Looks like I've been a bit of a rabble-rouser! I don't necessarily read email every day. Yesterday was largely a no-read day (in matter of fact, it was a sleep catch-up day for this sleep deprived list member!) As such, my comments come a bit late. Others have largely offered a complete rebuttal for me and I won't belabor the point to the list. I do thank those who have offered an either intentional or unintentional defense of my comments. I will only mention a few items for the list and my friend/fellow Northeaster Mark Snyder.
Is a publicly funded stadium different or less deserving of public subsidy than a planetarium? It's an interesting point and perhaps worthy of discussion. I would note, however, that the public has not said in clear majorities they oppose public funding of a planetarium. Bring a clear majority in opposition to funding a planetarium and I'd be amicable to opposition of planetarium funding, even if I personally may believe planetarium funding to be worthy. Furthermore, as Eva has pointed out, the finances and payrolls of MLB are vastly different from planetarium funding. Secondly, where did Paul state he'd use City funds? In his post he states, "...Of the remaining 1/3, a substantial amount would be raised through parking revenue from Twins fans parking in the existing ramps". I have yet to hear of the State of Minnesota building and operating any parking ramps in Minneapolis. Even if we take Paul's comments as only an insinuation and not a clear statement of using City funds, it stands to reason that at some point City funds will be used beyond what they've already been used (used in the way that it's used at City Hall continuing these discussions). Furthermore, Paul has stated publicly in the past he'd be agreeable to City funds being used. I believe he said it would be "appropriate" (at least to the $10 million charter imposed limit) Finally, even if it is only state funds being used, this is still a subsidy being spent on something that is hardly appropriate in the realm of government, especially in the current scenario of immense budget shortfalls. When Paul Ostrow (among others) at the city level show a willingness to entertain these subsidies, it feeds the fire at the state level. It allows state legislators to justify public subsidies. And, as I mentioned previously, this becomes the inch where the mile gets taken. Let me tell you that I don't want the Twins to leave, even if I don't have the opportunity to attend as many games as I'd like and if I dispute the amount of revenue they bring in and keep for the City (as opposed to that money being spent on the many other entertainment possibilities in Minneapolis). In any case, I cannot justify taxes being raised, basic services not being delivered, or other programs that can more legitimately be argued as needed not being offered so I can be entertained. I sincerely hope beyond hope that a fully privately funded solution can be found. Gary Bowman Ward 1, Precinct 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
