Perhaps a small point, but to me, revealing. The public announcements state that Mr. Pohlad will contribute $125 million. Then I see, apparently, that he is to contribute $40 million now, and $85 million later. Leaving aside the question of whether $125 million isn't a bit stingy, if the "later" is much later, e.g., over the life of the bonds, then the "$125 million" is much closer to $40 million in present value. (Judging from the past, we can be certain that Mr. Pohlad will negotiate fiercely for a contribution that sounds as high as possible but actually is as low as possible, years down the road and conditioned on all manner of things.)
This raises again the red flag that the media and elected officials will be looking to propagandize us rather than present the proposal honestly (you may remember the so-called "$7 billion" tobacco settlement that actually was $2.9 billion in present value). Will public officials negotiate as fiercely as Mr. Pohlad to minimize the public subsidy on behalf of their constituents, or will their fierce efforts be directed instead to mislead their constituents as to what the public subsidy and risk really will be? Much of the opposition to the previous 27 attempts to get the public to pay for a Twins stadium arose from the fundamental recognition that instead of seeking "the consent of the governed," public officials and the media were simply doing PR to get the matter accomplished, with the public manipulation that this necessarily involves. Are we going to be treated as adults or children here? Also,unless my recollection really is failing me, recent stadium attempts at least had turned to a funding structure attempting to extract a substantial part of the tax revenue contribution from stadium users/Twins fans. Now, are we back to a general tax where all Minneapolis residents will pay twice, regardless of whether they ever would attend a Twins game and regardless of how regressive the tax may be? How much of the tax actually would fall on those who have an interest in the Twins? I agree with the recent posting by, I think, Mr. Greene, noting that transportation reform advocates have been attempting the nearly impossible task of getting a small regional sales tax for transit, something of huge importance for the lives of real people and the vitality of the Twin Cities for decades into the future. Do we have a priority issue here? Chuck Holtman Prospect Park REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
