Vikings stadium bill
- Thread starter hoocher
- Start date
JugadorHawk
Well-Known Member
Hawkfromnorwalk
Well-Known Member
The city leaders of Minneapolis are absolute morons if they screw this up and force the franchise out of town. I'm not a Vikings fan but they are a passionate bunch.
thejumper5
Well-Known Member
IMHO, public funds should never be used to build sports stadiums for private teams. There are about 10 million better uses for tax money. If the Vikings want a new stadium, they can pay for it themselves. The NFL is by far the richest league in the world; they're good for the money.
JugadorHawk
Well-Known Member
Or they can move to another city that is willing to foot the one billion dollar bill.
okeefe4prez
Well-Known Member
A-MEN. Especially in this economy. 8 regular season games a year does not justify any material expenditure, plus ongoing tax incentives, plus ongoing expectations of improvements. Sure, the short term jobs during construction are nice, but they cannot justify the bill. I was ecstatic when Chicago didn't get the Olympics because I knew the taxpayers would get totally jammed, although they were talking about upgrading Ryan Field and Welsh-Ryan Arena which would have been awesome.
JugadorHawk
Well-Known Member
I'm glad, because I'd prefer it if these cities would just stop doing this. The thing about stuff like basketball arenas is at least they are multi-purpose and can provide other entertainment options. Football stadiums sit empty 355 days a year.
Plus, as passionate as Minnesotans are about the Vikings, there are just as many people who just don't give a crap about them either way. Hundreds of millions of dollars seems like a lot to ask of people who don't want it spent.
Plus, as passionate as Minnesotans are about the Vikings, there are just as many people who just don't give a crap about them either way. Hundreds of millions of dollars seems like a lot to ask of people who don't want it spent.
1hawkeye1
Well-Known Member
I plus one this opinion.
Doublewide
Well-Known Member
Totally agree if you can't pay for it yourself you don't get to build one.
Churlish79
Well-Known Member
hawkdrummer1
Well-Known Member
I have no problem with it, at least you see something tangible and an actual benefit for your money. And the stadiums do not sit empty the other 355 days of the year...especially in Minnesota. You'd have to live under a rock not to know that.
You could buy stadiums for the entire league of every major sports franchise with the waste, graft and outright theft represented within those "10 million better ways". Or better yet...how bout just a portion of the money pizzed away on light rail up here...which cost $317M more (as in 80% more) than originally proposed and continues to operate in the red. (and that is for one lousy line, but it's so efficient...they're building more).
I'm always amused at the selective outrage over stadium construction...while those who dare talk about all the other crap (see the Vegas controversy for your latest...but "tip of the iceberg" example) are pejoratively referred to as "extremists" and "teabaggers".
Still..Minnesota could have found a workable solution by now with good leadership. The Minneapolis major and Governer "run away" Dayton are weak. This provides a shining example.
Last edited:
wundergrape
Well-Known Member
Yep. Minny is the 16th largest metro area (3.3 million). The next largest without an NFL franchise is Portland, Oregon, greater metro area at 23rd (2.2 Million). Unless you count the Riverside/San Bernadino metro area, which is 12th at 4.3 million, but most identify that as Los Angeles metro.
BSpringsteen
Well-Known Member
There have been countless economic studies done to determine if the residual gains from adjacent businesses on event days pays for the stadium.
Not one says they do.
Add to this in MPLS, that public funds have been used to build a ton of sporting complexes and the local sales tax is INSANE.
Bottom line, if it is going to be built anywhere, it is better off in a high density population center, but it is never worth the public funds.
Not one says they do.
Add to this in MPLS, that public funds have been used to build a ton of sporting complexes and the local sales tax is INSANE.
Bottom line, if it is going to be built anywhere, it is better off in a high density population center, but it is never worth the public funds.
DuffMan
Well-Known Member
clearly you've never heard of Justin Beber concerts, Wrassle Mania, or Monster Truck shows.
BSpringsteen
Well-Known Member
All take place in arena's, not football stadiums.
Football stadiums are almost never able to be used as multi purpose facilities because there are so few that can justify that size.
That is why arena's are better bets.
okeefe4prez
Well-Known Member
It's obviously pretty dependent on the venue and ability to draw outside events. I would suspect Indy has done pretty well with their investment because they have gotten numerous B10 events and NCAA events and a Super Bowl. Wrigley is probably one of a very limited number of stadiums where its presence (a) drives substantial repeat tourism and (b) drives massive economic activity in the neighborhood. But those cases are few and far between, dropping big cash in Minneapolis is unlikely to be a winner.
I think as long as Dayton can edge Des Moines out as an NCAA tournament destination, they would also be well served in investing in their arena.
hawkdrummer1
Well-Known Member
high school playoffs and tournaments, college tournaments and games, recreation shows, etc etc etc
As for studies "proving" economic benefit...shoot me an email when the rest of government spending (even though this is quite different if it's in the form of a loan, specific tax or user fees) is subject to these standards. I'll throw the party.
