> A different perspective, the Twins/Ballpark Debate > > The “Vociferous Opponents of Ballparks and other entertainment they > don’t appreciate therefore it is unnecessary for everyone else” or > VOBs, tend to over-inflate the debate.
If we do, it is because the "other" side has done so with the aid of mass media and million dollar messages. All we have is our voice. > Those who might advocate some > level of public support for stadiums are not by extension advocating > the snatching of medicines from the elderly, food from the mouths of > babes, and shelter from the otherwise homeless. For far too long, this > has been an accepted tactic of VOBs. Funding of stadiums vs. funding to > relieve social ills is not an either/or proposition. If it were, the > last 5 years would have witnessed an enormous public investment in > housing, etc. as stadiums were NOT funded. This is spurious logic. It assumes there IS a pot of money to be used for either/or. We have to have the will to fund housing which we have clearly not had. Given that our schools and housing are underfunded it becomes insane to reroute money that could be used for these necessities to luxuries. > I have always been leery of funding stadiums publicly. Like many VOBs, > I am uncomfortable with subsidizing billionaires. But maybe as part of > the civic discussion, we could set that notion aside for a moment and > view the stadium debate from another perspective. Why not consider > these structures as part of the civic fabric? Why not classify them in > the same way we classify roads, bridges, and civic buildings such as > auditoriums, libraries, etc.? At one time in our history, ballparks and > stadiums were viewed much that way. These were public edifices and were > supported and built by public dollars. I ’ll grant that the economics > and scale of the investment have changed radically since Memorial > Stadium at the U of MN was built (god bless Jules Perlt on an autumn > afternoon) or Met Stadium was constructed in the late 1950’s. However, > is it really so inconceivable that we might view an investment in > stadia as an investment in the public infrastructure and/or the civic > fabric? I love that Minneapolis is building a great new library. The > library is an investment by the public for the public. Is it so > outlandish to consider the possibility we might choose to make an > investment in stadiums for similar reasons? These comparisons are incongurous. Roads are fundamental, stadiums are not. The comparison to libraries may be more apt, but libraries provide resources to all citizens for free. Sporting events cost $$. Once upon a time, our sports teams WERE civic entities. The players were taken from our neighbors and had regular jobs outside the game. Now they are professionals, making money and playing/practicing full time. So I will accept that, at one time, they were part of the civic fabric but now they are a self-supporting industry whose owners and key employees make millions of dollars per year in a FOR-PROFIT corporation. Libraries and most arts organizations are NON-PROFIT organizations. > > It is true that stadium investments will primarily benefit a certain > portion of the population and as such, I would advocate that the > investment burden should be primarily shouldered by those > beneficiaries. But do we not make a multitude of public investments in > things that do not benefit everyone proportionally already? I do not > attend the theater but I do not begrudge the investment in the Guthrie > or the Shubert. Again, you are comparing for-profit and non-profit corporations. Not fair. I do not use thousands of miles of roads and multitudes > of bridges in this city and state, yet I do not begrudge the investment > in this civic infrastructure merely because it does not benefit me > directly per se. I imagine there are many things that my tax dollars go > towards that I may not support, but I accept that the shared public > investment of our city and state provides many benefits to many people > whether I agree with the investment or not. This is just accounting hocus-pocus. Take the roads you DO use. You can say that you have paid some fraction of a cent for every mile of road in Minnesota or you can say you have paid for some few inches of Road. I suspect that your taxes will not cover a stretch of road long enough for your car to sit on. Certainly not long enough for you to get to work. > One last point (honest)... I think there is something very important > about sports that many people who do not like sports or appreciate its > impact, miss.... This can be accomplished with less expensive alternatives. The Saints, for example, college sports, high school sports. I would argue that the "community" aspect of sports is greatest when it most local (i.e. high school) and least when it is most specialized (major league). Going OFF TOPIC for the LIST: I believe Major League Baseball could cure many ills by becoming a single publically held corporation or cooperative where players are shareholders. This would reduce the animosity between players and owners, provide long term security to the labor force (players), naturally limit salaries, and reduce or remove the claimed need for publically funded stadiums. _______________________________________ 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
