Price tags that run into the millions get tossed around pretty freely when talk of professional stadiums is in the air. It’s all a bit of blur to us. However, it’s clear that any sort of financing package that might produce a new Vikings stadium is going to involve team contributions, taxes related to the team and maybe revenue from the host city or county.
Ramsey County’s Arden Hills site seems to be the current favored location of the Vikings’ owners. The new site’s main liability is that it needs road work in order to support an NFL stadium — lots of road work . MnDOT officials estimated a stadium without surrounding development would require $175 million in road work while a stadium with a fully developed site would require up to $240 million.
The trouble is both Gov. Mark Dayton and Republican legislative leaders have been pretty clear any tax contribution from state sources is going to be capped at $300 million and that doesn’t allow extra money for road work. If the Vikings are really keen for the Arden Hills site, it should be up to them to foot the bill for the extra road costs.
While affection and fervor for the Vikings is strong in the Brainerd lakes area we hope lawmakers keep in mind that the chances of many outstate fans to ever attend a game in person is about as remote as trip to the moon. Let those who use the stadium and profit from it bear the brunt of the cost.
Comments (19)
Add commentThis For-Profit sport needs
This For-Profit sport needs to stand on it's own two feet and stop holding it's hand out for subsidies.
The trouble is that without welfare this sport isn't profitable and the rich guys who own the teams would lose money. That can't happen as long as they pay off the politicians.
It would be cheaper just to write a check for $50 million instead of spending $300 million so they can make a $50 million profit when they sell the team.
Fish, The stadium is for more
Fish,
The stadium is for more than just the Vikings. It's a community asset. Not sure why you don't understand that...
MINNEAPOLIS -- The Metrodome roof collapse displaced more than just the Vikings. About a dozen events scheduled to take place at the dome in the upcoming weeks are now in limbo.
Among those events being canceled at the Metrodome is the Hmong-American New year
http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=893870
shares
just sell shares in the stadium and everyone would own a piece! if that raised the 1 billion the nfl would not turn a new stadium down!
And the neo-Conservatives cry Yes We Can hand out more welfare!
JG, It sounds like you think that LA is flush with extra cash. I doubt it.
Wolfy, I don't hear the "community" asking for a stadium. What I hear is a billionaire asking for more welfare so he can become richer at our expense. I'm too much of a conservative to support that when there are so many other actual needs left unfulfilled in MN.
When our roads are smooth, our children have health care, our elderly are taken care of, our lakes are clean, our next generation is afforded an affordable education THEN and only then can we afford more welfare for poor little Wilfy.
My prediction is
that we will screw around with this until the Vikings leave town then in about 6 or 7 years there will be a push to get a new team and the stadium will cost 2 billion dollars. I'm not in favor of using taxpayers dollars for an NFL owner but I am for a multiuse facility that will bring other events into the local economy. To me it's not much different than when we built the Mpls Convention Center, the Walker Art Center or the Gutherie.
"To me it's not much
"To me it's not much different than when we built the Mpls Convention Center, the Walker Art Center or the Gutherie."
I was going to mention examples such as you listed, but with Fish, it really doesn't matter. Just a waste of time trying to explain.
The Republican myth about the
The Republican myth about the job creators is debunked in this article.
http://truthout.org/actually-rich-dont-create-jobs-we-do/1305380742
yeah i am going to read liberal rhetoric
instead of posting from a liberally bias site, please find some independent sources.
All I need to say fish is this, exactly how many people do you employ in the private sector?
I know my rich boss has 17 employees. I know I do not have one.
I know my brothers rich boss has over 100 employees. He does not have one, however he supervises some.
Trickle down is a failure
Can you dispute any of the article?
Trickle down supply side economics fails because it isn't dependent on demand.
Create demand by leaving more money in the hands of working class Americans and business will find a way to satisfy it. That creates demand for more products and that requires more workers creating more jobs.
Create supply by leaving more money in the bank accounts of the wealthy and the supply sits on the shelf. Supplies sitting on the shelf results in more layoffs which results in less demand which results in more supplies sitting on the shelf.
Fish, So what do we call what
Fish,
So what do we call what Obama has been doing to create all the jobs we have now?
Interesting reading
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/reagan-insider-gop-destroyed-us-economy...
"If there were such a thing as Chapter 11 for politicians, the Republican push to extend the unaffordable Bush tax cuts would amount to a bankruptcy filing. The nation's public debt ... will soon reach $18 trillion." It screams "out for austerity and sacrifice." But instead, the GOP insists "that the nation's wealthiest taxpayers be spared even a three-percentage-point rate increase."
I would call it a good try
I would call it a good try against the insurgents efforts to derail any signs of progress.
The rich will rain
All above, when I read what you had to read, I said to myself, "if this is not a reason not to have an end to the effort to not repeal tax cuts, then I don't know what isn't!"
By that I mean, its about the govenment liberal democrat party and it's agenda, which is to take away the hard earned money of the richer and give it to the poorer. And it don't make no sense economally.
Face it, we all either work for a rich person, or sell stuff to a rich person. Theirfore the rich are the LEAST able to afford tax increases because there money flows like oxygen to seed corn in the well-tilled earthern soil. Without the flow there is no growth.
If we raises taxes again then Ziggy and his boys will be crippled and even less likely to build the stadium. And then we have to pay for it all over again. Plus their problems with the strike pending, the payment s on Bart Faver's contract, etc etc
Do I make my case? I thing we must keeps the taxes lowest of all on the richest of all. Its more fair and equibitable. It is moral economical justice too and it allows us all to thrive by the so-called "trickle down" effect!
DNTMG
Aitkin