Let me say at the outset that I simply do not want a new stadium. Anywhere in Minnesota. Frankly, I don't even think that a new stadium built with private money will help. Period.
The problem is that the Twins are located in a state that has a high degree of egalitarian principles. That means that luxury boxes, special seat-licenses and the like are not well-received. It also means that it is unlikely that you would see a completely private pay-per-view or local cable network for the Twins that would make substantial funds. Frankly, people here treat the ballclub the same way they treat political parties - as a public utility to which they have a right to access at low rates. That level of local revenue is appropriate in a state like this.
I grew up in New York (Mets fan, not Yankees) and can tell you all about the lengths some people will go to distinguish themselves from the masses. That does not happen the same way here.
I would also like to know if the poll referenced in prior messages was of all Minnesotans. As a Minneapolis person, I don't want to pay for a new stadium - at all - not even a share of a broader tax. If one is to be built, Saint Paul can have it, and pay for it, if necessary. I don't even want one built with public involvement ( not public-funding) - and I do understand the difference.
User fees are, with all due respect, a bunch of nonsense. If it can be done through user fees, it can probably be done by private financing - if the desire is there. I am tired of government, whether it is the MCDA or the state, being the developer of first - not last - resort.
Perhaps if Smilin' Carl knows he is stuck doing business without contraction for at least four more years, he will sell the ballclub to owners who do not need a stadium to make it work for them. Thus we can avoid the entire expense of a new stadium, whether public or private.
Bert Black
King Field
