To jump on the bandwagon with Dean, I'd like to add that the bonding done for a ballpark wouldn't be general obligation bonds that are backed by tax revenues. Also, the fund established by the upfront payment would likely be reviewed every four years or so to make sure it's performing as expected. Ventura was quoted as saying that the Twins would be responsible for shoring it up, not taxpayers, though the article admittedly gives no specifics for how this is ensured.
For folks still wondering why a bank doesn't just offer a loan straight to the Twins, State Finance commissioner Pam Wheelock was quoted as saying that the Ventura plan couldn't be replicated privately due to the low interest rate and because interest income on the $165 million upfront payment by the Twins would be nontaxable. She also said the Twins would be unlikely to find a private lender that would give a 30-year loan term (not 15 years as Dean initially thought). I personally like this idea based on what I've learned so far. It certainly beats the plans being floated by St. Paul and Hennepin County that would stick it to bar and restaurant patrons and downtown residents. I don't know that the $165 million upfront is that huge of a hurdle if the right owners are involved because it would be treated as a "gift" to the State, which I would presume carries some tax deductability. Mark Snyder Ward 1/Windom Park [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message: 9 From: "deanc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 17:45:47 GMT Subject: [Mpls] Re: The Guv's Stadium Plan Mr. Piehl technically is correct. The Twins "could" decide they don't want to pay their 10 million and renege on the deal. Presumably there would be an agreement between the State and the Twins regarding default provisions and penalties for default. Otherwise the State could always sue forcing the Twins to pay up. However, using this logic is a recipe for never doing anything!! Banks could never exist under Mr. Piehl's scenario -- they would never lend money for fear that the loan reciever might default. As I posted earlier. The Guv's plan has a lot of merit. No one would object if the Twins would privately finance a stadium, right? However even under a private finance scenario the Twins would still take out loans and repay them over time from the revenues generated by the stadium. Under the Guv's plan, the State is the bank. Wells Fargo and USBank can't do this because they can't get their hands on the low-interest bonds that the state can. Basically the $10 mil annually is the rent to play in the ball park. Naming rights over 30 years would come close to covering this, so the Twins could virtually be playing rent-free. Couple that with Personal Seat Licenses, and a cut of the concessions and this plan may be quite attractive to the Twins, at no cost to the taxpayers. Oh yea of course the risk involved if the Twins ever wanted to back out of this sweet deal. (To get an idea of how these stadium concession deals work... if you went to the X-Arena these past weekends to watch high school hockey or the WCHA final 5 and bought a hotdog or coke, t-shirt, etc., you were contributing to the hockey Wild's bottom line even though they were nowhere near the building.) The biggest flaw in the Guv's plan is how do the Twins come up with $165 mil up front. Given the Twins guarded, but positive, reaction to the plan, they must think it has merit too. Dean E. Carlson East Harriet, Ward 10 (for now at least) > David Piehl writes: > They forgot the last step: When it's time to negotiate new multimillion > dollar contracts with the Twins players and management, the owners decide > they don't want to pay the bond payments of $10 million a year anymore and > the taxpayer is left holding the bag. Look up the history of "forgiven" > payments and rents from the sports teams and you'll know what to expect. I consider this a bait and switch, it would be more respectable to simply > state the cost and let people decide. It's not just sports teams - Gavidae Commons is playing the same game. Ask yourself, if this is a good business decision, then where are Wells Fargo and US Bank? Both have large mortgage departments!! > > I hope it isn't the Minneapolis taxpayers that get stuck with the bill, > we've got too many creative financing situations to deal with already. > > David Piehl > Central _______________________________________ 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
