Dayton wants to keep the team in the state and prizes the economic boost from construction jobs a new stadium would create. Why ask questions that could complicate acting on those incentives?Two very quick observations:
But to fulfill the governor's vision for "a people's stadium," this decision should be driven by a big-picture assessment of what is best for the people of Minnesota. The Met Council may agree that Arden Hills is the best option.
Or it may say that fueling the vibrancy of downtown Minneapolis, the state's economic engine, is a key concern. Perhaps it would conclude the Farmers Market site near Target Field and Target Center creates the kind of synergies that are best for the metropolitan area, and thus the state.
Or, it may agree with this Editorial Board, and say that the best, most cost-effective option is Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak's plan to build on the existing Metrodome site.
- Since when is Governor Dayton's "vision" something that must be granted?
- The question here isn't enhancing the property values of the Star Tribune. The question is, and has been for some time now, whether or not the citizens of Minnesota want to keep the Vikings or not. The Vikings have made it quite clear that they want a suburban stadium because of the potential revenue it could generate. That is, for the Vikings, an eminently sensible way of looking at the matter. They have no interest in staying in Minneapolis because they cannot get the revenue they desire there. They don't care about light rail access, or the vibrancy of Minneapolis, or about anyone's vision other than their own. They don't have to care. So the decision is the same as it has been from the outset -- the Vikings have named their price to stay. Are we willing to pay that price?