The brownfield in Arden Hills remains the best site for a new Minnesota Vikings stadium. As debate developed this year, the venue change to various poorly vetted Minneapolis sites was a concession to power politics — as was the increase in the proposed state contribution from not-a-penny-more-than-$300-milllion for a Ramsey County site to nearly $400 million for one in Minneapolis.
That aside, here we are, at the 11th hour, at risk, by dint of inaction, of letting the Vikings leave.
It would be one thing if legislators and the governor, backed by their understanding of what the people want, were to say no, we’re not going to do a stadium deal, so goodbye, Vikings. But that’s not what they’re saying. To his credit, Gov. Mark Dayton has been clear and steadfast in his pro-stadium position. Legislative leaders of both parties, meanwhile, have been much less clear.
There are good arguments for a stadium partially funded by taxpayer dollars. The Vikings and the NFL are big-city amenities, wildly popular, and most cities with franchises subsidize their stadiums. We favor the pro-stadium argument, though we respect the case against public subsidy. Pro or con, we’ve argued that the debate happen with eyes-wide-open about the consequences: We choose to subsidize a stadium and the Vikings stay, or we choose not to and they leave. That choice is at hand.
We met with NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and other league representatives on Friday, April 20. They reiterated what they said at the Capitol earlier in the day: They weren’t here to make threats, but to make clear that it’s time for a decision. The league wants the Vikings to stay in Minnesota. The owners of the team want the Vikings to stay. It’s their understanding that the governor and legislative leaders want the Vikings to stay.
If that’s so, make a deal, legislators, and let’s get on with it.
— St. Paul Pioneer Press
Comments (5)
Add commentElephant in the Living Room
The Republicans had hoped to plant a poison pill by introducing an amendment to the stadium bill that would use Racino for financing. The Democratic legislators are so under the influence of the Indian Gaming Industry that they felt this would make it impossible to get the needed votes to pass the bill. They didn't remember that 80% of Minnesotans favor Racinos. Now if they pull the amendment they had better come up with a really good argument because the way it looks now, if they pull the amendment supporting Racino, they are acknowledging that they are guilty of pandering on behalf of the Indian Gaming industry. Racinos are a good way to finance a stadium that no one wants to pay for with taxes. Racinos do not represent an expansion of gambling because it only involves a couple thousand slots at two locations- something that happens at the Indian casinos with regularity. What no one has considered is that the Racinos are the only hope to save the Racing industry in the state and benefit the 155,000 horses and 33,000 horse owners in Minnesota. The race horses are moving south to the 14 states that already have Racinos so they can make a living. It takes 1300 horses to run a race meet. If no out of state horses are attracted to Minnesota tracks they will be gone. In states that have Racinos, the agricultural sector of the states' economies have doubled and even tripled. This is fact. So are the legislators going to stand behind the wishes of the 80% or are they going to continue to wrestle with the elephant in the living room that no one wants to recognise? And are they really willing to ignore the $130,000,000 a year that Racinos can provide with no investment by the state? Can Minnesota afford to keep these legislators and their dirty politics? And if the Viking Stadium fails to pass because of the inclusion of the Racino, who is really to blame?
there are a lot of GOP's who are against expansion of gambling
Remember That.
Including Social Conservative Gazelka...
Hoping November 2012 turns that situation around...
Snow & dutch
Is Ward for or against racinos?? What no comeback from you 2????
Now your hurting my feelings. LMAO
One of Paul's sources...Connection with the electorate...
I hope Mr. Gazelka pays attention...
The speed and power of the internet and pro/for/neutral will be a large player in his re-election bid.
My hope is the electorate does some research and forms their views with this powerful technology.
There is 6 months now to my peer of month of birth and year of birth for his re-election bid.
If Paul endures, he has done a very good job in his amendments and bills he has presented.
If not, it means Paul needs to go back to the drawing board and re-connect with the folks he was voted in to share their concerns and agenda, and not a personal or singular agenda.
Wish you well Paul...