>>>>> "JH" == John Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The biggest downside to me of this investment is that I don't see firm
>> commitments from the team to provide affordable seats, and I don't see
>> any way our investment can be protected against major league baseball
>> going on a contraction binge. I understand the Twins are supposed to
>> be committed to fighting contraction, but that isn't like having a
>> nice fat penalty clause to cash out if the team goes away, is it?
JH> read david's article. it says that the twins are comitted to family
JH> seating and something like student night. they also said prices would
JH> be inline with other midwest cities, which, the dome is right now.
JH> also noted was the contraction issue. the ballpark comission gets 50%
JH> or the contraction money and any costs incurred by losing the tenant.
The problem to me is that "the Twins are committed" isn't the kind of
commitment we can take to court. Or am I wrong about that?
The Twins are a business. When you do business, you have to count on
contracts, and what you can demand as your right. You can't count on
simple pronouncements of good intention, because those are liable to
go overboard when things change. Look at what's happened with NWA:
we spend a ton of dough on them in exchange for an intention to hire,
things change, the intention goes away, and we don't have any way to
get back our investment.
>> Note also that there WAS a referendum about the new Library. And the
>> Guthrie provides service to the entire state, traveling around,
>> offering presentations for school kids, etc. It's not a for-profit
>> deal the way the Twins are, much less an organization that pretty much
>> one person's property.
JH> the twins do clinics for kids around the state all summer long. their
JH> games can be seen and heard all across the state. the guthrie makes
JH> you pay for a seat to all performances. it may not be for profit but,
JH> the people running the show certainly make money and i bet it isn't a
JH> pittance.
I'm sorry, but I'm missing something in the above: it's not for
profit, but the people running it are making money???? The not for
profit part means that there are no investors who are pulling a profit
off the top. If you mean the employees are making money, I think you
should stop and ask yourself what you think the people you see on
stage at the Guthrie make versus the ballplayers....
Your assertions above about the economics of theater are simply not
true. Drama (and classical music, Opera, etc.) is overall a losing
proposition economically, that must be sponsored by the state or
philanthropy. To the extent these art forms were ever profitable,
that was in a time with radically different labor economics. The
Minnesota Opera charges about $60 a ticket, and must get a lot of its
costs covered by philanthropy. Think of all the people that must be
on stage: the orchestra, the chorus, etc., etc.
>> I'm looking at what's happening to our schools, and I think there's a
>> real question to be asked here "OK, baseball is a real asset. Is it
>> worth more than a generation of well-educated kids?" *All* spending
>> decisions have to be evaluated in context, because whatever you spend
>> on one thing you can't spend on something else. We don't just have to
>> ask whether baseball is a real asset, but what we are willing to
>> sacrifice to it.
JH> we are not sacrificing education for baseball if this deal goes
JH> through. education doesn't lose a penny in this deal.
Why not? The tax money that's going to the stadium is not going to
education. And it's not an investment like building a factory, that
will produce wealth that can be spent on education. At best, this
money will create a small increment to taxes that could eventually
trickle down to education, but up front it's money that's not
available for education, health care, bombs, or whatever other cause
is close to your heart. Furthermore, this is not a good investment
from the standpoint of return on the dollar alone (as I've said, I
think that baseball is, in general, a good thing, but I don't think we
should pretend it's a good thing in ways that it is not).
When you spend money on one thing, you don't have that money, so you
can't spend it on something else. If we take this money and spend it
on the stadium, it's not there to spend on education.
>> No, because people will drive to downtown, park their cars, go to the
>> games, and then drive home. This won't anchor the downtown. Block E
>> type stuff will do a lot more to anchor the downtown.
JH> the only thing block e has that is better is the businesses inside are
JH> open 365 where the ball park will sit unused many days of the
JH> year.
That's not at all true. The thing that Block E has better from the
standpoint of Minneapolis taxpayers is that it is not a walled-off
location unconnected to downtown. Block E brings in people who get
out of their cars, and wander around, spending money. That doesn't
happen with sports stadiums. People going to the stadium don't hang
out in town, spending money at local businesses. That's why the
studies of stadium economics don't show big boosts to areas that host
stadiums.
--
Robert P. Goldman
ECCO
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
