Vikings to Plot of Land East of Metrodome III -- Charters and Their Discontents

One of the primary hurdles concerning the attempted stampede going on for a new stadium is a provision in Minneapolis city charter, which states that the city cannot commit more than $10 million to a stadium project without a referendum. Writing for the Star Tribune, reporter Eric Roper finds the original sponsor of the provision in an unusual place:

In his backwoods sanctuary more than 200 miles north of Minneapolis, Bob Greenberg was rousted from his hunter-gatherer lifestyle earlier this month when politicians announced plans to subsidize a new Vikings stadium without a vote of the people.

The news brought Greenberg back to his former life, when he wrote the city charter amendment that now poses the greatest hurdle to supporters of a Vikings stadium in Minneapolis -- mandating a citywide vote on stadium subsidies of $10 million or more. Seventy percent of city voters approved that language in 1997 during talks of a new Twins ballpark, but it now faces its first real test as the Legislature considers a bill to ignore it altogether.

"I did not write this charter amendment to prevent the building of a stadium," said Greenberg, a former Twin Cities activist who moved into a woodland tent two years ago and lives off the land, including roadkill. "But only to force the city to put it before the voters."

Now, fifteen years on, R. T. Rybak wants to turn this charter provision into roadkill.

Can the city simply bypass the provision? Some argue it can be done and cite a path. Back to the Star Tribune:

City voters have resisted stadium subsidies before. In 1973, they approved a charter amendment meant to prevent city funding of what would become the Metrodome.

The prohibition of city bonding for more than $15 million on infrastructure projects without a referendum -- which remains in the charter -- was later skirted by issuing the bonds through separate agencies.

The ineffectiveness of that 1973 amendment arose during a committee discussion of the 1997 proposal, according to meeting minutes. Carlson felt politicians were circumventing the 1973 amendment and was unhappy to hear the state could override the wishes of city residents. "Carlson was surprised that it seemed to make no difference what the residents want," the minutes said.

The Carlson quoted in this instance is Barbara Carlson, the ex-wife of former Governor Arne Carlson, who ran a gadfly campaign for mayor back 1997.

This is all a useful history lesson and explains, in large measure, the difference in the disparate treatment Ramsey County got concerning their financing proposals. Since the Minneapolis City Charter is apparently written on Charmin, it can be ignored or bypassed, while the need for a referendum in Ramsey County, it would seem, could not be ignored. You can draw your own conclusions about the larger meaning.