This is an archived version of a Field of Schemes article. Comments on this page are closed. To find the current version of the article with updated comments, click here.
October 20, 2011
Minnesota mulls casino money, every other idea under sun for Vikings stadium
With Minnesota state legislators on the clock to come up with a Vikings stadium funding plan by mid-November, it was only a matter of time before somebody brought up casinos:
Gambling is an obvious source, said bill sponsor Rep. Morrie Lanning, R-Moorhead, and odds greaten that gambling might be part of the final proposal as stadium backers try to come up with the state's $300 million share of the $1.1 billion dollar stadium.
"Gaming certainly has to be one of the options that's considered, in fact, the original bill that we presented did have some gaming in it," Lanning said. "Those proceeds were earmarked to the facility, and gaming clearly is an option."
Everybody loves gambling money because it's not technically "taxes" (though it is state revenue that could be used for other purposes), which is why it's been proposed as a stadium funding source over and over again in Minnesota history — and rejected just as many times: Most recently last year, and dating back as far as 2004. (The most recent proposal was for slot machines at race tracks, or "racinos," which I mention because I like typing "racino" almost as much as Gail Collins likes writing about the time Mitt Romney drove to Canada with his dog strapped to the roof of the car.) No immediate word on how it will fly in the legislature this time, but it's one more idea to throw into the hopper.
Meanwhile, Gov. Mark Dayton says he'll issue his own stadium plan by November 7, which would give legislators two whole weeks to digest it before debating it at a special session Thanksgiving week. And NFL VP Eric Grubman threatened that if no stadium is built soon, it could mean "opening the door" to moving the team:
"We're worried about a stalemate, and a stalemate means there's no lease, or the lease is about to expire. There's no plan for a stadium, and there's an alternative plan in another city. That's a stalemate, and the alternative wouldn't include Minnesota. That's the way we look at it, [it's] a crisis."
There's an NFL exec in charge of pressuring cities for stadium money named "Eric Grubman"? Man, I think I'm going to like typing that even more than "racino."
Neil, one of the many, many reasons that Racinos (a word that is apparently new to you, but not new to any Twin Citian) or other gambling efforts fail is that Minnesota is home to some of the most successful Indian Casinos in the country.
And part of that deal is for the state to not compete with Indian Casinos, via, let's say, an attempt to build a casino one block away from the Target Center (which is what is being discussed when you read about the Block E Casino).
Legislators can dream, but it won't happen. The Washington Redskins still exist because there isn't a Native American presence in DC. There is one in Minneapolis, and that's why racinos/casinos have very little chance to succeed as a funding source for the Vikings.
And Eric Grubman is a dick.
Indeed the Casino tribes in Minnesota have a tremendous amount of money to spend on lobbying.
Posted by Joshua Northey on October 21, 2011 09:53 AM
And today a couple of legislators are going to reintroduce the "sell the Dome for a buck" idea as well!
www.startribune.com/politics/blogs/132279828.html
Posted by Geoff on October 21, 2011 11:51 AM
I most certainly must be naive, but why should any public funds, let alone $300M, go to a thriving private business. Create jobs? Would not those 18 month construction jobs be created if the franchise built the facility itself? Ticket takers, beer vendors, etc. those jobs also would be available with franchise-built and -owned facility, and I do not think politicians would be scrambling to boast on these jobs as returns on a $300M investment. Facility enhances public pride? Bus drivers, nurses, auto mechanics, etc. do not need more tax burden to feel good about their hometown, when this so-called "feel good" comes from the 8-10 performances of a travelling entertainment group.
I could rant on and on, but the time for public financing of sports facilities has come and gone. The NFL faces a conundrum in the Cities. Does the NFL demand that a successful franchise remain, albeit less profitable in the short term, or does it whore itself out to the best bid? Do not look for an answer, the question is rhetorical.
P.S. Leave the casino tribes out of it. They should not lose their lucrative product just because a bunch of wealthy swells do not wish to pony up.
Posted by Goophee Miller on October 23, 2011 03:59 AM
I most certainly must be naive, but why should any public funds, let alone $300M, go to a thriving private business. Create jobs? Would not those 18 month construction jobs be created if the franchise built the facility itself? Ticket takers, beer vendors, etc. those jobs also would be available with franchise-built and -owned facility, and I do not think politicians would be scrambling to boast on these jobs as returns on a $300M investment. Facility enhances public pride? Bus drivers, nurses, auto mechanics, etc. do not need more tax burden to feel good about their hometown, when this so-called "feel good" comes from the 8-10 performances of a travelling entertainment group.
I could rant on and on, but the time for public financing of sports facilities has come and gone. The NFL faces a conundrum in the Cities. Does the NFL demand that a successful franchise remain, albeit less profitable in the short term, or does it whore itself out to the best bid? Do not look for an answer, the question is rhetorical.
P.S. Leave the casino tribes out of it. They should not lose their lucrative product just because a bunch of wealthy swells do not wish to pony up.
Posted by Goophee Miller on October 23, 2011 03:59 AM