Twins fans (and others)...Stadium proposal...my thoughts.

[SaveElmer]

I know this is a contentious issue with many.

It looks more possible than ever that the Twins will finally get a stadium bill through the legislature, and that it will be built with largely (but not wholly) public money.

First, I agree with everyone when they say that the most preferable course of action is for the owner to foot the bill for the stadium. However, that is just not how theses are getting built.

It really comes down to how one perceives professional sports franchises.

Many simply view them as another business entity, and as such believe the state (or any governmental entity) should not provide any funds for the operation of their business. Although baseball is not the only business for which the government provides support. Relocation tax incentives, infrastructure improvements, and construction of convention centers, are all done to support purely business enterprises.

Others, and I include myself in this category, view them, and in particular baseball franchises as an important local asset and a part of the cultural identity of the community. The history of baseball is so wrapped up in the history of our country it is hard to imagine being without it. Baseball is for many, an integral part of summer life, it was the place where many fathers and sons first bonded, where it is still possible to watch a game fairly inexpensively (if you don't eat), and for many is the background music for every summer afternoon. It really is more than simply a business...at least to me.

So while I wish Carl Pohlad would pay for the whole thing, I recognize that in the current climate that is simply not the way they are done. The current proposal seems reasonable to me. It uses the following mechanisms:

1. 130 Million contribution from the Twins

2. Taxes on tickets, concessions etc.

3. Stadium naming rights (which I hate)

4. A .015 sales tax within Hennepin County. As a reference, that is 3 cents on every $20 purchase. And excludes food, medicine and clothing.

5. Initially, the contribution from the Twins, and money from the sale of construction bonds will finance the building. The taxes will go to service the debt on those bonds. While spread over like 30 years, this amounts to about 3/4 of the financing for the stadium in the end, mostly in interest payments to bond holders.

6. This does not involve general revenue from either state or county coffers.

As annoying as it is to have to do it this way, losing the Twins would be far worse, and in my opinion this ought to be approved.

[Left Is Write]

1. I agree with you.

I can't bear the thought of the Twins leaving Minnesota.

[LeFleur1]

2. A Simple Look

What? Don't these owners believe in capitalism? Evidently not.
This kind of welfare given to the richest of the rich makes me sick. In Seattle we are now having a bruhaha about the Sonics. The rich owners are whining about how they are taking loses on the franchise...and I should care... why? There are people without good health care, mental care, homeless people without food, there are social programs being cut back, roads and tunnels that need to be built, and these greedy guts want a cut of money that goes for such things. A study was done that showed that the Sonics don't bring all that much money into the city, yet the NBA is whining because the city/state is reluctant to fund their franchises.
Like most business that are in trouble, maybe their workers should take a salary cut. Or if they can't make a go of the business, they should fold. That's what regular people who own businesses and pay taxes do. And yeah, it's sad, but if your business is constantly losing money, you quit. That's the way capitalism works. The owners will double their money when it comes time to sell the franchise, so there is a silver lining for them.

The people voted not to build the baseball field, (now named for a corporation) but our legislature gave away our tax money to build it. Last night there were approximately 18,000 people at the game. They paid through the nose for tickets. Most of them get on a bus or in a car and leave the city after the game, so surrounding businesses aren't making that much off of the 'crowd'.
18,000 in a population this size, enjoying the thrill of watching a losing team is just not worth the tax money spent. There are better uses for tax money.
Sometimes people just can't have everything they want. Or even everything they need.

[SaveElmer]

20. Well capitalism has never worked that way...

Governments help business all the time. Chrysler bail out, relocation tax incentives, infrastructure improvements, convention centers. If it is to the localities benefit to be sure the business assets don't move or fold, government gets involved.

[WeRQ4U]

29. It always has.

It is corporate welfare, technically, but it's not just lining deep pockets. It's also insuring that jobs, revenue, indirect benefits etc. remain in the area.

[no name no slogan]

3. The tax should have gone for a referendum

which is the law of the land. They granted a special exemption for the Twins stadium, on a very close vote (15-13). Any hikes in sales tax are supposed to be put to the voters, NOT decided upon by the Commissioners.

While the proposal itself doesn't seem too bad, it sets a very dangerous precident. Now, the Vikings are trying to do the same thing in Anoka County. Anoka County residents won't get a say in the income tax, too, because we've set a precedent with the Twins vote.

And the Vikings don't even NEED a new stadium. The Metrodome still has plenty of life in it, although it doesn't have the high-ticket skyboxes the NFL insists a team needs to "compete".

Worst of all, Major League Baseball itself is broken. There's no regulation of how much teams can spend on talent, which means you effectively end up with a caste system. Teams like the Yankees can have billion-dollar payrolls, while teams like the Twins have to make due with whatever they can squeeze out of a small market.

MLB needs to be fixed before we spend ANY public funds on a new stadium for the Twins. Minnesotans are already taxed enough-- which wouldn't be so bad if our social services and education budgets weren't so drastically underfunded. It's a crime that MLB and the rich owners can blackmail cities by threatening to move their teams if they don't get their new playgrounds.

[Left Is Write]

4. I hate those threats also...

but having experienced the loss of two favorite teams (North Stars and Kicks), I can't imagine the loss of major teams like the Twins or the Vikings.

I know I don't have a say, not living there anymore, but I do hope to move back. The issue of new stadiums for the Twins and the Vikings have been going back and forth for years. I wish there were a solution that would make everyone happy.

I'm still bitter about the loss of Met Stadium, and I know that's just stupid sentimentality.

[SaveElmer]

6. Agree and disagree...

I think a referendum is a bad idea on any grounds. The people have a say when they elect their representatives. It is their job to make these decisions. I think it is impossible to convey the complexity of proposals like these in terms of a political campaign, which is what a referendum would become. We have seen some of the debacles coming out of the California referendums.


I agree that MLB has a ways to go to fix their system, but they have made progress. There is now a tax on overspending teams like the Yankees and Red Sox when their payroll exceeds a certain figure. It has allowed teams like the Twins, A's and now the Brewers to become competitive. But to wait until MLB solves all of its problems is just wishful thinking. That is a decades long process. Part of the stadium deal I believe is that the Twins and MLB guarantee not to contract or move the team.

As to the Vikings, I think they need a new stadium eventually, but it is definitely not as urgent as the Twins. They have a lease through 2011 in the dome, and in my opinion can wait. The Vikings proposal is similar in the mechanism used as the Twins proposal, but the Vikings are chipping in about 3/4 of the cost, which of course they can afford being extremely profitable.

Zygi Wilf has also offered to be involved with development of the Metrodome site downtown once the stadium is demolished (which is kinda sad...it is the house Kirby built)

[no name no slogan]

7. Referendum may be a bad idea, but it IS the law

The law, as it currently stands, says that there has to be a referendum in the county if the sales tax is to go into effect.

The Twins effectively did an end-run around the law and the intent of the law, which was to let the citizens have a vote on whether or not they would agree to a tax increase to fund a stadium. That's the law.

And the Twins ownership showed their disrespect for the citizens of the county (AND the state) by not allowing them to vote on it.

Sales tax in DT Minneapolis is already 10% for service-related buisinesses. It has kept many people of modest means away from the city. Sure, it's a minimal increase, but the people of Hennepin County and the city of Minneapolis have been getting nickle-dimed to death over the last decade, with tiny hikes in local taxes-- AND a decrease in the quality of government services, to boot.

[SaveElmer]

11. The law also allows...

For the legislature to override that restriction...which is why it must be approved there first.

The Twins haven't done an end around..they made their argument to the county which agreed, and the county made their pitch to the House Committee which also agreed.

[no name no slogan]

13. ...because they knew the people wouldn't stand for it, that's why

It just goes to show the utter disrespect Pohlad & co. have for the people of Minnesota. They knew damn well that they could NEVER win a referendum vote, so they used their clout and $$$ to do an end-run around the intent of the law.

Pohlad doesn't need any more taxpayer money. He made plenty owning those banks.

[SaveElmer]

15. It probably would be...

But wrong headed referendums get approved all the time, and good ones are shot down all the time. Look at California for confirmation of this. Specific public policy proposals should not be decided at the ballot box. These issues are too complex to be effectively comprehended by even enlightened voters, and they are subject to the worst kind of demogoguery...on both sides.

We elect representatives to make these kinds of decisions for this very reason.

[no name no slogan]

16. ...and we made an exception in MN for situations like this

the fact that the Twins felt they were above the law (deserving of an exception) is what gets me. And even then, the vote was still 15-13.

We are not California. We do not put things like Proposition 13 to the voters, for very good reason. However, we're building a facility with mostly public money for a private business who will also make the profit from the facility.

That smells like corporate welfare of the worst kind.

[SaveElmer]

17. Well that is the fundamental difference...

It is corporate welfare in the strict sense of the term, but it is also protection of an important community asset, and a recognition of economic reality in this situation.


Again it depends on how you view that asset, and its relative importance. I realize there is always gonna be disagreement about this.

For me, it is worth the cost to preserve the team in Minneapolis for economic and cultural reasons, and to get a guarantee from MLB and the Twins that they will not be contracted or moved.

[no name no slogan]

23. If the Twins are indeed a "community assett", then why don't we own part

of the team?

The Twins are a PRIVATELY owned asset, and belong as much to the community as does your house. If Pohlad truly wanted to show good will towards Minnesota, he would find a way for the community to own part of the team.

As it stands, it's more welfare handouts for billionaires.

The only reason Pohlad keeps the team here is because it's a tax write-off. He makes too much money at his other ventures so he needs something to keep him from paying taxes. That's why the Twins are still here, and will stay here for the forseeable future.

They even tried to move the franchise several years back, but NOBODY WANTED THEM. Pohlad needs MN more than we need him.

[SaveElmer]

26. I agree...

Partial public ownership of the team would be great...and if as I anticipate, Pohlad will be selling the team shortly after the stadium is approved, I hope the new owner and the legislature can come to some arrangenment whereby the public does won part of the team. This has worked well in Green Bay with the Packers.

As to the franchise move, they tried to move it to NC which was a non-starter, and a stupid ploy on Pohlad's part (btw I am NOT a Pohlad fan). However a move to Las Vegas or San Antonio is a distinct possibility, as is contraction.

[SaveElmer]

30. Pohlad is not the issue...

And i know it is easier to make points opposing the stadium by concentrating on Pohlad. I agree he is a disagreeable, kind of slimy character. But Pohlad is not going to own the Twins for 99% of the life of this new stadium. The Twins are bigger than Carl Pohlad. The team will probably be sold shortly after the new stadium is approved, and lets hope we get a good owner, with local ties, who might be willing to work for partial public ownership.

[WeRQ4U]

18. In the end, however, it's not Pohlad's decision.

You keep saying that this was an "illegal" action of some kind, when it really wasn't. So far we've noted that it was the law to have tax increases put to referendum. We've also noted that the commissioners may override that provision if they see fit. Well, they saw fit. If the public truly would have voted this measure down, and they are now outraged by the alleged subversion by their elected commissioners, the representative government process will deal with it.

I don't think what they did was "illegal" though. That's a stretch.

[no name no slogan]

21. Maybe not illegal, but underhanded

It may not be Pohlad's decision, but you know quite well he outspent the opposition on this by a very large margin. As the old saying goes, "money talks, bullshit walks".

Everybody knows Pohlad has already paid for his stadium in political contributions to the likes of Peter McLaughlin and R.T. Rybak, among others. The whole damn council is bought and paid for, as were most of the opposition candidates the last go-round.

And for him to use Selig's threat of "contraction" as a bargaining chip does not leave much room for the opposition, who doesn't feel that being a "community asset" gives you any more rights than any other taxpayer.

And as far as the "representative government process will deal with it", that assumes that Pohlad and Co. haven't already bought off most of the state leg. Carl has very deep pockets and is not afraid to spend his $$$ to protect his interests. After all, the man got rich at the expense of family farmers during the 1980s farm crisis.

It's just politics as usual, unfortunately. The voiceless remain voiceless, and those with the $$$ to buy the politicians get richer.

[SaveElmer]

22. Mayor Rybak was a well known stadium proponent...

Before last years mayoral race, and he was easily reelected.

[no name no slogan]

24. As was his opponent, Peter McLaughlin

Like I said elsewhere on this thread, anti-taxpayer-funded-stadium people were effectively SHUT OUT of last year's mayoral election.

McLaughlin has been on Pohlad's take for several years. He's the epitome of the bought-and-paid-for politician. The citizens of Minneapolis were left with no choice in the matter.

[SaveElmer]

27. Do you have a link...

Showing that Commissioner McLaughlin is "on the take." Kind of a serious charge, implies bribery and improper influence peddling. I'm surprised I haven't seen anything about this before.

[WeRQ4U]

8. I know what you're saying, but explain to me why a referendum was needed.

I think referrendums are pointless wastes of time. They're duplicative and unnecessary in our system of representative government, aren't they? Technically, everything the commissioners do has been put to citizen vote....in their election. Why would we elect these commissioners, based on popular vote, and then question every decision they do with a referendum? I dont' get it. Is there a law requiring it specifically? If so, there shouldn't be. It's stupid.

If the people of Hennepin County are upset about having to pay $.03/$20.00 on purchases in the Mall of America, then they can take it up with their elected commissioners during their renewel bids for office and vote them out.

The same rings true for the Vikings in Anoka county.

In my opinion, the Vikings ownership cannot be compared, even remotely, to the Pohlad family and their tire kicking cheapness as owners of a major sports franchise. The Pohlads hardly velied their campaigning for contraction of their own team. They refuse to spend money on the TWins knowing that sooner or later, the citizens would foot the bill for the stadium. The Wilfs have already agreed to put a hefty chunck of their own money (200+ million) toward the stadium and have promised nearly 1 billion from their investors for the curtilage "compound" being proposed.

And just to note, the Metrodome does NOT have years left in it. It's a shithole. It was built on the cheap in the first place and has never been fit to accommodate the fanbase of a major sports franchise. It's served its purpose well, but it's time for it to go.

[no name no slogan]

12. #1: it's the law.

#2: Look at the elected officials who got picked to run. In many county districts, there were NO anti-stadium commissioners on the ballot. So, after the primary, your only choice were two pro-stadium candidates.

This also happened last year in the Mpls mayoral election. Both candidates were solidly pro-stadium, and those of us who were opposed to public financing were effectively shut out of the debate.

Generally, I am against referendums for financing of public services. But this is NOT a public service. It is a playground for millionaires who make money for billionaires, funded with our tax dollars.

Currently, our state and county governments are literally looking under seat cushions for change to keep much-needed programs afloat. 30,000 more people are dropping off the MinnesotaCare rolls due to budget cutbacks. Social service agencies are shutting down due to lack of funding. State and county employees are more underpaid than ever. The state barely balanced its budget last year, but only after a weeklong shutdown of state government. Incidentally enough, those state workers were forced to take time off without pay, through no fault of their own, because our lawmakers couldn't decide on a budget.

And no they want us to spend taxpayer $$$ on a stadium?

Yes, the $$$ for the stadium is not coming out of current programs. But levying a tax for a stadium means that it will be a lot harder to maintain or increase funding for programs that actually HELP disadvantaged people-- NOT just ballplaying millionaires and clubowners.

Sorry. The ridiculousness just boggles the mind.

[SaveElmer]

14. This is what I was getting at in my original post...

Your statement

"Generally, I am against referendums for financing of public services. But this is NOT a public service. It is a playground for millionaires who make money for billionaires, funded with our tax dollars."

Depends on how you look at professional baseball...is it a business, or is it more.

[WeRQ4U]

5. I'm always conflicted on this issue, because I'm biased.

I don't want the Twins to leave, and I want to watch baseball in a new stadium. And I'm not entirely sure how I would feel about using taxpayer money to fund anything other than a sports facility.

I do agree with you though. The difference between a sports facility and any other corporate venture is that the sports are intimately tied to the area.

[Beausoir]

9. Stadium fatigue. This has been going on for ten years and finally,

the public seems to be giving up.

The sales tax should have been put to a referendum.

If they are going to build the damn thing...I hope for god sakes they build a decent facility. That silly little dome is a piece of crap.

If they put the new stadium in the warehouse district, it may actually boost some revenue in that area. As opposed to the area around the dome which has virtually nothing of interest.

I want an open air stadium, too. No more freaking domes. They suck.

[WeRQ4U]

10. I'm for open air too... for both facilities.

First, baseball is supposed to be played outside. Dome baseball sucks. The smells are all wrong.

Second, football in Minnesota should invovle the elements. There is no reason a team from Minnesota should be the worst team in the league when playing outdoors. Remember the Met.

[SaveElmer]

19. Yes me too...although

If a retractable dome could be afforded I would not be opposed to that for the Twins...

[WeRQ4U]

25. Wouldn't be TOO bad for rainy days.

But if it's a deal breaker for the stadium, I say go without. They handle it in Cleveland and Detroit.

[SaveElmer]

28. Oh yeah...they survived the Met all those years...

Outdoor is fine!