Aaron Neumann wrote:
In the spirit of fairness and mutual responsibility, I would support a new ballpark for the Twins on these grounds:
There is a community ownership component to the Twins (it is proposed that citizens pay 2/3 of the cost - why not have the public own stock in the Twins and therefore the investments - such as stadiums - made in them?)
Rep. Kahn has introduced such a bill. It's a pipe dream. It'll never happen as long as baseball is exempt from antitrust regulation. The last thing the owners want is the public looking at their financial books. Might as well give up on this now. It's not a battle worth fighting.
For the record, I would love to see some level of public ownership of the Twins (the more, the better). But I also live in the world of reality politics. We've got to get what we can.
OR: This tax is spread out at least metro-wide (preferably state-wide), since folks from not just the Twin Cities and surrounding suburbs will be enjoying the added quality of life the proposed new stadium would provide.
This I definitely agree with. Unfortunately, the governor's rule by sloagan is making that impossible. It's another abdication of leadership by a legislature that for some reason feels bound and gagged by one man (including the DFL!).
Here's a story related to me about the problem. Around 50 or so constituents of Char Samuelson went to visit her at the capitol demanding greater investment in our schools, health care, etc. Her response was that she has to "honor the governor" over her constituents. When asked whether she represents her constituents or the governor, she said it was a "tough question" but that she has to stand by the governor.
Anyone from New Brighton listening?
Until this mess gets cleaned up, forget about any state or regional investment. I, for one, applaud our county commissioners for saving the day. Peter definitely pulled ahead in the mayoral race for me. Here's someone willing to put his career on the line for what he believes to be a public good. My mind's not made up, but R.T. had better come out from hiding and state his intentions.
AND/OR: a combination of these two - INCLUDING the retractable roof component (this is Minnesota, after all) if we are primarily paying for it.
I disagree about the roof. There's nothing particularly unique about our climate that requires a roof.
OR: Polad Inc. pay for the entire effort- roof or no roof.
Not gonna happen. Look at the deals made around the country. Public investment is always the biggest chunk of the funding.
Now, you are entitled to think this position is in "the lower depths," but in reality this is about economic fairness and mutual (public-private) responsibility.
Fairness has nothing at all to do with politics. What ever gave you that idea? Certainly there is an element of public-private responsibility and I for one have been working to increase the pressure on our leaders to consider the public good. I happen to think a stadium serves that public good.
Ultimately politics is about power and compromise. Those with the power get to make the compromises. We can either complain about it all day or push our way to the table. Which will we choose to do?
David Greene The Wedge 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:[email protected] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
