They're not going to just throw nonsense ideas up for a vote without fleshing things out. They had to have funding from all the different parties involved, they had to know who was willing to pay what, how they were going to pay for it. Where it was going to be built, and if it was even possible there. Putting something up for vote just because they could would have been pretty stupid...I agree. I dont think it will pass. If it does it will be after a ton of political posturing. While its certainly a step in the right direction, so far it means very little. In fact, IMO, this is something that should have probably happened years ago, an actual proposal offered for a vote. As long as the issue has been dragging on, this is the first time an actual proposal is available for an actual vote, and Id be shocked if it passes on the first try.
Stadium thread
Moderator: Moderators
Re: Stadium thread
-
purple guy
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 8815
- Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 6:55 am
- Location: Way Up North
Re: Stadium thread
Demi wrote: They're not going to just throw nonsense ideas up for a vote without fleshing things out. They had to have funding from all the different parties involved, they had to know who was willing to pay what, how they were going to pay for it. Where it was going to be built, and if it was even possible there. Putting something up for vote just because they could would have been pretty stupid...
Obviously. I didnt suggest they just put it for a vote for the sake of putting it up for a vote. I think all of the things you mentioned should have been done 2-3 years ago, bwfore the Vikings were up against the tight time line they now are with the Metro Dome lease. In doing it sooner, the Vikings would have had some leverage and might have avoided all of this 11th hour bs. This is actually the first actual "proposal". IMO, no one has a thing to complain about, the state/city really cant do anything without an actual proposal. Neither side is without fault, but I think they should have been in this place years ago. Not just asking for a vote, but having all of the things you mentioned addressed.
Re: Stadium thread
And they might have been, if the Governor at the time hadn't been more worried about a run for president and "no taxes" then doing things in the best interest of the state.Neither side is without fault, but I think they should have been in this place years ago. Not just asking for a vote, but having all of the things you mentioned addressed.
-
purple guy
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 8815
- Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 6:55 am
- Location: Way Up North
Re: Stadium thread
Demi wrote: And they might have been, if the Governor at the time hadn't been more worried about a run for president and "no taxes" then doing things in the best interest of the state.
"might have been", sure. But they werent. Didnt happen. I dont really care about the circumstances of why they were not, the fact remains, they didnt have a proposal prior to today, They can blame the Governor at the time, but its a weak excuse, like in all politics, if they didnt actually propose anything, they cant assume it wouldnt pass. Weak. I wasnt a fan of Pawlenty, at all, but you cant blame him for not passing stuff that wasnt proposed, a very weak arguement. Very weak.
Re: Stadium thread
Excuse? You're bringing up nothing being "addressed" and when a governor has no stomach for even discussing it, much less seriously considering it. And when the new governor did take it seriously and make it a priority, things were addressed and proposals were put forward. Including Arden Hills, which couldn't be put to a vote because the republican legislature came out and said they wouldn't allow it without a referendum regardless of what the elected representatives in Arden Hills said. Another proposal was the expansion of gambling to fund it, which, again, wasn't a possibility considering the republican legislatures refusal to accept anything beyond electronic pull tabs, and many were even against that. There's no "argument" involved, I'm simply pointing out facts as to why nothing was done sooner...purple guy wrote:
"might have been", sure. But they werent. Didnt happen. I dont really care about the circumstances of why they were not, the fact remains, they didnt have a proposal prior to today, They can blame the Governor at the time, but its a weak excuse, like in all politics, if they didnt actually propose anything, they cant assume it wouldnt pass. Weak. I wasnt a fan of Pawlenty, at all, but you cant blame him for not passing stuff that wasnt proposed, a very weak arguement. Very weak.
Unless you wanted Zygi or Red to propose they pay for everything and do it themselves, which is the only thing the previous governor would have listened to. And pretty close to the only thing the current legislature would actually be in support of.
Stadium thread
The Anoka County stadium deal was VERY close in 2006, the same session Twins & Gophers got done. If Pawlenty gave the level of support Dayton is giving now, the Vikings would be playing in Anoka County now. Remember, no state money at all went into the Twins stadium, at Pawlenty's insistence. This current stadium may well die to the same type of myopic thinking.purple guy wrote:They can blame the Governor at the time, but its a weak excuse, like in all politics, if they didnt actually propose anything, they cant assume it wouldnt pass. Weak. I wasnt a fan of Pawlenty, at all, but you cant blame him for not passing stuff that wasnt proposed, a very weak arguement. Very weak.
Stadium thread
Good day overall, more to come. Any vote, up or down, is a good thing. This may well work out after all. Go Vikes! My biggest worry is the $10M threshold for the referendum in Minneapolis, despite all the rhetoric how they skirted it with a new financing authority, it is an easy excuse for any city council or legislature member to say no dice.
-
PurpleHalo
- All Pro Elite Player
- Posts: 1915
- Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 1:28 am
- Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Re: Stadium thread
So when would there be an actual vote on this? I have been a bit out of touch lately with local news etc.....Plus I work second shift these days, don't help any......
But I'm still around, hi all.
But I'm still around, hi all.
This space available for rent.
-
purple guy
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 8815
- Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 6:55 am
- Location: Way Up North
Re: Stadium thread
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... for-court/
LOL, its a long shot anything happens this year.
LOL, its a long shot anything happens this year.
Re: Stadium thread
Florio is off on this. All this takes is the state overriding the charter (which the state can do), it'll be part of the stadium bill, just like overrides on that stupid referendum requirement were part of the twins bill.purple guy wrote:http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... for-court/
LOL, its a long shot anything happens this year.
Re: Stadium thread
That's not entirely true. The downtown street grid runs parallel to the river, not straight n/s/e/w. Currently the dome runs NE/SW. New stadium will be NW/SE. The grid isn't quite a 45 degree angle to n/s, so the new one would be a little closer to e/w than the dome is now, but it's still a ways off directly e/w.bigskyeric wrote:I was just chatting with Jeff, he said the new stadium would run east/west.
-
bigskyeric
- All Pro Elite Player
- Posts: 1350
- Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2009 7:54 pm
- Location: Dull-youth, Minn-E-so-taw
Re: Stadium thread
I just google mapped it and you are correct. With the amount of time I've spent in the city(a lot), I don't know why I didn't already know that.glg wrote: That's not entirely true. The downtown street grid runs parallel to the river, not straight n/s/e/w. Currently the dome runs NE/SW. New stadium will be NW/SE. The grid isn't quite a 45 degree angle to n/s, so the new one would be a little closer to e/w than the dome is now, but it's still a ways off directly e/w.
Seek and Destroy
Re: Stadium thread
True, Geoff. But my read is that this legislature won't be overriding any charters. That's why they are creating a special financing authority, solely to try to get around the charter. But Minneapolis City Council may not play ball and lawsuits over this issue are likely to ensue. And the legislature may reject on principle just like Arden Hills. Dave Ps Go Vikes!glg wrote: Florio is off on this. All this takes is the state overriding the charter (which the state can do), it'll be part of the stadium bill, just like overrides on that stupid referendum requirement were part of the twins bill.
Re: Stadium thread
Hmm.. Up to 4 games every 10 years internationally. I hope they write in a $5M per game penalty for NFL to pay stadium commission whenever it happens in the regular season.
Re: Stadium thread
While I think that's a stupid idea, it's still only 40 games total, just barely more than 1 home game per team.CalVike wrote:Hmm.. Up to 4 games every 10 years internationally. I hope they write in a $5M per game penalty for NFL to pay stadium commission whenever it happens in the regular season.