Re: [Mpls] Stadum;
Jon said: "Thanks Barb, for letting us know for your fan participation habits. That was really one of my points. There's a hell of a difference in perspective if you love the team or you couldn't care less." I say: I am really not sure what you mean by this. I don't think my post indicated that I either was or was not a fan of baseball, football or whatever venue is played in the Metrodome or whether I supported a new stadium or not. As far as land values go, you are probably right. The land used for surface parking lots was most likely not in high demand at the time. Sealing their fate in asphalt has not helped to change that either. My point in the post was to say that IF a new stadium gets built somewhere in Mpls. that they give strong consideration to condensing parking for it so they don't need to "pave paradise to put up a parking lot". As far as my personal interest in sports goes, I am a avid Ice Skating fan. I have followed this sport for years and my goal is to see Michelle Kwan and Sasha Cohen skate for the Gold personally in Turin Italy in 2006. I also love gymnastics and swimming. The Target Center has been a great place to watch the Olympic Ice Skating Tour and the Olympic Gymnastics Tour when they come to Minneapolis. Having access to the great variety of entertainment, sports and arts is what makes and keeps Minneapolis a world class city. The Mill City Museum is now open. Fit a visit to it in your schedule. After you see it, you can go up the block and skate for awhile at the Depot or visit the river. Barb Lickness Whittier = "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." -- Margaret Mead __ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
Re: [Mpls] Stadum;
In a message dated 10/19/03 2:46:28 PM Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << That took a lot of prime real estate off the market and left blocks of barren asphalt. >> Barb, How do you classify prime real estate? It sure wasn't being put to any prime use at the time. It was the rear end of downtown, butted up to the freeway and doing little except deteriorating. It was really slummy. Are you aware of anyone else who showed interest in that area? I certainly don't remember anyone making any argument that the dome was elbowing other bidders out of business. Thanks Barb, for letting us know for your fan participation habits. That was really one of my points. There's a hell of a difference in perspective if you love the team or you couldn't care less. Jon Gorder Loring Park REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
Re: [Mpls] Stadum;
One of the main things that affected Elliot Park when they built the Metrodome was all the surface parking lots they built surrounding it to support Metrodome parking. That took a lot of prime real estate off the market and left blocks of barren asphalt. I hope that any proposals of a new stadium facility deal with parking issues in a way that is far more compact than it is with the Metrodome. Barb Lickness Whittier = "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." -- Margaret Mead __ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
Re: [Mpls] Stadum;
In a message dated 10/18/03 5:59:59 PM Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << didn't say what is remaining is valueless Quit twisting the rhetoric. What the Metrodome neighborhood will not do ever again is thrive, save for some bars. Well, you did say valueless, no twist of rhetoric there. Exactly when was the Metrodome neighborhood thriving? I used to live over there when I was a wanten youth and believe me I could easily afford it because it was anything but thriving. Actually the new Elliot Park developement is precisely on the spot I used to reside. I wouldn't call that valueless, I'd say it was a giant step up. I certainly don't think ball parks grow economies just by their existence. Neither do I think your heated rhetoric is the story. Why don't you come up with the social and economic stats that would even hint at a proof of your case? Jon Gorder Loring Park REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
Re: [Mpls] Stadum;
They ain't all gone yet, but the erosion is obvious. The historic West 7th district in St. Paul has become a mini-strip of sports bars and some restaurants and a good number of the old antique shops and other businesses in the vicinity are dropping away - precisely the way it went with the Target Center's vicinity. I didn't say what is remaining is valueless, but it's rapidly becoming that way when sister operations drop away, that keeps the non-sports fans away from a once-thriving segment of downtown. Quit twisting the rhetoric. What the Metrodome neighborhood will not do ever again is thrive, save for some bars. The chaos created before and after games is a climate few, if any, residents would want to live in the shadow of...and haven't. The record is clear. The question isn't whether a stadium is of no use whatsoever, but that it's placement accommodate the traffic with the understanding that 99% of the fans exit the area completely, leaving little but a trail of trash behind them. Also, not a dime of public money should be spent of carving out that much valuable space for a professional sports operation unless there's no hope for renovation without it. Andy Driscoll Saint Paul > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 16:47:11 EDT > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Mpls] Stadum; > > In a message dated 10/18/03 1:16:44 PM Central Daylight Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > << The chaos surrounding professional > sports fan behavior sickens the society, but worse, ruins surrounding > properties rendering them valueless. >> > > That's a hell of a statement. You mean the warehouse district and nearby > downtown properties are valueless due to Target Center? All the new > restaurants and clubs surrounding Excel jumped into business to sicken > society? The > Metro Dome neighborhood is going to go up in hellfire after tomorrow's Vikings > game? Please elucidate. > > On this theme, I really wonder how many of the posters on this issue are > even marginal sports fans. Please correct me if I'm wrong but my estimate > would be in the range of nil and none. There seems to be an anti-sports sub > theme > going here. > > Personally, if any manner of user tax plus owner payment could be worked > out, I'd love to go to Twins games in an outdoor park downtown. I'd at least > double my current attendance (I'd go to twenty or thirty games a year). I know > lots of fans that would do the same. > > Jon Gorder > Loring Park > REMINDERS: > 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at > [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. > 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. > > > Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy > Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls > REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
Re: [Mpls] Stadum;
In a message dated 10/18/03 1:16:44 PM Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << The chaos surrounding professional sports fan behavior sickens the society, but worse, ruins surrounding properties rendering them valueless. >> That's a hell of a statement. You mean the warehouse district and nearby downtown properties are valueless due to Target Center? All the new restaurants and clubs surrounding Excel jumped into business to sicken society? The Metro Dome neighborhood is going to go up in hellfire after tomorrow's Vikings game? Please elucidate. On this theme, I really wonder how many of the posters on this issue are even marginal sports fans. Please correct me if I'm wrong but my estimate would be in the range of nil and none. There seems to be an anti-sports sub theme going here. Personally, if any manner of user tax plus owner payment could be worked out, I'd love to go to Twins games in an outdoor park downtown. I'd at least double my current attendance (I'd go to twenty or thirty games a year). I know lots of fans that would do the same. Jon Gorder Loring Park REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
Re: [Mpls] Stadum;
TIF districts not only suck away for 25-50 years future increases for the city which negotiated them, but for the other taxing districts that did not, slicing revenues from the county, the school district and any special taxing districts relying on property taxes and their increases to keep up with increasing demands. A TIF district would be one of the worst ways to funnel public dollars into a private professional sports facility, which should not be done in any case. Furthermore, if proponents and opponents alike would do their research - as with Andrew Zimbalist and others publishing data on publicly funded stadia - the economic development spin-offs from stadiums/stadia are essentially nil, especially in the long run. People really do not want to live in the shadow of a sports stadium. Why should they? The chaos surrounding professional sports fan behavior sickens the society, but worse, ruins surrounding properties rendering them valueless. Check out what has happened to the eight block radius around both the Hump and the Target Center. Wastelands. Once-thriving 1st Avenue, 3rd, 4th 5th and 6th Streets are disasters and the Warehouse district is taking a major hit from Target Center's impact on the cozy arts and performance mecca that once defined the entire community. Stadiums are never a public asset, only a private one - they're without a true public purpose and their impact on a huge area of every city core where they've been erected has been ghetto-creation, little more. Andy Driscoll Saint Paul > From: "David Brauer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 08:14:55 -0500 > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: [Mpls] Stadum; > > Tim Bonham writes, re: the $10 million stadium cap: > >> They just don't ever go before the City Council for funding. Instead they >> run it thru MCDA, which they claim is not restricted by this voter-passed >> Charter Amendment spending limit on the City Council. To argue that MCDA >> is just the City Council in another name (same 13 people on the board), > you >> will have to have the money and lawyers to fight the city in court. > > The MCDA no longer exists. It's Community Planning and Economic Development > (never know if that's "Department of CPED" or "CPED Department, or CPEDD - > oh well), and it's part of the city now. No independence claimed, or given. > > Since Hennepin County has to be involved for anything to go forward, I > expect they'll be the lead "banker." It's possible the city could > simultaneously change existing non-stadium burden-sharing agreements with > the County as one way around the referendum requirement. > > Another way, floated in the past, is to create a TIF district that would > suck in new property taxes from any new housing developed in the Rapid Park > trench. Wouldn't tap current tax base, but would keep the city from enjoying > the new property taxes from the housing development for decades. It's quite > a stretch to think a booming area could meet a TIF "blight test," but it has > happened before. > > Also, there's always the possible that they might just have a referendum! > > David Brauer > Kingfield REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
RE: [Mpls] Stadum;
The Metrodome was built long before the $10 million dollar limit was placed in the City Charter. Jim Bernstein Fulton -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim Bonham Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2003 12:16 AM To: mpls-issues Subject: Re: [Mpls] Stadum; >Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe there is >something on the books that limits the City Council to >a $10M appropriation cap for stadium spending without >voter approval. > >Barb Lickness >Whittier That didn't stop them from building the HHH Metrodome. They just don't ever go before the City Council for funding. Instead they run it thru MCDA, which they claim is not restricted by this voter-passed Charter Amendment spending limit on the City Council. To argue that MCDA is just the City Council in another name (same 13 people on the board), you will have to have the money and lawyers to fight the city in court. In the Metrodome case, they got a friendly judge to order that the challengers had to put up a multi-million dollar bond to cover the claimed additional construction costs that would be caused by delaying construction for a court trial. Since they couldn't do that, their challenge was dismissed and never heard in court. Tim Bonham, Ward 12, Standish-Ericsson REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
RE: [Mpls] Stadum;
Tim Bonham writes, re: the $10 million stadium cap: > They just don't ever go before the City Council for funding. Instead they > run it thru MCDA, which they claim is not restricted by this voter-passed > Charter Amendment spending limit on the City Council. To argue that MCDA > is just the City Council in another name (same 13 people on the board), you > will have to have the money and lawyers to fight the city in court. The MCDA no longer exists. It's Community Planning and Economic Development (never know if that's "Department of CPED" or "CPED Department, or CPEDD - oh well), and it's part of the city now. No independence claimed, or given. Since Hennepin County has to be involved for anything to go forward, I expect they'll be the lead "banker." It's possible the city could simultaneously change existing non-stadium burden-sharing agreements with the County as one way around the referendum requirement. Another way, floated in the past, is to create a TIF district that would suck in new property taxes from any new housing developed in the Rapid Park trench. Wouldn't tap current tax base, but would keep the city from enjoying the new property taxes from the housing development for decades. It's quite a stretch to think a booming area could meet a TIF "blight test," but it has happened before. Also, there's always the possible that they might just have a referendum! David Brauer Kingfield REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
Re: [Mpls] Stadum;
Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe there is something on the books that limits the City Council to a $10M appropriation cap for stadium spending without voter approval. Barb Lickness Whittier That didn't stop them from building the HHH Metrodome. They just don't ever go before the City Council for funding. Instead they run it thru MCDA, which they claim is not restricted by this voter-passed Charter Amendment spending limit on the City Council. To argue that MCDA is just the City Council in another name (same 13 people on the board), you will have to have the money and lawyers to fight the city in court. In the Metrodome case, they got a friendly judge to order that the challengers had to put up a multi-million dollar bond to cover the claimed additional construction costs that would be caused by delaying construction for a court trial. Since they couldn't do that, their challenge was dismissed and never heard in court. Tim Bonham, Ward 12, Standish-Ericsson REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
Re: [Mpls] Stadum;
Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe there is something on the books that limits the City Council to a $10M appropriation cap for stadium spending without voter approval. Barb Lickness Whittier = "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." -- Margaret Mead __ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
[Mpls] Stadum;
Rybak and Stadium Jim Berstein is dead right that most taxpayers in Minneapolis are on record against publicly funded stadiums. If Jim remembers, the referendum on spending city money was 70-30 to require the voter's OK on such levies. That really rankled the suburbanites, but at that point, MOST of us didn't care. As to Rybak's "preference" to build it in Minneapolis, that is not Rybak reflecting the sentiments of the residents of this city. If he doubts that, let him take a referendum on THAT. Porter One wishes that correspondents wouldn't be so hasty to draw their conclusions. The prejudices just get too EASY to see and not at all pleasing to behold. By the way, can I assume that Anne McCandless' POV comes from past and/or present service in the police? When the papers were writing about Jordan, they mentioned that. She is pretty consistently behind the police no matter what they do, so she doesnt judge their behavior from arms-length. Being neither an abuse victim NOR an ex-cop, I tend to see all sides of these issues. If I have a bias at all, it is the anti-secrecy bias. Jim Mork Cooper Neighborhood Crimes against Peace: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a Common Plan or Conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing; -- Nuremberg War Tribunal _ Express yourself with MSN Messenger 6.0 -- download now! http://www.msnmessenger-download.com/tracking/reach_general REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
Re: [Mpls] Mpls stadum proposal
--- Robert Schmid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I say, HOMES NOT DOMES! -- I would normally say "I vote for both!", but I do not want to see another dome. Unless it's just for the Vikes and Gophs. So, I say... HOMES AND OPEN AIR BASEBALL STADIUMS! Oh, yeah...and about that earlier post about finding a new candidate for mayor...good timing. Loki Anderson Marshall Terrace [EMAIL PROTECTED] = "Being good isn't always easy No matter how hard I try" -Dusty Springfield __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month. http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1 ___ 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
Re: [Mpls] Mpls stadum proposal
I would hope they'd include affordable housing in a potential TIF district as all the 'new jobs' selling peanuts the stadium will create will likely pay just that. And slap me if I'm wrong, but I thought a project or any portion thereof that's publicly funded could potentially include a living-wage requirement, which I believe would require a living-wage be paid to everyone from plumbers and nail-pounders all the way down to the folks slinging 3.2 beer. Worse yet, the mantra of those seeking public money has frequently been that should they indeed be required to pay such a wage, the cost of the project skyrockets, and in essence, becomes undoable - oh, boo the hoo... I'm no guru though. Anyone know any details or wish to clarify? JHarmon Cleveland _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp ___ 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
RE: [Mpls] Mpls stadum proposal
Clark C. Griffith wrote: > I think we should move on to other topics. My response: I am in response-only mode on this topic. If people stop putting forward plans to use public money for a Twins stadium, I'll stop writing responses. Until then... > Here are the two alternatives for stadium finance. 1. A $400,000,000 retractable dome stadium is built for the Twins involving 85% public money and a similar Vikings/UofM stadium is built several years later. 2. The Twins go away and the Vikings have a $550,000,000 dome built for them at public expense, for which they pay nothing, a separate open air football stadium is built for the Gophers, the public pays off Target Center and Excel Center debt and both the T'Wolves and Wild receive rent free leases. My response: I think *this* can go unanswered. A little frustration setting in, maybe? Walt Cygan 12-5 Keewaydin ___ 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
Re: [Mpls] Mpls stadum proposal
EIGHTY FIVE PERCENT public funding? You act like not having a sports franchise is not an option. Where do you get the second scenario from? More extortion based panic? Are you expecting that we will have a mayor like Norm Coleman who let downtown St Paul become vacant so he could build a stadium? We should never have bailed out Harv & Marv. We should have let the Target Center go into foreclosure and either bought it cheap or let someone else buy it cheap. What were they going to do, move it? The only teams I will even consider building for are the gophers. But first, they must prove that they are supporting STUDENT athletes instead of acting as a minor league for professional sports. A recent article in the StarTrib (http://www.startribune.com/stories/503/850469.html) stated that the state receives $4M in revenue from Twins-based activity. Based on this, you are asking us to buy a stadium that will take us 85 years to pay for. (Assuming no interest and zero inflation). Yet the dome is only 20 years old and you want to scrap it. Of that $4M, $945,000 comes from the Twins $27M payroll. That's a tax rate of 3.5%. Normal people in Minnesota pay roughly 8% income tax. So, instead of building a stadium for millionaires, we could instead invest MUCH LESS money into creating jobs that pay $50,000/yr (540 jobs) or $30,000/yr (900 jobs!) which would produce roughly 2.16M in income tax for the state and probably $1.5-2M in sales taxes while simultaneously keeping people off the welfare and unemployment lines. I say, HOMES NOT DOMES! Robert Schmid 8th Ward, Central > I think we should move on to other topics. Here are the two > alternatives for stadium finance. 1. A $400,000,000 retractable dome > stadium is built for the Twins involving 85% public money and a similar > Vikings/UofM stadium is built several years later. 2. The Twins go away > and the Vikings have a $550,000,000 dome built for them at public > expense, for which they pay nothing, a separate open air football > stadium is built for the Gophers, the public pays off Target Center and > Excel Center debt and both the T'Wolves and Wild receive rent free > leases. > > Clark Griffith, 7th Ward ___ 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
RE: [Mpls] Mpls stadum proposal
What have you been smok'n Clark? Ain't gonna happen! Have you heard about the recession and layoffs and government budget shortfalls at all levels? And the fact the public has said "no" too many times to count! Michael Hohmann 13th > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > Clark C. Griffith > Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2001 11:59 AM > To: mpls > Subject: Re: [Mpls] Mpls stadum proposal > > > I think we should move on to other topics. Here are the two alternatives > for stadium finance. 1. A $400,000,000 retractable dome stadium is built > for the Twins involving 85% public money and a similar Vikings/UofM > stadium is built several years later. 2. The Twins go away and the > Vikings have a $550,000,000 dome built for them at public expense, for > which they pay nothing, a separate open air football stadium is built > for the Gophers, the public pays off Target Center and Excel Center debt > and both the T'Wolves and Wild receive rent free leases. > > Clark Griffith, 7th Ward > ___ > 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
Re: [Mpls] Mpls stadum proposal
I think we should move on to other topics. Here are the two alternatives for stadium finance. 1. A $400,000,000 retractable dome stadium is built for the Twins involving 85% public money and a similar Vikings/UofM stadium is built several years later. 2. The Twins go away and the Vikings have a $550,000,000 dome built for them at public expense, for which they pay nothing, a separate open air football stadium is built for the Gophers, the public pays off Target Center and Excel Center debt and both the T'Wolves and Wild receive rent free leases. Clark Griffith, 7th Ward ___ 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
Re: [Mpls] Litmus Test - Mpls stadum proposal
I keep forgetting to sign my posts - Robert Schmid 8th Ward Go Saints! > Attention Mayor Rybak. This is a litmus test issue. Fail, and I start > looking for a new candidate now. Extortionists should be prosecuted > NOT appeased. ___ 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
Re: [Mpls] Mpls stadum proposal
>From Strib Stadium coverage: "The mayor-elect also suggested to the panel that the area around the stadium could be declared a tax-increment district, with increased development ideally helping fund transit or affordable housing." CD: I'm not understanding this. I thought the ability of the city to use TIF for funding development projects was severely diminished by tax reform in the legislature last session. We went on and on here about NRP phase II being jeopardized because of changes in tax law. I'm clearly not up on this like I should be, so can someone explain me on how a stadium project could be declared a TIF district and help affordable housing at the same time? Maybe DBraurer is right, they'll add low cost rental units as a ring around the top level, with views of the action below. CDonnelly W1P1 ___ 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
Re: [Mpls] Mpls stadum proposal
Eva writes: > EY: The referendum was not approving money for a Stadium. It was capping > the ammount of city money that could be used on a Stadium. It was also a > pretty clear message that voters in the city didn't want public money to be > used for a stadium. I think this isn't fully accurate. I interpreted the resolution as capping the amount that could be spent on a stadium **without direct voter approval** at $10 million. (Between asterisks indicate emphasis.) Below that figure, it's up to the City Council in our representative democracy. Convenient that we just had our once-every-four-year referendum on them. > Rybak's statement that he would be ok with backing from other governments > is rather interesting. He attacked Sharon Sayles Belton on the Stadium > Issue. Now that he is mayor, he seems to be doing an about face on this > issue. I think RT is trying to have it both ways. To defend him, having someone else pay for it is not necessarily an about-face - his campaign statements were not anti-stadium, just anti-city-paying-for-one. However, saying now that old lines need to be erased and he has to hear from citizens does seem contradictory - I think a lot of citizens voted for him as the no-city-money-for-stadium candidate. They thought they already spoke through their RT vote and that their "no" was heard. Some may now think their messenger was deaf to their message. David Brauer King Field - Ward 10 _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ___ 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
[Mpls] Litmus Test - Mpls stadum proposal
Attention Mayor Rybak. This is a litmus test issue. Fail, and I start looking for a new candidate now. Extortionists should be prosecuted NOT appeased. ___ 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
Re: [Mpls] Mpls stadum proposal
At 10:01 PM 11/28/01 -0600, List Manager wrote: >http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/861611.html Rybak has been a staunch opponent of investing city money in a stadium, though he has said he is not opposed to financial backing from other governments. Ostrow said he would regard $10 million in city backing -- the maximum approved by voters for a stadium -- as "appropriate." Asked whether he might oppose that, Rybak said he was more interested in hearing the citizen group's reaction to the proposals. "It's really important to put aside a lot of the old lines," he said. == EY: The referendum was not approving money for a Stadium. It was capping the ammount of city money that could be used on a Stadium. It was also a pretty clear message that voters in the city didn't want public money to be used for a stadium. Rybak's statement that he would be ok with backing from other governments is rather interesting. He attacked Sharon Sayles Belton on the Stadium Issue. Now that he is mayor, he seems to be doing an about face on this issue. Gary Bowman writes: What is most frustrating is that we're all doing just what Bud Selig would like to see us do: panic. Once panic has set in, logic and thoughtful discussion goes out the window. Then my streets aren't plowed and maintained because my tax dollars are going to less needed things. EY: What bothers me is that coverage of the Twins contraction is sucking the life out of most other stories in the press. I really wonder if Rybak thinks the taxpayers of Minneapolis are too stupid to see that other government spending on the stadium also comes out of our pockets. Also, there's going to be less interest at the state level to vote for public funding for a stadium if the city -- and the taxpayers in the city don't pony up. Eva Eva Young Central ___ 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
Re: [Mpls] Mpls stadum proposal
Quote from the Strib, "Rybak has been a staunch opponent of investing city money in a stadium, though he has said he is not opposed to financial backing from other governments. Ostrow said he would regard $10 million in city backing -- the maximum approved by voters for a stadium -- as 'appropriate.'" Let me mention once again what I stated before: Minneapolis voters DID NOT approve up to $10 million for a stadium, they capped it at ten million. As I collected signatures for the petition that put the question on the ballot, I was asked over and over again why $10 million? It should be $1! It is disappointing that my Council Member seems to fail to see this distinction. It is more disappointing that the person I voted for for Mayor seems to be hedging on an issue that I believed he was being very sincere in. RT, you talked about being a breath of fresh air with the green tree air fresheners and all. You're not even in office yet and I'm starting to question if the air will be fresh or just reconditioned. Restore my faith in you as a good Mayor! What is most frustrating is that we're all doing just what Bud Selig would like to see us do: panic. Once panic has set in, logic and thoughtful discussion goes out the window. Then my streets aren't plowed and maintained because my tax dollars are going to less needed things. Gary Bowman 1-1 On Wed, 28 November 2001, "List Manager" wrote: > > http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/861611.html > > David Brauer > List manager > > > _ > Do You Yahoo!? > Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com > > ___ > 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 Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! --- Get your free web based email from Crosswalk.com: http://mail.crosswalk.com ___ 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
RE: [Mpls] Mpls stadum proposal
http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/861611.html Bad! All of a sudden there is not even a mention of MLB being required to reform its finances before a stadium is built. At least the Ostrow / Rybak plan shifts 2/3 of the stadium funding to the team, which is better than previous proposals (and bound to kill the plan). I fear that the Pohlad / Selig minions are winning a war of attrition. The threats from MLB keep coming, the stadium proposals keep coming, the pressure keeps coming, and all it takes is one weak moment when a plan passes, because people fear the "cold-Omaha" scenario. Then we'll be paying for a stadium that has an average attendance of 12,500 because tickets are $30 and beers are $6 and the Twins are still not competitive, because there is still not enough revenue to bid for quality players, because there is still no salary cap or meaningful revenue sharing, because the Yankees still want to win year after year and they are getting $50 million / year in local TV money and players won't accept anything that puts a drag on salaries. Am I missing something where the magic occurs (where's Harry Potter when you need him) and makes this all work out and a truly competitive Twins team (for more than 1/2 of a season) plays before 30,000 per game and makes money? Thanks for enduring another rant. Walt Cygan 12-5 Keewaydin ___ 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
[Mpls] Mpls stadum proposal
http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/861611.html David Brauer List manager _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ___ 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
