At 08:19 AM 07/13/2002 -0500, Mark Snyder wrote: > >I hope Eva would be willing to provide some explanation of her statement >that the Twins have negotiated in bad faith with St. Paul. Most accounts I >have seen are that it's St. Paul that has been screwing around with the >Twins. > >They wanted exclusive negotiating rights. They have not settled on a site >yet and so don't know how much site preparation will cost. The bill passed >by the Legislature caps the amount of public financing and expects the Twins >to cover shortfalls, which is fine, but when you have a team for sale, it >kind of makes it harder to get interested buyers. Urban construction sites >are often in need of things like pollution cleanup and the like. St. Paul >cannot provide any kind of estimate for these things because they don't even >have a site chosen yet. Why shouldn't they want exclusive negotiating rights? They didn't want to be used as a pawn to get Minneapolis to move. As far as questionable costs go, much of those come on the twins side -- labor costs aren't controlled. The Players are possibly going on strike.
>At least Minneapolis/Hennepin County had one site picked out, knew how much >it would cost to prep and quite frankly, it's a better site than any of >those proposed for St. Paul. Fine -- if this is a good site, let the Twins use the site without public subsidy. If this is a good investment, the buyer should be going to the business community and encouraging them to buy in. No need to risk taxpayer money. >Here's my hope: the Twins keep on winning and clinch the AL Central, making >the playoffs for the first time since 1991 and bringing thousands of fans >downtown to recreate the glory days of the late 80's and early 90's. >Perhaps that would have a galvanizing effect to get the public-private >partnership needed to get a real workable ballpark solution. > >I agree with those who say Minneapolis or St. Paul can't and shouldn't go it >alone. What the Legislature did last session was a total copout. Hopefully >with all the retirements after this last session and if we're all really, >really lucky, a few key defeats in the elections this fall, we can get some >legislators who are willing place working for a real solution above screwing >over the Minneapolis delegation. > >The proposal from the Ventura administration had it right: state financing >(not funding, those most folks still can't get a handle on the difference), >location selected by a panel after being judged for parking/transit >capacity, sewerage infrastructure and other structural needs, and bond >repayment based on private contributions (by the team and corporate >sponsors) and user fees, not taxes that hit the locals and leave the rest of >the state off the hook. > There is a difference -- funding gives the team a blank check. Financing ties up state bonding that could be used for other projects. Also, this stadium financing is high risk -- and how will the state be protected in case of default. Eva Eva Young Central Neighborhood Minneapolis "You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone - not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc., but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be." --Article II of the Bill of Non-Rights. _______________________________________ 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
