights will yield a minimum of $20 million to the Pohlad clan over a 10-year period.

That means that the Pohlads, conservatively, would receive $130 million for this $125 million investment.

www.startribune.com/stories/465/5368898.html

I love the Twins, but the fact remains that if building a stadium was such a good idea Pohlad would build it himself. He is literally worth billions of dollars after all, and by being in the banking industry nonetheless. I think he can get a loan.

my blog www.thefriendlytipster.blogspot.com

[SaveElmer]

26. Of course the Twins benefit

That's the idea...but so will Hennepin county. A thriving business community benefits everyone as long as it is managed wisely. Increased sales for the Twins means increased revenue for the city as well.

I wish baseball owners would pay for these themselves, but that is not the current reality in major sports. What has to be asked is if this is a benefit to the locality....and in this case I believe it is.

This is what Doug Grow ignores in his analysis. Hennepin County is making an investment in the future success of the Twins. In the long wrong, this will bring in more money than is being spent by this very modest, and in my opinion reasonable sales tax.

[SmileyBoy]

24. If you have a $200 purchase at IKEA in Bloomington...

...That stadium tax will STILL not be able to take away from you the amount of money it would cost to buy a can of POP!!!! A CAN OF FUCKING POP, PEOPLE!!!!!

If you're going to avoid spending money in Hennepin County because a stadium tax will cost you an extra NINE CENTS on a 60 dollar purchase, then your priorities are SERIOUSLY fucked up, my friend.

Seriously, some of you are sounding like a bunch of libertarians whining and bitching and moaning about the taxes you have to pay.

I bet I could name 100 things for you that are worse than a stadium that Minnesotans pay taxes for...

[Lydia Leftcoast]

25. No, what frosts me above all

is that our current elected officials keep telling us we that raising taxes for anything else is out of the question. No can do. Forget it. State must be lean and mean. Damn people think government should hand them everything on a silver platter. Bla-bla-bla. So working people lose their medical insurance (Minnesota Care), and Metro Transit, already mediocre, is going to provide less service at a higher price, and schools are having to shut down programs and fire teachers. All in the name of Not Raising Taxes.

Must...not...raise...taxes. This is all I've heard from politicians since moving back here.

Oh, but wait, there's a proposal to fund a stadium, and suddenly, the real opiate of the people, professional sports, kicks in. Now we absolutely must fund this pet project of one of the richest men in the state because, oh my God, if Pohlad had a tantrum and moved the twins to Oklahoma or something, our quality of life would totally go down the tubes. We'd be the South Bronx in no time.

Yeah, right.

Why should pro sports go to the head of the line when much more necessary services are being cut? I don't doubt that I'm already paying taxes for things I don't like, but why add new ones for frills when essential services--the ones that really make for "quality of life"-- are being cut?

How do we know that the proposed stadium isn't going to be deemed inadequate in twenty years, just as the old Met Stadium was in the 1980s and now the Metrodome is? So the county will own the stadium. Big deal. So now the Metropolitan Facilties Sports Commission is going to be stuck with a literally white elephant in the form of the Metrodome? With the Twins gone and the Vikings agitating for a new stadium of their own (will we have to pay another sales tax for this?), we will potentially have three full-size stadiums, which is more stadiums than we have sports to put them in.

i'm for funding public needs, but not private businesses, because no matter how much you "love" the Twins, they're a private business, strictly in it for the money, and they have absolutely no loyalty or obligation to the public. They need to move to the rear of the line.

When we stop closing schools and firing teachers, when we have a real transit system, when the working poor aren't thrown off the only medical insurance available to them, then maybe we can talk about a dedicated sales tax to benefit one private business that is already rolling in money, whose owner could build his own damn stadium with his pocket change.

Yes, I know that governments give tax breaks to companies to move to their areas. Oregon did it in the late 1980s, lured all sorts of semiconductor manufacturers. Oregon was going to be "Silicon Forest." Then the market changed, and almost all those manufacturers packed up and left. So much for building prosperity with tax breaks. Meanwhile, the tax burden has shifted so that corporations pay almost nothing, and individuals have what amounts to a flat income tax. Oregon's schools are in even worse shape then Minnesota's, and if you think that Minnesota has anti-tax sentiment, you should see those libertarian-tinged Republicans in Oregon!

My position--fund essential services first and can the illusion of achieving prosperity through corporate welfare--is hardly a libertarian position.

Don't let your love of sports blind you to the fact that you are being HAD.

[Sorwen]

27. Here's the thing

I think the proposal needs to be debated on its own merits. If you don’t think it’s worth it to pay 3 cents on every $20 purchase to fund a new stadium, if you just don’t want to pay any more taxes, if you don’t buy the quality of life argument, and if you don’t believe the stadium would result in enough increased economic activity and tax revenue to justify the sales tax, that’s fine. I don’t agree with you, but I respect your opinion.

However, there’s a couple things that I find really annoying. First is the knee-jerk reaction about corporate welfare. Corporate welfare doesn’t have to be bad by definition. Sometimes the benefits could go far beyond padding the pockets of a billionaire. Corporate welfare could be worth it if it results in increased jobs and increased economic activity and tax revenue that would otherwise not exist, and it could be worth it if it results in the production of a good or service that the public wants but would otherwise not be produced (like a stadium). To say that a new stadium would just benefit Pohlad and would not benefit the public in any way is just wrong.

Second is this idea that we can’t provide funding for a stadium as long as other programs are not being funded. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. I understand that there are other more important things that need funding, but why should that affect whether or not Hennepin County imposes a 0.15% sales tax for a stadium? The stadium tax will not take money away from metro transit, health care, or education. Those programs are not affected by this. The stadium is not going to cause working people to lose their health care. In fact, it would actually create some jobs for working people. You have to look at the stadium proposal by itself. I would be really annoyed if the small sales tax increase for the stadium is rejected just because people are upset that other programs are not being funded.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

28. Three cents per twenty dollars is not a significant amount of money

but in a sense, if the stadium proposal goes through, it will be taking money away from other public goods. The county could have imposed a three cent per twenty dollar sales tax to pay for county residents who have lost their medical insurance. It could have levied such a tax and used it to maintain bus routes in the county. It could have levied such a tax and contributed the revenues to local school districts. But these would have been deemed "impossible in the present political climate."

Instead, it chose to subsidize one private business. That's one private business owned by a fabulously rich man who could probably afford to pay the medical expenses of several hundred families per year. A new tax to benefit a billionaire who can then pretend that he has the best interests of the community in mind.

It's like a family that has a limited amount of money and is having to cut the budget all over the place. The family has dropped its health insurance. The family car is falling apart. The kids have given up hope of college. Then the father announces that he's going to take a second job. Is it to retain health insurance? Is it to buy a new car? Is it to save up for the kids' education? No, it's so that the father can buy state-of-the-art fishing equipment and a new boat. "We'll be able to eat the fish I catch!" he says.

"But you already have fishing tackle and a boat," say the family members. "They're old, but they still work. We already eat the fish that you catch."

"But I'll be supporting the bait and tackle store," he says. "I'll be supporting the boatworks at the lake, and the gas stations and restaurants and campgrounds on the way there. My buying new fishing equipment will be a net economic benefit to the region. And I'll take all of you fishing with me, which will be a lot of fun."

"But not all of us like to fish, and besides, what about our health care?"

"I'm not taking away your health care. My buying a new boat and fishing equipment won't cause your health care to disappear."

A parent who actually took such an attitude would be considered a selfish creep. A parent of a financially strapped family who took a second job could reasonably expected to spend the money on the family's most pressing needs, not on his or her own amusements.

The last thing on Carl Pohlad's mind is the "benefits to the region." Like many wealthy men, he wants a free market, except when there's a possible benefit to him. Economic benefits to the region? I recall how the Metrodome was going to revive the section of downtown where it's located. Just take a look at the area. It's still a mess. Where has all the "new economic development" occurred in the area of the Metrodome over the past twenty-some years? There's plenty of new economic development downtown, but it's nowhere near the Metrodome.

Yes, the new stadium is going to be near the light rail line--which in its present state is useful to only a small percentage of potential attendees. Where are the rest going to park? Downtown is already choked with traffic. Two weeks ago, it took me fifty minutes to get from Linden Hills to Block E by bus on a Friday night--twenty minutes behind schedule, all due to standstill traffic generated by multiple events. The idea of adding another major entertainment venue to the area around Hennepin--well, let's just say that driving downtown would become its own punishment, even more so than today.

There's something about pro sports that makes fans lose their sense of perspective.

[Sorwen]

29. Actually

It really isn't like getting a second job to pay for fishing equipment. It's more like a family that can already afford a new car and health insurance but chooses not to pay for them. The father spending a few bucks on entertainment won't affect his ability or willingness to properly care for his family.

We can fund metro transit, education, health care, AND a stadium. We don't have to choose. Do you honestly think that Hennepin County imposing a 0.15% sales tax for a stadium would have any effect whatsoever on the state or county funding metro transit or health care for the poor? The democrats will support health care regardless of the stadium, and the republicans will oppose it regardless of the stadium. The stadium won't make a difference.

I believe with near certainty that if metro transit, education, health care, and the DNR (things that I value highly) were all funded properly, we could still afford a 3 cent per $20 sales tax on purchases in Hennepin County.

[Krupskaya]

30. What you said.

It's not a zero-sum game. If the county, which acts in a way that will bring more revenue to the county, has gotten its shit together to pull this off, more power to them.

[SaveElmer]

33. Well said...

This is not a subsidy but an investment.

[SaveElmer]

32. The idea is to stimulate growth

It is not a direct subsidy to a sports franchise, it's a small investment in an improved economy. The gamble is, and in this case it is a good gamble, that by building the stadium, Hennepin County will end up better off financially in the long run. This will happen through increased foot traffic in Minneapolis patronizing restaurants, stores etc. This will not only result in increased employment which in and of itself strengthens the tax base, but it will also result in increased tax revenue from businesses benefitting from the stadium. It also contributes to the overall standard of living in the city which aids the business climate in more intangible ways. The current stadium is not profitable for the team, and isn't an attraction in and of itself. By building a stadium which meets the need of the team, and by providing an additional downtown attraction it can benefit both.

It gets more publicity because it is a sports franchise, but city, county, and state governments subsidize private enterprise all the time - tax breaks for relocation, infrastructure improvements, and things such as convention centers.

[Spike from MN]

42. Unfortunately it doesn't work that way.

The myth that a professional sports spur the economy has been debunked by numerous studies. I can't find the link I was looking for but here are a few others I came across:

"Our conclusion, and that of nearly all academic economists studying this issue, is that professional sports generally have little, if
any, positive effect on a city’s economy. The net economic impact professional sports in Washington, D.C., and the 36 other cities that hosted professional sports teams over nearly 30 years, was a reduction in real per capita income over the entire metropolitan area."

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2479

And another:

"According to a report by the Brookings Institute, “No recent facility has earned anything approaching a reasonable return on investment. No recent facility has been self-financing in terms of its impact on net tax revenues...he economic benefits of sports facilities are de minimus."

http://www.selvesandothers.org/article7808.html

And one more:

"Time and again this economic development argument has proven to be a swing and a miss. “Careful analysis of past economic experience in cities that built new stadiums and attracted teams does not bear out” economic development claims, write Dennis Coates and Brad R. Humphreys in a briefing paper for the Cato Institute. Its title: “Caught Stealing: Debunking the Economic Case for D.C. Baseball.

...

Of course, what are key are net benefits. “As sport- and stadium-related activities increase,” the authors point out, “other spending declines because people substitute spending on sports for other spending.” Fan money spent at ball games would likely have gone to other entertainment if baseball wasn’t available. Thus, net benefits are zero."

http://www.npri.org/issues/issues05/ib_040305.htm


Also, please note that your arguments were the same one used for the Excel Center. Boy, the way they talked that up, it was going to be the answer to all of St. Paul's problems. Revenues would skyrocket, business would be booming, and property taxes would plummet because of all the increased revenue. Uh gee, so why is it that my property taxes keep going up every year? They way they talked up the stadium, I probably shouldn't even have to be paying property taxes by now. Yeah, St. Paul taxpayers really got the shaft on that one.

As for the argument that it's OK to subsidize the Twins because we do that for private enterprises all the time, uh yeah, the $400 million subsidy to Northwest airlines really worked out well for us taxpayers. Yeah, let's make that same mistake again but this time with the Twins.

As for the "quality of life" argument that Sorwen mentioned, fine. If you think it improves your "quality of life," great. Pay for it with a user's tax or just write a check to Pohlad if you are so inclined. But don't ask me to subsidize a billionaire as that does nothing for my "quality of life."


Hey, I have an idea. Why don't St. Paul taxpayers buy me a house? I'll even chip in for part of the expense. There could be a one-time tax of a buck or two on all St. Paulites and that, combined with my contribution, would buy me a new house. Hey, it's only a buck or two and it's only a one-time tax so it's not like it's something they will have to pay year after year. And it's such a small amount that it shouldn't matter, right? And just think of how much the city will benefit. With no mortgage, I'll have more money to spend at the local businesses so the city will benefit from a big increase in revenue. And by supporting local businesses, I'm helping to create jobs. Since virtually ALL of my income is spent in St. Paul, it looks like it's a win-win situation for everyone, right? I think I'll have to write to my reps and ask them to make sure the stadium bill doesn't pass unless it includes my proposed "St. Paul Improved Housing Amendment." After all, it makes at least as much sense as having the taxpayers fund a stadium.

[Sorwen]

43. I would be more than happy to pay for it with a user's tax

But, unfortunately, there has not been a good proposal introduced that would fund a stadium with such a tax. Even though not everyone would get enjoyment from a new ballpark, there are lots of people who would. We already spend public money on things such as parks, zoos, libraries, and theaters. Public funding for these are necessary because they are not provided for by the private sector. Lots of people get enjoyment from these things, but not everyone. I am more than willing to pay taxes to fund these types of things even if I don't personally benefit from every one of them.

[Spike from MN]

44. Ah, but parks, zoos and libraries are completely different.

Those facilities are owned by the public and don't exist solely for the purpose of allowing a billionaire to make huge profits from taxpayer money. You also don't have to pay money to go to these facilities (well, except for the MN zoo) so they are available to everyone. If they can't draw up a stadium proposal that relies on user fees rather than public money to support it, then maybe the problem is that there isn't enough support among the users to justify the stadium. They say they want a stadium but when it comes time to pony up it's a different story. (Not speaking of you here but rather users in general since you have stated that you are willing to pay.)

[Sorwen]

45. Not much different

The ballpark would also be owned by the public. It would not be owned by the Twins. And it does not exist solely for the purpose of allowing a billionaire to make huge profits. If it did, then why the heck would I, and most baseball fans, want a new stadium? Do you think we support this just because we like Carl Pohlad and we want him to make more money? Most Twins fans actually have an unfavorable opinion of the owner.

It should be noted that Pohlad is contributing $125 million. He benefits from increased sources of revenue and increased value of the team, but his benefits are not likely to be significantly more than the $125 million he's paying. The value of the team could increase by $100 million or more. Much of the increase in revenue, though, is expected to be spent on increasing the team payroll, which is to the benefit of the fans. Pohlad would not make enough money on the stadium to fund it entirely himself, so that's why the public sector needs to step in. If I was Pohlad I would build the stadium myself because, even if I lost money on it, I would still be an 89 year-old billionaire. But, unfortunately, Pohlad, even at his age, cares more about making money than he does about his legacy. So the reality of the situation is that we need some public money if we want a new ballpark.

Also, I pay money to go to the state parks. These user's fees only provide for about one third of the state parks' budget. The rest comes from the state. I know that not everyone benefits from the state parks, but we all pay. The state park system is one of my favorite things about Minnesota, and I would hate it if it lost state funding and had to be funded entirely by user's fees.

[Spike from MN]

58. No, it's a LOT different.

"The ballpark would also be owned by the public." Translation: taxpayers get to shell out for maintenance costs. The Twins get the take from the concessions, luxury boxes, and naming rights and the taxpayers get taken for a ride.

Please note that in the proposal, Pohlad isn't contributing $125 million right away but rather $40 million up front and the rest will follow "follow before the ballpark would open in 2009." Well, guess what happens if he doesn't come up with that additional $85 mil? Uh, let's see. The construction would be underway and/or completed so Minneapolis is pretty much stuck with this shiny new stadium and an unpaid bill for $85 mil. I guess they could tell the Twins that they can't play there since Pohlad didn't complete his part of the bargain but I think we all know they will never do that. I think we can pretty much figure out who will "get" to pony up that extra $85 mil if Pohlad somehow has "money flow" problems when the bill comes due.

And what happens if there are cost overruns during the construction? Hmm...who pays the extra on that? All you have to do is look at what happened with the Target Center and I think you can figure it out. Oh, and while we're picking up the tab for that, we might as well throw in another $100 mil for the roof because you know we'll will get stuck with that bill sooner or later. So while Pohlad cashes in on the team's increased value (estimated to go from $125 million up to $248 million or possibly as high as $360 million) and gets money from concessions, naming rights, and the luxury boxes, the public gets stuck with a bill. No real surprise there. Oh, and expect to have this very same discussion again 10-20 years from the time the stadium is completed because they'll want a new park again at that point. At least, that seems to be the pattern based on a nationwide assessment. (I had a link for that but don't have it handy at the moment.)

"So the reality of the situation is that we need some public money if we want a new ballpark".

No, Pohlad WANTS public money so he can make a huge profit. Why shell out your own $$ when you can get the public to pony up instead? It's not unheard for private owners to build their own stadiums. Here's a couple of quotes and a link:

"Public funding is totally unnecessary. Many private owners have built their own stadiums, either through private capital or Personal Seat Licenses. In fact, with naming rights and luxury boxes, there are more revenue streams than ever to pay for these stadiums."
...
"Teams take better care of stadiums they actually own. Private stadiums are steadily improved, year-in and year-out. Public stadiums (I am thinking of Veterans Stadium and the Astrodome in particular) are used up and thrown away."

http://camprrm.typepad.com/coyote_blog/2004/11/i_hate_public_f.html

"But, unfortunately, Pohlad, even at his age, cares more about making money than he does about his legacy."

That's the bottom line. He stands to make millions on this deal and those millions come straight from the taxpayers. THAT'S why he wants a new stadium. As for state park fees, please note that those fees don't wind up lining the pockets of billionaires and therein lies the difference.

[Sorwen]

65. Pohlad would pay for cost overruns

According to the agreement, Pohlad is to pay for cost overruns. See this acticle from the Skyway News.
http://www.skywaynews.net/articles/2005/05/02/news/news01.txt

Name one major pro league stadium that has been entirely funded by private owners. If one has been built within the last 20 years, I haven't heard of it. The ballpark in San Franciso came close, but even that would not have been built without millions of public dollars to pay for the land and infrastructure costs. Most of the stadiums being built have the owner paying for about one third of the cost and the public paying the rest.

[Spike from MN]

67. Looks like Turner Field in Atlanta was paid for entirely by private

funds. Here's a link:

http://www.skywaynews.net/pdfs/stadiums.pdf

And here's another quote and link:

By the time the 1990s end, at least 45 stadiums and arenas will have been built during the decade, and $4 out of every $5 spent on stadiums comes from public sources. In fact, of the 49 existing major-league football and baseball stadiums, 44 were built with public money. There are, however, a few notable exceptions to the public-finance trend (see Table 1).

The new stadium for the San Francisco Giants, scheduled to open in 2000, will be the first major-league baseball park to be completely financed by the private sector since Dodger Stadium was built in 1962. Chase Securities will provide $140 million of the construction cost of Pacific Bell Park, named after the telephone company that has paid $50 million to have its name on the park for 24 years. The rest of the $225 million cost will be financed by naming, sponsorship, and concession rights; charter-seat sales; and $10-$15 million in revenues from future Giants games.

Similarly, in Denver, the NBA’s Nuggets and the NHL’s Avalanche are building a private arena, the Pepsi Center. Ascent Entertainment plans to spend $150 million to build the arena, which will have 19,092 seats, 84 luxury boxes, and a 300-seat cafe. Ascent expects to match its initial investment with first-year revenues, including $90 million in ticket sales from 80 hockey and basketball games and 70 other events, such as rodeos and concerts; $17 million from luxury boxes and club seating; $20 million from naming rights from Pepsi; and $20 million from parking, concessions, and advertising.

http://www.privatization.org/database/policyissues/facility_privatefin_stadium.html

Not sure how accurate the list is as the Target Center is listed on there but it shouldn't be. At any rate, I'm not going to waste any time chasing down proof whether or not the other stadiums on the list have been built with private funds because that's not the issue here. The issue is that Pohlad wants taxpayers to build him a stadium so he can line his pockets with taxpayer money. It's corporate welfare and nothing more.

[Sorwen]

68. Who cares why Pohlad wants the stadium?

Of course he wants it so he can make money off of it. But the fact is that thousands of Minnesotans who don't care one bit about Pohlad's pockets also want it. If the Pohlads were the only ones benefiting from this, then this issue would have been dead long ago.

And let me just add that I don't think the economic benefits SaveElmer is arguing really matters that much. You might be right that the increased economic activity and tax revenue resulting from the stadium might not pay for the cost, but 1) it at least reduces the real cost of the stadium, and 2) it doesn't really matter (as long as the costs aren't too ridiculously high, which I don't think they are). The point is to provide a ballpark where people can go and have a good time.

You are right about Turner Field being funded privately, but that's a special case. The Atlanta Braves actually paid very little for that. The stadium was built for the Olymipcs and was funded by the local Olympic committee. The Braves really only paid for upgrades and modifications.

[Spike from MN]

86. I care, since he's using public money for it.

And apparently lots of other people care too which is why Pohlad and Co. won't allow a referendum on the issue.

As shown by links in my previous posts, there would be no net increase in economic activity and hence no new revenue to reduce the cost of the stadium. This is especially true in the case of the Twins since the stadium where the they currently play is also located in Hennepin county. And it may not matter to you but it obviously DOES matter to a lot of people which is, again, why they won't allow a referendum.

If the point it to provide a ballpark, Pohlad can certainly do that. Nothing is stopping him. But he obviously doesn't care about a stadium. All he cares about is getting rich off public money. It's not the first time so maybe it's just a habit with him.

And if you think the new stadium is going to be the best thing since sliced bread, you might want to read this LTTE:

Twins fever -- smell it!

In answer to Dale Connelly's April 28 commentary ("Every ballpark needs a signature symbol; here's ours"), I rather agree. I think it's very important that people remember that the proposed new Twins stadium is next to the Hennepin Energy Recovery Center (HERC).

I worked at Hennepin County Department of Environmental Services for a year and a half, right next to HERC. During the summer -- heck, all year long -- the stench of garbage coming from that facility was enough to make me want to vomit. You never get used to it. Let's keep in mind that fans at Twins games would be smelling that for three hours at a time.

Why would anybody want to smell rotting garbage for three hours at a time, and why does Minneapolis think putting a Twins stadium downwind of HERC is a good idea?

I'd be less likely to go to a game if the stadium were there, and I suspect many others, after one experience with the stench, would conclude the same.

Here's the link:
http://www.startribune.com/stories/563/5383772.html

Ugh. Doesn't sound like such a great deal after all, does it? Uh, maybe you'll want to think about taking your son to a Saints game instead. ;) Hmm...sounds like the agreement comes with a built-in argument for a new stadium in some other location 10-20 years down the road. Call me a cynic but somehow that doesn't surprise me. Between the smell from HERC and the lack of a roof, you can count on having this same discussion again a few years down the road.

[Sorwen]

87. So you would rather

prevent a rich guy from making money off of public funds than to build a park that would be enjoyed by thousands, if not millions, of upper Midwesteners. Okay, I just don't agree with that.

Pohlad could build a stadium himself, but he never will. So if we want a stadium, we have to pay for it ourselves. There's no point in stubbornly holding out for something that will never happen. Also, I really think Pohlad would lose money if he funded it entirely himself. He could afford it, of course (dying with $1.5 billion is not much worse than dying with $1.9 billion), and it would be great if he cared more about his legacy, but I guess we can't really expect him to fund something that he'll lose money on. (The increase in team value and revenue sources would not likely be enough to fund the entire stadium, especially since much of the increased revenue is needed to increase the team payroll.)

As far as the smell from the garbage burner, most everything else I've read has said it really isn't an issue. And if it was, it would obviously make much more sense to build a new garbage burner in a new location than it would to build a new stadium. And unless significant climate change causes a dramatic increase in rainfall, I think the roof issue is overrated. A new stadium built right (unlike the Metrodome) should last much longer than 20 or 30 years.

[Spike from MN]

88. If it's not OK for him to fund something he will lose money on, why

is it OK for the public to fund something they will lose money on? It goes both ways.

No, I'm not in favor of bankrolling billionaires. If you want to bankroll him with YOUR money, fine, but the general public shouldn't be forced to do so. Why don't they put it to a referendum and let the public decide? Because they're afraid it would get shot down, that's why. Apparently they know that the general public doesn't want to bankroll a billionaire either.

[Sorwen]

89. I think we've covered all the bases here

so to speak. I'm going home. I don't want to keep posting and reading the same thing over and over.

Oh, as for the referendum, that sounds like an argument from the tax evader's league. I think the strib addressed this well:
"Consider, for example, some of the other things Minnesotans don't get to vote on: state tax increases or tax cuts; road construction projects; bonding by the state, the county, the city, the airports commission; budgets of all the above; tuition hikes at public colleges and universities; dates for fishing season and the cost of licenses; speed limits; the amount you pay for violating the speed limit. You get the idea."
http://www.startribune.com/stories/561/5388132.html

And:
"As for the question of a referendum, the Twins-Hennepin deal stipulates no countywide vote, and rightly so. Minnesota should resist the government-by-circus atmosphere that has swamped states like California, where citizens must endure an endless stream of multimillion-dollar TV campaigns based on emotional appeals for every hot-button issue that comes along. That's a cynical way to run government. Minnesotans elect public servants to make difficult, informed decisions. Otherwise, why bother with representative democracy?"
http://www.startribune.com/stories/561/5377456.html

[Spike from MN]

94. Yes, I saw those LTTEs.

However, they fail to note that the items they mentioned (state tax increases or cuts, road construction projects, etc.) are all issues that our legislature deals with on a day-to-day basis as they are part of the normal function of government. I doubt that the MN Constitution mentions that it's the function of government to subsidize professional sports. And here's another LTTE with a different viewpoint then those you cited:

Where's the tea?

What? No referendum on a new Twins stadium? Isn't that taxation without representation? I thought we dealt with that issue a couple of centuries ago.

Am I ever glad I moved out of Hennepin County.


As always, here's the link:
http://www.startribune.com/stories/563/5388133.html

The bottom line is that they don't want this to come to a referendum because it would be defeated. Plain and simple.

[Sorwen]

96. taxation without representation?

First of all, those weren't letters to the editor that I quoted, they were Star Tribune Editorials. Not that it matters tremendously, but I generally find the strib editorials more interesting than what some guy who wrote a letter thinks.

Second, taxation without representation? Seriously? The Hennepin County commissioners, who are the ones imposing the tax, are elected by the people of Hennepin County to represent the people of Hennepin County. It also has to be approved by the elected state legislature. So where is the taxation without representation part? I understand that some people have some legitimate complaints, but this "taxation without representation" letter has got to be just about the dumbest thing written on the issue.

[Spike from MN]

100. Well, since they aren't representing the will of the people

I'd say that yes, it could apply. If they are truly representing the people, the referendum will pass so they should have no problem with allowing the people to vote on it. The fact that they said a referendum would be a "deal-killer" speaks volumes.

And yes, your links were to editorials, not LTTEs. My mistake. I have read a number of both recently and got the two mixed up as similar arguments were used in both.

Thank you for your thoughful reply.

[Sorwen]

102. That's not what "taxation without representation" means.

FYI

If you elect a representative who decides to tax you when you didn't want to be taxed, it's not taxation without representation. If you don't think that's dumb, I'm sorry. The reason why we elect representative is so that we don't have to vote on everything directly. We can't decide everything by referendum. There are lots of things of varying importance that we fund that would never be funded if we had to vote for them by referendum. The stadium isn't much different than some of the things voted on in the bonding bill.

[Spike from MN]

104. What else do you call it when they ignore the will of the people

and impose a tax that the people don't want? Is that representation? And what if the vote had gone the other way and polls showed widespread support in the county for the stadium? I bet you'd be screaming for a referendum. And let's take a look at what the Minnesota Statute says in regard to local sales taxes:

Subd. 3. Requirements for adoption, use, termination. (a) Imposition of a local sales tax is subject to approval by voters of the political subdivision at a general election.

http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/297A/99.html

Not only is the county board ignoring the will or the people, it's also ignoring the MN statute regarding the imposition of local sales taxes. Hmmm....looks like that statute was written to allow the people to decide on the tax for themselves rather than leaving it up to a handful of people on a city or county board. Imagine that. Maybe that was put in there to prevent "taxation without representation."

[SaveElmer]

46. Just saw your post and will reply with links on the other side soon...

However, I wouldn't put any stock in what the Cato institute says as it has a built in bias against government intervention in anything.

I'll get back to you soon

[DemonFighterLives]

34. I'm all for a stadium , but a roof is needed

Think about the savings of not needing to shovel snow.
If they would promote a voluntary fund, it could maybe be helpful?

Of course on edit, the players and the owners are the ones who need the temple to sell their wares and should contribute more.

[Lindacooks]

38. I'm furious about this, and will be making my opinion very clear

to all of my representatives.

One thing that's really telling is they think a public referendum would kill the deal.


DUH!!! We don't want or need a new stadium. What we need are better schools, better paid teachers, work on the infrastructure, helping out the poor, and re-funding battered women's and abused children's programs.

[SaveElmer]

41. A new stadium will help with all those things

This puny sales tax (which does not affect clothes, food or medicine), is a very small investment in what could be a significant employment and tax boon to the County. I know it gets more publicity because it is a sports franchise, but localities make these investments all the time, building convention centers, funding tax advantages for large companies to get them to relocate etc. It is an investment in the economic climate of the county, and in my opinion a wise one.

As to the referendum, it is these kinds of decisions that these people are elected to make. They ought to exercise their best judgment and make the decision.

[Lindacooks]

93. That has to be the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

A new stadium will not help with ANY of those things. The point is Repukes are willing to raise taxes for a playground for the rich, but not to actually help people.

And as for the referendum, we have that option because many times the people's opinions do NOT match up to 'elected' officials.

It is an absolute moral sin to spend money on an effing new stadium when so many programs that actually HELP PEOPLE have been cut to the bone. I'll see a new stadium funded AFTER Pawlenty and his rats have re-funded the child abuse prevention funding cuts (50% cuts) that he imposed in 2002. And AFTER Minnesota Care is fully funded. And AFTER cuts to school funding have been reversed. Not one penny for a stadium until those things are fixed.

[katinmn]

95. Yes, Lindacooks. Priorities first. Not a dime for stadiums until

we fix our healthcare crisis and fund public education adequately.

[USA_1]

47. NO NEW STADIUMS!!!

Publicly financed stadiums are welfare for the wealthy. Every study that has been done on the issue has shown that the municipality that invests in these ventures NEVER recover their investments in them.

Case in point: Xcel Center in downtown St Paul.

The Civic Center was operating at a good profit. But Coleman wanted to get his name in the papers and pushed through a new arena without taxpayer consent. Today, businesses have closed up because there is no pro hockey in that area, taxes go unpaid, and board up businesses remain an ugly blight.

Another case in point: Cleveland, Ohio. While so much of its tax revenues went into Jacobs Field, the Board of Education went into receivership!

The State proposes to reduce or to eliminate transportation. If this happens, how would a partially handicapped person like me get to work? I paid my taxes all these years - why shouldn't I get the service I need and paid for?

Write to your legislative representative. Demand that the proposed legislation for Pohlad's stadium be voted down.

Thanks!

[SaveElmer]

48. No can do

I think it's a good idea. Good for the city, good for the state, and enhances the quality of life. I've seen studies that show these stadiums do enhance the cities quality of life, and actually do provide revenues to the city. Aside from that however, localities provide tax money for all forms of entertainment. They just financed the New Guthrie Theater without a whisper of protest. Many would argue the old Guthrie was just fine and this is a waste of money designed to cater to the entertainment needs of an elite few (I DO NOT agree with this view), and I know the Guthrie is non-profit, but it isn't any more of a legitimate form of entertainment than Baseball or anything else.

I guarantee that once this passes - and I think it will - neither Mayor Rybak nor any of the council members that voted for it will be punished politically for their vote. There is a very vocal opposition, and that is great, but I would bet most people either support this, or the tax is so small that it just isn't that big of a deal to them.

[katinmn]

49. why not a puny barely noticeable tax increase for healthcare and

education? That will do much more to enhance QoL for everyone.

Our priorities are fucked up.

Sorry. But they are.

[Sorwen]

50. yes, let's do that too

The reason that health care and education are underfunded is not due to a lack of resources, it's due to a lack of political will. I understand your frustration, but the stadium will not change the politcal willingness of the state to fund education and health care. You have a big ally on the stadium issue in the taxpayers league, but I'm pretty sure they don't have any alternative plans for spending this money on education or health care.

[SaveElmer]

51. I have no problem with that...but

I doubt a tax increase of this level ($28 mil a year) would really do a whole lot. It has nothing to do with lack of resources, it has to do with a lack of will and power politics. It's not an either or proposition.

By your logic then funding for all non-essential service should be eliminated. So we could start by zeroing out funding for performing arts institutions, school music programs, zoos, parks etc., many of which it can be argued serve only a tiny minority of the people in the state. Certainly health care rates above those on the priority list.

I wouldn't advocate any of that. It's not only about growing the economy (which I think a stadium would help with), but about the quality of life people want. A significant number of people, probably a majority, get alot of pleasure from professional sports. If the Twins moved out of town or were contracted because of this there wouold be a hew and cry about it after the fact.

I would also point out that as part of this deal, The Twins make a 30 year commitment not to move the team, and the MLB has guaranteed there would be no contraction.

[katinmn]

52. sorry -- it's still corporate welfare

I want my tax dollars going to education (including fine and performing arts) and healthcare, roads and bridges, not sport stadiums that will line the pockets of a few.

Pohlad is the 7th wealthiest man in the US. He doesn't need a government handout.

We had a statewide referendum on stadiums a few years ago. People don't want to finance it.

Elected pols forget who they're working for.

[SaveElmer]

53. Strictly speaking not welfare as...

The county will own the stadium...not the Twins. Again, where do you draw the line. How about the convention center...built primarily to hold trade shows. How about tax breaks cities and counties give to businesses to relocate within their jurisdiction? How about infrastructure costs for roads etc that are paid to accommodate business needs?

I view the stadium as an investment in the cities business climate. Whether it provides direct monetary benefit to the county or not (I think it will btw) is less important than whether it positively affects the city overall...and given the long history of support for baseball here I can't see how that won't happen.

[Spike from MN]

59. They financed the Guthrie "without a whisper of protest"?? Hardly.

They have been battling this for years. Here's a couple of quote with links:

2002-05-23
Ventura's Veto

Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura took out his veto pen and marked out the $24 million in state bonding for the new $125 million Guthrie Theatre complex even after the Guthrie demonstrated significant economic impact to the state.

http://ww3.americansforthearts.org/national_arts_news/2002/

(Note that that's $24 million, substantially less than the $353 million Pohlad is asking for.)

And from September 29, 2001:

In the past, Gov. Jesse Ventura has opposed public support for the arts. His veto of $3 million for the Guthrie was overridden. At his urging, the Legislature also rescinded $1 million of a $2.25 million bonding appropriation for the Penumbra Theatre.

http://www.childrenstheatre.org/releases/2001_0929.html

So to say that they financed the Guthrie "without a whisper of protest" is incorrect. And as you pointed out, the Guthrie is non-profit and that puts it in a whole different category. Taxpayer dollars aren't going to line the pockets of a billionaire and that's the main difference between financing the arts and financing a stadium.

And if "the tax is so small that it just isn't that big of a deal to them" why won't they let it go to referendum? Uh, maybe because they know the taxpayers would shoot it down?

As for the claimed increase in revenues that a new stadium will provide, I have already provided three links in a previous post that show that those myths are false. Please provide us with links to support your side of the argument. (I'll reply to your post #19 regarding Camden Yards shortly.)

[SaveElmer]

78. I overstated it...it was in comparison to the Stadium debate

As to the referendum.. no..because these people are elected to make this kind of INFORMED decision. They have studied the issues and are in a better position to make the decision...as they were elected to do. I don't want Minnesota to descend into the same kind of chaos as California, putting everything to a vote.

This is not being done to line the pockets of a billionaire...that is demogoguery. Pohlad probably will not live to see the stadium built. It is being done to provide a service to the 10's or 100's of thousands of fans who want to see baseball stay in Minnesota. Does it profit the Twins? Sure...they wouldn't be doing it if it didn't. But government funds projects to aid business all the time...nothing new really. This is just bigger, and of course it is pro sports which induces even more vitriol.

Scream "tax increase" and voters everywhere would vote it down whether it would benefit them or not. Do you think politicians supporting this are doing it for political gain...I hardly think so. Why would Mayor Rybak and Commissioner McLaughlin be for it if they didn't think it would benefit the county? It certainly will not help them with the voters in the short term (i.e. the next election)

As to Camden Yards...I go there at least 3 times a year...I don't care what some study says...that area has been revitalized...it is crowded with people day and night..even when there is not a game...businesses and restaurants have sprouted up all over the place... Take a poll in Baltimore and see whether they think the stadium was worth it..I venture you will get an overwhelming yes.

I haven't had a chance to read through all of the links....I concede that in some of these cases, in purely dollars and cents do not appear to profit the jurisdictions, though I must say groups like Cato and Brookings are hardly impartial, and these funding mechanisms are different. Also this is not publicly funded, but financed, different than some of the others. And I may be mistaken, but this agreement calls for the county to share in any windfall from the sale of the Twins...likely because their value will increase with the new stadium and the 30 year "no move" guarantee. I think this is unique in this agreement Send me the link on Camden Yards...I think I know which one you are talking about...I have one that takes the other side I will send you. Some of the links I was going to send you are no longer valid (they were linked during the Nationals stadium debate)...I'll find them though and send them along.

Thanks for talking about this based on facts though...some have such a hatred for Pohlad (which I do understand), that that seems to be their only argument.

[Spike from MN]

97. It won't go to referendum because the people would vote it down.

County and Team officials said as much themselves. The vote passed by a 4-3 margin so there wasn't overwhelming support on the Hennepin County board either. It could have easily gone the other way. And what if it had? What if it had been voted down but polls showed overwhelming support in the public sector? Would you want a referendum then? My guess is yes. The residents of Hennepin County are entitled to have their say on the matter, especially since it seems a majority doesn't agree with the way the county board voted. Also, please note that calling for a referendum on one issue in which county residents aren't in agreement with the ruling of the county board members hardly means that we are "descending into chaos." St. Paul voters shot down a referendum back a few years back and St. Paul seems to be functioning just fine.

And it's not demagoguery to say that this is being done to line Pohlad's pockets. All you have to do is follow the money and see who benefits and who pays. If he REALLY wanted a stadium he could pay for it himself. He wants to profit from public money and that's what this is all about. And yeah, the government funds big business all the time but that certainly doesn't mean it's right. You have to look at who benefits and who loses. Here's an example of Coleman's corporate welfare. He really took St. Paul taxpayers for a ride.

St. Paul's citizens will be paying for Coleman's corporate charity well into the future. Between 1993 and 2000 the total indebtedness facing the city rose from $460 million to $619 million--more than this year's entire budget.

http://citypages.com/databank/23/1140/article10766.asp

I really don't think that taxpayers automatically shoot down referendums that call for tax increases. In particular, I believe that those that call for increased funding for schools tend to pass (though I could be wrong on that). It's not the tax per se but rather what the tax will be used for that voters look at. Some, as you say, will vote down any and all taxes but I don't believe that's true of the general public overall. Otherwise every single tax increase that has ever gone to referendum in the history of MN would have been shot down and I don't believe that has been the case. I don't speak for Rybak and McLaughlin so I won't pretend to know what they think. If they are in favor of the bill because they think it will benefit the county economically they should do some research. The "zero net benefits" is even more true in this case since the place where the Twins currently play is already located in Hennepin County.

Oh, the area immediately around Camden Yards might be all shiny and nice but for every store/restaurant/bar that profits from the stadium there's another one that is losing money. The link was included in a previous post but I'll post it here again so you won't have to search the thread for it. It's a short article and doesn't go into a whole lot of detail but I've seen the same info in other articles so it appears that the stats are accurate. Please feel free to post any links that support your side if it's not a problem.

http://www.jhu.edu/~jhumag/0299web/policy.html

And I agree that those weren't the best links. As I said in the original post, I couldn't find the one I was looking for. I took a shortcut and grabbed some of the first ones I found, mainly because the studies I had looked at all said the same thing: zero net benefits. You see, I had already had a similar discussion about this a month or so ago. A couple of my co-workers wouldn't believe me that a few years back when Bush was part-owner of the Rangers, he had pushed thorugh public financing on a stadium for the team and made a bundle in the process. I sent them the links but got the typical argument back: "But EVERYBODY benefits from this." I then looked into whether or not that was true and every study I came across showed the same thing: zero net benefits. One co-worker still denies that and sent me an "impartial" link to support his argument: a link to the Rangers' website extolling the virtues of the stadium. The other co-worker is still in denial that the Rangers built a stadium at all. And yes, they're Freepers in case anyone is wondering. So anyway, while they may not be the best links, they did represent the general outcome of the studies that I came across. If I can find the site I was looking for I will post a link but frankly I really don't plan to spend a whole lot of time looking for it, mianly because the links I posted contain pretty much the same info.

Here's the info on the agreement. It doesn't exactly call for the county to share in any windfall from the sale of the Twins. The COMISSION may get a percentage, depending on when the team is sold, but the county won't get anything. From the Star Trib's article in the OP's link:

The proposal requires the Twins to sign a 30-year agreement with no escape clause that would have to be approved by Major League Baseball. If the team is sold before 2016, the Twins would share some of the gross franchise sales price of the team with a new Ballpark Commission. The longer Pohlad and his family own the team, the smaller the percentage of the sale price that would be shared with the Ballpark Commission.

If the Pohlads sell out after the first season in the proposed stadium, the team would pay 18 percent of the sale price to the commission. By the 10th year of the new stadium, the commission would get no share of the sale.

Apparently the Commission will also own the site, not the county. How the heck does that work?

The Ballpark and the site will be owned by a Ballpark Commission (the “BC”), and the Team will enter into a lease or use agreement with the BC. The Team and County request that the State transfer land owned by the State or other public entities free to the BC.

http://www.co.hennepin.mn.us/vgn/portal/internet/hcdetailmaster/0,2300,1273_1716_128622375,00.html

"Thanks for talking about this based on facts though...some have such a hatred for Pohlad (which I do understand), that that seems to be their only argument."

No problem. Back at you. The "But it's the TWINS!!" arguments really don't add a lot to the discourse either. ;) And while I definitely think Pohlad is an a$$, the argument is the same regardless of who happens to own the team. Who profits from public funding of stadiums? The team owner(s). Who pays? The taxpayers. And that's what I see as the real issue here.

[Sorwen]

98. You can't measure the true benefits!

Show be a study measuring the utility the public gets out of a new stadium and keeping the team in Minnesota. You can't, it's not measurable. I'm not talking about economic development or tax revenue. I'm talking about the level of enjoyment, entertainment, and community spirit that thousands, if not millions, of people in the region benefit from 162+ times per year. It's not just the 25,000 at every game who experience this, but also the many thousands who watch or listen to every game. Building a new stadium will guarantee that we will keep the team, and it will make the baseball experience much more enjoyable. Have you ever been to a playoff game or walked around the Metrodome before a big game? It's exciting. The energy from the fans and the community spirit are great. You can't measure the value that has. I expect that some people may not understand or appreciate this.

Afternoon spent with son at the ballpark: Priceless. That's what I'm talking about.

To keep saying that the only beneficiary from the stadium is the rich owner is just wrong. This argument clearly demonstrates a lack of knowledge about how valuable a new stadium and keeping the team in Minnesota is to the region. I can guarantee you that the value of the team to the thousands of die-hard Twins fans is much greater than the value of $360 million to Carl Pohlad. That isn't justification for a new stadium, but it means that the major benefit of the stadium would not be to Carl Pohlad but rather to the many across the region who enjoy Twins baseball.

You can say that lots of people don't care about baseball and would not benefit from this. I would say that lots of people don't care about libraries and zoos, but we still fund those. You'd say those things are not owned by a private businessman, but I'd say that the reason to provide public funding for a stadium is the same reason to provide public funding for libraries, zoos, parks, etc: To provide something that the public would benefit from but is not being provided for by the private sector. When we fund libraries or parks, we don't base it on whether or not it would spur enough economic growth to pay for itself, because that's not the point. It's the same with the stadium. Sometimes a private enterprise may profit from it. So what? Are you always against any form of corporate welfare? What about corporate welfare for ethanol or biodiesel production? Those industries would not exist if not for corporate welfare, but I think the public is better off because of it.

You can still argue that despite the value to baseball fans in the region, it's just not worth it ($0.03 per $20) to fund an expensive new ballpark. Fine, but please acknowledge the immeasurable value that it has to ordinary people across the upper Midwest.

If you want to respond by saying "Then pay for it yourselves." First I would say that that's very libertarian of you, then I would say that it's probably not feasible to do so. The sales tax had to be used instead of user's taxes in order for the county to be able to issue tax-free, low-interest bonds. I would also say that I'm happy to pay taxes for things that lots of people benefit from, even if I don't.

[Spike from MN]

99. Is this the argument that the pro-stadium lobby is using?

No. They are pushing the (non-existent) economic benefits. The public should be informed of the economic realities and allowed to decide through a referendum.

If cities subsidize commercial sports in the quest for an improved image or to enhance the quality of life for its citizens, then taxpayers should be allowed to decide the stadium subsidy issue on these bases. Using economics as a justification for the subsidy is a political expedient, perhaps necessity, but it is inconsistent with the statistical evidence (1996, p. 37).

http://www.comm.umn.edu/twinsreport/ch3.htm

Once again, money spent on libraries, parks, etc. is a part of the normal function of government and that money isn't going to line some billionaire's pocket. Are ethanol or biodiesel producers billionaires? Please provide me with a link as all I found was that that in 2001, MN had 14 farmer-owned cooperatives. Also, please note that funding ethanol and biodiesel is an appropriate role of the government as it deals with energy and the environment. The same can't be said for professional sports facilities.

Stadiums CAN be built solely with private money and it IS feasible to so do.

A study by researchers at the University of Dayton concludes that large public subsidies for the construction of major league baseball stadiums are unnecessary.

Economics professors Marc Poitras and Larry Hadley examined the 13 stadiums built between 1989 and 2001 and concluded teams would probably recover all or nearly all the cost of construction if the ballparks were built with private money instead of taxpayer money.

"The bottom line is that these new stadiums generate sufficient revenue to pay for themselves," Hadley said Wednesday. "If the stadium pays for itself internally, that should be sufficient motivation for the owners to build it."

http://cbs.sportsline.com/mlb/story/7204546

And:

Second, critics of private financing say that there is no way a team who has to pay for its own stadium can compete against teams who benefit from publicly-subsidized stadiums. In a sense, this is not the taxpayers' problem. Professional baseball economics are unfair now, with teams in large media markets or with generous state and local governments providing an edge over teams in smaller markets (such as the Twins). It is up to Major League Baseball to continue to pursue reforms such as revenue sharing to provide a more level playing field.

http://www.comm.umn.edu/twinsreport/ch3.htm

If the private investors want to increase their profits and/or recoup their investment more quickly, they can always tack on user fees. Then maybe they could get an idea of just how much these "intangibiles" are worth to the die-hard fans.

[Sorwen]

101. Yes, of course it's the argument

The whole point of the ballpark is to keep the team in the state and provide a nice outdoor ballpark with grass so fans can enjoy baseball the way it is meant to be played.

Another point is to have a stadium that generates enough revenue so the Twins can afford to keep their young stars like Joe Mauer and Justin Morneau rather than lose them to high payroll teams like the Yankees and Red Sox. Every year the Twins have to let some players leave, not because they don't want them anymore, but because they can't afford to pay them as much as other teams can. The new stadium would allow them to be more competitive. So far the Twins have been able to replace players with good young talent developed by the farm system, but they won't be able to replace players like Mauer, Morneau, and Santana.

So, to sum up, the argument for the stadium is that it keeps the team in the state, it significantly improves the baseball experience in comparison to the Metrodome (which was not built with baseball in mind), and it makes the team more competitive.

The economic benefit is NOT the reason for the stadium. Unless you've been listening to Sid Hartman, I don't know where you got that from. There are some economic benefits from the stadium (for example, I know that Twins players and visiting players pay a lot in state income tax). These benefits may not be enough to pay for the stadium, but they lessen the actual cost of the stadium. Some people will make the economic benefits argument to try to enhance their argument, but it's not the real reason why they want the stadium.

[Spike from MN]

105. No, that's NOT the argument the Twins are using.

The (non-existent) economic benefit of a new stadium is the primary reason offered by the Twins and pro-stadium people in general (with a few exceptions, of course). Where did I get that from? Well, right here on this thread for one. Here ya go Sid:

From post number 27 in the current thread:

Edited on Tue Apr-26-05 09:31 AM by Sorwen

I think the proposal needs to be debated on its own merits. If you don’t think it’s worth it to pay 3 cents on every $20 purchase to fund a new stadium, if you just don’t want to pay any more taxes, if you don’t buy the quality of life argument, and if you don’t believe the stadium would result in enough increased economic activity and tax revenue to justify the sales tax, that’s fine. I don’t agree with you, but I respect your opinion.

You backpedaled a bit in post 68 but still claimed that there would be an economic benefit:

And let me just add that I don't think the economic benefits SaveElmer is arguing really matters that much. You might be right that the increased economic activity and tax revenue resulting from the stadium might not pay for the cost, but 1) it at least reduces the real cost of the stadium, and 2) it doesn't really matter (as long as the costs aren't too ridiculously high, which I don't think they are). The point is to provide a ballpark where people can go and have a good time.

And of course, you still tout some economic benefits in the post to which I am replying even though numerous studies have shown that the net economic benefits of a new stadium are zero at best. Others here had similar arguments to begin with but I believe many have come to realize that studies don't bear them out. So why do so many have misconceptions about the economic benefits of a new stadium? Where did they get those ideas from? The Twins of course. That's the main argument they have been pushing even though they know full well that there is no factual basis for the claim.

Economic arguments are often used to justify public spending to build new baseball stadiums. Sports team owners sometimes claim that they are losing money and that a new stadium needs to be built in order to save the economic viability of a team in its current market. Proponents of new stadiums often argue that new stadiums are good public investments because they enhance the economic activity in the region. The arguments for a new stadium for the Minnesota Twins involved such claims, while the grassroots opposition to public funding of the stadium often concentrated on refuting such claims. Accordingly, this chapter investigates these economic arguments first by exploring the history of the Twins economic rationale for a new stadium; second, by scrutinizing the report of the international accounting and financial advising firm Arthur Andersen LLP that was used by the Twins as a basis for these claims; and finally, by examining the persuasiveness of these economic claims with Minnesota legislators.

http://www.comm.umn.edu/twinsreport/ch3.htm

But that was taken from a study back in 1996-1998 for a different proposal. Maybe the Twins have completely changed their argument. Let's take a look at the Hennepin County resolution and see what that says:

The following Resolution was offered by Commissioner Opat, seconded by Commissioner Stenglein:

WHEREAS, keeping the Minnesota Twins in Hennepin County contributes to the County’s position as the economic and cultural center of the Upper Midwest, a status that benefits the entire state; and

WHEREAS, the Minnesota Twins contribute significantly to the local and state economy; and ...

http://www.hennepin.us/vgn/portal/internet/hcdetailmaster/0,2300,1273_1716_129342744,00.html

Whoa! Where do you suppose they got that information from? Could it be that the Twins organization is misleading taxpayers on purpose in order to get the stadium bill pushed through? No, they wouldn't do something like that, would they?

If cities subsidize commercial sports in the quest for an improved image or to enhance the quality of life for its citizens, then taxpayers should be allowed to decide the stadium subsidy issue on these bases. Using economics as a justification for the subsidy is a political expedient, perhaps necessity, but it is inconsistent with the statistical evidence (1996, p. 37).

And from further down on that same page:

Accordingly, we first conclude that it would benefit the Twins and the public dialogue on the stadium issue to concentrate less on the dubious economic impacts of a new stadium and concentrate more on such questions as how the Twins owner, Carl Pohlad, will utilize new revenue, and how much the citizens of Minnesota truly value having a hometown professional baseball team.

http://www.comm.umn.edu/twinsreport/ch3.htm

Hmmm...looks like they have a track record of pushing the bogus economic benefits of a new stadium. How disappointing.

And if you think Pohlad will invest his gains in player salaries, you may want to read this:

Of course there are many "ifs" in this chain of events. Pohlad has made it clear from the start that he does not like losing money on the Twins. His offer to let the team go public was predicated upon him recouping the $80+ million he says he has already lost on the team. Also, the Twins' track record of salary expenditures since 1991 so far has not proven the team is willing to spend what it needs in order to field a winning team. The report contends that "The Twins would have to generate at least an additional $30 million in annual revenues in order to spend the industry average on payroll and eliminate current operating losses" (p. 6). What happens if $30 million in additional revenues are not generated by a new stadium? What would be the priority--short-term profit (minimizing losses) or trying to produce longterm profit by fielding a competitive team? Pohlad is described in a lengthy article in the Star Tribune as a sometimes notorious businessman who is not terribly interested in deepening his investment in the Twins. In the past "he has been accused in public and private ventures of selling out the interests of others for his own gain" (Star Tribune 4/20/97). If the account is even partially correct, it is certainly possible that the increased revenues from a new stadium would be used to restore past losses the Pohlad family fortune and that the team would continue to be one of the lowest paid teams in baseball. In other words, there are no guarantees that increased profitability of the team would translate into the investment needed for improved success on the field.

http://www.comm.umn.edu/twinsreport/ch3.htm

And even if he DID invest the money in the team, it's not the role of the taxpayer to shell out money so that the Twins can get/keep better players. That's up to the owners and fans. And yes, I realize that you want to be able to watch baseball outdoors. I have absolutely no problem with that as long as no public money is used to finance the stadium. They even had investors that were willing to look into financing the stadium but apparently the Twins weren't interested:

According to Senator John Marty, investors are interested here but private financing has not been seriously considered by the Twins: "One Minneapolis businessman who is trying to put together a private financing package here says he has been repeatedly rebuffed" by the Twins (Star Tribune 2/9/97).
http://www.comm.umn.edu/twinsreport/ch3.htm

The stadium can and should be built using private funds and/or user fees. However, they want to do it, I don't care. Just leave the public money out of it. So tell me, just how much are the "intangible benefits" worth to you? What would you be willing to pay each year for a new stadium?

[Sorwen]

106. okay

In post #27 that you cite, you might notice the use of the word "and." My support for the stadium is based on the quality of life argument, but some will also try to enhance the argument by mentioning the economic benefits. So in that post I said "if you don’t buy the quality of life argument, and if you don’t believe the stadium would result in enough increased economic activity and tax revenue." I didn't mean to imply that my support was based on the economic benefits, but just that that is one reason why some people may chose to support it.

I think that I've stated each time that I think there are some economic benefits, but I don't really know if it's enough to justify the sales tax. You've said that studies "have shown that the net economic benefits of a new stadium are zero at best." I've suggested that there are some economic benefits which reduce the real cost of the stadium, but I don't know if the net economic benefits would be positive. If the net economic benefits actually are zero, I think it would be a pretty good deal because the quality of life benefits that I mentioned in the previous post are immeasurable.

The claims that the stadium would enhance economic activity in the region are usually just made to enhace the position, though there may be some that believe it is enough to justify the stadium. Maybe some people are overstating the economic benefits, but like I discussed in the previous post, you can't measure the real benefits from the stadium. I know a little something about baseball. I've followed the Twins closely for over 20 years, I've been to a number of games at the Metrodome, and I've been to games in other cities. I know why the Twins and baseball fans want a new stadium. Trust me on this one.

Regarding whether or not Pohlad would invest the increased revenue in player salaries, you might want to find some newer information. The Twins payroll did increase when they developed some good players that were worth keeping. For example, Pohlad did open his wallet to sign Radke, Hunter, and Santana to some relatively big contracts. But at the same time, other less important but nevertheless good players have left for more money, and the economic advantages that teams like the Yankees and Red Sox have is quite large. Now that the Twins have a couple young superstars in Mauer and Morneau, the Twins will have to pay the big bucks to keep them here long-term. The public relations disaster would be huge if the owner didn't use the increased revenue to sign these two players to long-term deals.

I understand that you don't want to spend any public money so fans have a nicer place to watch games and so the Twins can field a more competitive team. That's fine, I can respect that. To argue that the economic problems with major league baseball should not have to be solved by the taxpayers is hard to disagree with. But despite that, I think a new stadium (and keeping the team in the state) is something the region would really enjoy, and I think that the public can get involved in these types of things. Ideally the private sector would fund this. That would be great, but it is just not going to happen. Funding it with user fees would be acceptable, but I don't think there's been a feasible proposal funding it in such a way.

I'm much more pragmatic than I am idealistic. I believe that sometimes we have to compromise some things in order to achieve the best possible results. I'll pay taxes on things that you want and you'll pay taxes on things that I want.

[Spike from MN]

107. Alright

The use of the word "and" implied that you shared that belief. If you didn't mean to imply that, maybe "or" would have been a better choice. I don't mean to nitpick here. Really. Just trying to clarify things, especially since you also state that you do in fact believe there will be some economic benefits. And while that may not be YOUR primary argument for the stadium, it IS the main argument that Pohlad and company are using. They KNOW he claim is false yet they continue to mislead the public with it in order to gain support for the new stadium. It's right there in the first lines of the resolution and it's been the main "benefit" they have been pushing all along even though they know full well the facts don't support their claims.

Yes, the info I posted was from a study of an older stadium proposal. The point was that Pohlad's has a history of putting greed above everything else. He really doesn't care about public relations. His main concern is with lining his pockets.

Nobody is saying that the fans wouldn't enjoy a new stadium. The point is that the public shouldn't HAVE to pay for it just because Pohlad doesn't want to. Private investors were interested in working out a deal but he wouldn't even consider it. With all the proposals they have worked on over the years, they could easily have come up with one that paid for the stadium with private investors or user fees or a combination of the two. But they wouldn't even consider it because it's easier and more profitable to rip off the taxpayers. With investors, he would be expected to share the profits. With user fees, there would be an accountability issue because if he kept raising the fees in order to increase his profits, he would run the risk of creating a backlash from those that would be paying the fees and that might cut into his profits. With taxpayer money, he has no accountability issues and he doesn't have to share the profits with anyone. That's the real reason he wants taxpayer money.

The best compromise for the stadium is for Pohlad to give in and go with private investors and/or user fees. If he would have done that years ago when he first started this stadim drive, the stadium would have been built by now and you would already be watching the Twins outdoors like you want to.

[Sorwen]

103. regarding corporate welfare

ADM (price fixer to the world) is the major beneficiary of subsidies for ethanol and biodiesel. I think government support for ethanol and biodiesel is definitely a good thing because is does add value for some farmers and it helps reduce our dependence on oil, but there are definitely some rich people at ADM who are benefitting. (I can cite studies from the CATO institute, too: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-241.html ) I was wondering if that was enough for you to be against it. I just was curious about if there are some instances where you think corporate welfare is okay. I definitely think energy and environmental issues are more important, but I make the comparison because a) it's corporate welfare, and b) these products, like a stadium, benefit the public and are not being provided by the private sector.

[eyepaddle]

54. An issue that asn't really ever been discussed is

how the "Stadium over my dead body" argument plays into the tax evaders' league meme that any government spending is BAD.

Face it. We've blocked a stadium for over a decade and haven't even come close to addressing education (I studied to be a teacher and am currently in grad school), or health care (going to the U helped me get my first insurance in twelve years), or transit (it's a twenty minute drive to my nearest park and ride).

So obviously if we don't build a stadium we'll suddenly just develop 400 million in cash and fund all of those priorities right?

(insert sound of crickets chirping)

Should all of those other things be a priority? Yes. Are we making a single damn bit of progress? No.

I do some work near the dome and even on days I don't go to the game I must say I enjoy watching the sense of community along Chicago avenue--anything that might build a little civic spirit is a good thing. Economically it's probably a wash at best, but it isn't just a playground for the wealthy it's a playground for all of us--and the wealthy manage to sim bit off of us.

However all work and no play......

[eyepaddle]

61. Well, not to sound too blatantly cynical

but after reading all the posts in this thread it has become clear to me the route which Minnesota is headed down.

Using a sports metaphor (seems apt here)

One team (an odd coalition of liberals and anti-tax activists) will stop a stadium from being built, and another (here pretty much just the anti-tax folks) team will stop us from ever investing in healthcare, education, transit, shelter for the homeless. End result: a lot of angry and agitated people expending large quantities of energy for the net result of nothing changing.

About the best result I can foresee is if we all of sudden make this easy on oursleves and quietly get used to being, sick, uneducated, bored people, who have to drive themselves everywhere they want to go. Although reasons for going anywhere become murky.......


(sigh)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

69. I just don't see how building a stadium is going to help the other

The Warehouse district is developing just fine, even without a stadium, and if you look at the area around the Metrodome, where's all the development it was supposed to cause?

What is going to happen to the Metrodome when the Twins leave and the Vikings leave?

[eyepaddle]

71. It likely won't help directly, the point

is this is something millions of people want. Albeit millions more don't.

If everything that some people wanted had to get approval from one hundred percent nobody would get to do anything. Like I've mentioned, sports teams are no economic panacea, but they are not an absolute fiscal cratering either. It's probably a mild direct economic negative, but it would be enjoyed by millions of people per year (both in person and broadcast).

Let's just make one thing absolutely clear: stopping the stadium won't help any other cause, all it will accomplish is stopping the stadium.

Will building the stadium revolutionize education, healthcare and transit? Not likely, but it'd be nice for the people of this state to start re-learning how to work together to actually accomplish things. All we've done for the last ten years is stop each other from doing things we disapprove of.

The StarTribune wrote an editorial a few years back about how Minnesotans would rather be right than go dancing. The point of that was people disapproved of the directors of some local social hall, and rather than spend an extra couple of dollars a year in membership dues they closed the dance hall. The folks won the argument, got to keep their two dollars a year--but didn't have anything to do on Friday nights.

Enjoy those three cents, and the sense of self-satisfaction of knowing that you stuck it to ol' Carl and bettered the lives of Minnesotans not a single whit AND simultaneously shut down a party better than a million people a year liked to go to.

That's what I call a win-win proposition.

(A note, the last big sentence isn't directed specifically at Lydia Leftcoast--it's more at the "none-of-my money-for-THAT!" group in general.

[Sorwen]

73. excellent post (n/t)

[SmileyBoy]

85. I really like your arguments, eyepaddle. I hope to hear more from you.

You are basically saying what I have been trying to find the words to say, but have not been able to. You have a very sensible position on this issue.

[MsAnthropy]

72. God how long have we had to hear about stadiums?

Year after year after year, they just keep at us until they wear us down. The people saying "no" repeatedly just doesn't matter. Is this our sole contribution to society and its culture--big buildings where multimillionaires play games?

[dpbrown]

75. AAR said $10 per ticket would cover the new stadium

The people who use it would be the people who paid for it, instead of charging the people of Hennepin County.

[eyepaddle]

76. I've got a great idea

let's do away with all taxes. Then we'll never have to pay for something we don't use. We should make that the cornerstone of our Democratic philosph......wait a minute--I think somebody's beaten us to it.

[dpbrown]

80. I don't think that logically follows, but I get your point

If one views a stadium as basically a private facility, instead of a public facility, then the rationale that the users should pay for it has more weight.

This is a separate angle from whether or not taxpayers should share equally in payment for things which are of the public good, like schools and police protection and parks.

If one views a stadium as essentially an investment in public infrastructure, then obviously the "users should pay" argument may prove less effective.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

81. Nobody will die if the stadium isn't built

If the experience of Oregon is any indication, people WILL die if they are thrown off Minnesota Care.

It's the hypocrisy that gets me. No Taxes-No Taxes-No Taxes for anything that helps people at the bottom rung gain health care or get a ride to work. No Taxes, because those lazy poor people don't deserve a handout, and besides, it should all be handled by the private sector. Because there's No Money, don't you know?

But let there be an amusement favored by Middle America, and all of a sudden, paying for it with tax money is a Good and Noble Thing. All of a sudden, the money that Wasn't Available for health care or education or transit or keeping libraries open is available for just .03 cents on the dollar. Hey, how about a $0.0003 tax to keep the libraries open more than three days a week? Oh, no can do. Out of the question. Because we can't raise taxes.

In the current climate, the money is "available" when the fat cats want it to be available. Period. Urban development, union jobs, and amusements for the masses are the last things on the developers' minds. They want their profits and their skyboxes where they can entertain other fat cats, preferably subsidized by the public.

[eyepaddle]

82. I am 100 percent in favor of spending more

on MN Care, housing, transit and education.

However, it's not like this tax was approved, and now we just need to figure out where we are gonna spend it--stadium or schools?

Nope, it's the stadium or nothing. All the people railing against the stadium sound like as soom as we kill this thing once and for all greed will be eternally vanquished and we will have shangri-la on the banks of the Upper Mississippi. In the last decade of shutting down the stadium how much progress have we made in addressing those other needs?

All you accomplish by stopping the stadium is getting rid of baseball in Minnesota, maybe not tommorrow but soon enough. Carl Pohlad may be a flinty-hearted bastard but he alone isn't what got us into this position. The mentality that says "if I don't see a direct benefit MYSELF from these taxes, they must be wasted" is what has led to stagnation. Repeating it over and over and over is only helping drive the point home to the increasingly self-centered residents of this state.

I don't think building a stadium will suddenly awake a universal communitarian ethic or anything, I just know what will happen if we don't. Everything will just as bad as it is now--but we won't have baseball. We need to start somewhere in sending the message that if we all work together we can make things better than we can alone.

Once more, just to be clear if you wanted to bump income taxes (I personally hate the sales tax, but that's a separate topic) up to increase funding for more concrete priorities I'd jump on that ina second. But that issue isn't on the table right now--baseball is.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

83. As I said, it's not stuff for MYSELF, but for others

And that "quality of life" argument is a crock. Minneapolis thrived before the Twins or the Vikings moved here and would still thrive if they left.

What makes quality of life? A lot of sports teams? By that measure, Houston and Atlanta have a high quality of life.

Does anyone actually move here because of the sports teams? Would any company refuse to locate here because there was no baseball team? Don't good schools, good transportation, clean air and water, affordable housing, cultural institutions, and outdoor activities play a more significant part?

The baseball fat cats have been trying to get a pro baseball stadium built in Portland for years. Even the flaky former mayor was on the bandwagon, as if our lives wouldn't be complete without pro baseball, and it was going to bring in all these jobs. And the attitude of most citizens was, "Yeah, look at all the jobs the Rose Garden Arena brought in--selling popcorn and mopping floors. And that's a venue that's used for live concerts and touring skating shows, as well as basketball and hockey. We've got a splendid natural setting, an amazing transit system, vital interesting neighborhoods with strong identities, a 24-hour downtown that draws people from the suburbs, and a lively cultural scene, especially in jazz, film, and experimental music. What's wrong with our quality of life that some money for our schools wouldn't fix?"

Where is all the development that the Metrodome was supposed to spur? That area still looks pretty bleak, if you ask me.

People seem to lose their perspective when it comes to sports. It's the true religion of America.

[eyepaddle]

84. No single item makes up quality of life

it's a web of stuff. Sports teams can add to that. Just walk around Chicago Avenue before a day game and tell me that that doesn't add something. And the dome sucks. It is sterile lifeless place, it's like a high school gymnastics gym.

Oh yeah, the lack of money for schools drove me into a career change--but maybe I missed the proposal that says if we don't do this then we WILL invest in schools.

I'm personally only a moderate sports fan, one or two Twins and Vikings games a year. I am however in favor of playing and recreation in all its wonderful forms, and one more fun thing which is enjoyed by millions can't be all bad.

Hell, if it were up to me they'd be building that Whitewater park by St. Anthony falls--that died a slow death brought about by indifference.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

92. What!

Aw... I liked going to the Twins game and saw Kirby Puckett hit his very first grand slam.

I've been to the Metrodome many times throughout my childhood, I'll be sad to see it go.