This is an archived version of a Field of Schemes article.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 27, 2011
No support on Minneapolis city council for Vikings sales tax
Remember Tuesday, when I said that having the Minnesota legislature overrule the Minneapolis city charter and approve a sales-tax hike to pay for Vikings stadium would be "controversial"? Apparently the term I was actually looking for was "outright hated by everyone on the city council that would have to approve it":
Despite an optimistic pitch by city leaders at the State Capitol this week, plans to fund a Vikings stadium in Minneapolis with a citywide sales tax have almost no vocal support from council members who would have to approve it.
Mayor R.T. Rybak said Monday he believes "there is enough support" on the council to pass a Minneapolis sales tax to pay for the stadium, but no council members except President Barb Johnson were willing to support the idea in interviews -- six were outright opposed. Several said they had not been consulted by the mayor or council president on the matter.
There are 13 members of the Minneapolis city council, which means that unless Rybak can pick up every single vote from the uncommitted members, his sales tax plan is in trouble. And, of course, a slim margin like that raises the likelihood of council members making all kinds of demands in return, as we've seen happen before.
With all this confusion in the air, my bet is still on nothing happening at a special session this month, the Vikings owners fuming a bit about the slow pace of stadium talks, then ultimately agreeing to extend their lease for another year while everybody tries to sort out all the competing plans and see if anything is workable. The alternative, after all, is taking one of the two not very appetizing Los Angeles stadium deals, which come with far more costs for the team owner — if that's Plan B, I'll be shocked if Zygi Wilf and company don't muster up the patience to wait for another grab at the brass ring in Minnesota.
Meanwhile, in Sacramento, we're hearing all kinds of reasons/excuses for not going to the voters with the arena proposal...
www.sacbee.com/2011/10/27/4009766/no-room-for-political-games-in.html
Posted by MikeM on October 27, 2011 12:17 PM
You left out plan C. And that is a move to San Antonio. The Alamodome is more than capable of housing the Vikings until it can either be refurbished or a new Dome built altogether. In either case the Wilf's have this option in place. My point being that Los Angeles is not the only town where the Vikings can move to should they choose to do so.
Posted by Jeff Morales on October 27, 2011 03:30 PM
I left out the Alamodome because it's almost as old as the Metrodome (18 years old! practically ancient!), and there's no plan in place for a replacement. If San Antonio were to rush to put together a stadium deal in which most of the costs were paid for by taxpayers and the Vikings only had to put up one-third as they want to in Minnesota ... I think you see why I don't think this is very likely to go anywhere in the next 12 months, anyway.
Posted by Neil deMause on October 27, 2011 03:41 PM