As many of you may recall in my previous posts, I am an unabashed **publicly funded** stadium opponent. However, I have always attempted to separate the issues Barbara brings up.
If Rybak (or anyone else, for that matter) can build a stadium without public money or risk of public bailouts, then I'm all for a stadium. Let the private market practice what they preach: less government, less taxes, free market, RAH, RAH, RAH! Build on, RT! With that said, it remains to be seen a single proposal that doesn't include either public money or the risk of a public bailout. Finally, my humble opinion is that Rybak would be viewed as a great hero if he'd put together a privately funded deal. Imagine the bragging rights he'd have; he campaigned on putting down the checkbook and picking up the phone and that's exactly what he did. Better yet, he saved the Twins for the (hopeful) long term. Gary Bowman 1-1 --- "Barbara L. Nelson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "Growe's column brings up the issue I have always wondered about re the stadium debate on this list. That is, are Minneapolitans opposed to a stadium per se, or just the idea of taxpayer's money going into one? While some have separated these issues, several posts muddy these two ideas together". __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings! http://greetings.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
