I'll give the Star Tribune editorial board credit for one thing --
they are nothing if not persistent. In discussing why the unelected Met Council should have a seat at the negotiating table, they patiently explain why the best solution is the Big Rock Candy Metrodome:
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?
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.
Two very quick observations:
- 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?
8 comments:
Lessee....am I willing to pay a lot of tax money to have a group of highly paid thugs in town.........
.....nope.
I hope the Vikings stay and the Star and Sickle leaves. Could we then trade Mark Dayton to some state that wants a third string governor with pedigree? I hear Wisconsin has a starter that some are trying to get rid of.
Lessee....am I willing to pay a lot of tax money to have a group of highly paid thugs in town
Yeah, but enough about Tom Dooher, BB. What about the Vikings?
here's a plan, since wilf dont want to build his own stadium:
wilf picks the location,and it gets publically funded through shares sold to the public.
it will be 'the people's stadium' for real.
run it like a real business, where the shareholders have the possibility of recieveing some dividend checks.
I keep saying that if a Vikings stadium made any sense as part of an ongoing capitalistic enterprise, investors would be knocking down the door to help build the thing for a share of those profits. Unfortunately the only way this makes economic sense is if they can stiff the taxpayers for half the cost and give them none of the dividends in return other than the wondefulness of their presence.
I would flat-out tell Zygi and da boyz that he had three options:
1. We'll sell you the Metrodome for a dollar. It's yours and every buck you can make out of the deal is yours, too. Not only that, a property tax exemption for life.
2. Government can't run a two-bit lemonade stand, so leave us out of it. Build your stadium with private investment money. Whether you sell "seat shares" that include season tickets is up to you.
3. If you build it and they don't come-- and this is a last resort-- the taxpayers will buy up to X of the unsold seats at each game, and scalp them out even cheaper. It's a subsidy to you and help in your gauging "what the traffic will bear." That's the highest amount I'm willing to pay, because at least somebody-- some "taxpayer" gets something back out of the deal.
J. Ewing
Unfortunately the only way this makes economic sense is if they can stiff the taxpayers for half the cost and give them none of the dividends in return other than the wondefulness of their presence.
And there is the nub of the matter, JE. It's never made sense. It can't make sense. But the Vikings are banking on emotion, not economic sense, facts, logic or anything else. And they know that there are rubes who will give them what they want. They just don't happen to know whether or not the rubes are here or someplace else.
I have no objection if the "rubes" pay for it, which is why Jason Lewis' idea of "permanent seat licenses" to fund the new stadium seems such a good idea. For 10 grand or whatever, you can have the same seat at every game, for life! Then your heirs can sell it to some other rube. Or wait 'til the Vikings have a winning season, and sell at a huge profit! Hurry and buy now!
J. Ewing
Sports stadiums and light rail have a lot in common. Neither can survive in the market without government intervention and the costs are born largely by non-users and only nominally by users. Yet both are considered essential to a community's "world class" status.
At least sports stadiums have the potential of providing some entertainment value. To be sure, some of the antics of my late-evening LRT co-riders would amuse a misanthrope.
Post a Comment