Watching tonights football game between the Vikings and the Bears was enjoyable for many reasons. The biggest reason is that Minnesota football is back outside. I recall growing up going to the Met and watching the Viking games on television when they played like Purple People Eaters. Let's face it, the Dome has made the Vikings soft and the fan base even softer.
The snow, freezing drizzle and the announcement of the 50 greatest Vikings of all time is just what Bud Grant ordered. I am just glad that they didn't drop Grant at halftime. I know there will be a push for a new Vikings stadium and the Dome will be the catalyst. If Vikings are serious about a new stadium then let it be an open air stadium. Although 54,000 Viking fans could not fill the TCF Bank Stadium tonight; granted weather may have played a factor.
Call your local legislator and make the case for a new stadium by using proceeds from a Racino.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
How about not!
ReplyDeletePublic funding of ANY sort is an unacceptable option to the stadium question. And it's ironic that you of all people seem to support it.
The football team is a private enterprise, perfectly capable of funding it's own stadium needs. The myth that stadiums support the economy is bunk, plain and simple since you are merely robbing one part of your economy to boost another. And the football team is a 1.5billion dollar company (conservative estimate) so they can afford it.
While I'm all for outdoor football again, I'm am completely against state funding of any type, including a vice tax in the form of a racino.
How about businesses pay their own way like the rest of us?
Truman
ReplyDeleteI am more inclined toward the Racino not because of using the proceeds for a new stadium rather for the financial boast it would give the horse racing industry in Minnesota. Not to mention the boast to local farmers that would provide feed to the track and local owners.
I agree with you that sport franchises on the professional level bring minimal economic boast to their community. Since the collapse of the Dome's roof, I have told many a person that we should not replace the roof and bang we have an outdoor stadium.
Would you be opposed if the State chipped in $200M in exchange for the proceeds generated from the naming rights of the stadium?
So the state should subsidize another industry (horse racing) in order to subsidize the first (football)?
ReplyDeleteAnd the economic benefits to the community from sports team is non-existant. The Vikings play 8 home games a year. EIGHT! Are you telling me that the bars/restaurants make enough money on those 8 nights to run the other 356 nights of the year? The truth is that for every dollar spent downtown at a vikings game, a dollar was taken away from restaurants in other areas, it's not a cummulative gain, it's a net neutral because if people didn't spend the money at the game, they'd spend it in their communities.
The only way the state should pay a dime for a new stadium is if the state owns the team. (IE. Green Bay) Since we know that won't happen, let them build their own.
Truman
ReplyDeleteActually the state wouldn't be subsidizing horse racing; rather it would level the playing field with other gaming venues in the area.
Other gaming venues in the area? You mean like Canterbury, which can't sustain itself without having a casino on site? You understand horse racing isn't a big industry in MN, right? It doesn't have the draw that it does out east so the business model isn't sustainable without subsidies of some sort.
ReplyDeleteIMO, if a business can't survive on it's own, 9 times out of 10 it should not receive any government help to stay afloat. And that 10th time, should only occur if the business has national strategic value, and the loss would weaken the nation. Otherwise, let it fail.
A racino being used to generate taxes to pay for a stadium is no different than taxing me directly. Those dollars spent at the racino would be spent elsewhere in the community if not gambled. If they were spent elsewhere, they would be taxes via sales tax and contribute to the school, infrastructure, etc that the entire community benefits from. Because they're being diverted to the stadium, any needed school/infrastructire improvements that would have benefited from those dollars now don't. That meas the state would have to raise my taxes elsewhere to complete those projects. Therefore, it's a incremental loss to me because my taxes go up if you build the racino and give the tax revenues to the stadium.
By focusing those tax dollars on a business that does not need the money nor generates any community value economically only benefits 1 group - that business. The community suffers in the end.
So why should we support anything that subsidizes the football, baseball or basketball teams? I'd rather give my money to the government, and given that I don't trust them, that's saying a lot.
The other gaming venue I am speaking of is Mystic Lake and Little Six Casino's. Nearly every race track in the country has adapted a Racino format to assist in attracting top horses through increased purses.
ReplyDeleteThe Racino would not be so much a tax generator but the fees that Canterbury or Running Aces would pay for operating other game of chance would go into the General Fund. This could help lessen the need for high corporate taxes and taxes on Minnesotans in general.
I agree with you that we should not have to subsidize professional sport teams. If they produce a good enough product people will show up to watch.