Stadium thread

[mefford76]

i like what dayton said last. i'd allow the republicans to take the issue. have them put forward any plan they like. IMO they won't put one up that the vikings will agree to and can be financed any better way. A stadium without a roof is a non-starter.

Dayton put forward a plan that could get done this session with a way to pay for it. The Republicans have not in any serious way put anything together that any parties would agree to. They want to own the project... I say go right ahead, but it's on you if it doesn't pass this session. I could care less who gets the glory for the situation.

[glg]

Dayton put forward a plan that could get done this session with a way to pay for it. The Republicans have not in any serious way put anything together that any parties would agree to. They want to own the project... I say go right ahead, but it's on you if it doesn't pass this session. I could care less who gets the glory for the situation.

They don't want to own it, they want to kill it without taking a vote.

[PurpleMustReign]

They don't want to own it, they want to kill it without taking a vote.

Exactly. Then they can say "hey we tried but the people didn't want it". I just want to spit on them all.

[mefford76]

Exactly. Then they can say "hey we tried but the people didn't want it". I just want to spit on them all.

What do you think their end game is?
Why would they not want a stadium?
Do you think they think they can get it done next year?
Do they not care?
Just curious, because I don't get why they're opposed to it. Is it not a popular issue in Minnesota?

[dead_poet]

What do you think their end game is?

To get re-elected.

Why would they not want a stadium?

If they vote in favor of a stadium, they will lose favor amongst colleagues and constituents. Most want to further their political careers. In short, so they can get re-elected.

Do you think they think they can get it done next year?

It's been said next year would be just as, if not more, difficult to pass.

Do they not care?

They care...

...about being re-elected.

Just curious, because I don't get why they're opposed to it. Is it not a popular issue in Minnesota?

See this excerpt from a recent well-written article about the situation (back before the latest ####):

The opposition is a patchwork: Critics of gambling, which would provide the state's money for the project; Minneapolis Democrats who fear an added tax burden if the stadium financing scheme falls short; and fiscal conservatives who dislike the state choosing some private businesses for subsidies.

Opponents also include lawmakers from both parties who see it as a handout to wealthy, successful businessman after several years during which the weak economy forced them to cut social programs and slow spending on other state priorities.

"We've been struggling with our budgets the last few years. We're struggling with, How do we take care of little old ladies in nursing homes?" said Sen. Warren Limmer, R-Maple Grove. "I'm just so surprised we're tripping over ourselves trying to be the hero to a sports franchise."

Limmer and others oppose on moral grounds the stadium bill's expansion of gambling.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505245_162- ... -disarmed/

[mefford76]

So in short, it's not a popular measure there? If it was not popular, why would Dayton be pushing for it? Maybe he's the evil one if it's not affordable. Sorry, I am in Chicago, so I don't hear a lot of the local stuff beyond what I read. From what I've read on the Tribune's website, I had gathered that it was a popular measure by both businesses and Minnesotans by and large. There will obviously be some hold out groups out there on any issue.

[dead_poet]

So in short, it's not a popular measure there?

I'm an Iowan, so I just follow what I read about it. A true Minnesotan can probably answer that with more clarity. From my vantage, I think it's an important issue, though in the grand scheme of things it's easy to see how the hot-button, politically-charged issue it's not high on the politicians' priority list with many other issues out there also needing to be addressed and seats being up in November. The buck has been passed so many times over the last decade that it's almost laughable at this point.

If it was not popular, why would Dayton be pushing for it?

If I'm not mistaken, he was a supporter from the beginning, which may have had something to do with his current position and he's trying to make good on something he platformed on. Also, he probably sees the value in keeping the Vikings in Minnesota.

Maybe he's the evil one if it's not affordable.

I don't think anyone is evil. Uninformed, self-serving, stubbon, short-sighted...yes. There are ways to pay for it, just seemingly not ways that will appease everyone.

I had gathered that it was a popular measure by both businesses and Minnesotans by and large. There will obviously be some hold out groups out there on any issue.

It depends on who you talk to and what you mean by "popular." I think most businesses (specifically those that profit from the Vikings) are in favor, in addition to construction workers (since that industry has been hit hard during the recession and this would put thousands back to work). But there are many opponents, for many of the reasons outlined in the above article. Some have valid arguments. Many don't.

[CalVike]

Despite the May 21 deadline, they actually have less because of a limit on the number of days they can meet in state constitution. 5 days in session to get it all done.

[headless_norseman]

For the first time, I'm actually starting to think that this isn't gonna get done. Any positivity I've tried to keep was crushed in the last few days. We're gonna lose our #### team

I'm feeling that it's now more than a 50/50 proposition that we are losing them. There are polls on everything. How come we never see stadium issue polls?

[thatguy]

Something I made for Dailynorseman...

[PurpleMustReign]

So in short, it's not a popular measure there? If it was not popular, why would Dayton be pushing for it? Maybe he's the evil one if it's not affordable. Sorry, I am in Chicago, so I don't hear a lot of the local stuff beyond what I read. From what I've read on the Tribune's website, I had gathered that it was a popular measure by both businesses and Minnesotans by and large. There will obviously be some hold out groups out there on any issue.

More people care about the Vikings than the idiots in St. Paul realize, I think. I am guessing it would be more damaging to their careers if they don't pass it than if they do.
The worst thing is I think Zygi, etc, know how much the Vikings mean to the fans/citizens of the state, that's why he is so frustrated with the lawmakers.

[dead_poet]

The Minnesota Vikings' stadium bill ended Wednesday in a more productive place than it started, which began with a rare verbal harangue from mild-mannered Gov. Mark Dayton against legislative leaders who have proposed significant last-minute changes in the bill.

After a closed-door meeting, Dayton said he was willing to "look at" a proposal that would pay the state's portion through bonding rather than gambling revenues. The new proposal would put a roof on the stadium, as necessary, but there are still many unanswered questions as the legislative session continues past its scheduled adjournment.

Dayton on the Republicans' new proposal: "They're in the majority -- they control the floor, they control the agenda. They have the majority of the votes. I want to see a stadium that's structurally sound and financially sound, that puts thousands of people to work and keeps the Minnesota Vikings here. If it means continuing to work, and looking at another possibility, we're willing to do that."

The Vikings will not increase their contribution in the new proposal, a team spokesman told the Star Tribune. That contribution is set at $427 million.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_ ... s-traction

Related full story, as things stand: http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikin ... 37465.html

[BGM]

Ironically, legislators are taking advantage of the idea that supporting a stadium would benefit only billionaires who are hiring millionaires - all the while asking for more tax breaks for corporations to make Minnesota more "business-friendly". Plus, the opposition groups are forever changing... whenever a good idea for funding comes up that reduces the state contribution (usually gambling) the anti-gambling forces come out. When Arden Hills was a real possibility, the anti-tax forces and pro-Downtown site forces came out. It's like trying to hit a forever shifting target.

Additionally, there is a vocal group who doesn't care if the Viking stay or go and believe there are more important priorities facing the Legislature.

[CalVike]

Vikings stadium funding plans — their strengths and weaknesses
By Doug Grow | 05/02/12

http://www.minnpost.com/politics-policy ... weaknesses

There are as many reasons for all the plans as there are legislators, but are there are two key philosophical groups unhappy with the current stadium financing plan:

• The skeptics, who don’t really believe the projections for the current plan’s funding source: expanded charitable gambling (electronic pull-tabs and electronic-linked bingo). They doubt the new games can create the sort of revenues projected by the Department of Revenue and some in the industry.

• And the outright opponents, a group that includes those who oppose any substantial public subsidy of sports facilities and those who oppose expanded gambling.

Still other legislators are looking for a way to make the deal “fairer” or “simpler.”

Still others are bored, as they wait for leadership and the governor to come up with some sort of “global”deal that also resolves the bonding bill and GOP efforts o craft a business tax relief package.

[CalVike]

@PatKessler: MNGOP leaders abandon last minute #Vikings stadium plan.

@PatKessler: Spkr Zellers: "Good idea, great effort", but GOP won't pursue new #Vikings stadium plan.

@PatKessler: Spkr Zellers: "I will not apologize" for making small business my No. 1 priority.

@PatKessler: Zellers: Dayton has "disrespected or dismissed" every one of our top priorities.

@PatKessler: Zellers: #Vikings stadium is "absolutely and unequivocally" Dayton top priority.

@PatKessler: GOP will hold #Vikings stadium vote Monday.

@PatKessler: Zellers: "I don't know if the votes are there" for #Vikings stadium, but will hold a vote Monday.

@PatKessler: Zellers says that w/o a public referendum he cannot support #Vikings stadium bill.

@PatKessler: MN House will vote on #Vikings stadium bill that was negotiated by team, state, city.

@PatKessler: Zellers says not sure if enough votes for #Vikings even though DFL says it will provide half of the "yes" votes. #mnleg

@PatKessler: Senjem says he doesn't know if there are enough votes in Senate for #Vikings bill.

@PatKessler: Zellers: I will not stand in the way of any member- Dem or Repub- who wants to vote for #Vikings stadium.

@PatKessler: Zellers: "The fate of the stadium is now in the governor's hands." Says its up to Dayton to find enough votes to pass.

Pat Kessler WCCO on Twitter