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
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
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
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
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
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
, 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
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
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
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,
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
:[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
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
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
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
--- 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
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
24 matches
Mail list logo
