Loki Anderson says:
>The key word here in my book is "loan". Yes, it is
>interest-free, which does involve the loss of bankable
>monies, but isn't this a far better deal than any that
>the Twins have ever proposed?
Past proposals are irrelevant. What's on the table now is what matters.
A $100 million interest-free loan over a period of 20-30 years represents a
taxpayer subsidy on the order of $100-$150 million dollars. That represents
a lot of potential housing, transit, education, healthcare, street and
water-related investment that will not be made if these funds are tied up in
a sports facility. Our infrastructure is crumbling.
Loki continues:
> Call me a big spending liberal (no, please do, cause I
> am), but I have no problem advocating for more funds
> for affordable housing, environmental clean-up, mass
> transit, education...AND giving an interest-loan to
> the Minnesota Twins for a stadium which I and many
> others will enjoy for years to come.
I think the key word here is 'giving' as opposed to 'taking'--as in taxes.
Loki, you're free to give your money to the cause, but please don't offer to
take mine as well.
How would such a sports facility loan be repaid? There is talk that such a
facility would be built in a tax-free zone of some type, which would
preclude any sales tax revenue from being used to repay the loan.
Private investors would receive equity in return for their investment; what
would taxpayers receive in return for their subsidy? A dollar is a dollar,
and the investing public shouldn't have to take any lesser position than a
private investor. Who will provide/pay for land and ancillary
infrastructure, including parking?
The Twins are a private enterprise; owners/players are paid more in a year
than most city residents will make in a lifetime. Why should these same
residents be asked to subsidize such a venture? It makes no sense. Go
watch the Saints. Let the Twins and Vikings package their plans and go out
and sell it to private investors in the marketplace if it's such a good
deal. There is no shortage of private investment funds if someone is
offering a good investment opportunity-- therein lies the problem. These
sports facilities do not represent a good investment, hence the lack of
private interest. That does NOT mean the public taxpayer should pick up the
slack.
If I want to take my family/friends to a ball game, I'll purchase tickets
and buy overpriced concessions, thereby making my contribution to the team's
bottom line-- aka known as user fees or customer revenues. I don't however,
want the government taking my money out of my pocket to subsidize
millionaire owners/players who can't make their money the old fashioned
way-- by earning it. What's the difference if the public funds go toward
the facilities or go toward payroll... it's the same revenue stream; overall
operational costs are the same and both affect the bottom line! Lets get
real. Raise the price of corporate boxes and general ticket prices,
negotiate better media deals, and lower other operational costs-- all
options for team owners. But keep taxpayers out of the loop.
Legislators wake up-- nothing has changed? It doesn't matter what the
season stats are (sometimes they're up, sometimes down), the debt load
however remains the same. Let's take care of adequately funding basic and
necessary government services-- it is not the role of government to fund
sports facilities. It's been proven time and again there is no economic
development value added by publicly subsidizing sports facilities for
private, major league teams. They represent an entertainment amenity--
that's it.
NO PUBLIC FUNDS FOR PRIVATE SPORTS FACILITIES!!!!
Michael Hohmann
13th Ward
http://www2.visi.com/mahco
_______________________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
