My favorite part was when he all but acknowledged that there were better uses for that money:
Although 40 percent of those funds — $ 8 million — is constitutionally dedicated to an environmental trust fund, “the other $12 [million] can be used for other stuff. People will say it should go into schools or roads or whatever, but … that’s another way to do [the stadium].”
Yeah, I’d be one of those people who would say it should go into “schools or roads or whatever.” We are hemorrhaging money right now, so much so that we’re taking it from our schools to keep the state financially solvent. It would seem to me that before we could talk about new revenues going to pay for anything, we need to pay our schools the money we’ve taken from them. I know that people don’t want to lose the Vikes, but can anyone justify taking money from our schools and then using new revenues not to pay them back, but to build a professional football stadium?
The first decent thing Pawlenty’s done in a long time.
We have several sources of raising revenue for schools and we use them.
You can’t compare an ongoing funding commitment with a one time shot.
With the state’s finances in the disarray that ii is in, how dare Tim Pawlenty even suggest funds for a Vikings Stadium?
PAY THE SCHOOLS DAMMIT!!!
I am a school teacher and I am fine with the Vikes getting their stadium any way possible
Every year, pay the schools.
How about we put school funding back into the budget?
This one time funding is not going to make or break schools because education costs are constantly rising and we should have budgeted for the schools in the state budget.
Going after the lottery funds as much needed school finances is just banter.
You’re talking like the lottery money is all new. The 60% that would go towards the stadium is already in the state budget — what would be cut?
Math is certainly not my strong suit but wouldn’t a billion dollar stadium take some 83,000 years or so to be payed for in $12 million increments.
I will take your math over Timmy’s economics any day of the week.
It would take eighty-three years and four months, but that assumes zero percent interest on the borrowed money. It also assumes constant lottery revenues, and no other competition for that part of the lottery revenue.
First, we’d have to see the entire formula. I’m assuming that bonding is a huge part of it, which is money on paper for a few years.
Next, the owners are kicking in most of the cost.
Third, its going to be built.
Fourth, its a a false comparison to say its between the schools and stadiums. Its not, those are the author’s priorities versus his most non-interest item.
Fifth, if we funded the schools and transportation correctly, you’d surely find some other reason to NOT support it.
Sadly, one one DFL candidate for governor — John Marty — has unequivocally ruled out taxpayer dollars for billionaire Wilf’s little playground. And Marty won’t make it past the endorsing convention.
If the Vikings leave, it would be devastating to the Minnesota economy. How many restaurants/bars have increased revenue during game day? How many jobs could be created if we decide to build a new stadium? How much would downtown Minneapolis be helped? Yes, I’m a Vikings fan, but that’s no why I’m saying this. We need the Vikings here, like we need Best Buy, General Mills, 3M, or Medtronic. They are a significant piece of the Minnesota economy, and if they leave, it would be a complete disaster.
The economic argument is pretty much a non-starter:
http://www.brookings.edu/articles/1997/summer_taxes_noll.aspx
There is some anecdotal support for the no impact argument. When the NHL was on strike, it was devastating to the bars and restaurants around the Xcel. At the same time, sales tax receipts in Ramsey County showed no significant change. That tells me that people were spending their entertainment money elsewhere: other restaurants, theaters, etc. The economy survived.