-----Original Message----- From: Robert Schmid
> How delighted I am to here our city officials say that we can't > afford the tax increase to fund the twins ballpark. Now somebody > else can pay for it. > Some notable points in the debate; > The dome is LOSING money on the twins. According to testimony in the > House on Saturday the twins bring no profit to the dome and must be > subsidized by the Vikings. ... [T Brown] Being somewhat of a legislative junkie, I spent way to much time watching the Legislature in action on Saturday. Well it is cheaper than a movie and some of the stuff that happens falls into the category of stuff you just can't make up. I'm not sure its fair to compare the Metrodome to the proposed baseball stadium. The Metrodome was built with a virtually guaranteed profit part of the way to do it was to get the Twins to go along and give them cheap rent as an incentive. The place was built for the Vikings and to the Vikings specifications. The thing only cost $60 million to build, its nearly paid for and has money in the bank. The baseball stadium is proposed to guarantee that a subsidy will be required. In one of worst remarks to come out of the Legislature this year Rep. Tom Ostoff expressed great pleasure in sticking it to Minneapolis on the stadium bill. A couple of points that kept coming out in the debate: 1. Legislators from all over Minnesota were talking of how their constituents didn't want to lose the Twins. They wanted to be able to continue to listen to the games on the radio or come down to the Cities to take their kids to the game. The only thing they didn't want to do was pay the bill. The bill paying should be left to the people in Minneapolis or St. Paul. 2. The referendum that we may see this year asks the question of if a tax of **up to** five (5) percent should be levied. The reason: If the initial 3% doesn't raise enough money the additional tax has already been approved. The referendum also over rides the $10 million charter limit that theoretically protected us. Good theory, I guess. Now I don't think the referendum will pass in either Minneapolis or St. Paul. 1% already failed over there, why would 3 or 5% pass? We passed the $10 million limit, why would we vote to toss in many times that amount? Our City Council should not even put the referendum on a ballot unless they have agreement with the Twins to negotiate exclusively with Minneapolis. None of this we'll see who gives us the best deal from the Twins. Major league baseball can afford to build its own stadiums. I heard on the radio over the weekend that in the past 5 years the **average** major league player has had his salary increase by $1 million per year. They didn't have poverty wages 5 years ago, just that increase would build a lot of stadiums. There is plenty of money in the business of baseball to pay its players well, provide profits for the owners AND build facilities to play the game. If the Minnesota Legislature thinks there is a public good in having professional baseball, they should spread out the cost, not have it paid solely by those of us in Minneapolis or where ever else a stadium may be built. Terrell Brown Loring Park terrell at terrellbrown dot org __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.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
