LTTE: Smoking at Vikings Stadium?

[MineralMan]

I sent this off yesterday. Aside from the irony, I oppose all expenditures of tax money for professional sports venues. Everybody pays, but few can afford to attend. It's not appropriate.

To the Editor:

As a smoker, I find that I'll be required to contribute to building the new Vikings Stadium, via an additional tax on my bad habit. My question: Will Vikings Stadium now have a smoking section for those of us who contributed to its construction? That seems fair enough to me. Sadly, I won't be able to afford a ticket. Cigarettes now cost too much, so Vikings tickets won't fit into my budget.

I await your comments...

[russspeakeasy]

1. Well said MineralMan.

[olddots]

2. I agree

n.t. or too much text to print.

[Nye Bevan]

3. Surely the solution is to stop smoking,

which will free up plenty of money to buy Vikings tickets? (As well as greatly reducing the risk of lung cancer, heart disease, CPD and emphysema).

[MineralMan]

4. Surely that is not the point of my post.

I, like all smokers, am aware of the health issues, not to mention the cost.

[etherealtruth]

8. Perhaps a better answer

... would be to use the 'extra" tax revenue from cigarettes to fund smoking cessation and / or public health programs ....?

[MineralMan]

14. That's how the taxes on tobacco products started out.

Soon, however, people started realizing that it was a fruit ripe for picking for other purposes. When increasing tobacco taxes for general purpose use, it's a bit amusing. They're counting on the revenue, which means that they really don't want people to quit. If they quit, the revenue stream would end.

Smoking is nasty. People who smoke are nasty. Let's make them pay!

[glinda]

21. Yet accidents and abuse caused by alcohol consumption is ignored.

As usual.

[Wounded Bear]

5. Hey, there is no smoking at C-Link field in Seattle...

and it's an outdoor stadium.

They still call it a building.


.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Thankfully, I quit many, many years ago, so I don't really care for myself.

[MineralMan]

7. Yes, well. A lot of people are forced to pay for

professional sports facilities who cannot afford to attend games there. Taxes on one thing or another are often levied to pay for these professional venues. In some states, they raise sales taxes to subsidize them. In others, like MN, they just tack another $1 on a pack of cigarettes.

The point is not smoking. The point is taxing people to subsidize a business they cannot afford to patronize. It's taxing people who don't even care about professional sports to pay for a stadium for a billion dollar business. That is the point.

[Wounded Bear]

10. I'm still a bit ambivalent about how they financed the CLink...

However, most of the taxes raised were on hotel and bar/restaurant venues in the area that benefit from the crowds at the events in the stadium.

At least that's what they said.

[MineralMan]

12. Well, that at least makes some sense. It taxes

people who are likely to be patrons of the facility more frequently than the general public. Even so, an increase in ticket prices would do the same, but would be more selective of who paid for the venue and would avoid taxes altogether.

[dogknob]

11. B-but... you said "Smoking!"

Thereby changing the subject to icky smoking... Ick!

Now we can't talk about things like "how does it feel to see your tax money fund something that excludes you because you cannot afford football tickets, because you smoke, and perhaps most insultingly -- the fact that your tax money is being used to subsidize a for-profit industry that promotes ignorance, contributes to the continuing destruction of education, and tells bzillions of kids that their only way out of poverty is to win a game for the entertainment of people who would otherwise shoot them for wearing a hoodie?"

Eww. Smoking! Yuck!

[MineralMan]

13. Yes. It's interesting, I think, to see the responses. I knew it

would be when I wrote the LTTE. I imagine the paper will publish it, and that it will generate some replies there, as well. That will afford another opportunity to see who gets the point and who can't find it in a cloud of smoke.

[glinda]

22. Spot on.

[etherealtruth]

6. There is logic expressed in your letter

Sadly, we are talking about "the government". Governmental taxation and spending ... I do not look for logic in that.

[bluedigger]

9. It would be stupid to allow smoking in a building with a clear roof.

I'm not unsympathetic to your point of view, but think about it...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. A very interesting question you've raised about public expenditure of money to support corporations.

I find professional sports dull, myself, but recognize that lots of people enjoy them.

The conundrum, for me, is that government spends taxpayer money to support corporations that are going to reap fortunes and not be liable to build their own venues. But, OTOH, the city may also spend a lot of taxpayer money on other venues, symphonies, operas, museums, that will either make no money or very little. And, OTOH, why should a stadium be treated any different than, say, a strip club which brings in a lot of business?

Edited to add: I'm now a non-smoker who switched to e-cigs. You might consider trying them.

[MineralMan]

16. Yes, your conundrum is a valid one.

I have no personal objection to tax money being spent on cultural projects, like those you mentioned. They are non-commercial, as a rule, and educational in some way. Here in the Twin Cities, we have one major art museum that is open to the public without admission, along with a zoo, conservatory, and other venues in a park that are also free for all to attend. The local musical organizations perform free concerts on a regular basis, and participate in educational efforts. I have no objection to my tax dollars being spent for those, and I don't smoke when I'm at them, either.

However, the owner of the Minnesota Vikings, for example, is a billionaire. He owned the team as an investment, and plays almost no role in the operation of the team. Building a new stadium increases the value of the team for him, and he is contributing some of the money needed to build the new stadium, again, as an investment. However, the $900 million stadium will be built with a very substantial use of tax money. That expenditure will also benefit the owner through increasing the value of his property, since that tax money does not need to be repaid. The NFL is a major industry, and should either be able to pay for itself or founder, in my opinion.

The same applies to all major professional sports. Any tax dollars spent on their facilities benefit primarily the interests who own the teams, not the general public. There is no free admission to professional sports events. There is no educational value provided. The games do not benefit the cultural awareness of the public. Only those who pay for tickets and the owners of the sports teams benefit from such facilities. A few related businesses sprout up to provide jobs, etc., but do not compensate for the additional costs to the taxpayer.

I am unalterably opposed to tax funding for professional sports venues. I see no benefits accruing from such funding and additional costs for many who simply cannot afford to attend events, but who are taxed to pay for a facility they cannot enter. It is unfair taxation to support businesses which make large profits. I'm opposed to that, across the board.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. Whaddya know MM...we agree on something!!

[MineralMan]

18. Oh, I'm betting we agree on more than you think.

At least where ideals are concerned. In application of those ideals, perhaps, we may differ. The reality is that the new stadium of which I speak is a done deal, despite my long-term opposition to it. My ideals are rarely realized, so I try to deal with the realities.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. We had the same "deal" when I was an Oregonian when they built The Rose Garden

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_Garden_%28arena%29

Construction on the Rose Garden began in 1993, and the arena opened on October 12, 1995. The arena cost US$262 million to build; construction was financed with funds obtained by a variety of sources, including the City of Portland, Allen's personal fortune, and $155 million in bonds issued by a consortium of mutual funds and insurance companies.[8] These bonds would become the subject of an acrimonious 2004 bankruptcy in which the Oregon Arena Corporation, the holding company which owned the arena at the time, would forfeit title to the Rose Garden in lieu of repaying the bonds per the payment terms.[9] Allen would later repurchase the arena from the creditors in 2007.[10]

[TreasonousBastard]

20. The argument is that while we are...

subsidizing shopping malls, research parks and other commercial ventures, the construction and other jobs pay a large part of the cost. And, besides, if we don't do it the team will move to some place that will.

This is, of course nonsense. Many of the other subsidized commercial ventures end up losing money for the local government even when they have good prospects, and owners use the competition to drive better deals. Mercedes even admitted they were being given much more than they needed, or even wanted, when they opened that plant in Alabama-- they actually gave some of it back.

Besides, when are cities going to stand up and say they don't give a damn if the team moves? Usually, the only people who care enough to talk about it are the fans, so it seems like there's a huge outcry. But if you look at school budget fights, you'll think that maybe the average citizen might not want to subsidize multi-million dollar salaries for sports "heroes" if they got the facts.

Not only do I agree that sports teams should get no subsidies since they can pay for everything they need, including stadiums, should they have to, but I question the ability of some hack mayor to properly negotiate with an organization that has made billions negotiating deals.

[glinda]

23. He doesn't own the Stadium does he? I thought it was the City.

[Comrade Grumpy]

24. I'm still pissed at all the non-smokers who expect me to pay for poor kids' health care.

While they think they shouldn't pay a penny.

Remember the SCHIP buck-a-pack cigarette tax? Funding poor kids' health care on the back of smokers. Now, I don't have a problem with funding poor kids' health care, but I do have a problem with all you people who aren't paying your share.

On edit: And what with all these rising health care costs, I have to smoke twice as much or some poor kid will go untreated!