The Minnesota State Legislature heads into its final two weeks of the current session today. Right now Minnesota is facing a budget deficit of $1 billion which could balloon to $7 billion by 2013. Despite stark budget cut proposals, legislation is going to be introduced to discuss the Vikings stadium issue. House Ways and Means Committee chair Solberg sent a note to DFL and Republican legislators on Sunday to announce options that will start the discussion. In the note Solberg stated that timing is good in the respect that "low interest rates, a good bidding climate and a 40 percent unemployment rate in [building] trades, now is a good time to talk about construction jobs" (http://www.startribune.com/politics/92626709.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUUsZ).
The lease on the Metrodrome expires next year and officials with the Vikings have stated no extension would be agreed to unless a new stadium deal is set. It has been reported that that the Vikings are willing to put up a third of the cost. The total bill is being floated around $800 Million. Is this type of investment worth it to the citizens of Minnesota? Has public funding for professional sports team come to an end? What effects will ripple through the economy in Minnesota if the Vikings were to leave for another state? Would the Vikings give up the naming rights money to the State?
Hopefully not. Any business worth 1.5 billion (low estimate) should be capable of handling a 30 year capital investment of 800M that will have an annual revenue stream in the order of 2-300million.
ReplyDeleteTo think that the states assistance is required to make this viable financially is patently absurd. It's just another business waiting for their handout.
How well has this gone in the past for us with businesses like Northwest? Delta acquired them and nullified the arrangement Northwest had with Bloomington and the State of MN. And we as taxpayers are left holding the bag.
I say, let them become the LA Vikings. I could care less because truthfully, I'd be surprised if the other owners would approve the move anyway. And without that approval, Ziggy is screwed and stuck here.
Kevin
ReplyDeleteWhat about the economic impact that Solberg points to and the additional revenue that can be produced by businesses in the area of the new stadium?
That's not justification for the state paying for the stadium. That's like me saying because I own a home in Chaska which generates revenues for the surrounding businesses because I shop at them, I should get a tax break. It's a circular logic argument and is pure nonsense.
ReplyDeleteThe Dome is already there. It sells out pretty much every game. Is there a lot of new business flocking to the area now? No. 8-10 games a year is enough to justify setting up shop. The Twin stadium provides 81 games a year. There is no other reason to hang out in the area of the Dome outside of games. How much actually increase does a new stadium bring over the Dome? The Dome is just fine for football. Sure, it's not state of the art, but it does just fine.
ReplyDeleteAnd as you have argued, construction jobs are only temporary and that's not what we should be creating, right?
I'd be more inclined to allow the state to assist in upgrading the metrodome in exchange for a 30 year agreement from the Vikings that they won't move the team during that timeframe without crippling penalties. That might be acceptable to the majority of Minnesotans. The problem is that we all know 10 years down the road the team will be talking about how small the market is and how much more they'd be worth in LA or someplace else and we'll then be making concessions to keep them here.
ReplyDeleteIt's nothing but corporate blackmail. I say let them leave.
Kevin
ReplyDeleteIf you home in Chaska bring 50,000 people to the area then sure why not give you a tax break. I mean you are helping out the local economy.
Anon
I nearly fell out of the car when I read you post. Yes the jobs will be temporary but if the temporary job is good for the Stimilus Package and for the Bonding bill then why not for a new Vikings Stadium. At least the Vikings Stadium will bring in revenue for the state as well as the surrounding communities that is impactful unlike the other two programs.
You can't have it be bad then and good now. Is it just because you are a football fan? But does it bring in incremental revenue or are the people that show up 8 games a year going to spend their money elsewhere? Even in that case, is it 600 million dollars worth of additional spending that gets pumped back into the economy?
ReplyDeleteHell, you really think those projects didn't bring in any revenue? Just seeing what you want here? Pretty sure there are plenty of people who can point to some revenue that was brought in.
Would you be willing for the state to spend 600 million dollars for a new Apple HQ to be built here?
What is the actual long term incremental steady economic impact that you claim?
ReplyDeleteKevin, the owners will approve the move if the money works out. That's all it will come down to. How much more revenue sharing does this generate?
ReplyDeleteViper, why isn't running a successful business that generates 50,000 visitors not enough? Why are even more benefits deserved? What makes them better than other businesses? Just because it's sports? I applaud the city of Seattle for telling the Sonics to go F themselves a few years ago. It wasn't easy, but it was right.
And with another 546 million needed to be slashed from the budget, a football stadium shouldn't be on the top 100 things being discussed right now. There is real work to be done and I'm a sports fan.
Anon...time to take the rind off the orange. I do not think that the citizen of Minnesota should pay the bill for the Vikings new stadium. I noticed that no one was posting in favor of a new stadium so I aruged their point for them.
ReplyDeleteThose that want the new stadium state that a game at the Metrodome pumps $600,000 a game into the local economy. They also point to $234 million in additional revenue from non-sport events over the past decade. Is this enough for a public financed stadium?
I do not by the arguement of temporary jobs but I find it ironic that you argue against it now yet were all for it before.
Being that I am a proponent of small business and low taxes the only element that I be for in regards to a new Apple HQ is to ensure property and corporate taxes are at levels that would attract a company like Apple to Minnesota.
While I am a sports fan, I do not care if the Vikings leave Minnesota as they are not the team I root for.
Who says I am categoricially against temporary jobs? The reality is is that any construction job is temporary. I'm against a stadium today because there are clearly bigger budget concerns going on at the moment. The timing is awful. Also, the "user fee" idea is BS. A tax on car rentals and hotels taxes out of state, non vote holding, individuals far more than Joe driving down from Hibbing.
ReplyDeleteAnon..I did not say you were categoricially against temp jobs, I simply stated that before you were okay and now you are not. Construction jobs are only temporary in so far as the labor will not be used again after the current job is complete. The bonding bill pork we discussed before was to put workers to work on projects that brought little to no additional finanical impact to their communities. The temp work here with a new stadium would bring additional revenue to the area long after the work was done if the numbers the proponents state are accurate.
ReplyDeleteNow User Fees are a different story all together. Wouldn't it make sense for those that want a new stadium should pay for it and those that don't do not have to?
Then those that wanted it only benefit from the increase revenue, right? We all receive benefits from things we didn't want. maybe I don't want my tax dollars going to public school when I send my kids to private school, yet I benefit from a well educated society.
ReplyDeleteI don't hunt and fish nor care how much money is spent in the industry, but I benefit from having parks and preserves and clean lakes and rivers.
If a stadium is really good for all of us, then we all benefit and should all help pay for it if it is determined that the public will pay for it.
And again, me being against a stadium now has nothing to do with being for or against temporary jobs now or in the past. Like I said, the timing is not right and there are more important things to be addressed.
Chris, you're simply talking about scale with my home in chaska, not the actual validity of the point.
ReplyDeleteIf I can bring my income and all my consumer spending to the region, why shouldn't I get tax breaks? How is it any different than what the Vikings are saying? They are claiming that because they generate jobs/tax revenues the state is obliged to pay for their stadium.
That's the same thing to what I said about Chaska, just on a different scale. And both points are wrong IMO.
Let them go, the world won't end without a football team. We shouldn't be held hostage to this kind of blackmail.
Chris, I'm really confused by you here. Are you playing devils advocate defending the Viking's position or are you truly for a state funded stadium?
ReplyDeleteIf you're truly for it, how can you be for it and against all the bailouts that have occurred? Those are contradictory positions in my opinion.
If you're playing devil's advocate, well, you did a good job because I believed you.
Anon..Why do not now? Interest rates are near 0% for public bonding, constructing bidding is lower, and people need jobs.
ReplyDeleteKevin..The argument the proponents of the new stadium believe the increase in traffic and revenue to local business will assist in budget shortfalls through addtional tax revenue. As in cases with large companies or even small ones like Canterbury Park, states, counties and cities all give tax breaks to attract new employment sources.
Also, my points I bring up in defense of the stadium are not representative of my personal view on the issue; rather, as you put it, I am playing devil's advocate. Had supporters of the Vikings stadium that read this blog spoken up I wouldn't have had to taken up their cause. Maybe now more will speak up.
I think advocates will be hard to find. It's not to say we don't want them to stay, it's just hard to stomach a billionaire football team owner coming to us and telling us how hard up his business is and that he needs a bailout.
ReplyDeleteAll this while most americans are suffering through one of the worst recessions in 70 years. That just stinks on it's surface.
"Interest rates are near 0% for public bonding, constructing bidding is lower, and people need jobs.
ReplyDelete" And we have 500 million cuts coming to the current budget. If I'm living pay check to check should I but a 50 inch TV because Best Buy is offering 3 years 0 interest financing because the rate is good and it employees people? Is that responsible? Or for those same reasons should we build houses for anyone that wants one in the city you live in? Or at least pay for 2/3 of one?
At least with the stimulus some of it went to projects that had to be done at some point. Bridges eventually would have needed to be replaced and roads fixed. Bottom line, the Dome is just fine for football and last I checked, the Vikings were turning a profit.
Anon..I did not agree with the logic of low interest rates. I simply stated the arguement that proponents of the stadium bill are making.
ReplyDeleteAlso, if states had stood up for their rights and politicans not got drunk on had outs from the Government we'd not be at the mercy of the Federal handouts.
And I countered it. I guess I fail to see what you are trying to do. You ask questions and then get defensive when those are answered and others ask more and then simple say it's not your stance.
ReplyDeleteDid you just copy and paste that less statement from your "go to" lines because it doesn't really tie in with the rest of the conversation here. In fact, you are the one who brought in the federal stimulus.
You are almost a parody of yourself on this one.
Perhaps I did not state my point well. I agree with your Best Buy analogy. I simply put forth the arguement the proponents are attempting to make to justify the taxpayer payment.
ReplyDelete