0
wayneflorida

Minnesota citizens about to get screwed-New stadium

Recommended Posts

Quote

Quote

. . . you'd see investors, real investors, lining up to get in on it. The fact that the only people willingly involved in the financing are the government and the Vikings is your first hint these places do not make money, do not generate wealth, and do not provide a return on investment.

I'm still waiting for a single case that shows a city losing a major league team suffered for it - other than no longer having a group of highly paid, whiny, go-on-strike-once-a-decade-because-they-can't-make-ends-meet millionaires through which to live vicariously.

People going to ball games are spending discretionary income. They will spend it on something else, and I'm guessing a lot more of the money stays in town.



You think property taxes for a vacant stadium are the same as property taxes for an operating stadium?



Not sure what your point is. I'd agree that it would be silly to build a stadium and have it be vacant. But again, how is that relevant? Not sure the differential in property taxes between a vacant stadium and an operating stadium (if there is one) is germain to a debate on whether the building of a stadium should be publicly funded.

If the thing is such a good deal, and such a moneymaker - form a corporation, issue stock, and everybody who thinks it's such a great venture can buy all the stock they want.

Bottom line, there are 2 reasons for the team owners to milk the public for these funds:

#1 - if they had to actually cover all their own expenses the tickets would be even more expensive than they are now, causing far fewer people to attend, and . . .

#2 - because they can.

Still waiting to hear of a case where a team left town and caused economic hard times. I'm being facetious of course because there is no such thing. The real reason people tolerate this shit is because they are emotionally tied to the team(s); entities that will shit on them in a heartbeat.
" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>This is not giving money to the vikings, this is 3 parties joining in
>a venture that will benifit all 3.

Sorta like the government loaning money to green energy companies so they can build manufacturing facilities so that three groups - the company, the US and the workers - will all benefit.

I'll remember that you support such schemes in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

this is not corporate welfare, this is the state paying very little to have a place to hold many functions santioned by and for the state . . .



As far as I know, the only activities that fit that definition are amatuer sporting events - none of which need a place anywhere near that size or cost.

I just realized my sig line accurately summarizes the relationship between pro sports teams and their fans.
" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>This is not giving money to the vikings, this is 3 parties joining in
>a venture that will benifit all 3.

Sorta like the government loaning money to green energy companies so they can build manufacturing facilities so that three groups - the company, the US and the workers - will all benefit.

I'll remember that you support such schemes in the future.



the feds don't own the green tech stuff nor should they. the feds job is not to run business it is to defend us and build national infrastructure. there is a difference from what the fed gov and state govs are responsible for. the states are supposed to have more flexibility for what the people want. that is how this country was set up. the feds have greatly overstepped their boundries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

this is not corporate welfare, this is the state paying very little to have a place to hold many functions santioned by and for the state . . .



As far as I know, the only activities that fit that definition are amatuer sporting events - none of which need a place anywhere near that size or cost.

I just realized my sig line accurately summarizes the relationship between pro sports teams and their fans.



You are correct that they may not need a facility of that size, but that is up to the people of minnesota to decide not us. that is why the people need to have a vote on this. the city is already backing it and so are the vikings, the state is only in for about 33% but that is alot of money so the people should decide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


when the roof colapsed at the met they had to cancel hundreds of events, the actual use for the stadium would be greater than 50% in things other than viking games. they also play baseball there(not the twins)



No, as identified before, those other functions don't need a luxury stadium, with corporate suites and elegant fountains. They just need 50,000 seats and a usable field, an adequate parking lot and suitable bathrooms and concessions space. This can be done for a lot less than 800M-1B.

Minnesota is a slightly different situation with the Met falling apart. And you may be able to argue that a northern state needs a domed stadium. Harder to argue this for Texas, CA, or Florida.

As I said, the Giants managed to pay their way with only minor city considerations. Candlestick Park remains available and is perfectly useful except by NFL standards. The 49ers will abandon it in a few years to a new park that the people of Santa Clara foolishly are paying for, since San Franciscans refused.



the state is only paying about 33% of the bill, any closed stadium that holds 50000 people will cost more than that so it is in the states best interests to aid in this project.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


You are correct that they may not need a facility of that size, but that is up to the people of minnesota to decide not us. that is why the people need to have a vote on this. the city is already backing it and so are the vikings, the state is only in for about 33% but that is alot of money so the people should decide.



The people don't really need a ferrari, but they decided they were fine with paying 50% (348M state plus 150M city) of the turkey while the owners benefits more.

"We are creating a new entitlement program for the wealthiest among us," Republican Representative Doug Wardlow said. "There is no urgency to do this. We can get a better deal."

Welcome to the Democratic Party!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>the feds don't own the green tech stuff nor should they.

Correct, they don't. They just help out companies (or sports teams) they like.

>the feds job is not to run business it is to defend us and build
>national infrastructure.

You think that it IS the government's role to give private businesses money; you have said so in this very thread. You can quibble over which businesses you like and which governments you want to do that. But to paraphrase the big man "you've stated you are a socialist, now we're just haggling over the details."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>the feds don't own the green tech stuff nor should they.

Correct, they don't. They just help out companies (or sports teams) they like.

>the feds job is not to run business it is to defend us and build
>national infrastructure.

You think that it IS the government's role to give private businesses money; you have said so in this very thread. You can quibble over which businesses you like and which governments you want to do that. But to paraphrase the big man "you've stated you are a socialist, now we're just haggling over the details."



No it is not what I said, keep spinning all you want. I said that the state and local governments have the right to invest in the communities future and do what the people want to have done to benifit the state, that is how the country was designed to operate. the fed gov is retricted from these types of ventures for good reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


I said that the state and local governments have the right to invest in the communities future and do what the people want to have done to benifit the state, that is how the country was designed to operate. the fed gov is retricted from these types of ventures for good reason.



Sounds like they are doing that to "promote the general Welfare".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


I said that the state and local governments have the right to invest in the communities future and do what the people want to have done to benifit the state, that is how the country was designed to operate. the fed gov is retricted from these types of ventures for good reason.



Sounds like they are doing that to "promote the general Welfare".



the country was set up for the states to have the power to do what the citizens of that state wanted, and the fed gove was to have very limited power so we wopuld not end up like we were whne england ruled us. this is something that the state and it's people have to choose. Romny care is something I don't like but it was what the people wanted and since it was on a state level it was ok for the people to pass. since I don't like it I could leave the state andgo to where they don't have a program like that. The issue with the feds doing stuff is that we cannot just leave to another state to avoid what we don't like. the very situation we fought the war to gain our independence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Meh. The people got what they voted for. Don't like it? vote for somebody else in the next election.

This is something that bothers me:

"Although the House and Senate debated the Vikings stadium bill in public session for nearly 20 hours over the past few days, Wednesday's action was mostly behind closed doors.

Rep. Morrie Lanning, R-Moorhead, said the process had to be more compressed than it normally would have been but that the bill had had substantial public airing. "

So much for "Sunshine" laws. And just who is it that determines what is "substantial public airing"? And by what criteria do they determine "substantial"?
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Not sure what your point is.



You asked:

Quote

I'm still waiting for a single case that shows a city losing a major league team suffered for it



My responding question gave you a hint to the answer. When a city loses a major league team, and the venue goes dark, they certainly lose in property taxes.

Then you follow with a scenario regarding building a brand new stadium, where non existed before. Which means you are moving the goal posts. maybe you should figure out which scenario you want to discuss first?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


My responding question gave you a hint to the answer. When a city loses a major league team, and the venue goes dark, they certainly lose in property taxes.



small potatoes compared to the scale of economic benefits being claimed.

And if it's a 'municipal' stadium, the property tax is zero.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

small potatoes compared to the scale of economic benefits being claimed.



That is a direct loss to the city. The other benefits are indirect.

Quote

And if it's a 'municipal' stadium, the property tax is zero.



Thank you for providing another reason to invest in a private stadium as opposed to using that money to build a purely 'municipal' stadium.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Thank you for providing another reason to invest in a private stadium as opposed to using that money to build a purely 'municipal' stadium.



?? Which side are you arguing?

The economic loss argument favors giving the pro team whatever it wants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am arguing the side that public money invested in private companies can be good policy.

Using public money to invest in a stadium to be mainly used by a pro team is not necessarily bad policy. Specially if it retains a team.

Quote

giving the pro team whatever it wants.



There is a lot between nothing and everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I am arguing the side that public money invested in private companies can be good policy.

Using public money to invest in a stadium to be mainly used by a pro team is not necessarily bad policy. Specially if it retains a team.



that's a reasonable argument and has to be assessed on a case basis - I am more comfortable with it in direct proportion to the more local the government gets (i.e., a city wanting to build a for profit swimming pool is a LOT less objectionable than a country trying to provide health insurance)

my objection is principle based in that I consider any true investment worth doing would be taken up by private investors and if there is no private sector competition trying to participate in such a great deal, then likely the public sector is fooling themselves. Especially when it's something so tangible like a stadium used for revenue generating events.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

my objection is principle based in that I consider any true investment worth doing would be taken up by private investors and if there is no private sector competition trying to participate in such a great deal, then likely the public sector is fooling themselves.



I agree, but that overlooks the fact that municipalities compete against eachother as well. If you look at them as corporations, then it makes sense that they would invest into something like this.

If they don't a neighbouring municipality might.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


I agree, but that overlooks the fact that municipalities compete against eachother as well. If you look at them as corporations, then it makes sense that they would invest into something like this.

If they don't a neighbouring municipality might.



The pro team owners rely on this fact to get one municipality to overpay. While having a pro team is popular, there is little to support doing so as a revenue generator for the local economy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The pro team owners rely on this fact to get one municipality to overpay. While having a pro team is popular, there is little to support doing so as a revenue generator for the local economy.



You mean they act like a business? They create a product that people want and then get other people to invest in it and maybe even compete for?

Whoda thunk such a thing could happen in the US. :S

From a municipalities perspective. It increases the desirability for people to live in communities like that. Many people prefer to live in vibrant communities. Where they can go to live theatre, eat at great restaurants and maybe even take in a game of sports at the highest level.

As a city, municipality or even state, you want to be attractive for people to live in. That's how you make your money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


You mean they act like a business? They create a product that people want and then get other people to invest in it and maybe even compete for?



Business don't expect cities to build them a 12 story office building for free.

Quote


As a city, municipality or even state, you want to be attractive for people to live in. That's how you make your money.



and cities do not make money. You're only reinforcing the socialist nature of this financial coddling of the teams. Which perhaps you wish to do, but the other person seems to take great issue with the (accurate) label.

BTW, one of these deals cost the County of Alameda 15-20M/year in excess costs for the Raiders deal. That's a lot of money that would have had better use, much better use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Business don't expect cities to build them a 12 story office building for free.



Nope, but many do expect property tax rebates or deferals for newly built buildings, or large office relocates. This also holds true for large scale manufacturing facilities etc.

Quote

and cities do not make money. You're only reinforcing the socialist nature of this financial coddling of the teams.



Bullshit. So easy to throw out terms like socialist. Public - private partnerships are nothing new. Public money being used to stimulate private enterprise is nothing new. This is nothing new on a municipal level, a state level or a federal level.

Quote

BTW, one of these deals cost the County of Alameda 15-20M/year in excess costs for the Raiders deal.



So, they fucked up on the deal. That doesn't invalidate the concept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Public - private partnerships are nothing new.

Agreed. And they are socialist.

You may be making a mistake by using "socialist" in the sense that many right wingers use it - as a curse word. But veteran's care? Public highways? Air traffic control? All socialist - government providing goods and services that private organizations otherwise would. And all, in general, things that many right wingers support.

>Public money being used to stimulate private enterprise is nothing new.

Also agreed. It has a long history because it often works.

>This is nothing new on a municipal level, a state level or a federal level.

And agreed yet again. All are governments, and all are getting involved in what would otherwise be private business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Quote

BTW, one of these deals cost the County of Alameda 15-20M/year in excess costs for the Raiders deal.



So, they fucked up on the deal. That doesn't invalidate the concept.



what's the concept? That public investment in these types of arrangements pay off? I believe there are more loss events like this than the fantasy of the profitable investment. Given the unequal plane of the negotiations between cities and team owners, this shouldn't be a surprise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0