On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Tim Bonham wrote: > > >Whether we like it or not a stadium will likely be > >built, we need to put our energies behind getting the best deal for > >Minneapolis. > I could argue that the "best deal" for Minneapolis taxpayers would > be for St. Paul (or Bloomington or Brooklyn Park) to "win" the stadium > bidding war. > I could get to any of those locations nearly as fast as going > downtown to the current stadium. But taxpayers from there would be the > ones paying for the stadium. And it's quite possible that the current > stadium would be demolished, and probably replaced with housing & > commercial property (as David Brauer mentioned a while ago), which would > pay tax money in to the city of Minneapolis.
> So let's all push for a new stadium to go outside Minneapolis! I vote for St. Paul. I like St. Paul. I find it fun place to visit and watch the Wild and the Saints play. It would be nice to see the Twins play there. Also, since I do not eat in St. Paul nearly as often as I eat in Minneapolis, the additional tax on food and liquor would not affect my budget nearly as much as if Minneapolis was the host city. I dunno why, even when I ignore the food/liqour tax issue, I still see St. Paul as being a better city for the new stadium, especially if it is down by the river. That could be so cool. Scott McGerik Hawthorne/Minneapolis http://www.mcgerik.com/scott/ [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
