More (and more) on the Vikings stadium deal. From Neil deMause at the (taxpayer subsidized stadium watchdog) site, “Field of Schemes.” “The Wilfs are trying to spin this as ‘the Vikings are paying more than half the cost,’ but that's only true if you count stadium operations costs in the year 2045 as the same value as up-front construction dollars, which isn't economically kosher. And in any event, the Vikings would clearly be getting far more than half the benefits from the new place, unless you think the Final Four is going to be played there multiple times every year. The plan now goes to the Minneapolis city council, which already has a majority saying it will reject it without a public vote; if Rybak can somehow get the bill through there, it moves to the state legislature, where it's uncertain to pass as well. … Expect the Vikings and their backers to be hammering hard on the ‘It's economic stimulus!’ argument in the coming weeks, as well as the ‘They'll move to L.A.!’ argument. No matter that neither argument holds much water — the city and state could get ten times the bang for their buck if they spent the money on other projects, and even a less lucrative deal would be more tempting to the Vikings than what's being offered in L.A.”
De Mause quotes from our Karen Boros’s interview with Minneapolis City Councilman John Quincy, where he says, “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.” … which is, essentially, accepting the implicit threat that the team would move … where?
Eric Roper’s Strib story on the City Council side of the coming fight says, “Rybak wants to fund the city's contribution to the 30-year project by redirecting hospitality taxes — sales, liquor, lodging and restaurant — now paying for debt and operations at the city's Convention Center. That debt will be paid in 2020. Stadium backers argued that step would merely reclaim state-authorized taxes for other uses, so there would be no legal grounds for a referendum. ‘These are state dollars,’ Rybak said. ‘And the state imposes them on the city, and the state has control over them in the city.’ Council Member Gary Schiff called that argument ‘absurd.’ ‘We once had a governor who believed by calling something a fee that it wasn't a tax,’ said Schiff, who co-authored the amendment language in 1997. … Council Member Cam Gordon, an opponent of the mayor's plan, said proponents of the stadium sound ‘like they're playing kind of legalese or artfully cooking up some way to get around’ the referendum. Gordon suggested pursuing that strategy will invite lawsuits and mean ‘some judge is going to have to determine it.' … Gov. Mark Dayton's chief negotiator for the stadium deal, Ted Mondale, agreed: ‘The money is never touched by the city. The state in the end spends the money. So therefore the city's not spending money’ "
The Strib, predictably, enthuses over the deal. It says in an editorial, “ … now only political shortsightedness can stand in the way of one of the largest public-private infrastructure investments in state history. … the governor and key decisionmakers from the Legislature, the Vikings, the city of Minneapolis, the building trades and the business community -- all endorsing one common-sense plan for a downtown stadium on the Metrodome site. … Hennepin County stepped up as a local partner for the Twins in their pursuit of Target Field; now it's the City Council's turn to provide local leadership. … If lawmakers want to keep the Vikings in Minnesota — and invest in the vitality of the state's largest economic hub — they'll back the proposed expansion of charitable gaming through electronic pulltabs to fund the state's $398 million contribution and support the Minneapolis proposal on sales and hospitality taxes. Apart from the long-term benefits of a stadium, this project has short-term appeal as well. … The project wouldn't be an elixir for the state's building trades, but it's the kind of strategic infrastructure investment that would ease the pain.”
Yesterday’s MPR story on the council, by Curtis Gilbert and Jon Collins included this: “Gary Schiff championed the charter amendment back when he was executive director of the political organization then-called Progressive Minnesota. Now he is a member of the City Council and he said if city money is involved, then the referendum is not negotiable. ‘I could never support a plan that circumvents city law,’ Schiff said. ‘I won't break the law. I've sworn to the law as an office holder. And I'm not going to break the city charter.’ Council Member Cam Gordon, who represents areas around the University of Minnesota, said he still opposes the plan because his impression is that it ignores the requirement to hold a referendum. ‘I have a concern that ultimately, it's probably going to be a judge who'll have to make this decision. Apparently there's lawyers, maybe in the city, the Vikings, the governor's office, who are all working on the rationale to make the arguments that this doesn't violate the charter,’ Gordon said. ‘But there's probably other lawyers who could read the exact same rules and ordinances and statutes and say it is violating the charter, and so it may end up going to court.’ Council Member Robert Lilligren said he is ‘philosophically opposed’ to public funding for stadiums. He wants a referendum, but he stops short of vowing to vote no on the plan. ‘It's clear that if the legislature wants to see this stadium plan go forward, they will need to write into legislation a way of circumventing the charter amendment,’ Lilligren said. Council Member Lisa Goodman also opposes the stadium plan. Council Members Elizabeth Glidden, Sandy Colvin Roy and Betsy Hodges previously opposed the stadium plan, although they haven't yet commented on the current package.” They will all be commented to quite heavily in the days to come.
At the Washington Post, Matt Brooks reports, “All of Minnesota’s 201 lawmakers are up for reelection this year, and agreeing to an exorbitant construction project financed in large part by taxpayer dollars might not help their cause. ‘I can’t see a way for me to vote for it,’ said Sen. Jeff Hayden, a Minneapolis Democrat. ‘My constituents have weighed in consistently that they do not want public financing of private stadiums’. … Other representatives don’t feel the same way. ‘I’m a Vikings fan ... I don’t want to see them leave,’ said House Speaker Kurt Zellers. ‘That doesn’t mean we can put together a bad deal.’ If they don’t, their team could be headed West. Los Angeles continues to move forward on stadium plans in the hopes of attracting an NFL franchise, and if the Vikings can’t find a new home — and soon — the Purple Pride could be L.A. bound.” Really?
As for the Legislature, Doug Belden of the PiPress writes, “The key components were revealed Thursday after weeks of closed-door meetings: a $975 million project, split roughly equally between team and public, that puts a stadium a bit east of the current Metrodome. Renovations to Target Center, a sore point for some lawmakers, were removed to a separate proposal. … To [House Speaker Kurt] Zellers, whether action on a stadium happens this session is not the prime concern. ‘We should make sure we do it right,’ he said. House Minority Leader Paul Thissen, DFL-Minneapolis, said there will be Democratic votes for and against the plan. ‘It's a good first step, but it really does have a long way to go,’ Thissen said. ‘Right now the ball is in Speaker Zellers' court.’ In the Senate, Senjem said members are still digesting the details of the plan. Among the key questions will be whether gambling opponents will be able to accept this form of gaming, and whether members will be convinced electronic pull-tabs are a reliable enough revenue source to finance the bonds. ‘All these questions loom’, he said, and that's what the committee process is for. Senate Minority Leader Tom Bakk, DFL-Cook, said through a spokesman that he didn't want to comment on the proposal until he had conferred with the other three leaders. One potential legislative hurdle went away Thursday. House Taxes Committee chair Greg Davids, R-Preston, said he would not pursue a bill that would end the local taxes in Minneapolis after 2020, given that those are being relied upon for stadium funding.”
Meanwhile, never saying “die,” Ramsey County’s jilted brides are vowing to cling to their dream. Frederick Melo of the PiPress says, “Ramsey County Commissioner Tony Bennett said the Minnesota Vikings stadium package unveiled by the governor's office Thursday was a disappointing slap in the face to the east metro. … Under the Minneapolis plan, critics said, the state's contribution to the stadium's construction has grown to $398 million. That could double after interest over the life of the 30-year bonds is included. Costs for infrastructure such as parking ramps have not been spelled out. And there are questions about whether the plan forces state taxpayers to foot too much of the bill for cost overruns. … Bennett said the Minneapolis stadium would be funded by extending the life on the same sorts of taxes that were shot down for Arden Hills — sales taxes and hospitality taxes.”
The somewhat-to-mostly implausible Blunt Amendment, voted down in the Senate yesterday, cut directly down party lines. Writes Kristen Daum in the Forum papers, “Minnesota’s Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar and North Dakota’s Kent Conrad voted with the majority in halting the amendment. North Dakota Republican John Hoeven voted against tabling it, joining fellow Republicans who heralded the amendment as a defense of religious liberties. Democrats said the proposal went too far in giving employers and insurers the power to opt out of any provision in the health care reform act, which Republicans aim to repeal. The issue might be put to bed in the Senate, but a few measures circling in the U.S. House will keep it on Congress’ radar. While a vote hasn’t yet been set, House Speaker John Boehner indicated Thursday he remains committed to the fight. ‘It’s important for us to win this issue,’ Boehner told reporters. ‘The government is moving in a direction that would force some Americans to violate their religious beliefs.’ ”
↧
More (and more) stadium reverberation
↧