Now to me this is a REALLY bad argument. The problem with the incremental, who's-going-to-notice, for-the-price-of-a-pack-of-chewing-gum-per-week argument is that it can be used for everything: more housing, more money to schools, more money for neighborhoods, etc.
This is what budget discussions are for, at the city, county and state levels. 1) What is the total acceptable level of taxation before the people with the money run away? 2) What are the spending priorities? 3) Apply 2) to 1) and see if you have any money left or if you need more money or if you have to cut spending. 4) Argue over the results until the next cycle comes around... If Lake of the Isles, Kenwood and other residents (who could afford to be taxed for the Twins in your estimation) also own businesses that they think will be hurt by the departure of the Twins, why don't they come forward and contribute money to be part of the ownership group? We don't see a lot of news about an outpouring of money in support of Ciresi, Campbell, et al. BTW, the bill that was at the state legislature last year required that baseball reform its finances. Even if that bill had passed and had not been vetoed, there is no way that contraction would have qualified as that reform, would it? We still would be no closer to resolving the local/state situation. Let me be clear. I don't want public money going to a stadium. There are too many other high priority needs and baseball is too screwed up. But those who disagree with my position have still not come up with 1) a way to stop the owners from plowing ahead with contraction, 2) a way to make a stadium proposal at least palatable to enough taxpayers to get it pushed through the legislative process. Even if litigation takes care of contraction in the short term, the only way I can see to push a stadium forward in the short-term would be with some kind of private initiative. Walt Cygan 12-5 Keewaydin -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Clark C. Griffith Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 11:23 AM To: mpls Subject: Re: [Mpls] Stadium/Other Funding Economics This is a very interesting post. Most people attend only one or two games a year. Of course, some go to many more, but a good fan only goes to four. So, to get to 1.8MM, the Twins attracted over 600,000 individuals, by far the largest number of any sports team. The Vikings have the same people going to each game. The Timberwolves and Wild attract the same people many times, and those tickets are expensive. Also, attendance is not the entire story. Having the baseball news in the paper is very important as is having 162 games broadcast to a five state region. I listen to every game and there are lots of people who do the same thing. For example, older people who don't have a lot of mobility listen to Twins games religiously, as do kids in vast numbers. The loss will be felt very hard among those groups. Kids, in fact, will have to go through a grieving process when the final hammer falls. Some have already started. It is a sad situation, that could have been saved by spending .5% of the taxes we send to the state every year. Now who would really notice a tax increase of .5%, that would be paid for by other people anyway, with our progressive system? Clark Griffith, 7th Ward, where taxes of all kinds are collected in huge amounts. _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
