On 5/25/05 8:27 AM, "Leurquin, Ronald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thank you Mark for some help understanding 'infrastructure costs'. > > snip from linked article: > The higher figure includes taxpayer-funded area improvements ($84 million) and > interest on 30-year bonds ($34 million). Area improvements include buying the > site, environmental cleanup, ballpark-area streetscape improvements and a new > "land bridge" over I-394 connecting Target Center to the ballpark. > > Now I have more questions. > 1) Why is buying the site not a direct stadium cost? thus added to a > different figure and not changing the final cost. I guess I'm wondering what difference does it make if the final cost remains unchanged? > 2) Do the counties normally do environmental cleanup or is that normally a > state issue? I'm not the most up to date with environmental cleanup issues. Both do it and there's no real set policy that I'm aware of that governs jurisdiction/responsibility for this sort of thing. Hennepin County has done numerous environmental cleanup projects, either to directly prepare land for redevelopment projects or to make it more attractive to potential investors. > Paying for streetscape improvements I would expect to be on the city or county > in any event. I am trying to come to terms with being sold out by my > politicians in favor of the wealthiest man in MN on this. Its a very large > pill and may take me a long time to swallow. Why are you so hung up on this misguided point? Despite the heated rhetoric to the contrary, the ballpark is not for Pohlad. It's for the Twins fans and not just the ones who attend games in person, but anyone who goes to games, watches them on TV or listens on the radio, since a stronger financial position for the team benefits all of us fans. Will the team's value and revenues increase if it's built? Sure. But that does not mean that Pohlad personally gains any real dollars from it. He only gains on the team's value if he sells it. And there is a provision to get taxpayers a cut of the profits if that happens, which is a lot better deal for us then most ballpark/stadiums that have been built involving public money. Pohlad only gains on the team's revenues if he pockets them instead of plowing them back into player salaries and development. The problem with that notion is that it pretty much ignores his history of running the team for the past 20 years or so. He's always spent all of the team's annual revenues (and often above and beyond that figure) on the team. Ballpark opponents like to point to the Pittsburgh Pirates' new ballpark as an example that new ballparks are no guarantee of an improved team, but Carl Pohlad is not Kevin McClatchy, despite whatever other personal shortcomings he may have. As for folks who are not baseball/Twins fans who have a problem with this proposal, I guess my response is tough cookies. We all pay out plenty of tax dollars for stuff that we don't necessarily agree with or personally benefit from. Go shop in Ramsey or Anoka if it's that big a deal to you...just realize that just the gas you use will probably leave you out a lot more than the 3 cents from the ballpark tax. Mark Snyder Windom Park 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
