Stadium Deal...thoughts?

[mnwild]

I still cant picture where this site is located.

Is it where they put the tailgating for Vikes fan's last year?? If so where will the go now??

[GullGuide]

Yes, it's right on top of the Rapid Park lot, right behind the Target Center. Nice location and a lot easier access than the dome to major freeways.

[Piker]

I'm generally against paying for stadiums, but I think if it's reasonable that I could support it. My reasoning is that if the Twins or Vikings were to move it would set off a series of events.

1. The leagues decides to expand, or possibly move a team.

2. Several markets are identified for expansion. The Twin Cities being one of them.

3. The state/city/county (taxpayers) end up in a bidding war to get a franchise back. This would be similar to how the Olympics are bid upon.

So in the end I think there will be a stadium(s) built using some percentage of public money. I don't really think it's right, but if the deal is fair then they might as well do it.

[Jarrod32]

On the issue of the dedicated funding for natural resources vs. this proposed stadium tax...the two are very different in one significant way. The stadium tax is above and beyond the current tax level...it is not taking anything away from other projects/uses. The dedicated funding proposals would take that amount FROM the existing revenue, taking it away from other potential uses. That may seem minor, but it is actually a pretty big difference.

I think most of the opposition comes from the basis that the team owner happens to be wealty, and people don't like helping out anyone who happens to be wealty (for years, the political left has been impressing upon us how inherently evil wealthy people are). But the net worth of the team owner is irrelevant to the analysis of the benefits that are/will be derived from the stadium.

[Down to Earth]

I say before they build the stadium, they better have a guarantee from MLB on a All Star Weekend at the new stadium.

[bigbucks]

I think it's pointless if they do this bill without a retractable roof, if they do why bother? We had to build the dome because it was too cold for baseball in April & May, September & October much of the time. The Twins have a much more spread out market than many other teams that drives from further away & needs to be guaranteed a game will be played when they come.

I agree when it was said if we lose the Twins because we won't fund a stadium, we'll wind up paying even more public money to get another team here in several years, ie: North Stars-Wild, Lakers-TWolves, etc.

[Eric Wettschreck]

I really agree with bigbucks. When I buy Twins tickets I usually buy them way in advance. Then, the kiddos and I plan a small adventure of a weekend. Rain means no game without a roof. I know they arn't out to just please me, but I'd think twice about buying advance tickets if there isn't a roof.

BTW- I love outdoor baseball as much as the next guy.

[pikehunter]

Good points about the roof. Those of us in the metro are kind of talking ourselves into the no roof thing I think, because it's of less inconvenience.

That said, I've read that legislators who represent those in non-metro areas are expected to lobby for the roof for the same reasons mentioned here. Hopefully that helps, but it doesn't look good.

[Giant_Jackpot]

Jarrod,

You are correct and I should have made my point a little better. I would rather pay an increased tax for the dedicated natural resources funding than a new stadium.

[Willy]

The only thing about being taxed to protect natural resources is you don't know where your money is going. I could care less if they saved a dozen trees in downtown Minneapolis. At least with the stadium, you know what you are getting.

Just a thought.

[full force five]

Again the location could not be better with the current infrastructure. Hennepin county would directly benefit from having the Twins in the new location. There are many more bars and restaurants on that end of down town. What could be better: go to Champps or Old Chicago or whatever for a burger and beer then walk 2 blocks and watch an outdoor baseball game. I can hardly remember going to the old Met.

We are talking about $1.50 for every $1,000 we spend. How much has the state dumped into the Northwest. Can you say going concern and chapter 11! Great investment for the state.

[Giant_Jackpot]

Willy,

If they pass the dedicated funding bill, there is a provision that would create a citizens committee that would oversee the funds. The politicians would not have a say in the matter. This is the same thing that Missouri does and by all accounts I have read it works well. Also keep in mind that if the bill passes it is not a done deal. Passing the bill means that the plan would be put on the 2006 election ballot for us to say yes or no to a constitutional amendment that would guarantee the funding.

Anyway, if we can spit out 3 cents for every $20 for the stadium, why can’t we do it for the environment as well? This brings me to another idea. Why not have a county employee go around and take all of the pennies out of the penny cups by all the cash registers? Then we could avoid the taxes altogether!

[ZapBranigan]

Really don't kid yourself on the "dedicated funding" rehtoric. I remember 5% Sate Sales tax temporaroly going to 6.5% temporaraly for a "dedicated" purpose. That purpose ended over 10 years ago. State boys re-appropriated that money into (arghh) the General Fund. It will be here forever. Maybe with a county tax it will actually be short lived. but Hennipen county once they pay off their portion it will be way easier to re-direct that money to their next desire than to actually end that tax. Seen it too many times to be fooled. I have heard that we are all paying that 6.5 tax illegally and it was part of the rebate deal we got back (not me) but some then they set to leaglaize the extra 1.5%. Be careful how bad you want something cause these boys can turn temporary charges into permantent a lot easier that voting in a new project on it's own merit each time.

[pikehunter]

Gentlemen,

Just a heads up ...

The Twins are asking fans to contact their state legislators this week and voice their support for a new ballpark. If you support the latest proposal, drop an email to your state representative and senator and let him or her know you would appreciate their support of outdoor baseball in Minnesota. Every little bit helps ...

[Jarrod32]

I can't imagine any outstate legislator possibly voting against allowing Hennepin County to implement the tax. It preserves the Twins, the revenue stream to the state, all the social/cultural benefits that go with it, and all without paying for it (outstate, that is). That's a no-brainer for outstate legislators.

[pikehunter]

I thought the same thing, but you would be surprised. I just spoke with a friend from out-state Minnesota who emailed his rep and couldn't believe that he replied and indicated he was still undecided. I don't get it either. Out-state legislators represent the people who will benefit most at the least amount of cost.

[ozzie]

regardless like others have stated before WE LIVE IN MINNESOTA YOU MUST HAVE THE OPTION OF A ROOF!!!! If you don't how many hom games are going to be rescheduled??? A roof is a must! otherwise stay in the Dome. A game in the dome is better than a canceled game!

[fishyguy]

Quote:

---

regardless like others have stated before WE LIVE IN MINNESOTA YOU MUST HAVE THE OPTION OF A ROOF!!!! If you don't how many hom games are going to be rescheduled??? A roof is a must! otherwise stay in the Dome. A game in the dome is better than a canceled game!

---

Somehow we managed to squeeze the season in at the old Met which I believe was located in Minnesota. I would like to see a retractable roof also but if a topless stadium is what we get I will take it. A June doubleheader to replace a April rainy day sounds pretty good to me.

[pikehunter]

I'm with fishy here. When the offer was on the table for a roof deal, nobody wanted to pay for it, so it seems the roofless stadium is as good as we can do. Would I rather have a roof? Probably. But it's not that big of a deal.

New(er) stadiums in Cleveland, Detroit and Chicago don't have roofs either and they don't have any worse of a cancellation problem than most other sites. This is the best we can do, and personally, I think we need to take advantage of the opportunity. Just my opinion ...

[GullGuide]

It would have been a tough April with no roof this year, but we would have gotten by. Low attendance on cold days would be made up with full houses during the summer.

Problem with Minnesota is that during the summer we are almost as rainy as Seattle. There will be quite a few rain-outs so there will be a lot more double headders which would be fine with me, just a little harder on the bull pen is all.

I can't wait for a game under the lights on a nice September evening. That's why I emailed both my rep and senator and asked them to vote for the stadium. We all should do that.

[bigbucks]

Sorry guys, I can't support any stadium deal without a roof, or at least roof ready. In two years when the rest of the state remembers why we built the dome, then we'll have to start haggling over another new stadium, that'll take 10-20 years to get built & cost way more than doing this one right. To me that's pointless.

[Dotch]

I'm with bigbucks on this one. When you're going to do a project, may as well do it right the first time rather than doing it halffast & winding up wishing you had. Otherwise, games will get cancelled by snowstorms like they do at Kramerica Park in Detoilet.

[GullGuide]

I got responses from both my rep and state sen. My rep was for the stadium, but this is what my sen had to say-

Quote:

---

Thank you for contacting me with your support for the construction of a stadium.

Since I was elected in 1996 I have been opposed to public funding of stadiums. In these years while the state is facing budget deficits, it is difficult to justify public tax dollars used for stadiums. In 2003 & 2004, the legislature made cuts to balance the budget. This session we have been working to balance the deficit while trying to preserve programs.

I may support legislation that includes a referendum to allow the people of Hennepin County to voice their support or opposition for a stadium.

I appreciate hearing your views, and encourage you do contact me again with any future issues.

Sincerely,

Michelle Fischbach

State Senator, District 14

---

Although I do not agree with her, I do appriciate her views.

As for them asking for another stadium in 2 years?...I highly doubt that will happen. I see a final bill being passed that includes funding for a roof somehow someway. If not, it will still be a great stadium.

[pikehunter]

I can't say I agree with Sen. Fischback, but if that's the platform she was elected on, then I suppose I understand.

I guess I'll just never understand why the entire state is expected to pay for things like public transit in the metro, but when Hennepin County is about to pay for its own stadium, then public financing - even one-county financing, is deemed as wrong.

In regards to the talk of the "next stadium": The current deal actually is contingent on the Twins committing to the stadium for, I believe, 30 years, so they'll be there for the long haul. I suggest that if you are for a stadium with a roof, you should email your legislator and tell them that too! The problem is that the state has made pretty evident that they do not want to pay a state-wide tax for the stadium, so this is likely the best we can do and it will be beneficial in putting a winning team on the field.

[8-Ball]

Lets not grasp at "straws".. i.e. a ret. roof. Lets just get the darn thing built. Plenty of other cities do not have a roof and they get by. I'm talking about cities that DO get severe weather such as K.C., Baltimore, Detroilet, etc. Don't give opposers another reason to shoot it down. You know, the It is already expensive enough, now you want to add another 100 million to the price tag? I think we are dreaming if we think we are going to get the new digs AND a roof. 8-Ball.