Just another billionaire with his hand out....

These same people who rip families on welfare for not doing enough. Im sick of it. Carl Pohlad, Red McCombs, millionaires and yet they still ask for more. The problem with professional sports is that they are run by "businesspeople". Schools are starving, people are sick without healthcare our infrastructure is crumbling and these a/hole million/billionaires can think of nothing but themselves. Conservatives piss and moan about moral values and principles. Regardless of the economic benefit, providing public funds to these charlatans is wrong.

Whats Timmy gonna call this tax? (I mean fee, sorry Timmy)

If the Repukes in this state are willing to raise taxes for a playground for millionaires, damn them to hell. We need more money for schools, as you say, healthcare, child abuse prevention programs, etc. etc. etc.

If nothing else, this should be made a huge campaign issue. 'Repukes want to raise your taxes. But not for anything that helps you. They want to raise taxes for a playground for the rich. How's your child's school doing?'

basically I no longer give a shit re: The Sports Facilities Circus.
We got the Dome shoved down our throats. Memorial Stadium was destroyed. God Awful Target Center. Etc. Etc. If there's is an economic benefit, let's identify that benefit, and tax accordingly.
If one is a mogul and wants to own a sports team, then be a REAL mogul and ante up with a smile. I think it's a rich mans' game, like polo or racing Italian sportscars. If you can't afford it, don't play. By the way, The Saint Paul Saints make for a lovely and very fun evening of baseball. Oh yeh, did I mention; to hell with Timmy and his whole gang.

Met Stadium in Bloomington was so inadequate, being an outdoor stadium and all.

So we got a stadium with a roof in 1982, and now that's no good. :grr:

enthused about the Dome and it is a lousy stadium for baseball. The stadium we have now is the stadium the Vikings wanted and they should live with it.

Football is so profitable...and with the TV revenue they don't rely on these stadiums as much as baseball does.

Vikings are not losing money because of the stadium...if they are losing mney it's because they CHOKE every damn year!!!

Had to get rid of Memorial stadium too. He was a pig that sold out on campus football for money. Now in that spot there is the 'deathstar', an ugly pos.

and just for the owner's entertainment. Now they want to turn profits and higher returns just like every other corporation.

Typical of the hysteria that always surrounds these financing plans when it comes to major league sports.

First of all...two of the stadiums prime supporters are R.T. Rybak and Peter McLughlin, both running for mayor, both liberal, both very good on issues of funding for anything from transportation to housing to health care... They see the benefit of the stadium

Secondly...if you want to disagree with this that is fine...there are legitimate reasons to oppose it, but you should do so on the facts, not on hysteria. The stadium will be owned by the county, not the Twins. In actuality the Twins are paying 125 mil for a stadium they won't own. They will however gain from the stadium which is what they are betting on. If the stadium increases the value of the Twins, which it should, since they will have security aginst moving (30 years in the agreement), when they are sold the Twins will share those profits with Hennepin County.

Third this financing arrangement in no way affects funding for other priorities. The problem with funding those is a lack of consensus and the will to do it, and of course power politics, not money.

Fourth, No state money is being used...this is entirely a Hennepin County deal. The 15/100 of 1% sales tax increase (the famous 3 cents for $20 purchase) you have heard about is it. Oh btw, does not include clothes, food, or medicine.

Fifth, like it or not, baseball adds to the quality of life in the area and state. In a climate where every jurisdiction is clamoring for an edge in attracting business, cities with major league baseball are at an advantage.

speak about benefits to the community, think about that for a second. Carl Pohlad made his billions repossessing peoples houses, you'd think he was going to take it with him. You think ol' Carl doesnt 'live for the deal' now? This is the same A/hole who tried to trick the people a couple of years ago with that fake buyer scheme. Once an A/hole, always an a/hole. And yes, now the burden of the stadium is now on Hennepin County residents alone. Lets take a page from the Bachmann playbook, lets make it a referendum. Will that happen? Maybe. And if it does it will fail. Finally, people who look to professional sports as a 'quality of life' issue, really dont have anything better to do. We live in a great state, if someone has to have a pro sports team to make thier community viable, then they really dont live in that great an area.

Carl Pohlad is 90 years old...this stadium is not for him...it is for the use of the Twins (whoever owns them then), and for the 100s of thousands or so fans who go to see them every year. Pohlad probably won't even be alive when it is completed. Hennepin County will own the stadium...not the Twins. If you are against government assisted financing in all cases just say so. An ad hominem attack aginst Pohlad is not a valid argument. I uppose Mayor Rybak and Commissioner McLaughlin...two of the truly good guys in Minneapolis, are just stoolies for this evil old man eh ?

As to whether baseball is a valid quality of life issue...it's just as valid as any other form of entertainment. To say otherwise is just snobbery!! And to say that sports teams do not add to that quality of life is just plain wrong.

As to the referendum...no...these people are elected to make these INFORMED decisions. The last thing Hennepin County or Minnesota needs is to end up like California, with every issue put to referendum. What is the point of representative democracy, if you put everything to a vote?

It's gonna pass the legislature...easily I would guess, and the Hennepin County Board is gonna pass it again. There won't be a referendum. Hennepin COunty is gonna get the stadium built, and will be better off for it!

Carl Pohlad and his family have the means to build the stadium. Why dont they do it? You dont have an answer for that. Baseball is valid entertainment, I never said otherwise. What I said was that baseball does not make or break any community with regards to entertainment. Believe me, if the twins left, life would go on! The NHL lock out is proof of that. As far as INFORMED decisions, how many schools is the stadium going to save, how much health care will it buy? When is that INFORMATION going to reach the Hennepin County citizen? Minneapolis is losing cops and firemen due to lack of funding, the Minneapolis city counsel wants to enact a tax to pay for a billionaire? Nice prioritys.

Baseball is a valid business, it generates revenue, no one disputes that, but WHERE IS THE MONEY GOING TO GO? AND BE SPECIFIC! If you dont know then this will be another Northwest maintenance facility. We never got paid back for that either.

I would love it if he built the stadium...I really would. But he is not going to build one that he has to own...it simply will not happen. Not to attribute any altruism to him, but in reality Pohald will be contributing 125 mil to a stadium he will not own. Of course he wouldn't do it if he didn't think the Twins would benefit..but that doesn't negate the point

And to say they are enacting a tax to "pay for a billionaire," is just wrong. As I said Pohlad will likely not live long enogh to see the stadium built. The stadium is being built to help a local business, the Twins, gain profitibility for the enjoyment of the large number of fans who wish to see that form of entertainment stay in the city.

I don't know how much health care it will buy...but killing it won't buy any either...you will simply have the satisfaction of sticking it to Pohlad, and having the Twins leave or be contracted.

Where the revenue goes depends on the politicians...work them over to make sure it goes in the right place...but I would argue Mayor Rybak and Commissioner McLaughlin have done pretty well by the city and county on that score so far.

Obviously the city could live without baseball...I didn't say otherwise. The city could do without art and the performing arts, school music education, parks, and recreation too...that doesn't make it desirable. Sure the city got through without hockey, but was it better off...I don't think so.

stadium, the value of the twins increases 100-125 million. Carl therefore gets a new stadium for nothing, or very little. You're right, carly is a "businesspuke". He only values money, and doesnt give a rats ass about baseball. He won 2 world series with Cal Griffiths teams and then he cut the payroll like a money grubbing snotbag.

You say not building the stadium doesnt buy any healthcare? The tax can build a stadium, it can certainly also pay for healthcare.

Proving my point about the quality of the debate on this matter...instead of looking at it like an adult, you resort to immature name calling. You are displaying the hysteria that comes along with knowing one is on the losing side of an issue.

I know it is easy for those against the stadium to use Pohlad as the poster boy for this. But the fact of the matter is that Pohlad is contributing 125 mil...and of course the Twins profit, that is the point. A profitable healthy team is good for everybody. Just like a profitable 3M, and General Mills, and SuperValu, and numerous other large companies is good for everyone.

I'm not a particular fan of Pohlad, but that shouldn't blind people to what is good for the county...Pohlad will be long gone and this stadium will still be there and so will the Twins

If the city, county, or state had had any intention of raising taxes for health care they would have done it by now...fact is, the population would be against that too. It's not about funds...it's about will and power politics. The large healthcare and drug companies have the Republican parties peckers in their pockets...that's what is holding up health care reform, not this puny sales tax or the stadium.

And finally, it could be argued that the 1987 team was largely built with players acquired by Griffith. The same cannot be said for the 1991 team.

You have successfully avoided answering my primary question. Why should taxpayers build a stadium for a billionaire? I dont remember taxpayers building office buildings for 3m or General Mills or Supervalue? As a matter of fact those companies actually employ a significant amount of people year round, those people might actually make a decent wage too.

As far as your slight on maturity, you dont know me. As a matter of fact, isnt it ironic, even hypocritical that you resorted to a judgement, even a personal attack, on my charactor while whining about me calling carly a puke.

I cant fault you for wanting to watch pro ball, but based on your responses, you'd probably rubber stamp anything they put out.

How about this for a plan. Hennepin county builds the stadium. The stadium employees are county employees and Hennepin county gets all the money generated by the stadium. Carl can have the proceeds of the ticket sales and thats it. Thats my proposal. How much you wanna bet Carlyco doesnt take the deal.

I don't accept your premise that the stadium is being built to benefit a billionaire. The stadium is being built for the benefit of the large number of people in the county and state who wish to see the Twins stay in Minnesota. Do you think the Mayor and Commission have just taken leave of their senses and have decided to become the lackeys of Carl Pohlad ?

I would be very interest to see what kind of tax breaks these large Minnesota corps get to stay here...I would venture it is pretty significant.

And while the size of the Twins is no whee near these other large companies, the Twins, the stadium and alot of other businesses that will profit from the Twins being there will be hiring.

As to whether your response is mature or not...no it isn't..when your primary argument is to call a 90 year old man a puke...that is immature. Carl Pohlad will not in all likelihood own the Twins once the stadium is built. As a matter of fact I would bet once the stadium is approved (and it will be), the team will be sold pretty quickly.

I shouldnt have to point out that tax breaks are different than spending taxpayer money. The bottom line is that you dont know what the benefits, if any, there will be to the people of hennepin county. What are the benefits to hennepin county citizens? LIST THEM if you can. If you cant, the foundation of your argument is invalid.

You avoided my question again!! Would carlyco accept ticket sales as his revenue stream. You avoided that one alltogether.

Carl is a puke. You remember when he schemed to move the twins to try and get a stadium? Do you admire a "businessman" such as that? How about all the family's he booted out of homes to make his millions? You like that too? Maturity is not calling the guy something worse, dont you agree?

It makes no difference whatsoever how Pohlad got his start - none. It also makes no difference what Pohlad did before. I am not a Pohlad admirer (as I said before), but he is the temporary owner of the Twins...and I think it is just lunacy to let them leave the state because we don't like how a 90 year old man does business.

Tax breaks are worse than this sales tax increase. An increase in no way reduces the current revenue stream. Giving a company a tax break does reduce the current revenue stream.

As to whether the Twins would accept ticket sales as his revenue stream...of course they wouldn't nor should they have to. There is TV revenue, merchandising revenue and of course luxury box revenue...that is how baseball teams make money now...the whole point of building the stadium is to make the Twins profitable so they stay here.

As to what benefits...there are many, which include tangible benefits such as increased employment, new businesses, employment from the construction of the stadium, potentially increased tax revenue, and a share in the windfall profit from the sale of the Twins to name a few. There are also intangible benfits such as quality of life considerations, company recruitment, and the fact that most people wish to see the Twins stay in Minnesota, and this deal guarantees that!

The taxpayers DID build a few buildings for Northwest Airlines back in the mid '90s. Northwest was seen as a critical local asset and we bailed them out with an 847 million dollar loan. Here in the metro we pretty much just got the joy of seeing NWA continue to survive, the office buildings (a call center and a maintenance hangar were built in the Arrowhead region)

In the interest of full disclosure, I was fresh out of college and took a temp job as a driller's helper and helped build the foundation for the hangar in Duluth. I though I was getting hosed at $9 an hour--until a co-worker told me about the magic of "prevailing wage." (I really got $18.69 an hour) That was pretty sweet.

We never got paid back.

Pohlad! Did I win? ;)

As for generating revenue, studies have shown that professional sports don't provide a huge economic boon to the local economies as is often claimed. At best, it's a wash and the net benefits are zero.

Here's a link to my post in another stadium thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=160x9599#9879

So, to sum up, the money is coming from the taxpayers and going into Pohlad's pocket. Oh wait. You said to be specific. Hmmm...his left pocket? ;)

the money would come from the taxpayers and go to the workers who will get paid to build the stadium.

Wow, that IS a good deal.

Hmmm...doesn't look like the public really benefits from the construction either. Ok, here's a quote a link. Please note that this is from a study for the stadium proposal from 1997-1998 but the basics arguments should still hold true.



http://www.comm.umn.edu/twinsreport/ch3.htm

It appears to me this is not entirely relevent...this appears to assume a direct government subsidy, which this agreement is not

"They estimate over four years that $184.8 million will be spent in Minnesota and that 402 FTE employees will be utilized in the project annually (p. 14)."

Construction workers will be paid from the proceeds of the sale of Bonds. Interest on those Bonds will be paid by the county using this new tax. If my arithmetic is correct, this is expected to generate $28 mil a year. Four years at that rate is $112 mil not 184.8. This is a constant figure which will not rise unless approval is gained. And my understanding is that the Twins have agreed to cover any construction overruns.

It also does not make a distinction in the size of the tax increases, the type, or the jurisdiction imposing them. It also doesn't appear to take into account a team contribution.

but the basic arguments should still hold true.

"It may appear that this one-time construction benefit is undeniable, but Rosentraub (1998) explains there is no net gain to the local economy: "Since the workers are paid by tax dollars taken from residents, these residents have less to spend that reduces their demand for goods and services."

As far as I know, there hasn't been a similar in-depth study done on the current proposal because the proposal just came out. The team contribution is, in effect, taken into account because the ballpark in the study would cost between $310 and $350 million. With the current proposal, the ballpark will cost $478 million. Subtract Pohlad's contribution of $125 million and the public will be shelling out $353 million which is slightly above the $310-$350 million cost of the proposed stadium in the study. I'm not sure exactly which proposal they studied because there have been so many over the past few years but I'm guessing it's this one.:



Like I said, that's only a guess but the $350 million number is in the range of the $310-$350 million from the previous quote so there's a good chance this is the proposal that they're referring to.

Here's the link for the above quote:
http://www.comm.umn.edu/twinsreport/timeline.htm

I thought there was more to it than that.

As Spike pointed out, there is also land and material costs, so whoever owns the land or provides the material would get paid. Basically, any input supplier would get paid. Labor would be one of the important inputs needed to construct a stadium.

Profits from the team will go to the Twins...the benefits will go to everyone who wants the Twins to stay. Pohlad probably won't be around...and if the Twins are sold, any windfall from the sale, which is likely given the new stadium and the 30 year guarantee, will be shared with the county. I believe that the Twins will also pay for cost overruns (I could be wrong here).

accounting firms, assorted writers, analysts and task force appointees.

Look at all these task forces and reports!!

Reports specific to Minnesota:
Advancing Arts and Athletics: Planning and Funding Arts and Sports in Minnesota. St. Paul: Minnesota Planning, 1998. (GV430.M6 M566 1998) (Governor Arne H. Carlson's Task Force on Sports Facilities.)

Analysis of Stadium Options. Minneapolis: Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission, 1997. (GV416.T9 A53 1997)

The Canterbury Proposal: Report to the Minnesota Stadium Task Force. Shakopee, MN: Canterbury Park, 1997. (HV6711.C36 1997)

Dyson, Deborah A. State and Regional Financing for Sports Facilities. St. Paul: Minnesota House of Representatives, House Research Department, 1996. (GV430.M6 D97 1996)

Economic and Fiscal Impacts Analysis Related to the Location of a National Hockey League Franchise in St. Paul: Final Report. St. Petersburg: KPMG Peat Marwick, December 1996. (GV848.4.U6 E36 1996)

Economic Impact Report: Minnesota Twins and a Proposed New Ballpark. Minneapolis: Arthur Anderson & Co., Minnesota Wins, 1997. (GV875.M6 E36 1997)

Economic Impact Report on Target Center. Minneapolis: Arthur Andersen & Co., 1994. (GV416.M6 E26 1994)

Final Report. Minneapolis: Advisory Task Force on Professional Sports in Minnesota, 1996. (GV716.M48 1996)

Final Report of the Minnesota Stadiums Task Force. St. Paul: Minnesota Stadiums Task Force, January 25, 2002.


Hirasuna, Donald. The Economics of Sports Stadiums: Evaluating the Benefits from Public Assistance. St. Paul: Minnesota House of Representatives, House Research Department, 1997. (GV415.H57 1997)

Klobuchar, Amy. Uncovering the Dome: Was the Public Interest Served in Minnesota's 10-Year Political Brawl Over the Metrodome? Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, 1982. (GV416.M6 K45 1982)

Loan Agreement for the Saint Paul Arena Project. n.p., 1998. (GV416.S3 L63 1998)

Maintaining a Minnesota Tradition: Minnesota Twins Information Kit. Minneapolis: Minnesota Twins, 1997. (GV875.M6 M354 1997)

McCormack, Patrick J., and Randal S. Hove. Hockey Issue Questions & Answers. St. Paul: Minnesota State Senate, Office of Senate Counsel & Research, March 19, 1998. (GV416.S3 M33 1998)

McCormack, Patrick, and Randal S. Hove. Stadium Discussion Points. Research Report. Senate Counsel & Research, 1997. (GV415.M33 1997)

Metrodome. Minneapolis: Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission, 1995. (GV416.M6 M38 1995)

Minnesota Vikings Football Club Presentation to Stadium Panel. Minneapolis: Minnesota Vikings, 1997. (GV956.M5 M55 1997)

Procedures Relating to an Evaluation of the Source of Financial Information Included by the Minnesota Twins in its Report, Management's Discussion and Analysis. Minneapolis: Coopers & Lybrand, 1996. (GV875.M6 P76 1996)

Public Disclosure of Information Related to the Construction of a New Civic Center Arena in St. Paul. St. Paul: Minnesota Wild, 1998. (GV416.P83 1998)

Response to Information Requests from the Stadium Task Force and Additional Background Information. Minneapolis: Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission, 1997. (GV416.M6 R47 1997)

Shape the Solution: Keep Minnesota Major League: Resource Guide for the Minnesota Stadium Task Force. Minneapolis: Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission, 2001. (GV416.M6 S53 2001)

Squeeze Play : The Campaign for a New Twins Stadium. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Department of Speech Communications, Minnesota Public Advocacy Research Team, 1998. (GV416.M6 S68 1998)

Stadium Financing. Minneapolis: Minnesota Institute of Legal Education, 1998. (GV415 .S723 1998)

Stadium Screening Committee Report to Governor Tim Pawlenty. St. Paul, MN: Stadium Screening Committee, 2004.

Weiner, Jay. Stadium Games: Fifty Years of Big League Greed and Bush League Boondoggles. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2000. (GV 716.W43 2000)

SIGNIFICANT ARTICLES:
Badenhausen, Kurt, et al. "More Than a Game: An In-Depth Look at the Raging Bull Market in Sports Franchises." Financial World, June 17, 1997, p. 40-50.

Burke, David. "The Stop Tax-Exempt Arena Debt Issuance Act." Journal of Legislation, Volume 23, no. 1 (1997), p. 149-157.

Carlino, Gerald A., and N. Edward Coulsen. Should Cities Be Ready for Some Football? Assessing the Social Benefits of Hosting an NFL Team, Business Review (Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia), Second Quarter, 2004.

Coates, Dennis, and Brad R. Humphreys. "The Stadium Gambit and Local Economic Development." Regulation, Volume 23, no. 2, 2000.

Dorocak, John R. "Tax Advantages of Sports Franchises: The Stadium." State Tax Notes, January 1, 2001, p. 55-58.

Fisher, Daniel. "Value Player (football team valuations; Red McCombs)." Forbes, September 2, 2002.

Green, Kevin, Benjamin Klein, and Brian Lebowitz. "Using Tax-Exempt Bonds to Finance Professional Sports Stadiums." State Tax Notes, May 11, 1998, p. 1553-1569.

"The High-Stakes Game of Team Ownership." Financial World, May 20, 1996, p. 53-65.

Irani, Daraius. "Public Subsidies to Stadiums: Do the Costs Outweigh the Benefits?" Public Finance Review, March 1997, p. 238-253.

Johnson, Benjamin. "Public Financing of Professional Sports Stadiums." State Tax Notes, September 11, 2000.

Keating, Raymond J. "Sports Pork: The Costly Relationship Between Major League Sports and Government." State Tax Notes, May 31, 1999, p. 1827-1849.

Keating, Raymond J. "You're Out! Corporate Welfare for Major League Baseball." Tax Notes, June 4, 2001, p. 1739-1753.

Nelson, Arthur C. "Prosperity or Blight? A question of Major League Stadia Locations." Economic Development Quarterly, August 2001, p. 255+.

Noll, Roger G., and Andrew Zimbalist. "Sports, Jobs, and Taxes: Are New Stadiums Worth the Cost?" The Brookings Review, Summer 1997, p. 35-39.

Ozanian, Michael K. "Selective Accounting: Most Team Owners Claim to Be Losing Money." Forbes, December 14, 1998, p. 124-134.

Rafool, Mandy. "Financing Professional Sports Facilities." NCSL Legisbrief, January 1997.

Rappaport, Jordan, and Chad Wilkerson. "What Are the Benefits of Hosting a Major League Sports Franchise?" Economic Review (Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City), First Quarter 2001, p. 55-86.

Safir, Adam. "Note: If You Build It, They Will Come: The Politics of Financing Sports Stadium Construction." The Journal of Law & Politics, Fall 1997, p. 937-963.

Sports Facility Reports. (The National Sports Law Institute at Marquette University publishes this twice-yearly newsletter on sports facilities. There are many useful articles.)

"Sports Policy Symposium." Policy Studies Review, Spring 1998. (A series of articles on professional sports and public policy.)

Swindell, David, and Mark S. Rosentraub. "Who Benefits from the Presence of Professional Sports Teams? The Implications for Public Funding of Stadiums and Arenas." Public Administration Review, January/February 1998, p. 11-20.

Utt, Ronald D. "Tax Me Out to the Ballgame: Publicly Funded Stadiums Rarely Deliver on Their Promise to Bring Economic Stimulation to Struggling Cities." American Legion Magazine, August 2002, p. 38-42.


Articles specific to Minnesota:
Carlson, Scott. "Lex Circensis: Legal Issues in the Stadium Debate." Bench & Bar, February 1997, p. 18-22.

Cohan, Paul. "Will Minnesota Wave Good-Bye to the Twins?" Stateline Midwest, April 1997, p. 1, 5.

Hebensperger, Ron. "Squeeze Play: The Stadium." Perspectives: A Publication About the Minnesota Senate, Winter 1998, p. 4-9.

"Twins Stadium Financing." Money Matters, August 13, 1997. (A Publication of the Minnesota House Fiscal Analysis Department.)

Wehrwein, Sven. "How We'll Get a New Ballpark." Twin Cities Business Monthly, November 1996, p. 26-31.

OTHER SOURCES OF INFORMATION:
Internet sites:

Minnesota Stadiums Task Force -- The Stadium Task Force was created by Governor Ventura and the Legislature in 2002 to study and make recommendations regarding the asserted needs of the Minnesota Twins, the Minnesota Vikings and the University of Minnesota football team for new stadiums.
Stadium Screening Committee -- "Provide information, analysis and advice that will assist the Governor in making a professional stadium proposal for the 2004 legislative session. The Screening Committee will focus on issues related to site selection, financing, ownership and governance of a new professional sports stadium with options that may include baseball and/or football facilities."


Check the following codes in the Newspaper Clipping File and the Vertical File:

S150 (Stadiums)

For additional articles, check the following Inside Issues headings:

Sports teams/Stadiums

For additional reports, use the following terms in MNPALS, the on-line catalog:

Sports facilities, stadiums, sports franchises, sports and state

Now THAT's a reputable firm. ;)

Nice find katinmn. Gee, looks like I'm in the wrong line of work.

Gotta get those tax $ any way you can.