Posted on 08/30/2011 5:17:33 PM PDT by ConservativeStatement
Left-leaning activists and a vocal alliance of tea party conservatives are banding together with a common outlook: Public funding for private football stadiums makes little sense during a sour economy, they say, and the people, not lawmakers, should have the final vote.
The Ramsey County Charter Commission will meet Wednesday to discuss putting a question before voters about using a half-percent countywide sales tax to fund the proposed $1.1 billion Minnesota Vikings stadium, and meeting foes from the left and right are expected to attend.
The question probably won't make it to voters before the November 2012 election, but the support of the Charter Commission would at the very least further energize anti-stadium critics.
"The people of Ramsey County voted for the charter 20 years ago," said Andy Cilek, co-founder and president of the conservative-allied Minnesota Voters Alliance. "What comes with that? The right of referendum - the right to vote."
(Excerpt) Read more at twincities.com ...
I don't.
calling a football stadium "private" is total nonsense. First of all, it is used during the football season for games which draw untold millions of dollars into the area. It is used, outside the football season, for a myriad of other money making situations...concerts, revivals, whatever.... The team cannot take the stadium with them if they leave. A stadium is a large, expensive, investment in a city's future and in most cases it is a VERY wise investment. While the Indianapolis motor speedway is truly a private facility, it has all the benefits of a public facility except that the locality does not necessarily get a cut of the pie. Other than the Green Bay Packers who probably do own Lambeau Field, other teams, which are normally not locked into an everlasting contract to stay put, could not possibly afford to erect a "private" stadium to house 8 or 9 home games.
Yep. Voinovich found that out the hard way (here in Ohio).
Like convention centers, they usually do not benefit the area in any real way. Let the billionaire owners and millionaire players and the ticket buyers finance their own stadiums. Just like every other business.
In North Dakota the nickname for the Tower City (pop. 250) high school teams is the Clams.
The girls’ teams of course are called the Bearded Clams.
again I say nonsense, convention centers are a Godsend to a community...wrap up a few conventions, Motels, Hotels, restaurants, theaters, nightclubs, casinos, bring in tons of outside money. A professional team offers to do business in a city which will provide a venue suitable for their sport. Don't provide a facility...see ya, we'll choose a nearby city which appreciates what a professional sports team means to an area. The Braves moved from Boston to Milwaukee to Atlanta because of a situation where one city appreciated them over another city. On the other hand, I am a mayor of a large metropolitan area, we have just erected a state of the art facility (see Indianapolis Hoosier Dome) and we are looking for an occupant (see colts)...both sides benefit from the deal...the team makes tons of money as does the city. I see no problem with the city building facilities to attract possible profitable ventures. Indy, for example, built facilities including a velodrome to attract the Pan-American games a few years ago.....cities spend zillions of dollars to attract the olympics....usually very profitable.....once in a while, not so profitable. You cannot be a humdrum person, company, city, state, or country and gain attention. A community that actively seeks new business and sources of revenue is likely to get them
If they are profitable hen they do not need public assistance (corporate welfare). There are not enough conventions these days to support all the convention centers across the country, many sit idle for months at a time.
I was just sitting in a private football stadium on Monday. Telling you this could spoil your lunch, I know, but you brought it up.
“First of all, it (a stadium) is used during the football season for games which draw untold millions of dollars into the area.”
All the better that the attraction of a football team draws “untold millions of dollars” into an area. That permits the community to cover the cost of the public safety issues and other costs associated with the attraction, leaving them (hopefully) with benefits greater than the additional expenses involved. Why, then, should the community stand the extra expense of building and maintaining a facility from which private parties profit?
It is used, outside the football season, for a myriad of other money making situations...concerts, revivals, whatever....”
From which the owners, be they “private” or “public,” will benefit, helping them to reap a return on their investment. And, again, the community benefits from the fallout of each attraction’s “draw” outside the stadium.
“While the Indianapolis motor speedway is truly a private facility, it has all the benefits of a public facility except that the locality does not necessarily get a cut of the pie.”
Why? Because the speedway is “truly” a private facility? The “untold millions of dollars” drawn into the area by the attraction magically disappear because the speedway is not a publicly funded facility? Explain that dynamic.
“. . . teams, which are normally not locked into an everlasting contract to stay put, could not possibly afford to erect a "private" stadium to house 8 or 9 home games.”
What about those “myriad” of other moneymaking attractions you mentioned? Do they go away simply because the facility is “private”? Jerry Jones, the only franchise owner I know of who has built his own stadium, doesn’t think they will. He expects to generate revenue from the large numbers of tourists who will pay simply to tour his new facility, not to mention the “myriad” of other moneymaking attractions his facility will attract.
Because a team was not locked into a long-term contract to stay put (not an “everlasting” contract, as you put it) a major media market went without an NFL franchise for twelve years, and a greater market has been without an NFL franchise even longer. What might have been their history had the franchise been more invested in the community and had they greater revenue sources than merely their single franchise?
Despite my opinion opposing taxpayer funded stadiums, have any of you been by the proposed site lately?
I’m calling this thing a done deal. That land was dormant for decades, but all of a sudden, they’re working it like mad! The old guard shack is occupied again, and the site’s being cleared. This is an inside job by Dayton and Ziggy.
Watch it fly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.