It's my contention that's the real problem here. Partisans on both sides of the issues appear to know only a little about the facts, and only those which support their side. My questions and remarks are interspersed with Hartman's below.
Hartman writes:
"This newspaper ran a poll in Sunday's newspaper asking for opinions about the Hennepin County stadium plan.
Well, I am not a professional pollster, but I would have added a couple of questions that I think are important.
The first question I would ask is: Would you rather have a Hennepin County-wide sales tax of 0.15 percent to build the stadium, or allow the Twins to leave here and lose baseball?
I write:
How about a state-side or metro-wide sales tax at an even smaller rate to prevent the Twin from leaving?
Or, let's ask this question: would you rather have a county-wide sales tax of 0.15 percent to improve education, health care, homelessness or transportation (your pick), or would prefer to allow those problems fester? Remember that investing in preparing children for school has a better return than just about any investment we can make.
Hartman writes:
Second, I would ask if the people polled knew the state income tax paid by the Twins and visiting players, combined with the additional sales tax earned, could run up to an estimated $11 million a year in a new stadium. The sales tax from building materials also would provide a lot of money to the state.
I write:
Is that $11 million more in income and sales taxes than Twins and visiting players pay now? Is it an incremental increase resulting from having a new stadium? Frankly, that sounds like a fairly unsupportable and arbitrary number. Where's the evidence that the state will collect more income tax and sales tax from players as a result of a new stadium?
This is especially suspect given the statement about building materials sales tax -- most of the materials used in constructing a new stadium and the infrastructure won't have a Minnesota state sales tax on them. Since Hennepin County taxpayers will pay $353 million of the costs, and the Twins only $125 million, the vast majority of any construction materials costs will be paid by the taxpayers. Does it make sense to transfer money from one pocket of government to another pocket of government, while spilling some change on the floor, and call that a net benefit for the state? For that matter, why should Hennepin County residents be the only taxpayers subsidizing this increase in sales tax revenue that goes to the State?
Hartman writes:
Third, I would have asked if the people polled understood the number of jobs a stadium costing $478 million would provide.
I write:
What jobs would those be, after the construction work was done? This kind of claim is made over and over for stadiums and arenas, but every competent economic study I've seen on the subject says that the number of jobs provided this way is actually very small. So, is that small number of jobs associated with a new stadium greater than the small number of jobs associated with the current stadium, the Metro Dome? And how much do those jobs pay? Couldn't we get the same jobs or more for less tax money through some other means?
Hartman writes:
Fourth, I would ask if there should be a referendum on the stadium, when there wasn't one when the Minneapolis City Council spent $4.7 million moving the Shubert Theater and gave $35 million to the Guthrie Theater and other government-sponsored projects.
I write:
There are several reasons why a referendum on a new stadium should happen but not on the other mentioned projects. Foremost is a state law requiring a referendum when a new sales tax is imposed by the county. I don't know where Hartman gets the $35 million figure, but the City Council most certainly did not give $35 million to the Guthrie. The Guthrie *did* ask the State for $35 million in bonding, however. The Shubert is owned by Artspace, a non-profit, so unlike Carl Pohlad, taxpayer money spent assisting that theater project is not enriching some individual or for-profit business.
Hartman:
Then I would ask if the people polled had any idea of the extent of the crime problems downtown and what 81 home games would do to improve that situation. Those games would attract more business downtown.
Me:
How many businesses? Or, how many businesses has the Dome attracted downtown? As far as I can tell, having the Dome downtown actually increases the crime rate in the area (I worked across the street from it for about 6 years). Why would a new stadium decrease crime?
If everything Hartman claimed were true, it might be enough reason to publicly fund a new stadium. But his presentation is all one-sided, and he makes a bunch of unsupported statements, including a few that look to be outright wrong. With such incomplete and biased information, how can anyone make a reasonable decision?
-- Chris Johnson Fulton
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
