Minnesota citizens about to get screwed-New stadium

[headoverheels 333]

Quote

>It is better than loosing the team and its revenue.

Never thought I'd see the day where marks started advocating for socialism.

Hey, the NFL are the job creators. Some really high paying jobs.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Hey, the NFL are the job creators. Some really high paying jobs.

All 54 of them, yes.

[Butters 0]

Quote

I say make the owners or NFL pay for the stadium.

http://www.twincities.com/vikings/ci_20584250/vikings-stadium-private-meeting-among-conference-committee-members?_requestid=14177488

They've continued to whine and threaten like little kids for a while ...

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[marks2065 0]

Quote

>It is better than loosing the team and its revenue.

Never thought I'd see the day where marks started advocating for socialism.

this is on the state level and is something the state will use and make money on, this is not socialism.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

the state would loose millions if the vikings left,

so true - and they only have to put up hundreds of millions to make sure those millions stay

true government in action

http://www.treehugger.com/culture/by-the-numbers-super-bowl-facts-and-figures.html

this one day is huge for the state and local business, kinda make the $350 million investment seem worth it.

[kallend 2,117]

Quote

Quote

Quote

the state would loose millions if the vikings left,

so true - and they only have to put up hundreds of millions to make sure those millions stay

true government in action

http://www.treehugger.com/culture/by-the-numbers-super-bowl-facts-and-figures.html

this one day is huge for the state and local business, kinda make the $350 million investment seem worth it.

Pro sports don't create wealth, they just move it around.

This is just welfare for the team owners.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Quote

>It is better than loosing the team and its revenue.

Never thought I'd see the day where marks started advocating for socialism.

this is on the state level and is something the state will use and make money on, this is not socialism.

I guess it is only socialism when poor people get the handout.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[pirana 0]

Anyone who thinks major sports teams need financial aid, or partnerships with government, or that sports teams "stimulate" the economy ought to read Major League Losers. It's a bit dated (but still valid), and I'm not aware of anything more recent; but it has never been refuted by any hard data; only by pleas to emotion.

Basically it is a billionaires club that has duped the rest of the world into subsidizing their immensely profitable businesses. There is no data that shows the loss of a team negatively impacting a region's economy.

" . . . 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

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>It is better than loosing the team and its revenue.

Never thought I'd see the day where marks started advocating for socialism.

this is on the state level and is something the state will use and make money on, this is not socialism.

no it is socialism when the fed gov takes your money and hands it out to those that don't produce for the sake of what they call fairness. this is at a state level and this country was designed to let the state and local governments have the freedom to take care of their people and land as they see fit. this is not money for the vikings, it is an investment into the state and will be used by the state and city for many things that will contribute to the state and community other than a NFL game. The metrodome has been used by the state and city for many things like the high schools, trade fairs, and superbowl just to name a few. If this was just for the vikings I would say no but the vikings games are only a small percentage of the future use of this stadium.

I guess it is only socialism when poor people get the handout.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

the state would loose millions if the vikings left,

so true - and they only have to put up hundreds of millions to make sure those millions stay

true government in action

http://www.treehugger.com/culture/by-the-numbers-super-bowl-facts-and-figures.html

this one day is huge for the state and local business, kinda make the $350 million investment seem worth it.

Pro sports don't create wealth, they just move it around.

This is just welfare for the team owners.

If this was going to just be used by the vikings and the state never used it I would say you are correct, but since the state will use the stadium for its own purposes the I feel they will need to pony up a little themselves.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

no it is socialism when the fed gov takes your money and hands it out to those that don't produce for the sake of what they call fairness. this is at a state level

so, in your world, it's not ok for the Feds to take my money and give to people that don't need it and demand more (after the Feds take their cut). But it's just fine for the State to do the exact same same thing.

I guess if a city council decides to take a big chunk of money for city employee team building trips to Hawaii - then that's fine too

nuts - criminal abuse of the social contract is wrong regardless of what level it happens

...
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

[SkyDekker 1,465]

How about trade missions. Are those criminal abuse?

How about advertising for tourism in state or county. Is that criminal abuse too?

[Andrewwhyte 1]

So much of the cost associated with these venues goes to the "Major league quality" stuff that other users of the venue do not use. The Luxury suites by and large are not viable for any other events. The "world class" facilities for the officials, the "second to none" AV infrastructure is simply not needed for the state high school championships or the U2 concert.
I remember when the voters of King county Washington rejected the idea of building Paul Allen a new stadium they went ahead and built it for him anyway.
We are going through that in Hockey right now. They have already started building our new arena in Edmonton with a $100million shortfall 'to be contributed by senior (Provincial and/or Federal) levels of government. Both levels have said no chance. With the feds having lost a bunch of seats near Quebec city because they refused to pony up there, I can't see it happening. The arrogant bastards just assume they will squeeze the province; I hope they are wrong. The city already bent over. The team insinuated they would leave town. Uh huh. Where they gonna go? Atlanta? Kansas City?
Like others have said before, it's a racket and corporate welfare at its worst. I am in favour of governments building sports facilities, for kids.

[billvon 3,089]

>this is on the state level and is something the state will use and
>make money on, this is not socialism.

Government funding of business ventures? My friend, you are now solidly in the "socialist" category. Don't worry; everyone is a capitalist, socialist, libertarian, authoritarian, liberal, conservative etc etc to some degree or another.

You want the government to take tax money and spend it on a stadium. Fine. You just lost the high moral ground when you tell someone else that they are evil for doing that, though.

[billvon 3,089]

>no it is socialism when the fed gov takes your money and hands it out to
>those that don't produce for the sake of what they call fairness.

It is also socialism when the government takes your money and hands it out to rich sports teams to curry favor with voters, just to get a stadium that politicians want.

Does anyone really think that a sports organization whose teams pay their players an AVERAGE of a million dollars a year can't afford a stadium?

>I guess it is only socialism when poor people get the handout.

So what do you call it when rich people get the handout? Republicanism?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

How about trade missions. Are those criminal abuse?

How about advertising for tourism in state or county. Is that criminal abuse too?

so you agree stadiums cross the line and now are just trying to find the exact location of the line - that's a great start

I'd think you could find a better resolution - but I guess it doesn't hurt to bracket that boundary for the simple

...
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

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

no it is socialism when the fed gov takes your money and hands it out to those that don't produce for the sake of what they call fairness. this is at a state level

so, in your world, it's not ok for the Feds to take my money and give to people that don't need it and demand more (after the Feds take their cut). But it's just fine for the State to do the exact same same thing.

I guess if a city council decides to take a big chunk of money for city employee team building trips to Hawaii - then that's fine too

nuts - criminal abuse of the social contract is wrong regardless of what level it happens

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 that is shared by a football team. if the stadium was for only the vikings use and profit, it would be wrong. this is a multi use facility that is owned by the state and will funtion for the state. big difference than giving a handout to a business to bail them out of bad investments.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

>this is on the state level and is something the state will use and
>make money on, this is not socialism.

Government funding of business ventures? My friend, you are now solidly in the "socialist" category. Don't worry; everyone is a capitalist, socialist, libertarian, authoritarian, liberal, conservative etc etc to some degree or another.

You want the government to take tax money and spend it on a stadium. Fine. You just lost the high moral ground when you tell someone else that they are evil for doing that, though.

This is not giving money to the vikings, this is 3 parties joining in a venture that will benifit all 3. not like the feds giving banks money because of bad deals. if all 3 had to build there own venues it would cost much more. this is a business deal on a local level that all will benifit from. that is the difference between state and fed governments. states are different than the federal.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

so you agree stadiums cross the line and now are just trying to find the exact location of the line - that's a great start

I'd think you could find a better resolution - but I guess it doesn't hurt to bracket that boundary for the simple

Thank you for acknowledging, even though backhanded, that governments frequently use tax payer money to advertise and promote private business in their jurisdictions.

I understand the backhandedness though, it does blow holes in your earlier posts.

[kelpdiver 2]

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 that is shared by a football team. if the stadium was for only the vikings use and profit, it would be wrong. this is a multi use facility that is owned by the state and will funtion for the state. big difference than giving a handout to a business to bail them out of bad investments.

let's stop the bullshit. The stadium is 80-90% for the Vikings. The others just get some use out of it for major events. But that doesn't require the people to pay for half of it. No matter how much you dance, this is socialism.

The SF Giants built their new stadium a decade ago and did not require public funding*. They do plan a lot of non baseball events there to pay the bonds.

* they did receive a 10M tax abatement, and there was 80M in infrastructure investments made in the area that benefits the stadium project. Note that these were mostly projects that were on the docket anyway, but then designed with consideration for the ballpark. (Muni trains, in particular).

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

so you agree stadiums cross the line and now are just trying to find the exact location of the line - that's a great start

I'd think you could find a better resolution - but I guess it doesn't hurt to bracket that boundary for the simple

Thank you for acknowledging, even though backhanded, that governments frequently use tax payer money to advertise and promote private business in their jurisdictions.

I understand the backhandedness though, it does blow holes in your earlier posts.

yes, we have a large level of crapulosity on a Friday, don't we?

...
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

[pirana 0]

. . . 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.

" . . . 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

[SkyDekker 1,465]

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?

[marks2065 0]

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 that is shared by a football team. if the stadium was for only the vikings use and profit, it would be wrong. this is a multi use facility that is owned by the state and will funtion for the state. big difference than giving a handout to a business to bail them out of bad investments.

let's stop the bullshit. The stadium is 80-90% for the Vikings. The others just get some use out of it for major events. But that doesn't require the people to pay for half of it. No matter how much you dance, this is socialism.

The SF Giants built their new stadium a decade ago and did not require public funding*. They do plan a lot of non baseball events there to pay the bonds.

* they did receive a 10M tax abatement, and there was 80M in infrastructure investments made in the area that benefits the stadium project. Note that these were mostly projects that were on the docket anyway, but then designed with consideration for the ballpark. (Muni trains, in particular).

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)

[kelpdiver 2]

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.