Field of Schemes: Twins stadium: The saga continues

April 28, 2005

Twins stadium: The saga continues

More from Week 1 of the newly reanimated Minnesota Twins stadium brouhaha:

Strangest Argument For A Publicly Funded Stadium, First Runner-Up: Longtime stadium booster Sid Hartman of the Minneapolis Star Tribune writes: "A new stadium will revitalize downtown Minneapolis. In recent months, T.J. Maxx closed its big store in the IDS Center and Saks Fifth Avenue converted its store in Gaviidae Common and is now operating a discount center. City Center is having serious problems renting, and a number of other small businesses have left downtown. Those important downtown real-estate taxes could bring in less and less income and put more burden on the city homeowners if downtown Minneapolis doesn't remain prosperous." How a publicly owned stadium that won't pay real-estate taxes would help matters here, Hartman didn't say.
Strangest Argument For A Publicly Funded Stadium, Winner: Writing of a plan that would be three-quarters paid for by the public via a sales-tax hike, Hartman's colleague Jim Souhan writes: "The deal is proportionate. Twins owner Carl Pohlad will pay $125 million. You'll pay less than you leave in the tip jar at Dunn Bros." This follows the Twins line that the stadium tax amounts to "three cents on a $20 purchase" - true enough, but those pennies would add up to a whopping $353 million, or $320 per Hennepin county resident.
Strangest Twins Related Headline: "Site of Twins' future ballpark doesn't smell like garbage," San Jose Mercury news.

After a raucous initial meeting on the stadium plan on Tuesday, Hennepin County commissioners agreed to put off a vote until after more public testimony next week. "There'll be plenty of time for the public's input," said commissioner Mark Stenglein - at the same time as he and the three other stadium proponents on the seven-member commissioner vowed not to allow a public referendum on the issue.

COMMENTS

Do you think that this plan will go through? And do you think that the Twins will try to add a roof to the stadium at some point? Just looking at last weekend with the snowouts in Detroit, they may need a roof in Minnesota. Do you think that Pohlad should pay a higher proportion of the cost of the stadium? Let me know what you think.
Posted by: Michael at April 28, 2005 01:42 PM

Probably not, could be, that's an awful lot of money to spend to protect against a once-a-decade snowout, and damn straight.
Posted by: Neil at April 28, 2005 08:05 PM

The problem with the stadium plan is that most people in Minneapolis will probably spend more than $20 in Hennepin County over the proposed lifetime of the stadium. In fact, the proposal works out to $200 for every man, woman, and child in the county, even without the roof. That's more than I would leave in the tip jar at any upscale coffee house, even if I were inclined to pay $5.00 a cup (note to Mr. Souhan: you can brew it yourself for about $0.10!). The real question to ask is, if Mr. Pohlad, smart and shrewd business man that he is, were sitting on the other side of the table representing taxpayers, would he think this was a good deal? I suspect the answer is "NO". The Twins estimate they will make $40 million in new revenue off the stadium. How about sharing say $10 million of that with the stadium authority, allowing it to retire bonds early and saving some money? The team would still get enough cash to offset operating losses and decreased revenue sharing, with enough left over to bring in a marquee free agent or two. But the Twins want 100%, not 75%. Yes, the Twins are a community asset, but there are many assets in the Twin Cities, this is a world-class metro area and the 14th largest market in the country. There is no reason or excuse to write a blank check.
Posted by: jt at April 29, 2005 01:58 PM