Mark, Two things on being the envy of the nation for "only" spending $10 million on a stadium.
1) If I truly believed the final cost was $10 million and nothing more would be worked into the picture, it MIGHT change the picture as I see it. However, I seriously doubt that will be the case, whether it's city funds or otherwise. Even authors of the charter amendment quietly confessed there were loopholes if a future Council were so inclined. 2) $10 million dollars could fix either a lot of potholes on Johnson St., Nicollet, Lake St., pick your favorite street, it could have paid for all the new lighting on Central Ave. NE instead of the neighborhoods having to pony up NRP dollars probably dozens of times over, it could have renovated the Shoreham Yards Roundhouse 2-3 times over and brought much needed development to Central Avenue, or any other litany of things to do. These items have a much broader appeal to many more people than a ballpark. Gary Bowman 1-1 On Mon, 10 December 2001, "Mark Snyder" wrote: > > Responding to the message of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > from Eva Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > It's still increased taxes whether it's the state or the city -- and > > there's a big shortfall in the state budget right now. > > What increased taxes? Where has anyone said extending a loan for financing a > ballpark would require a tax increase? The whole point of doing the loan and > paying it back through surcharges on parking or whatever is that such a plan > would NOT require general tax revenues OR a tax increase. > > > How many people stay in hotels or visit restaurants after Twins games? And > > how many people stay in Minneapolis Hotels and eat in Minneapolis > > Restaurants after Twins games? > > The visiting players and their staffs do after every game, as do some of the > home team players. Many games also are attended by folks visiting from out of > town - check the Strib or PiPress sports pages to see various examples of tours > you can go on to see your favorite home team play on the road. Presumably, they > would stay in a hotel in either Minneapolis or Bloomington. Arguably, the Twins > might be more popular for this type of thing than some others because our ticket > prices are far below average and we have that neat shopping mall near the > airport. > > > Studies on this issue have shown that when there isn't a pro sports team, > > people spend their entertainment dollars in other ways. > > But do they spend them downtown? Or do they go to movies or shopping or > whatever out in the suburbs where parking is free and traffic is generally less > of a hassle? > > > Well I'm one who has gone to about 3 or 4 twins games since living in the > > cities. I also think that the quality theater in Minneapolis makes this > > city unique. There are lots of cities that have pro sports -- but not many > > cities that have the quality of theater and arts that we do here in > > Minneapolis. > > So? Quality theater means it deserves public funding? What about those folks > who could give a fig about theater or who are deaf like me and so may not be > able to fully appreciate a play or orchestral performance? One nice thing about > pro sports for me is that it's all visual, or at least enough so that I can keep > up with everything despite being unable to hear. Although I do venture out for > the occasional small show because I have friends who perform. Again, I don't > mean to knock the performing arts, but saying that they deserve public funding > and a ballpark doesn't strikes me as both hypocritical and snobbish. > > > Neither the planetarium or any of the theaters that get public money pay > > workers the type of out of control salaries that ball players make. > > And also don't generate the kinds of taxes the ball players do. Do you realize > that visiting baseball players pay income taxes for the games they play here? > It totalled about $9 million in tax revenues for MN last year. That's on top of > the tax revenues paid by the Twins players. Not to mention the property taxes > paid by current and former ballplayers who live here or the millions in > charitable funds have been raised by these same players over the years. > > > As I understood it 67% opposed public financing. > > That's because you didn't read the whole article. You looked at a pie chart on > the front page. Had you ventured inside to the rest of the article, you would > have seen a table listing a variety of financing options. Poll respondents > favored using monies from ticket/parking surcharges as I stated before as well > as favored slot machines at Canterbury Park (66%), issuing special > sports-related lottery tickets (64%) and a low-interest loan from the state to > the Twins combined with some private money (67%). I merely stated the option > considered most favorable at 72%. > > > Not if it's not a sound business proposal. What is stopping fans from > > forming a non-profit now to buy the twins -- and getting a sugar daddy to > > be the 25% investor? Why does Kahn's proposal require the legislature to > > act? > > Because it provides credibility. If there were a group of us fans who had the > connections and the clout to form such a non-profit and approach a sugar daddy > and get that person on board, it would have been done already. Unfortunately, > Pohlad and MLB are unlikely to give us fans the time of day unless we have a > partner worthy of their attention. > > And what's not sound about such a proposal? Buy the team, build a community > ballpark, keep the team in Minnesota - no more threats to move, set the team's > payroll as we wish. What's the problem? Walt might jump in and argue how the > team couldn't be competitive. In that case, I'd like to know his definition of > competitive - the Twins finished 85-77, six games out of winning the Central and > a record better than more than half the teams in the MLB with the lowest payroll > in the MLB. Yes, they had a lower payroll than even Montreal. What's > competitive? Winning the World Series each year? > > > What bothers me Mark, is this predictable act of extortion by Sielig and > > Pohlad is getting the city, the state and the media to focus on this issue > > -- in a way that keeps attention from other issues that are much more the > > province of government. This whole stadium task force costs taxpayer > > money. So does all the time city council members and the mayor elect are > > putting into the issue. Rybak certainly wasn't elected to subsidize the > > stadium. He ran against public funding of the stadium and attacked his > > opponents for supporting public funding of the stadium. Lisa McDonald was > > attacked wrongly in this regard. Her record on the subject was clearly > > opposed to public funding of a stadium. > > What bothers me is people that think this is an issue not worthy of attention > just because they don't care a great deal what happens to the Twins. I don't > sit out in left field and complain about all the issue posted that I'd rather > not hear or read about. I grow weary at times of the education thread but I'm > not wailing on Mr. Atherton or Mr. Mann to shut up and go away. What about > those of us who want a stadium built and so appreciate the time and effort our > elected officials have put into solving the problem? > > I worked on Rybak's campaign and don't recall stadiums being a particularly huge > issue one way or the other in his campaign literature or statements. I know > Rybak ran on a philosophy of getting things done without always pulling out the > City's checkbook as SSB often did. And I see him acting consistently with what > he campaigned on. He's offered no big plan for public financing that would cost > our taxpayers anything. He's stated that any proposal needs to have private > dollars committed first and foremost. > > If you'll permit me an aside, with regards to Gary Bowman's comment on Ostrow > viewing a $10 million investment as appropriate - do you know what that would be > for? It would cover things like street work and sewer work, which would be > needed for ANY kind of development project, whether it be a ballpark, a shopping > center, a theater or even a green space park with grass and trees and stuff. > Honestly, if Minneapolis managed to procure a new ballpark and all we ended up > having to contribute was that $10 million in infrastructure costs, we would be > the envy of nearly every state and major municipal government in the nation! > > Mark Snyder > Ward 1/Windom Park > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _______________________________________ > 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 --------------------------------------------------- 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
