Vikings to Plot of Land East of Metrodome XIII -- The Roof and the Ceiling

Back in the 70s, Parliament sang it. Nearly 40 years on, the legislature is saying it. Tear the roof off the sucker:

A Republican plan for a cheaper, roofless Minnesota Vikings stadium took DFL Gov. Mark Dayton and Democrats by surprise Tuesday, leading to another dramatic breakdown in talks.

The proposal, which also lacks the support of the Vikings, would rely on about $200 million in long-term borrowing to pay the state's share, with the cost of a roof negotiated in later sessions.

Meanwhile, Mark Dayton wants the funk, or maybe he was in a funk:

At a hastily called news conference, Dayton decried the plan as a political "gimmick" that "destroys the People's Stadium" that could be used year-round for concerts and other events.

The Vikings quickly announced their opposition, too, and Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak said the city would not be a partner in the new plan.

You have destroyed ze People's Stadium! But Dayton was just getting warmed up:

Flanked by DFL legislative leaders and Rybak, Dayton accused Republicans of going behind his back to secretly negotiate with the Vikings, noting that they withheld information from his administration about the plan even as they all met to cut a session-ending deal on tax breaks, bonding and the stadium.

"It's cynical, underhanded politics," Dayton said.

I dunno, it's no more cynical than using a funding mechanism (electronic pulltabs) that's certain to fall well short of expectations, Governor.

So what are the particulars of the plan?

Under the emerging proposal, about $200 million in stadium infrastructure costs would get lumped in with a larger state bonding bill that would pay for repair of roads, bridges and buildings, including restoration of the Capitol. Republican leaders said the details would be worked out in coming days.

In addition:

The new proposal has some elements that could make it more politically palatable. It would not rely on expanded gambling to pay the state's share. Many Republicans and Democrats have opposed new gambling and harbor strong doubts that an expansion of electronic pull-tabs and sports-themed tip boards would bring in enough money to pay the state's share.

The proposal could inflate the size of the bonding bill, which might appeal to Democrats pushing for state-backed construction projects as part of their jobs agenda.

The debt would, however, be repaid with general tax dollars. As recently as mid-April, Zellers said relying on general fund dollars for stadium costs was "a huge problem," and requested backup funding plans that would eliminate that prospect.

So let's look at what all this means:

• The first thing that needs to be said is this: the gambling money that's been proposed isn't going to come close to covering the costs of the stadium. It might not be enough to cover the debt service, let alone the actual construction cost. The game here has always been to get the thing passed and start work. When the money would come up short, then future politicians would face the prospect of dealing with a sucking chest wound of debt, as has happened in Indianapolis, Cincinnati and elsewhere. What the Republicans are saying, if not directly, is that they don't want to play that game. If that makes them cynical and underhanded in the governor's eyes, so be it.
• The issue isn't really about building a roof, it's about establishing a ceiling. A ceiling in the costs involved in this project, that is. Building a "People's Stadium" that will charge more for events than most people can afford? Now that's cynical.
• One thing should be evident -- the Metrodome may be unloved, but it's still plenty adequate for most of the secondary events that happen there. If the stadium were built somewhere else (about which more in a moment), the Dome would still be available for high school football championships, early season Gopher games, rollerbladers and the like.
• I can't prove this, but I suspect some of the impetus for this proposal stems from lingering animosity over the power play that Minneapolis and its supporters pulled in dragging the stadium project away from Arden Hills. It was always too convenient that certain politicians, including the governor, were only willing to pony up $300 million for the Arden Hills site, but were somehow able to come up with an additional $100 million for Minneapolis. I would also guess that it's been galling to watch so many members of the Minneapolis legislative cohort oppose the stadium. It should tell you something that outstate politicians, especially Morrie Lanning and Julie Rosen, have been the ones who have had to do the heavy lifting in the legislature. Should such machinations matter? Perhaps not, but folks tend to notice such things.
• Could a roofless stadium be built elsewhere? Of course. We have one not far from the Metrodome already, so it can be done. It's also worth noting that many of the northern teams in the NFL, including the Packers, Bears, Bills, Patriots, Giants, Jets, Browns and Bengals, all play in outdoor stadiums. Somehow these teams all manage to survive, often quite nicely, without having a "People's Stadium."

As for what will happen next? It's difficult to say, but one thing is clear:  the plan seemed close to passage is probably dead. And we'll probably be hearing from Eric Grubman and Roger Goodell soon enough.