I was on the internet for no more than two minutes this morning when I found more crap to raise my blood pressure. I came across a video clip entitled "Stadium Politics and the Bridge." It's a story about, as I wrote previously, the controversy surrounding the bridge falling down because Hennepin County is funding the Twins stadium (A = B). Here is a link to the story - you have to check it out (you may be forced to watch a quick commercial beforehand. I haven't quite figured out this adding video to blog thing yet. Technofear - again):
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2007/08/04/lavandera.stadium.money.cnn
Now, I am not upset that the story exists. Let's explore all angles. What I want to know is why Senator John Marty continues to get national exposure and how in God's name CNN was provided with "Political Activist (i.e "unemployed")" Leslie Davis' name to comment on the issue. I have attended two separate hearings on the stadium issue and Leslie Davis has been at both. During the first hearing, Davis brought a guitar and "sang" his opinion to members of the Legislature. He was basically "gonged" after a few minutes and hauled out. During the second meeting, Davis refused to speak in order to the Hennepin County Commissioners and was forcefully removed from the podium, while screaming, by security. Now, he's on CNN. Explain that.
Then, you have Senator (Saint) John Marty, who is against Everything. I will give him credit for the fact that he has ALWAYS been against Everything and has never wavered. If Marty was in charge, the Twin Cities Metropolitan area would look like mid-1950's Moscow. No bling whatsoever, just grey rectangular office buildings and government centers. Now, he's on CNN telling the world that the money directly earmarked for the Twins stadium could have been used for bridge inspections. Or for THE KIDS. Because, as we all know, you can't do both. A or B. Black or White. If you are for the stadium, you against The Bridge. That is the new thing.
Am I wrong here? Am I just ranting (wouldn't be the first time)? Let me know what YOU think.
Jeff
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Where you and your “ilk” fail to connect the dots is; this is an issue of priorities and expectations. What government is required to provide vs. what government is asked to provide by “special interest groups” such as Twins supporters.
The answer is no. No, a government cannot be all things to all people. No, a government cannot and should not attempt to meet every single want and desire. Government needs to provide security, the bare necessities of social welfare, education AND infrastructure. When it (government) gets pulled in too many directions and stretched too thin by special interest groups convincing the naïve populous that beyond those 4 things, we absolutely cannot live without “X” that money get redirected, misappropriated and spent at the expense of the main 4 items.
It’s the propagation of that event along with the “2 wrongs make a right” crowd (i.e. if the Gutherie gets money, so does my pet project), that will ensure that our society suffers more and that tax rates get pushed beyond reason in order to justify all they want and more
Anonymous - thanks for taking the time to post your comment. You make a compelling argument. I've participated in this discussion for over a decade now. Every word you just said is true in a perfect world. In a perfect world, billionares fund stadiums (and theatres) with their own money.
However, for many reasons, this is not a perfect world and government expanded beyond those 4 basic necessities that you mentioned a long time ago. Right or wrong, communities must make themselves desirable to attract and retain business, people etc.
However, I don't believe things like stadiums and bridges are mutually exclusive. I've always believed that communities should be able to figure out how to do both. Obviously, the 4 necessities that you mentioned need to come first, but that should not mean that we simply turn professional sports away.
Thanks again.
Jeff
Jeff,
First off, my philosophy has always aligned with what Anonymous said above. The purpose of the government is definitely not to build stadiums.
I see where you are coming from as well, but just because we are running an imperfect system doesn't mean we should embrace it and make it more imperfect.
You say at the end that we want to make sure that we don't "simply turn professional sports away." Well, I don't think that would happen.
In both San Francisco and Seattle, two cities with good local economies like the Twin Cities, the local govt. has turned away requests for building stadiums. SF didn't help pay for the new Giants stadium, and they've turned down helping the 49ers. Seattle has turned down requests from the Sonics. (Though they did help pay for Safeco field, I believe.)
Those cities have proved that even cities with good economies needn't fork over dough for stadiums. The areas are attractive enough and have enough expendable income that the owners of teams have been willing to make an investment of their own money to capture that expendable income.
If a city isn't economically attractive enough for an owner to want to invest in a stadium, the city probably shouldn't be stepping in to build the stadium.
I happen to think the Twin Cities are attractive enough for an owner to fund their own stadium, but we got sick of the threats and gave in.
You also mentioned the Guthrie and why aren't people up in arms about that. They may have been as undeserving of public money as the Twins, but I believe they only got $24 million, which is much smaller than what the Twins got. Plus, I don't know much about the ownership structure of the Guthrie, but I don't think it's owned solely by one of the richest men in the country, like the Twins are. That is probably why there isn't as much of a pushback against public money for the Guthrie.
Anyway, if the Twins were to have moved, I'd have cried myself to sleep for 10 weeks in a row, but if the only thing keeping them here is our public money, then I guess we shouldn't have pro sports teams here if they can't be self-sufficient. (Trust me, they can be.)
Of course, a far bigger waste than a new Twins stadium is the amount spent on ethanol subsidies, but that's a whole 'nother story.
Hey Neil - thanks for the message. You and anonymous both had thoughtful, logical comments. I appreciate the time you both took to write them. Spending public money on sports stadiums has to be one of the most controversial topics, if not THE most controversial, in Minnesota history.
I guess I am not morally opposed to public money being used to build stadiums because I have always felt that communities benefit from having professional sports teams and modern facilities. If built right, stadiums can enhance the "livability" of a city (i.e Xcel Energy Center in St. Paul).
Also, about your examples of Seattle and San Francisco. I believe Seattle has no appetite to build the Sonics an arena simply because they spent well over a Billion dollars in public money on stadiums for the Seahawks and Mariners (built right next to each other). It would be like the Wolves asking for an arena after we build the Twins and Vikings stadiums.
I have heard that San Francisco is one of the few American cities in which private, corporate money actually worked to build a stadium. I don't know if the Twin Cities has the corporate wealth or willingness to get involved with that (for multiple teams).
Also, remember that the Target Center was originally built with private money. However, just 5 years later, the city of Minneapolis was "forced" to buy it from the Wolves owners because they "just couldn't make it."
Jeff
the great stadium debate again, the rich get richer, they always do. ever heard of TIF, or tax increment financing? It is how things get done. mall of america, TIF. just one example. no matter how much you want to live in the land of oz, the people with money are going to get the breaks. the guthrie and the walker? I know, that is different. how that is, I am not really sure. maybe people that go to sports events are not cultured and are looked at as rubes. easier targets, say, than the white wine and air kisses set.
When you buy your ticket to a Guthrie event, where do the proceeds go?
Therein lies the difference.
you cannot have it both ways. I am sure money for light rail, the guthrie, and the walker, all supported with public funds, should have went to the poor, right? and poverty will stop if none of the above is built, right? and bridges won't collapse, right?
the problem is, people ARE saying that poverty, hunger, etc will go away if stadium money is directed towards them. have you read nick coleman, or spoke to your favorite liberal? ok, not go away, but be better served. and that is maddening, to say the least. but I am in agreement with you that stadiums and guthries are not the responsibility of the gov't.
Thanks everyone - good discussion. I heard an interesting "factoid" on the radio today. As Neil pointed out, the San Francisco Giants have the only privatly funded stadium in baseball. I heard today that the owner of the Giants must pay $26 million a year towards that stadium, and can thank his lucky stars that Barry Bonds was on his record-setting home run pace this year because this basically sold out the stadium. The Giants are quite worried about attendance next year, and how they will afford a competitive payroll when they owe $26 million towards the stadium annually. As we know, the Giants are already terrible on the field.
It would be fine and dandy if the Giants were competing against other teams (payroll-wise) that had privatly funded stadiums. They are competing against teams, however, that have publicly funded stadiums. I have met plenty of people who "consider themselves baseball fans but are against paying for a stadium" that expect Carl Pohlad to pay for his own stadium AND carry a high payroll. (And keep ticket prices low, of course). I think it will catch up with the Giants, and it would have caught up with the Twins.
It falls into the "not right, but it's reality" category.
Jeff
Why can't we have ballparks and bridge inspections (and healthy kids too) it's not a zero sum game folks. We can do more than one thing at a time.
Post a Comment