May 02, 2005
The two faces of Mayor Rybak
Dueling headlines on Minneapolis mayor R.T. Rybak's role in the Minnesota Twins stadium battle: Sid Hartman's Sunday column in the Minneapolis Star Tribune: "Rybak supports plan for stadium." Today's St. Paul Pioneer Press: "Rybak quiet in stadium debate; Observers think he's trying to keep ballpark foes' support by ducking issue."
The stories aren't quite as contradictory as they at first sound. Hartman, who's seemingly been stumping for a new Twins stadium since Johan Santana was in diapers, cites a radio interview where Mayor Rybak said: "I support the plan. I think it's what we set out to do 18 months ago. I think the county board should pass it. If I was sitting on the county board, I would vote for it. And I think it should be sent over to the Capitol." The Pioneer Press story, meanwhile, notes that while Rybak says he'd support the stadium, he doesn't want anyone to, you know, not vote for him because of it: "I'm on the phone every night with delegates and telling them this should not be an issue in the mayor's race. I'm as out front as anybody on this."
A new poll shows the reason for Rybak's fence-straddling: two-thirds of Minnesotans oppose using public money for a new Twins stadium. (Though strangely, only 54% oppose the current stadium plan, which makes one wonder if the others have actually read the proposal.) Furthermore, 77% want there to be a voter referendum on the county sales tax hike that would fund the new stadium; the Twins, needless to say, don't want voters voting on the plan, not if they're going to vote like this.
LATE NOTE: FoS reader Maury Brown of the SABR Business of Baseball Committee notes that there's yet another potential stumbling block for the Twins stadium plan: Nobody's yet negotiated a sale price with the owners of the land where the stadium would be built. The landowners have long been proponents of a Twins stadium on their site, so it probably won't be a huge obstacle, but it is one more unknown cost to toss into the stadium-debate hopper.
As a native Minnesotan, I've been following the stadium situations there with great interest, and I must say that despite my strong skepticism about public support for professional stadiums (which draws me to this website frequently) I believe the proposal for the Twins' new ballpark deserves support. Yes, it's a lot of money for the public to spend, and, yes, Carl Pohlad will probably get his investment back due to enhanced franchise value and naming rights, but the bottom line is that a .15% hike in the Hennepin County sales tax is pretty miniscule (an extra 15 cents on a $100 purchase). Putting the ballpark in downtown Minneapolis as part of a redevelopment plan will help revive the urban core, the county will own the property and be able to use it for other events, and if this proposal is turned down the Twins will probably move eventually. Hennepin County has other serious needs, but those can still be addressed (Sid Hartman suggested doubling the .15% sales tax increase to fund other public services) and NOT building the stadium will probably have little or no effect on other fiscal priorities. As for a referendum, every election is a referendum on how an elected official has decided to allocate public resources--that's what they're paid to do. Those who oppose the sales tax hike can still let the county officials know their vote on the sales tax will affect their chances for re-election. A lot of cities have been exploited, but that doesn't mean every proposal to spend public money on a stadium used by a pro team should be opposed absolutely and categorically.
Posted by Peter Pampusch on May 2, 2005 08:42 PM
As I noted last week, there's a reason why they're pitching this as "15 cents on a $100 purchase" and not "$320 for every man, woman, and child in the county."
Posted by Neil on May 3, 2005 04:51 PM