Walt writes: > Some say it was to provide a "level playing field", but mostly it was an > effort by some legislators, most notably those from St. Paul, to stick > it to Minneapolis. > > It is the best thing that could have happened. Let St. Paul vote to tax > themselves for the stadium. Then we can choose to not go to St. Paul to > see the Twins and not go to St. Paul restaurants.
I've written of my horribly conflicted feelings on the stadium, but I'm positive the legislature's deal is a rotten one for any city that gets it. However, I too feel that it's better to get a choice about paying this tax as a consumer, rather than bearing the risk as a taxpayer - especially in Minneapolis's current fiscal condition. (By the way, do you suppose the McKinsey Report development reforms would encourage or discourage a stadium? I suspect the latter, which might put those arguing for a ballpark and for McKinsey stuff a bit split. Other insights on this point?) Anyway, on the "you got it" principle of playing outfield, I have entertained the idea of forming Minneapolitans for St. Paul...I mean, if their legislators really want to play stadium games, let's help them get what they want! We get choice of taxpaying, they get municipal debt! However, some of my best friends are St. Paul taxpayers, so I'll gladly let this one be someone else's inspiration. David Brauer King Field _______________________________________ 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
