>>>>> "kb" == ken bradley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...snip...]
kb> I am a baseball fan as well. I would love to watch baseball
kb> outdoors when it is sunny and 75 degrees. I believe the
kb> location that has been chosen for this project is perfect. But
kb> that does not mean that such an investment is a good use of
kb> public dollars.
kb> I had a friend of mine argue it is an "investment" for the
kb> county and city. We made same investment in the Metro Dome and
kb> it has been a depreciating investment since the day it has
kb> been built. I will guarantee after new stadiums are built for
kb> the Twins and the Vikings the city of Minneapolis will use tax
kb> increment finance dollars to tear down and redevelop that area
kb> of down town. We will be on the hook for more then just a new
kb> stadium.
My understanding is that the economics of this investment are very
dodgy. Sports stadiums don't seem to provide the best bang for the
buck, partly because people going to sports events tend to come into
the city, go to the game, and go home. There's little spill-over of
spending into the community at large (relative to other attractions).
I don't think that this is a slam-dunk argument against a sports
stadium. There are other things we might be looking for, including
affordable family entertainment (this is one of the reasons I'm
somewhat inclined to favor a baseball stadium, but not at all inclined
to support a football stadium), community spirit building, etc. But
if someone's trying to sell a stadium as a simple matter of finances,
I think it's a very weak argument.
The biggest downside to me of this investment is that I don't see firm
commitments from the team to provide affordable seats, and I don't see
any way our investment can be protected against major league baseball
going on a contraction binge. I understand the Twins are supposed to
be committed to fighting contraction, but that isn't like having a
nice fat penalty clause to cash out if the team goes away, is it?
>>>>> "CM" == Craig Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
CM> Fourth, I would ask if there should be a referendum on the
CM> stadium, when there wasn't one when the Minneapolis City
CM> Council spent $4.7 million moving the Shubert Theater and gave
CM> $35 million to the Guthrie Theater and other
CM> government-sponsored projects.
The reason why one might want a referendum for this is that there's a
lot of good evidence that the public does NOT want to give the Twins
their new stadium. It's been defeated over and over again. This
smacks of a sweetheart deal. Again, I'm not saying I object to this,
but it seems like the sort of thing where, in order to be above
suspicion, there should be a referendum.
Note also that there WAS a referendum about the new Library. And the
Guthrie provides service to the entire state, traveling around,
offering presentations for school kids, etc. It's not a for-profit
deal the way the Twins are, much less an organization that pretty much
one person's property.
>>>>> "DG" == David Greene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I have said NO and will continue to say NO to any form of
>> taxpayer funded stadium.
DG> How, then, would you propose to fund a stadium. Either we put
DG> in some public money or we lose the Twins. Maybe you don't
DG> care about that, and that's fine, but don't presume to speak
DG> for those of us who see baseball as a real asset.
I'm looking at what's happening to our schools, and I think there's a
real question to be asked here "OK, baseball is a real asset. Is it
worth more than a generation of well-educated kids?" *All* spending
decisions have to be evaluated in context, because whatever you spend
on one thing you can't spend on something else. We don't just have to
ask whether baseball is a real asset, but what we are willing to
sacrifice to it.
Again, I don't think this is a slam-dunk argument against the stadium,
because it's not clear to me that we (i.e., people who live in
Minneapolis itself) could leverage other dollars as well as we can
these. But it does seem kooky that we can't get sales tax (or other)
dollars to keep our schools going, that we're going to shove people
out of health care (and into the ERs of our hospitals where they will
impose costs the hospitals can't recover), etc., etc. How about some
panem and not just circenses?
>> Last week I asked the forum what we gain from building a new
>> stadium that we do not now have?
DG> It's quite simple. The ballpark will anchor downtown. It will give
DG> people outside the city a reason to visit. I really don't care all
DG> that much if the Vikings move to the 'burbs. It's a total of eight
DG> games over the whole year. Baseball is a whole other story. A
DG> ballpark downtown will ensure its continued vitality.
No, because people will drive to downtown, park their cars, go to the
games, and then drive home. This won't anchor the downtown. Block E
type stuff will do a lot more to anchor the downtown.
--
Robert P. Goldman
ECCO
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
