The case for a Vikings stadium discussion
Posted at 10:37 AM on February 4, 2010
by Bob Collins
(26 Comments)
Filed under: Politics, Sports
The Minnesota Legislature begins its 2010 session today (MPR's Midday is originating its entire show from the Capitol today) and the chief topic is how to to close the state's budget deficit.
But the slightly smaller gorilla in the room is a stadium for the Minnesota Vikings. Still, it has no significant chance of coming up for discussion this year.
Gov. Pawlenty tried to put the discussion in play yesterday during his appearance on MPR's Midday when he offered several possible ways to raise some revenue for the Vikings, whose lease at the Metrodome expires at the end of next season.
Sooner or later, the issue has to come up for discussion. The question is: Should it be sooner? Or later?
Minnesota politicians specialize in waiting until the last minute to solve problems and make decisions, and from the pre-session talk, they're likely to put off a stadium discussion until next year. Part of that is a hope something will change between now and then. But all of the economic reports say nothing will likely change.
"As soon as the topic comes up, it sucks the air out of the room," my colleague, Kerri Miller, a former Capitol reporter, said to me this morning while we were arguing about whether the issue should be discussed this session.
She's probably right; legislating is hard, especially in an election year.
Why should the topic come up? Two reasons. One, is someone -- somewhere -- has to have a long-range vision for Minnesota. What exactly do you want Minnesota to look like in five years? And, once we settle on that, how do we get there? Is an NFL team part of that vision? What's the dropout rate in Minnesota in 2015 (A proposal is to increase the age at which we let kids drop out)? What industry -- bioscience, for example -- do you think Minnesota should try to attract as a dominant industry?
This is not an entirely foreign concept at the Capitol. In one of the few bipartisan efforts on major legislation, lawmakers and the governor set benchmarks for reducing greenhouse gasses in the state by 2015. They didn't wait until 2014 to do it; they did it in 2007.
Reason two: If you're not talking about solutions, you don't generally find them. There are, of course, the obvious and longstanding opinions on whether the state should have any role in keeping an NFL team in Minnesota. "Why should taxpayers have to pay to have an NFL team?" is one. The answer is simple: Whether we like it or not, that's the way it is. If someone else is willing to build them a stadium, NFL teams move. Whatever Minnesota decides, it has to understand the reality of sports economics.
It's true that the Legislature has big issues that need to be discussed that may have more priority than deciding the fate of the Minnesota Vikings. But legislators in the House today filed 337 more bills for consideration, most of which are far less significant, that also get to the issue of how the state spends its money: A pedestrian walkway at Minnetonka Beach, an airport hangar for Thief River Falls, a campground in Two Harbors, and renovation of Orchestra Hall in Minneapolis among them.
Someone must think a pedestrian walkway, an airport hangar, a campground, and an orchestra are part of a vision and are prepared to discuss it in this session. Why not add the Vikings' stadium to the debate?
"People need jobs in this state; it's an important part of what's going on in the economy," House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher said last month. "However, public money going towards this is a very difficult sell in a budget crisis."
She's right. It will be. But talking about it and considering solutions doesn't preclude saying "no" to any of them. Otherwise, the state is dealing with a problem by ignoring it. How's that strategy worked out in the past?
Comments (26)
You're absolutely half-right, Bob. I say half right because the necessary discussion isn't just about a hypothetical Vikings stadium, but the entire list of requests for state funding. What really needs to happen is a prioritization process, that includes analysis of the payback we'll get from any given expenditure. For instance, how much do we spend on schools & what's the return? Are we properly educating our future workforce such that they'll be productive members of society, contributing back to MN? What about law enforcement - is the investment in law enforcement, the courts & prison system the best way to provide security & safety to the populace? Or can we achieve the same or better results by spending differently? So, back to the Vikings stadium. Supporters claim there's an ROI, through taxing players' salaries, or an intangible benefit of building a sort of community. Ok, how do we quantify that & prioritize it against other obligations? Should we build a stadium or hire more public defenders & fix some bridges? How about building a ditch around Moorehead? If we consider a new dedicated source of funding, like racinos, why would that revenue be earmared for a stadium, rather than addressing the enormous budget shortfall?
So, yes, lets discuss it. What are our priorities & how much are we willing to pay for them? In bang for the buck, a stadium falls a bit on the priority list, in comparison to ensuring our state's future standard of living remains high.
I echo bsimon here. I'd also like to see the legislators compare this kind of construction project to similar large-scale building projects that would also provide jobs, signficantly enhance partnerships with eixisting important entertainment and educational organizations, and expand an educational benefit. A proposal for reconstructing Northrop Hall on the U of MN campus, which will become unusable any day now do to outdated infrastructure, are arguably more significant in those terms than a new Vikings stadium. Or finally renovating Folwell Hall, where language instruction classroom infrastructure and offices are dismal. Not sexy like biotech or a sports franchise, but yes, let's talk about investment priorities.
I've never thought -- and I still don't think -- that there's an economic argument to be made for pro sports stadiums. Then again, I don't think there's an economic argument for the bike path near the house. (g)
Are we properly educating our workforce? No, we're not. Have we come up with a plan (or a priority) for helping the most vulnerable in our society? No, we haven't. Do we have a flood mitigation solution for the Red River Valley? Nope.
But the "do this first, then do that" syndrome is faulty. You can bond, perhaps, a stadium. You can't bond public defenders.
But, at the same time, we have to acknowledge that the state IS making an effort on many of these issues. There's a really, REALLY big building next to the world headquarters of News Cut, full of people -- mostly caring people, I'll point out -- dedicated to helping the most vulnerable among us.
We have to acknowledge that the state IS investing a significant amount of money educating our kids.
At some point -- somehow -- the state budget shortfall will be addressed. At some point, we're going to come out of this economic mess.
At that point, what does our state look like? What are the elements that keep me here and not moving somewhere more inviting? What is our culture?
You're right, of course. In bang for the buck, an NFL team isn't a big deal. But if we're going to judge everything by return on investment, what's the bang for the buck in sticking sexual offenders at Moose Lake until they rot?
Sometimes, there's more involved here than ROI in a dollars-and-cents world.
Tell me what Minnesota looks like 5 years from now and then tell me someone has a plan to get us there.
Miller criticized me today for quoting Dave Durenberger, but it's still my favorite quote:
"If you don't know where you're going, any road will get you there."
And let's be honest. The reason they're not going to have the debate at the Capitol this year isn't because of GAMC, or human services, or the budget shortfall's taking all the time.
The reason they likely won't have the conversation at the Capitol this year is because as soon as they do, SOMEONE has to go on the record in an election year. Talk about your poison pill!
"Why should taxpayers have to pay to have an NFL team?" is one. The answer is simple: Whether we like it or not, that's the way it is."
I could not possibly disagree more with this sentiment. This is exactly what owners like Zygi Wilf would like the public to do: just roll over and accept as fact that NFL teams are allowed to hold states hostage to get a new stadium. Instead of acquiescing, perhaps the public and the government need to have a real debate concerning sports economics. The status quo is a very dangerous thing in this situation, and I have to admit that I take issue with your editorializing.
Why should Minnesota spend one dime for a billionaire owner when schools and higher education are having their budgets destroyed? Like I said, we need to have a very real and open debate about this. We simply cannot afford to just hand over half a billion whenever somebody gets antsy.
Los Angeles already said they're looking more at Buffalo and Jacksonville as potential moves. I don't see Minnesota on that list; the team is going nowhere. We can safely call their bluff.
I agree that talking about a stadium is one thing and acting on it is another.
Rewind for a bit. At the same time Tim Pawlenty was calling for a new Twins stadium, Minneapolis was getting ready to close libraries because of LGA cuts. By hook and by crook we got our libraries through that crisis, but they are still underfunded, understaffed and have hours cut back. My little local library has gone from 6 days of operation to 3, and my neighborhood is getting frustrated with having to wait to get even that last bit of operation back. Some people even resent that big showy downtown library when much needed neighborhood libraries are now suffering.
But the Twins have a stadium.
Today? Sure talk about a stadium, but it's a low priority in my book, especially when public services are still working to get back up to par in a stuggling economy!
//I could not possibly disagree more with this sentiment.
I'm not expressing a sentiment. I'm saying that's the reality. Now whether it's the reality because we don't pursue another reality or whether it's the reality because, well, it's the reality is another story altogether.
//Why should Minnesota spend one dime for a billionaire owner when schools and higher education are having their budgets destroyed?
Because there are two different funding mechanisms. They just built a $95 million dollar school out in my neck of the woods (East Ridge High School). Spending on school infrastructure (capital) and spending on school budgets are two different budgets.
And the answer to your question also involves this: Since we don't know HOW the state would invest in a new stadium, how can we judge that spending.
Now, sure, we can just say "we're not spending anything. period. Goodbye." And that's fine if that's what the pols want to say. But why not say it now and get it over with AFTER there's a thoughtful discussion on the subject?
The education issue you raise is a good one, but also gets to the problem of vision. We're not spending enough on education? Fine. How much should we be spending?
That's not a measurement, that's a line item. What EXACTLY is the goal for educating our kids. We can't even agree on that. So how can we have any plan that makes sense to get there?
These are all wonderful points deserving of debate.
But none of them will make a bit of difference until we get some sort of agreement on a vision for what the state looks like -- and offers its residents -- five or 10 or 15 years from now.
By the way, 14 years ago -- 14 years ago -- MPR did a series called "The Economic War Between the States", which examined things like incentives and the battles that are waged between states, not only for sports teams, but businesses. I dare say there's been almost no discussion in Minnesota at a philsophical/legislative level since.
I think half my point was lost in the monumental block of text. It is the 2nd half of this question: "What are our priorities & how much are we willing to pay for them?"
How much are we willing to pay?
There is a significant bloc of voters and politicians who seem to think that we're already paying too much for what we get. There is also a significant bloc of voters and politicians who are willing to pay more to maintain or improve the services we get from the state.
To answer Bob's question, I think our target for 5 or 10 years from now should look a lot like Minnesota looked back when we were called the 'Minnesota Miracle'. I think a robust economy is built on good jobs. I think companies create good jobs where the workforce is well educated & adequately prepared to add value. I think a well educated workforce comes from a strong public education system, and decent 'welfare' programs that provide a quality of life floor so even kids living in poverty have a chance to stay healthy & get a decent education. I think that building this workforce of the future & thus robust economy of the future is going to benefit me, by lowering the amount I have to contribute to the state via taxes & lowering the amount we spend on entitlement programs by reducing poverty.
If the state could deliver on those expectations & still find money to build a Vikings stadium, great. Build it. But until we're taking care of the basic obligations we have to ourselves, a stadium is irrelevant. Put another way, I hear Ford Field is nice, but does that make Detroit or Michigan a good place to live right now?
This is not a rhetorical question, Bri. Do you think there is a purpose of creating a sense of community via sports teams.
There's no denying from my trip to New Orleans that that's part of the glue holding things together there, but, of course, New Orleans may well be its own lab rat.
The State Fair, for example, I think is something pretty cool, not because it makes money, but because it's part of the glue, part of the fabric that helps create our identity. Is it more important than education? Of course not.
The last -- and only -- time I've been to a Vikings game, Spurgeon Wynn was at quarterback so I don't know much about the actual football or game-dayscene, but when I hear 86 percent of Minnesota TVs were turned to the Vikes a few weeks ago, it certainly would APPEAR that the team plays some sort of role in "community."
DISCO.
Have you ever heard of the Baltimore Colts? If not it's because they left baltimore of Indy b/c instead of working together with the team, the city of Baltimore decided they thought they could do whatever they wanted and that there was no way the Colts would leave.
Yeah that turned out well.
The Vikings give so much to the state of Minnesota (tax dollars aside). Why can't the state give back?
The problem as I see it (and I think we can all agree, I’m always right), is that the state legislature has to deal with issues that don’t always make financial sense.
For instance, can a profit and loss argument be made in favor of bike/walking paths? My answer (see parenthetical statement above) is “almost never”. However, do you want to live in a state with few walkways and no bikeways? (Try living in Bloomington).
Instead of bike paths, try other quality-of-life issues. How about snow plowing, or building roads/mass transit? How about education?
I despise the argument that government should be run like business (or its ancillary, government should budget like a family). Private business is usually very good at dealing with financial investment issues (excepting banks during the past decade). Government does the best it can to deal with less measurable decisions involving quality-of-life. It’s not easy to assign a financial value to a well educate populace, heck it’s not easy to define “well educated”, but we elect representatives to try.
Do we need Pro-football? My answer: no (see parenthetical statement in first paragraph). Do we want pro-football? My answer: yes. Do we want our legislature to try to figure it out? Sure do!
thatguy:
What exactly do the vikings "give" the state? The NFL is a private enterprise whose purpose is ostensibly to entertain. They are not a charitable organization. They don't give anything. Fans pay for tickets or watch TV ads. (Obviously I'm excluding whatever philanthropy the players/teams engage in. That isn't their real purpose.)
Now, I'm a sports fan. Packers fan even. I don't necessarily want the Vikings to leave (who would I root against?). I understand how people feel about their sports teams.
I'm probably wrong here, but maybe if the state stands down, it would embolden other states/cities to do the same. See? There IS a way out -- just say NO. If the state does pay for a stadium, the state should also be able to recoup that cost, via revenue taxes, loan repayments, interest, etc. At any rate, we need to have a serious debate about government's role in sporting outfits.
"well educate ..." should read "well educated ..."
I make my point.
Right. But you can't "just say no" unless you , you know, just say "no." That's the point of having the debate and making a decision.
We have been lacking in true leadership for years, and until we get some we aren't going to get anything like a "Minnesota Miracle" in motion.
Kelliher did propose getting a stadium conversation going back in November, what happened to the purple ribon panel?
We don't need to have a conversation. Politicians specialize in putting together a lot of nice sounding words without committing to anything. Right now, the state is short on cash, so most politicians will speak in vague terms about being responsible with taxpayer money. They will not make commitments to oppose a stadium. That would box them in and make it difficult to negotiate in the future. Neither will they come out in absolute support of a stadium, for the same reason.
The talk about a 15 year plan is ridiculous. Most of our elected officials will change their mind when the next public opinion poll comes out. Expressing true leadership and vision is a liability in politics, and it is our fault as voters.
Call me disillusioned, but I expect the pleasure of spending tax money will eventually attract enough supporters to buy a new stadium. Whether we can afford it or not. Whether it provides any benefit or not.
"This is not a rhetorical question, Bri. Do you think there is a purpose of creating a sense of community via sports teams."
Sure I do. But that doesn't set its place in the priority queue very well. I would rather see a public contribution to sports facilities limited to help with infrastructure and possibly the acquisition of raw land. If the Vikings organization says they would like to continue using the 6 square blocks of downtown real estate for a stadium, I'm ok with leasing them the land for a token amount. But - and particularly when there are multi-billion dollar state deficits - I do not place a high priority on a taxpayer subsidy of a private enterprise on the order of hundreds of millions of dollars in the name of building a sense of community. What is perhaps most distasteful about the process is the NFL's sense of entitlement to new publicly funded stadiums regardless of other budget priorities faced by that public. Its a bit crass, isn't it, for a guy like Wilf to presume that we ought to dig into our pockets to help his business on his timeframe even when we're all facing struggles of our own? I'd be a bit more open to their proposals if they had the class to say something like "You know what, we understand the state of MN is facing a budget crisis, we understand there's a global recession going on right now. We're going to suck it up and play in the dome, even though we don't like it, for two more years, and broach the subject of a stadium then." That would go a long way towards establishing a sense of community - the idea that we're in this together - a bit more than flying in with his hand out, wouldn't it?
Orchestra Hall needs money for renovations? Don't these people EVER give up?! Year after year after year they're rattling that tin cup trying to get taxpayers to pony up for their elitist little clubhous--oops. Sorry. That's the Vikings that keep coming back every year.
Never mind.
Well, you're correct of course, Bri, but what you're describing is the world we'd like to have, not the world we have.
What I'm saying is if we want to tell the Vikings "no," why not tell them "no" now rather than waiting until next session -- a non-election year -- and from what I can tell from today's economic news, a year in which there will also be a big budget deficit?
And, of course, all of this ignores the "vision" part of my post. Anybody got one or do we just keep living session to session, budget to budget and just live with whatever we create?
LOS ANGELES VIKINGS BABY WOOO
Okay, talk about it, but do it last. Sort out the budget mess first. Take care of schools, transportation, and all the rest. Then we'll see if we can do anything to keep the Wilf's out of the poorhouse.
Honestly, leaving is what pro sports teams do. See Minneapolis Lakers, Brooklyn Dodgers, St. Louis Cardinals, Baltimore Colts, New Orleans Jazz, Minnesota Northstars, etc, etc. Were people so desperately unhappy and lacking in community when we were all Gopher Football fans? The people in Nebraska and Iowa seem okay with college football. At least that would support the U of M, which has a positive financial impact on the state of it's own that probably lasts longer.
The U of M is getting into college football?
Bob: Here's your vision for Minnesota.
Ten years ago I spent almost a year living in Eureka on the North Coast of California. I attended some college classes while I was out there, and one afternoon before going into class I was finishing a smoke and a classmate approached me. Something about the perfect weather, I'm sure. I said I was from MN, and that seventy and sunny in March was just fine with me. I kid you not, the next sentence out of his mouth was this: "You've got great public radio there, right?" Of course I said yes, and he said, "Lots of theater, too, right? Sounds great. I've always wanted to visit."
That is what I want to see in Minnesota in five years: A national reputation for good quality of life. A well educated populace. The ability to get from my house in North to Downtown on a frequent bus, or on roads without potholes. Well-attended festivals and community fairs (cheers for bringing up the great MN get-together). And yes, an NFL franchise, but only if they wear purple and gold. As someone below the poverty line, I don't care if I have to tighten my belt further to see this all happen.
That sounds very much like what I heard about Minnesota 18 years ago when I was first approached by MPR about moving here.
When it became public that I was leaving, it was surprising how many EX-Minnesotans, who were living in Massachusetts, shoved resumes in my hand to bring with me. They wanted to come home and live.
I wonder if it would be that way today?
I for one would like to see a true user fee to fund the bulk of the stadium. As a true fan and someone who would hate to see the vikings leave I propose a $10-15 pay per view which I would gladly pay if it keeps them here. Sports bars, etc could be charged somewhere in the neighborhood of $200 for PPV because it would no doubt increase there business if a PPV was charged to each home. With that said same thing should apply to Libraries, museums, orchestras, bike paths etc. let those that use it pay for it and keep your hands out of my pockets.
It would be a lot easier for me to stomach the idea of public financing of a pro football team if there was a lick of evidence that there was a positive return on that investment; social or economic. I felt the same way about the UofM stadium question. The existence of high level, high cost sports don't influence the location decision of many actual "job creators:" scientists, engineers, and inventors. Creative people are not inspired by overpaid steroid junkies sacrificing their lives for the entertainment of the idle rich or unemployed drunks in a bar. The simple fact that the area around the Metrodome or Target Center is not and has never been the recipient of an economic boom ought to be more than enough evidence that the myth of financial return for big sports investments is just a lazy-fairy tale.
The commonly known fact that most of the overpaid athletes and team owners don't live in Minnesota (including Minnesotans like Joe Mauer http://biggovernment.com/bmattox/2011/01/05/minnesotas-hometown-hero-twins-star-joe-mauer-actually-resides-in-florida/) to avoid "paying back" any of their ill-gotten wealth ought to be some sort of moderating factor in the delusion that any part of these corporate organizations are loyal, representative of, or useful to Minnesota.
Quality of life is a big factor in deciding where to live, work, and invest. The contribution all 3 of our pro teams to quality of life, in comparison to the things Minnesota was once famous for (quality education, a well managed environment, an abundance of recreational opportunities, active communities, etc) would be immeasurably small. It's time to make these corporate welfare recipients pay their own way or revise their rules so that the rest of the country can claim "this is our team" as does Green Bay and Wisconsin.
| February 2010 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
| 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 |
| 28 | ||||||
Master Archive
Recent Entries
- Weekend forecast: Partly to mostly eelpouty
- The victims of the vaccination debate (5x8 - 2/10/12)
- Tribe sues beer makers over alcoholism
- Constitutional amendment proposed to limit constitutional amendments
- Bear bill hibernates at Capitol
- Who smokes synthetic pot?
- 'Stand your ground bill' advances at Capitol
- White people debating racism (5x8 - 2/9/12)
- Judge orders man to take his wife on a date
- The bear as state mammal
Categories
- Add category
- Art or Eyesore?
- Arts
- Aviation
- Bridges and roads
- Coffeeshop Chronicles
- Crime and Justice
- Disasters
- Economy
- Energy
- Five by 8
- Floods
- Floods 2011
- Fresh Eye on the Radio (with Mary Lucia)
- Health
- History
- Icons
- Life
- Marketing and advertising
- Media
- Music
- News
- News Cut on Campus
- Northwest Airlines
- People doing good
- Politics
- Race
- Regional history
- Religion
- Schools
- Science
- Sports
- Surveys and trivia
- Tech
- The jobs we do
- The political conventions
- The Quiz
- The Unemployed series
- Things that are puzzling
- War
- Weather
- What's the Story Here?
- When people do good
- wildlife
- You Should Meet...
Services
In The Spotlight
-
Sound Learning
Looking for ways to ensure your students are doing quality research from credible sources? Sound Learning is a launching point to Minnesota Public Radio's content on the Web. -
The Current Music Blog
Your daily note for good music, news and pop culture. With attempted jokes.
- Become a Member
- Member Connect Accounts
- Leadership Circle
- Sustaining Members
- Member Discounts
- Become a Sponsor
- Tax Information
- Planned Giving
- Vehicle Donation
- Donate Stock
