Did Twins Stadium cost Minnesota a bridge?

[Berry Cool]

Just throwing out the question, because it's already being asked. I could hear the hinting on MSNBC this morning for the short time I had it on.

The new Twins Ballpark is scheduled to open in 2010. In fact, the groundbreaking has been delayed as a result of the bridge collapse.

From what I understand, the new park is being financed only one-third by the Twins and two-thirds by Hennepin County taxpayers. The taxpayers did not, however, have the opportunity to vote on this deal in a referendum, because state law permits a county to ask the state to permit it to enact such a tax without a referendum, and the county board voted in favor of this and was successful in getting such a bill passed at the state level. The final version of that bill was stripped of language that would have included not only a new stadium for the Vikings as well, but also funding for transit projects.

The governor's reason for supporting the exemption from subjecting the stadium funding plan to a referendum was his worry that if the Twins didn't get a new stadium soon...you guessed it...they would leave town.

Anyone in the local area know whether I have this right? Can you add more detail? My understanding is that there was quite a bit of taxpayer opposition to being required to provide two-thirds of the stadium's funding, but essentially the county and state government steamrollered that opposition because the state law gave them a loophole by which they could do so. And why? Because of yet another team's threat to leave its home city if the taxpayers don't at least help it finance a new place to play.

As a Clevelander, I find such strong-arm tactics on taxpayers to hit rather close to home (Art Modell, the Browns, cough cough). And if it turns out that the taxpayers of Hennepin County were essentially forced to fund a new stadium OVER funding needed infrastructure repairs, watch for another Special Comment from Keith Olbermann, because he's gonna blow. This kind of thing has, as he once put it, frosted his editorial beer stein since his SportsCenter days. He believes teams have no business expecting taxpayers to fund a new stadium for them, and threatening to leave if they don't get one. He believes if they want a new stadium, let them pay for it out of their own pockets. And if it turns out that the new Twins Stadium may have cost taxpayers a bridge, and human lives...well, look out.

I also expect the newspapers in Minneapolis-St. Paul may not be advisable to pick up over the next few days without first putting on oven mitts, because the editorial pages are going to be on fire.

[AndyA]

1. This is so typical.

We're willing to sacrifice the safety of the public to build a new ballpark. Just like we're willing to sacrifice a decent education in order to have a bigger/better sports program.

Our priorities are way off in this country. Instead of pushing sports, we should be pushing education, and instead of building new sports stadiums, we should be focusing on the safety of the public.

Yet another example of how screwed up things in this country are today, brought upon us largely by the Republicans, with a little help from Democrats who are Dems in name only.

[slackmaster]

38. I doubt that anyone saw such a clear dichotomy

Nobody expected the bridge to collapse. Nobody.

[Captain Hilts]

2. This bridge is part of the federal hwy system, that might make things a bit different. nt

[Rydz777]

12. I think you're right. I believe construction of the Interstate system

has been 90% Federal money and 10% state money. On the other hand, I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that maintenance is 100% a state cost.

[annabanana]

3. Diversionary argument. . .

Massive tax cuts and money to burn in the desert. . .Not the stadium . .

[Bitwit1234]

4. And since the republicans are coming to MInneapolis

for their convention old republican give em what they want, Pwalenty is going out of his way to spend our money to put on the "dog".

[Blue_Roses]

11. The republicans are coming to Minneapolis for their convention?

I wasn't aware of that...

wow...

[malaise]

16. They are not coming; they are there right now

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1499701&mesg_id=1499701

The grand plans were to break ground for the stadium
have all their meetings and raise money for Coleman

[USA_1]

5. Hennepin County Taxpayers ...

... were surveyed and the majority indicated that they DISAPPROVED of paying more taxes for a new stadium. But the politicians voted for a new one in order to give KKKarl Pohlad more corporate welfare. The news media prostitutes from radio station WCCO and others engaged in a barrage of pro stadium propaganda but still failed to manufacture a public consensus in favor of such a funding campaign. Thus, this new stadium did not get majority approval.

Poor Black women who are heads of households will now have to pay higher taxes and their children will get less to eat while Pohlad and the news media prostitutes fatten themselves up on their newly found corporate welfare.

Note, however, that the local branches of the NAACP, Urban League, and other social advocacy groups remained silent as this outrage was approved against the will of the majority.

[Captain Hilts]

9. That's what happened in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. Both parties like welfare for the wealthy. nt

[bleedingheart]

10. Sounds like Pittsburgh...We voted NO to fund stadiums and the politicians

both Democratic and Republican ignored our wishes and went ahead and built them anyways...

[winston61]

6. Last night there was more than one

Minnesota DOT engineer and Minnesota politician shitting themselves and trying to work out how to explain this tragedy. This whole thing stinks on hot ice and there is a scandal behind it. Let's wait and see how they and the media spin it. Do a little sidestep!

[Fierce]

7. Stadium is state money, that bridge is federal.

So no, you don't have this right. Get educated before you throw crap out there.

[Berry Cool]

14. No, the stadium is being funded by county taxes, and infrastructure is supported

by state and federal taxes. But the point I was trying to make is one of priorities. If a person lives in Hennepin County, that person is being taxed at the county level for the ballpark, which leaves that same person strapped to pay state or federal taxes for other purposes. Also, you don't see the state legislature forcing state taxpayers to pay for infrastructure, but you do see them forcing Hennepin County taxpayers to help finance the ballpark. To me, that says something about governmental priorities.

Why don't YOU get educated before you accuse me of "throwing crap out there"?

And why don't you, if you really think someone is wrong about something, try a polite "I believe you are mistaken" response first?

[Fierce]

19. It's 24 hours later.

I was misinformed and upset. I apologize.

[Berry Cool]

25. Thank you, and I accept your apology.

I'm not trying to point fingers in any one direction here. It just seems to me like this is a failure of local government at various levels to take care of the less glamorous needs of a community before the more glamorous ones, and also the failure of a federal government blowing tons of money on a calamitous war rather than maintaining basic needs back home.

Yes, new sports stadiums add to quality of life. But do they add as much to quality of life as the maintenance of a bridge many people use every day? And who profits the most from a new stadium? The team owners. It's hard to see why they can't pony up the bucks themselves so the taxpayers have some money to spend on transportation needs, education and the other things that people need.

[RL3AO]

34. Thats an easy one

Why spend 500m of your money when you can get the people to pay for most of it? Thats what I would do if I could.

[northernsoul]

8. probably not in any direct, causal manner

My understanding is that the new stadium's public finance component is coming from Hennepin County, whereas (I would surmise) that the I-35W bridge is maintained (or not) through federal and state dollars - so an argument that this goddamn war in Iraq cost us a bridge would probably be more cogent.

[Berry Cool]

13. That's not all I meant. Although it's still applicable to a certain extent.

Any time you force taxes on people to pay for one thing, that leaves them less money to contribute taxes of any kind toward another. Hennepin County taxpayers being forced to finance a new baseball stadium have less in the way of income to then pay toward taxes--state or federal--to reinforce and repair infrastructure.

The fact that the state government was willing to support the forced contributions of county taxpayers toward a baseball stadium but not toward other public works says something about the values of the state. That doesn't let the feds off the hook, nor am I claiming it is all the fault of Republicans. What I'm saying is that this looks like another case of sadly misplaced government priorities on many levels, and plenty of fingers can be pointed in plenty of directions.

[Stinky The Clown]

15. My comment is on the owners of pro sports teams

Being a citizen of an area jilted by a fucked up owner, and an area which benefited from the actions of another fucked up owner, I don't give two fat shits abut these fucking stadiums.

Bye Bye Colts, Hello Ravens ..... who's next?

Fuck you fat cats.

Build the things we NEED .... like bridges. Not sexy, but needed.

Fuck those team owners.

(Flame away)

[TahitiNut]

17. No argument from me. I regard Pro Sports as another instance of Corporate Welfare.

The people hit hardest by the taxes and urban disruption are those least able to buy a ticket.

[rjones2818]

18. Indianapolis, just south of where I live,

has $1billion in infrastructure (mostly sewars) needing to be done, and yet they're building a $800million football stadium. I guess at least we finally won the super bowl, but jeez I hope the sewar overflow all gets diverted to the stadium.

x(

[RL3AO]

20. How would a stadium that hasn't even had groundbreaking

be responsible for a brige collapse? Even if the state had a 500% increase in highway funding wouldn't have prevented this.

[Berry Cool]

28. No, but how about more gradual increases over many years

and gradual, appropriate maintenance as needed?

And no one's saying the stadium is directly responsible for this collapse. What they're saying is that a stadium having ground broken for it is a stadium whose funding has already been sourced. And two-thirds of the funding for this one is coming from the taxpayers of a given county. That was settled last year. Taxes to pay to help maintain bridges and such? Not so much.

[MasonJar]

21. But...but Bush said it is the state's job to maintain its bridges. But...

but he is praying for the citizens....just like he prayed for the citizens of New Orleans, I guess.

[BrightKnight]

22. The tax and spend rhetoric of political parasites

was responsible. The Governor apparently vetoed a bill because it had a tax intended to repair an replace decaying highway infrastructure. He pushed for and got funding for the stadium. There are no photo opportunities in highway infrastructure.

[DefenseLawyer]

23. You assume

that if voters had been asked to pay higher taxes to fix the bridge they would have voted yes. I'm not so sure. You might be surprised to see how many levies and bond issues and tax increases for much needed public works are voted down every election.

[Berry Cool]

26. Not really. They might well have voted no for new transportation taxes

and for that we have the conservative mindset to blame, because it's conservatives who have persuaded the general public that taxes are eeevul and to be avoided at all costs.

At the same time, however, such a tax might not look so onerous to those not already paying a hefty fee for the ballpark that was NOT by choice. A person who is already being required to pony up taxes for one program without a choice is less likely to vote to voluntarily pony up more taxes for another program. Sooner or later you get to the point of revolt. If you have already been hit up at the county level for a ballpark, are you likely to willingly vote to pay even more to the state for a bridge? To say "Hey, who cares how much the price of gas goes up as a result--it will keep the bridge safe"? Instinct tells me no.

[DefenseLawyer]

37. What is the form of the tax used to fund the stadium?

The stadium in Indianapolis is being funded primarily with an special sales tax on restaurants, hotels and rental cars in the 9 county area and the sale of Colts themed vanity license plates. While I agree that in one sense taxes are taxes, and spending on a stadium should not be the top priority, but it is not as if they are taking property taxes that would otherwise go to schools and roads and building a stadium with it. I have no idea how the stadium is being funded in Minnesota, but it makes some difference in the debate, particularly as it relates to public perception of the tax.

[RL3AO]

42. 3 cent per $20 sales tax increase in Hennipin county.

[bdamomma]

24. profit over lives, this is sickening

:shrug:

[eridani]

27. Why should private ownership of teams even be allowed?

Shouldn't teams belong to their fans and their home cities/counties/states?

http://www.newrules.org/sports/fans.html

Initially introduced in 1997 by Oregon Representative Earl Blumenauer, The Give the Fans a Chance Act would forbid leagues from prohibiting community ownership. If a professional sports league ignores this provision, it will lose its sports broadcast antitrust exemption. This exemption allows teams to collaborate to sell their broadcast rights, thus increasing their value dramatically (to the tune of $17 billion over four years for the NFL). The 1997 bill had nearly 30 sponsors.

Representative Blumenauer re-introduced the bill in 2001. Here is a summary:

Give Fans a Chance Act of 2001 (H.R. 3257) - Provides that the antitrust exemption applicable to broadcasting agreements made by professional sports leagues shall not apply to a league for any period during which any member club is: (1) subject to a league's requirement or to an agreement made by two or more member clubs that forbids any of such clubs to transfer an ownership interest to any governmental entity or to members of the general public; or (2) not in compliance with the following relocation or elimination requirements.

Requires a member club or a league to furnish notice of a proposed relocation of a club out of its home territory or of club elimination not later than 180 days before the commencement of the new season. Provides that, during the notice period: (1) a local government, stadium, arena authority, person, or any combination thereof (local government) may prepare and present a proposal to purchase the club to retain it in the home community; and (2) the club and the league shall give a local government the opportunity to present a proposal to induce the club to remain. Directs the league to make a determination, before the expiration of the notice period, regarding the relocation or elimination. Sets forth criteria for relocation or elimination decisions, including the extent to which fan loyalty to and support for the club has been demonstrated.

[Berry Cool]

29. You wouldn't find too many people in Cleveland arguing with that concept, I'm sure.

A law like that could have made things a lot less contentious here with Art Modell, aka He Who Must Not Be Named. :grr:

This gets down to one of the major issues. When team owners threaten to move a team if it doesn't get a pretty new stadium at taxpayer expense, politicians go bonkers with fear and will do just about anything to ensure it stays put--including ramrodding through any kind of a tax program to fund the new facilities. At the same time, when team owners flirt with other cities, implying they just might consider moving their team there if a new stadium offer were attractive enough, politicians in THOSE cities trip all over themselves to make their town the lucky new home. When being romanced by a team, they will promise anything to it, including stadiums that will tax locals to the hilt. Their reward: The team! The games! Jobs! Quality of life!

It all sounds great and it does make for wonderful photo ops and hobnobbing with exciting people. But while it's happening, other needs are being ignored. And what's really disgusting is when other private institutions (say, a university) have caps as to how much they can be funded by taxes, but sports stadiums do not. (Even worse when it's a public university!)

The gravy train for sports team owners has to end somewhere. And you can say that and still be a sports fan.

[eridani]

35. I would think that sports fans would be a primary constituency for legislation like this

But I suppose if it's never on ESPN, there isn't any way for them to know about it.

[slackmaster]

40. I'm completely on the other side of that fence

Professional sports teams should be ENTIRELY private enterprises.

Public money should never be used to finance sports facilities, other than those at public schools, colleges, and universities.

[SoCalDem]

30. GW did the same thing in Texas.. Put Curtis-mathes out of business

via eminent domain and ripped off the taxpayers..and didn't that stadium become ENRON field?


Local Taxes, Private Land, TEXAS RANGER'S STADIUM and George W ...
George W. Bush Jr., the dark side A powerfull web site of information! ..... the condemnation of thirteen acres of land owned by the Curtis Mathes family, ...
www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39c853ca1555.htm - 284k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
George W. Bush 2000

Take the case of Curtis Mathes. Governor Deadbeat ARLINGTON, TEXAS -- Governor George W. Bush and the other owners of the Texas Rangers refused to pay the ...
www.uiowa.edu/policult/politick2000/www.georgebush2000.com/www_georgebush2000_com.html - 67k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
Team Player - Texas - Joe Nick Patoski

The Mid-Nineties: George W. Bush greeting fans and signing balls at the .... the condemnation of thirteen acres of land owned by the Curtis Mathes family, ...
www.joenickp.com/texas/teamplayer.html - 28k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
The Mahablog

For example, ASFDA also desired three parcels that were part of trusts to benefit the heirs of television magnate Curtis Mathes. ASFDA offered to purchase ...
www.mahablog.com/oldsite/2003.11.09_arch.html - 151k - Cached - Similar pages -

Note this
Texas Rangers Baseball: Information from Answers.com
1989: George W. Bush investment group buys the team. .... The heirs of television tycoon Curtis Mathes sued the Rangers and the City of Arlington when their ...
www.answers.com/topic/texas-rangers-baseball - 61k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
dustbury.com:

You Asked For It Archives
who likes g.w.bush less, most educated or less educated? .... founder of curtis mathes: Oddly, a guy named Curtis Mathes, though Curtis was actually his ...
www.dustbury.com/archives/cat_you_asked_for_it.html - 115k - Cached - Similar pages -

Note this
CHAPTER 3 GEORGE W. BUSH'S EARLY YEARS CONTENTS> 1. BUSH’S COLLEGE ...
A robed Bonesman posed as George W. Bush saying in a Texas drawl: “I’m gonna ream you ...... When the Curtis Mathes family refused to sell the 12.7 acres, ...
www.angelfire.com/ca3/jphuck/Book4Ch.3.html - 100k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

[Longhorn]

31. No, Enron Field was the name of the Houston Astros ballpark,

now Minute Maid Park. The Texas Rangers Ballpark referred to in your links is in Arlington, near Dallas.

[SoCalDem]

32. I'm not a sports person.. thanks for the info..

I loathe sports..except when i watched my son play them :)

[Longhorn]

33. I am an occasional baseball fan

but I couldn't tell you much about any stadiums outside of Texas. :)

[MattSh]

36. Can't have bread and circuses without the circus.

That's essentially the role of professional sports anyway. As long as people have their circus, what else matters? But take away their circus and all hell breaks lose.

:sarcasm:

[JohnShadows]

39. good one, m8

It's true - I think a bi reason for political ignorance in this country is ESPN. I mean, I watch some sports myself, but I don't sit around in the 'side-study' ad nauseum every chance I get. It's just escapism.

[Johonny]

41. Every analysis of stadiums shows

These building are terrible deals for cities and GREAT deals for the owners of the team. Why do cities build them?