I agree with some of TB's points below, disagree with others, but the bottom line is that I'm extremely disappointed in the bill that was passed.
Based on my previous posts it should be no surprise that I'm in support of building a new baseball park. I know it's a minority opinion on this list but I truly believe the Twins are gone without a new stadium, the Dome is an abomination to baseball watching enjoyment, and like it or not, 20 some other cities and/or states have set a precedent of building a stadium with tax dollars. Maybe we know something they don't or they know something we don't, but it's pretty obvious we don't have the will to follow suit. Thus I'm in total agreement with TB's 1st point below. Unfortunately there were a couple of options other than the one that was passed. A state-sponsored casino with the revenues dedicated to a stadium would have paid for an awesome park in about 15 years. (and if you don't like the idea of state-sponsored gambling, its here already, that argument has been lost). A 1/10 cent 7-county sales tax could have generated enough to pay for a ball park, fund the arts and culture (e.g. Guthrie, Shubert, Planetarium) and generated funds for an affordable housing trust fund. Plus it is such a small individual amount you would not have noticed it (a $25,000 car would cost only $25.00 more to purchase). The final bill is a disaster whether or not Hennepin County is involved. TB and Councilmember Goodman laid it out pretty clear how unfair it would have been for downtown workers and residences. I have to disagree with TB in that the referendum will not pass in St. Paul. I've heard that the city and especially the business community is rallying behind the referendum. The reason the last one didn't pass is because the business community was pretty lukewarm, basically because they didn't think there was the will on the State's part to participate, that obstacle is gone and look for the referendum to pass with about 54 percent. Having said that I still don't think St. Paul will land a ball park. They don't control any of the 3 sites and I'm guessing the price just doubled on the needed land now that those sites are the only game in town. The cost will be much higher than the $330 million authorized and City will come back with hand out looking for a gap. I think it will be 2-3 years before we see a final ball park plan in St. Paul with another bill or two crossing the Governor's desk before its all over. Unless of course Baseball strikes first. Sorry for rambling. Dean E. Carlson East Harriet, Still Ward 10 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Terrell Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > 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? _______________________________________ 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
