The Senate State and Local Government Operations committee will hear the governor's stadia proposal on Wednesday, April 14, at 12:30 PM or a half-hour after session ends, in room 15 of the state capitol. Sen. Steve Kelley will present the bill. It will be televised, I think.
Anyone wanting to testify for or against the bill should call my committee administrator, Julie Rusk, 651 296 4150, to sign up. Speakers are encouraged to keep their remarks to 3 minutes, with 5 minutes maximum.
Thanks Linda for posting this here. I urge people who are concerned about sales taxes in Hennepin being raised from 1/2 to 1 percent to pay for this boondoggle - and who feel that Mayor Rybak and the Stadium boosters - such as Mark Stenglein - on the Hennepin County commission don't speak for them to testify at this hearing - say a big no to tax subsidies to billionaires - when libraries are closed during high use times, when higher priority items like the Planetarium and the University of Minnesota are getting shorted.
The Governor doesn't even try to make a return on investment argument for the stadium - rather he talks about the "quality of life". A stadium in downtown Minneapolis does not improve my quality of life living in Minneapolis. I wonder whose quality of life he is talking about. I saw Rep Eric Lipman from Stillwater on Face to Face a few weeks ago. Lipman supports this stadium boondoggle because it "improves the quality of life" and "my constitutents want it" and "my constituents don't want to pay taxes to pay for it". But Lipman has no problem with increasing sales taxes on Hennepin County residents to pay for this stadium.
A recent Star Tribune article suggests that Minnesota is behind the curve on negotiating with teams:
http://www.startribune.com/stories/587/4716675.html
from the article:
Can teams afford to pay for their own stadiums?
Jay Weiner, Star Tribune April 12, 2004STAD0412
Minnesota's stadium battle is falling behind the national curve.
Massive public subsidies to pro sports teams for new facilities -- commonly as high as 75 or even 100 percent during the halcyon construction days of the 1990s -- could become a thing of the past, say national experts.
"If there's a city that allows itself to end up paying 50 or 75 percent of a stadium with public money, then they're not being aware of recent events," said St. Louis-based sports economist Patrick Rishe.
As the state's ballpark debate moves into the home stretch of the 2004 Legislative session, a new study claims that Major League Baseball teams can increase revenues enough in new stadiums to pay off the cost of their buildings within 12 years -- and without a dollar of public aid.
"Teams have been getting these subsidies, not because they need them, but because they can," said Marc Poitras, associate professor of economics at the University of Dayton and co-author of the study, "Do New Major League Ballparks Pay for Themselves?"
EY: Ofcourse the teams don't like the results of this study.
Though the Taxpayer's League has been much more focused on suggesting we don't need a bus system - they have taken a position in opposition to stadium boondoggles. From their statement:
http://www.taxpayersleague.org/stadiums.php
Public Subsidies for Professional Sports Stadiums
This legislative session, legislators will consider a number of proposals requesting public subsidies for the construction of professional sports stadiums in Minnesota. The Taxpayers League of Minnesota opposes any and all forms of public subsidies for professional sports stadiums. This includes tax revenues, "user" fees, bonds, subsidized loans, tax increment financing and any other form of public subsidy, either direct or indirect, with the sole exception of local government subsidies approved by local citizens through referenda. In general, the Taxpayers League of Minnesota does not oppose public funding for state college and university stadiums, provided such a project fulfills a public purpose and demand.
The Taxpayers League of Minnesota opposes the use of public subsidies for professional sports stadiums for the following reasons:
* Public money for private gain. Providing public subsidies for private stadiums is corporate welfare plain and simple. Public subsidies for stadiums go directly into the pockets of a team owner by increasing annual profits and raising the re-sale value of the team. The billionaire team owner profits, but the taxpayer doesn't see a dime.
* Negligible economic benefits. Contrary to the claims of stadium boosters, the wide body of economic research shows that stadiums have little (even negative) impact on the local economy. Stadiums don't create new wealth, they simply redistribute existing entertainment dollars from one form of entertainment to another. People spend more on sporting events but spend less on movies, restaurants, and other local entertainment.
* Destroys jobs and drives down wages. Recent studies suggest that stadiums actually destroy more jobs than they create and reduce local income overall.<http://www.taxpayersleague.org/#1>1 Because sports teams require relatively few employees to operate, and most of the jobs are low-wage temporary positions, they cause overall employment and income in a city to decrease when they drive out other local businesses (which provide more jobs at better pay).
* Costs outweigh the benefits. A study by the Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank<http://www.taxpayersleague.org/#2>2 found that a typical baseball or football stadium costs taxpayers $188 million while generating only $40 million in long-term benefits from jobs and tax revenues. The costs of a stadium outweigh the benefits by more than 4 to 1!
* Diverts resources from funding priorities. The costs of a stadium are even higher when you factor in the opportunity costs. Money spent on a stadium is money that could have been spent on schools, roads, and public safety - services which benefit all Minnesotans.
The Taxpayers League of Minnesota opposes the use of public subsidies for private stadiums. Stadiums are a bad use of taxpayer dollars - they benefit private interests at the cost of the taxpayer, have negligible or negative economic effects, offer a poor return on investment, and divert resources from essential public services.
----------
1. Coates, D. & B.R. Humphreys (2003). The Effect of Professional Sports on the Earnings of Individuals: Evidence from Microeconomic Data. UMBC Economics Department Working Paper 03-104: <http://www.umbc.edu/economics/wpapers/wp_03_104.pdf>http://www.umbc.edu/economics/wpapers/wp_03_104.pdf; Siegfried, J. & A. Zimbalist (2000). The economics of sports facilities and their communities. Journal of Economic Perspectives 14(3): 95-114.
2. Rappaport, J. & C. Wilkerson (2001). What Are the Benefits of Hosting a Major League Sports Franchise? Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank Economic Review (First Quarter 2001): <http://www.kc.frb.org/publicat/econrev/PDF/1q01rapp.pdf>http://www.kc.frb.org/publicat/econrev/PDF/1q01rapp.pdf.
EY: Again - the Taxpayer's League doesn't consider public transportation an essential public service. I think it does.
Eva Young
Near North
Minneapolis
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Blog is up:
http://lloydletta.blogspot.com
REMINDERS:
1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
