[Mpls] Re: Dean Carlson's post on the stadium

[Bruce Shoemaker]

Dean's argument lacks reference to a couple of points:  First, the 
voters of Minneapolis have already passed a referendum saying that they 
do not want their representatives to spend significant public money on a 
stadium.  That clearly differentiates it from LRT, the Guthrie and other 
proposals he references.  Secondly, we are talking about a tax increase 
to raise funds for a specific project.  This is not just a new or 
realigned expenditure within our existing overall tax structure and 
budget--obviously the types of decision our representatives have to make 
all the time without  being expected to bring each proposed expenditure 
to the voters.  But when sales or property taxes for specific new 
initiatives or projects are proposed there is much more of an 
expectation that the voters will be consulted.  It happens with school 
levies all the time.  It happened with library funding, (which passed by 
the way--having a referendum doesn't have to be a deal-killer it just 
means that the proponents have to make a convincing case to the voters 
before taking their money).  It may happen with the proposed tax 
increase for public safety funding.  Why not for the stadium proposal?

For something that has been in the works for years and years why is the 
"delay" a referendum would cause a deal-killer?  Stadium proponents have 
not clearly made the case for the need to rush this.  What aspect of the 
deal will really collapse?  If State action is needed this legislative 
session it could be done but contingent on a referendum.  I don't think 
the Twins will abandon a deal they have been pursuing for years just by 
having to wait a few more months for the voters to approve the deal.
Let's be honest.  The real fear is that a referendum wouldn't pass.

Bruce Shoemaker
Holland Neighborhood
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 10:04:17 -0500
From: "Dean Carlson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Mpls] Re:  stadium
To: <mpls@mnforum.org>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="iso-8859-1"
Did we get to vote on Light Rail Transit?  You think that would have passed
a referendum in Hennepin County?  How about relocating the Guthrie and
paying for that?  I don't remember having a say on that either or even
anyone calling for a referendum.  If there was a proposal for a 1/2 cent
sales tax to support affordable housing, should that go in front of the
voters and how do you think it would turn out?  Does that mean these are bad
ideas or that they were rammed down our throats?  No.
The bottom line is that everyone wants to have a referendum when they are
against something and are against a referendum when they are for it.  The
lack of a referendum has nothing to do with the merit or legitimacy of the
proposal.
 

REMINDERS:
1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If 
you think a member is in violation, contact 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 Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn 
E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:mpls@mnforum.org
Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls