Council MemberJohn Quincy
He’s on some lists as a possible “yes” vote for the stadium because he hasn’t yet publicly said “no.” And he has some interesting ideas about the possibility of a referendum.
Minneapolis City Council Member John Quincy represents Ward 11, on the middle of the city’s southern border.
The first-termer, who chairs the Rules Committee, is another in our series of interviews on council members’ views about the city’s proposed Vikings stadium plan.
MinnPost: Basically, what do you think about the stadium proposal?
John Quincy: Which stadium proposal? The city’s funding of it? The financing package? The overall proposal?
That’s the interesting thing, and I think it’s reflecting a lot on what’s happening at the Minneapolis City Council level. We don’t know what the proposal is. There’s nothing for us to vote on, so we’re really waiting for a complete package that we can understand and evaluate, and that’s going to come from the Legislature.
But we’re all hearing, of course, here’s the Minneapolis financing package as presented by the Mayor [R.T. Rybak] and Council President [Barbara] Johnson, and we aren’t really parties to those conversations.
I think a lot of people are still open to hearing more and having specific issues raised and answered. But it’s hard to get answers to questions that haven’t been asked.
We’re kind of busy doing the rest of the city’s business. If you think about it, we’ve only had two presentations to the Committee of the Whole where we’ve had an opportunity to talk about something.
We’ve only had individual briefings with a couple of folks involved. Chuck Lutz, who is on the Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission and is interim director of the city’s Community Planning and Economic Development Department, so we’ve had an opportunity to meet with them directly and Mark Kaplan, a consultant. But those are individual meetings. They’re not part of a greater conversation.
We’ve seen spreadsheets, and they have caused questions, and those come back to us individually, but they’re not coming back in the form of another meeting. We haven’t even talked about it amongst ourselves. At least I haven’t.
MP: Some of your colleagues have said they have philosophical objections to the public funding of sports facilities. Is that part of your thinking?
JQ: It was originally. I came into this job, and previous to that, saying philosophically I’m opposed to the public financing of stadiums.
What that really means is, not using public funds to build stadiums. What that really means is being opposed to providing subsidies to private companies. I think philosophically that makes sense to a lot of people here.
The Vikings are privately owned, and it’s for their benefit and their need, and they would be the beneficiary of a new facility. Why do we have to — we being the overall state, not just the City of Minneapolis — why do we have to help pay for that?
That’s the philosophical hang-up I had when I started thinking about it, but it’s something I turned over when I looked at the larger picture.
I looked at every other NFL sports team that I’ve heard of, and there was always some sort of public financing involved in the stadium. Which leads us, I think, to the next level of thinking.
If public financing is part of any package, why would that public funding benefit the City of Minneapolis? That’s when you start saying, “Oh well, there’s a reason we would do that, a reason we should do that.”
Those are all things that are the next level. Once you get over the absolute hurdle of never-a-dime kind of rule, then you say, “What’s in this for us? How do we become the beneficiary?”
MP: So what’s in it for us?
JQ: I think we have to recognize it’s a jobs plan, and is it appropriate for public financing for a jobs plan? I would say yes. Especially in this economic climate. It’s called a stimulus, and that seems appropriate even if these are short-term construction-only jobs.
Then you have to say, once that’s built, do we have an opportunity for more job creation or retention? Sustainability is one of our city goals, and does this help us meet our city goals? And is there economic vitality? That’s one of our city goals. Jobs and economic vitality.
We’re talking about all the restaurants, the hotels, all those ancillary businesses that benefit, retail in the downtown area and the city as a whole and the state as a whole. We have to think of our place as an economic engine for the state and then it makes sense that there is a local partnership.
MP: Some of your colleagues say they will not support a stadium proposal unless there is a referendum. Even among those who think referendums are not the best form of government. Where are you on that issue?
JQ: I don’t know if a referendum is actually necessary legally. The question is not the philosophical need to have everybody go out and buy into it on a majority basis citywide, because I think it’s the job of people who are elected to make those kinds of decisions.
But we have said in the Charter that we’re supposed to have a referendum on a professional sports facility costing in excess of $10 million.
The city makes decisions all the time on subsidy investments, the Guthrie Theater, MacPhail, the Walker. We do that all the time. This is our job. The confusion for me is that I don’t see Minneapolis public funds going into this financing package.
It’s an existing hospitality tax that’s state-imposed. So we’re not spending Minneapolis money.
Legally, is that true? I don’t know. That’s just a personal rationalization. That’s one of the things that we’re still exploring.
A state sales tax is a state sales tax. What we get out of that state sales tax, does that meet the $10 million threshold? I don’t know.
These taxes are specifically allocated to the Convention Center. So what we’re really asking the state to do in the mayor’s proposal is to re-allocate those from just the Convention Center to this local partnership (the Convention Center, Target Center and the Vikings Stadium).
So if we’re just asking for a diversion of an existing state sales tax, how does that meet the threshold of a city public financing limit that has to be maintained in the Charter?
MP: Have you consulted an attorney about this?
JQ: No. If you get lawyers involved, you can appear to be sneaky. We’re not trying to get around public opinion on this. That’s why the mayor says the referendum on this is re-electing him.
I think a lot of voters in Minneapolis, and this is pure conjecture, and they elected us to make decisions. That’s the job they elected us to do. Voting on every topic by referendum is how California does it, and that’s not a good policy.
Aren’t you going to ask me what my position is on the stadium proposal?
MP: You said you didn’t have anything to vote on. So what is your position on the stadium proposal?
JQ: “I’m supportive of the mayor’s position only because it addresses the reduction of property taxes, and it builds on the logical site and the job creation. It is the people’s stadium.
There are lots of other financing packages, but then we get back to the Legislature. We could be doing a statewide sales tax increase. We could be focused on memorabilia and liquor taxes statewide. We could force it all on the Vikings ownership. We could do all kinds of things that don’t split it up three ways with a local partnership requirement.
MP: How important is moving the Target Center off the city budget and paying for it with money from the hospitality tax?
JQ: It is absolutely fundamental and important to me. It came up a lot when I was out talking to the caucuses.
The Target Center is a city-owned asset. We have an obligation to maintain, improve and make it the destination it is. That being the case, it is also out biggest source of debt in one building.
The Target Center debt has been a drag on our property tax base to the tune of $5 million a year. If the Target Center is part of the package -- and it would have to be to make it worthwhile from my perspective -- it relieves us of a $5 million-a-year debt.
That frees up capital for other purposes and provides property tax relief, so suddenly it starts to make sense. So now we have job creation, job retention and growth, economic vitality, reduced debt and property tax relief.
Now we’re always going to be arguing about the amounts and what happens if it doesn’t come into the numbers that have been proposed. And are we on the hook if it doesn’t pan out like it projected? Are the base assumptions accurate?
MP: But you don’t want to create another Target Center problem for Minneapolis?
JQ: Target Center is an inherited problem. I’ve got to believe that when that decision was made, the City Council at the time did it with the best of intentions.
There’s a risk with every big decision, and that’s where we get to the next level. As an elected official, we’re really charged with making good decisions but not always decisions on the short term.
We have to have a long-term vision. I think that’s what makes everybody nervous about doing this.
Politically, I don’t think my colleagues on the council, certainly not me, think of it in terms of how is it affecting me. Is it going to change my career? I think we’re really much more concerned about what it’s going to do for future generations.