Message: 15 From: "Walt Cygan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: [Mpls] Twins ballpark funding proposal Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 21:22:18 -0600
Walt wrote: >From http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/MIN/attend.shtml: The average annual attendance for the Twins over the last 10 years was just a shade under 1.5 million, which includes the bump they go right after winning the '91 Series. Assuming attendance any higher than that is a fantasy.< I think that 1.5 million average needs to also reflect how bad the team was through much of the 90's. Going to watch a bad team play in a football stadium was certainly not an appetizing prospect. Last season, the team drew 1.8 million to a bad facility because they were competitive. I think a new ballpark, plus continuing to be competitive, plus casual fans perhaps being more enthusiastic about attending games after the near-loss of the team makes 2 million less of a fantasy. If the Twins could manage to resist the temptation to really jack up ticket prices with the new ballpark, all the better. Detroit is not a really good comparision because even with the new ballpark, the team still sucks. Though my understanding is that attendance did rise with the new ballpark they built. But even so, at 1.5 million, my proposal's average surcharge per ticket would be $3.33, which still can be made progressive if desired. Walt wrote: >This is the rub. Generally, the $300-500 million figure for a stadium is what owners consider necessary for a stadium that generates sufficient revenue to be economically viable.< I wonder if you're mixing stadium figures. I've seen $300 million as the high end for a ballpark, which would be one with a retractable roof. The $300-500 million figure was bandied about by folks wanting a football stadium for the Vikings and Gophers. That's a whole 'nother discussion. :) [snip] Walt wrote: >Mark: 10 out of 10 points for effort. But I just don't see new owners paying Pohlad $150 million and then turning around and kicking in another $150-250 million for their contribution to a stadium. The other suggestion that has been floated involves car rental and hotel taxes, since for the most part they are not paid by residents of the Twin Cities, and other cities are doing it. That just strikes me as morally bankrupt. We don't want to pay so we'll make out-of-towners pick up the tab! Still if users want to pay for a stadium that would be fine with me. It just seems it would be closer to $6-8 per ticket if just applied to Twins game tickets. Of course, that could be lowered by applying the surcharge to all events held at the stadium, and if the new owners would kick something in.< The owners wouldn't necessarily have to pick up the rest themselves. Things like corporate naming rights and such can raise a lot of money. We already have a Target Center and an Xcel Energy Center. Maybe we could have a Cargill or 3M ballpark - not my first preference, but just to throw it out there. I agree that using car rental and hotel taxes are not the way to go. The ballpark should be funded by people actually using it - so baseball fans and the owners. If the owners wanted to hold concerts or something there as well to sell more event tickets, I'd have no problem with that either. Walt concludes: >2 things are required for my support (for whatever that means to anyone): the Pohlads out of the picture; no public money other than for services that would ordinarily be provided to such a facility. < Thanks Walt! I appreciate your critique and I think your position is a much better reflection of the public will than Sen. John Marty and other anti-stadium folks are. I must admit that my proposal is not wholly original. Some variations have been floated by other legislators only to be shot down by Mr. Marty's vociferous opposition. I honestly believe that the biggest obstacle we face towards keeping the Twins (or Vikings for that matter) is not money so much as it is legislators growing enough backbone to actually explain to their constituents how a funding proposal would work instead of just hiding behind the "no public funding" stance. We have a representative government - legislators and the governor are elected to decide on our behalf what's best for our state. That doesn't always equate with what's most popular. Many people see stadium funding as corporate welfare - what we're ignoring is the many average folks employed by the teams and the stadiums, not to mention those that would be employed to construct a new ballpark. With the national economy in the dumps, it would provide a nice local shot in the arm for all those folks who do commercial construction and help keep us from getting dragged down further. Mark Snyder Ward 1/Windom Park _______________________________________ 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
