I will admit that I am one of the people who read Mr. Ostrow's post to the last word. Having done that, I want and feel the need to respond to my council member's comments.
To begin with, I want to offer a few commendations to Paul. Paul entered into this e-discussion presumably with the knowledge he would be walking into a hostile arena. Despite disagreement anyone may have with him, he should be commended for this. Secondly, Paul has indeed argued consistently for an "...urban, compact, open air ballpark". For whatever stadium/ballpark may be built, Paul is right when he argues that such a Wrigley-esque building is preferable to a stadium where the building is absolutely unwelcoming to a city atmosphere and makes for disinterested fans because they're so far away from the diamond it was pretty much pointless for them to bother going to the game anyway. With that said, I must make adamant disagreements with my Council Member. For the record, I suspect anything I have to say will be of no surprise to Paul. The sentiment I'll be expressing to the list is the same I've expressed to Paul personally. Paul states, "Political leaders can either bury their heads in the sand when the going gets tough or they can work with folks to find solutions". My hope is that Paul is not insinuating those of us who oppose any public subsidy are "burying our heads in the sand". The citizens of Minneapolis, in my humble opinion, have clearly and repeatedly stated what the solution should be, therefore offering clear leadership. It just so happens that Major League Baseball is not pleased with the message. The citizens of Minneapolis, in my observation, have never said "don't build a stadium". They've said it is not the responsibility of public entities to do so and furthermore is a poor deal for the public. Paul continues, "Unlike any other proposals, this one requires the Twins and the private sector contribute 2/3rds of the cost. Of the remaining 1/3, a substantial amount would be raised through parking revenue from Twins fans parking in the existing ramps". Paul either misses or is ignoring the point. There is still a substantial public subsidy going towards a stadium that will primarily benefit the stadium owner. On that vein, I must ask Paul the question: Your argument here seems to be that the 1/3 of the cost is justified as only people using the stadium will bear the cost and this revenue is available only with a stadium. Yet, this amount (whatever a 1/3 of the total cost may be) is either not going to materialize until AFTER the stadium is built and the Twin's are playing in it or it will be money that could have been used for other purposes. If it is money that won't materialize until after a stadium is built, where will the money come from until that point? The construction workers still have to be paid, the land still has to be purchased, the bricks still have to be paid for. Assuming the cost of these items will have to be paid for prior to the revenue you suggest using for it materializes, that would seem to mean that other funds will have to be used. If you can access these funds in a tight budget for an unneeded and unpopular expenditure, why can't you find money for things such as NRP or street cleaning? If it is money that is currently being raised from existing parking, then where is that money going now? It is likely either going directly or indirectly to some general purpose. If you direct it to a stadium, that means other more basic city functions will suffer. Therefore, the argument that says the money is not coming from the general public is at best a half-truth. One way or another, I'm receiving less services from my city government. Furthermore, the insinuation that we will lose this revenue if the Twin's leave has been shown in study after study to be false. Entertainment dollars would be redistributed, not lost. The Minneapolis City Council really needs to stop being so schizophrenic and saying on one hand what a great city we are and on the other being so insecure as to say that without the Twin's we will inevitably see the tumbleweeds rolling over the rubble that used to be the department stores, the office buildings, the theaters, and the Warehouse District. Finally, there is no question in my mind that once we give an inch, a mile will be taken. I suspect the Vikings would like nothing more than the Twin's to get their subsidy. Why? It gives them all the more ammunition to beg, plead, and demand their own payoff. And, I again ask the question: Why is the private business sector avoiding offering to build a stadium of their own? I'd argue a two-fold answer. First, they know, being successful businesspeople, it's not a money-making deal. Secondly, if they give in this time and build a privately-funded stadium, it will embolden other cities to cut off what is essentially an addiction for MLB. The time has come for our politicians to show real leadership and call the bluffs, quit allowing themselves to be hostage to extortion, and just walk away. If the politicians won't play, MLB will have little choice but to rethink their game. Does that pose a risk of politicians being blamed "for losing the Twins"? Even the hellbent pro-public subsidy Strib has shown that won't be the case. If people blame anyone, the Strib's polling shows it will be a poorly managed MLB that will be blamed. In matter of fact, I believe the only reason that we are in this mess is that politicians WON'T show real leadership and stop discussing plan after plan. It's because of these continual attempts by politicians to force the issue that MLB keeps up their tactics. Gary Bowman 1-1 --------------------------------------------------- Get your free web based email from Crosswalk.com: http://mail.crosswalk.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
