Thanks, Tim for the first-hand report. One disagreement: > The problem is that so much of Minneapolis' recent > development including an expanded convention center, > Block E, new hotels at the Depot, downtown housing, > and all the tax increment financed projects, etc are > predicated upon the assumption sports teams will be in > or close to downtown Minneapolis.
I think this is a little dire. Certainly, sports is part of the Downtown mix but not even close to a majority of the reason all this stuff is going in. I'd say the hotels, etc. are more there to serve the growing business district. Downtown housing also has more to do with proximity to natural features (riverfront) and buying your way out of a congested highway commute than for sports (which is an amenity, but only one.) And remember, we're losing ONE sport here - yes, the most highly attended one, but still only one. The Twins get, in a good year, 2 million fans. The Vikes, Gophs and Wolves draw about 1.4 million. Yes, we could lose a team, but even then we retain 40 percent of our sports base. And if you factor in that Vikes and Wolves fans probably spend more, we're probably retaining 50 percent of the spending. As cool as the Twins are for Minneapolis - and this fan says they are - they are hardly a lynchpin of anything. The Warehouse District bars, for example, are far more driven by horny 20-somethings (and the people who love them) than stick-and-ball fans. On a related note... I'm perplexed by the notion of using TIF to fund a ballpark. I don't think housing is any more likely to go Downtown because of a stadium - we're doing fine on that score right now. To obligate TIF for a ballpark, then, is really diverting property taxes we'll gain anyway for the city's general fund. This week, people are getting their property tax statements, and the savvy ones realize there is no decrease from the state tax cut...there's a middle class increase. And this will get worse in the coming years even if Minneapolis stops spending money stupidly, because the limited-market-value caps are coming off. That means RT and Paul and Barb Johnson or whoever is leading the city has very, very little headroom for any initiative that requires money. To obligate scarce cash to a ballpark - either $10 million explicitly or TIF money passively - seems like using precious seed corn for a less-than-essential project right off the bat (pardon the pun). But hey, I'm a ball fan - I really, really don't want to lose the Twins. Unless I hear a better argument on this forum, I agree with Tim that the club is better in St. Paul. Frankly, that city needs baseball more - which is compliment to Minneapolis, which has developed more fully. 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
