I think you hit the nail on the head there Neil.

For a long time it looked like Ramsey County was going to bear he brunt of the subsidy burden, so people people here were pretty geared up and organized. Meanwhile the opponents in Hennepin County/Minneapolis were just happy to have dodged a bullet. Then it seemed like the Ramsey County plan was dead, so everyone relaxed.

So by the time things suddenly swerved back to life people were already "demobilized".

Plus there is just the background collective action problem of the few thousand people getting several thousand dollars of benefit being more interested than the several hundred thousand people getting a hundred dollars of costs.

People are loathe to take a day off work to avoid an extra $100 in taxes, they aren't loathe to take a day off to get several thousand in benefits.

I think the Star Tribune article did shine a light on one interesting point: The group that led the charge on limiting Minneapolis to spending $10 million dollars on pro stadiums is now part of a group that is largely funded by labor groups. Labor was obviously a huge supporter of this stadium bill, so the organization that once fought such bills was surprisingly quiet. It is obvious that supporters of the Vikings and the stadium plan were much more organized and very vocal. By the time anti-stadium groups made their voices heard (the elevator), it was far too late. Either that or they knew there was no point in fighting a losing battle, since the issue was going to continue until the Vikings finally won (or some other team that was trying to replace the Vikings won, if the Vikings ever really skip town).

Pretty ironic for the StarTribune to write about the disorganized opposition. According to my count, based on the archive on the newspaper's website, there were approximately 170 articles written about the stadium during the last year, of which only six bothered to cover either the presence of an opposition or things about the deal that might not have been kosher (such as the Vikings source of funds for the project, the actual job numbers, etc.). And the pro-stadium editorials were pretty relentless. So it's little wonder that at a time when having a job is a blessing, when progressive organizations and nonprofits are dependent on foundations and corporations while big Labor was in an unholy alliance with the Chamber of Commerce, that opposition would have petered out. Especially since the Mpls. Council voted 7 to 6 for a stadium in a preliminary vote about a month ago where there had been significant opposition present.

The only interesting point of the article is the quote from Councilmember Gary Schiff about how TakeAction Minnesota, the succesor to Progressive Minnesota, which led the fight for the charter amendment and opposition to the Twins St. Paul sales tax initiative in 1999, played no role in
this battle because their board is dominated by labor. That's exactly true, despite the denials of the organization's executive director that they're more focused on "state issues," and shows another trend in play--how the decimation of the economy has created a dynamic where labor organizations have stopped being strategic and now will support just about any large scale project that promises jobs, no matter the type of project or how its paid for. That's why stadium campaigns are a microcosm of ills everywhere else; the XL Pipeline that the construction trades have jumped behind just another example of this dynamic. Thank god we've kept the defense industry booming with all sorts of new hardware; if we ever stop interfering in other countries' affairs, er, playing the role of the world's policeman, we'll have to build a new stadium a week to avoid massive unemployment.

Any figures on Star-Tribune subscription cancellations during this period? I know of at least one.

The opposition is never covered fairly by the press. And the opposition doesn't have money for ads and paid political consultants who crank out pro-stadium press releases relentlessly. The opposition doesn't have money to pay people to work on their side of the issue - people have jobs, families etc. to take care of and can't just take off of work to go to meetings.

Here in Santa Clara the media bent over backwards to run press releases put out by the 49ers stadium campaign rather than do any investigative reporting. The media like to say that the newsroom is not influenced by advertising dollars, but when almost $5 million was spent on pro-stadium ads here in Santa Clara, the press towed the line in its pro-stadium coverage in 'news' articles and editorials.

Also here in Santa Clara, the opposition is harassed via cyberbullying, phone calls at home, phone calls at work, phone calls to work supervisors, and letters to the editor which personally attack the group opposed to a public subsidy and personally attack individuals who have dared to speak before our city council, write a letter to the editor, post a comment on a news article or on FB against the stadium, or make a donation to the group opposed to the stadium. The primary person doing the harassing has been a paid political consultant to many of our pro-stadium city council members (as shown on campaign finance filings.) Will the press cover the story of the harassment and bullying of stadium opponents by a paid political consultant? No.

The press allows stadium opponents to be called all sorts of names publicly - naysayers, nimbys, obstructionists and worse - rather than focusing on the real problem - how on earth will $950 million in stadium construction loans be paid off by Santa Clara's Stadium Authority? Instead, the press sings the same tune as our blind pro-stadium council members - Don't worry, be happy, it will all get paid for somehow.

The fact that this site whines when new stadiums are proposed and then monitors them via their anti stadium agenda, and then complains after they are built makes me laugh considering you lost another stadium fight and this stadium will be built.

I will be thinking of your crocodile tears for the next 34 years when the Vikes are playing in their new home. Oh, and how many of you on this site are hypocrites and will attend games anyway? Remember, if you truly want to boycott the team and stand up for your anti-tax principles, that means not attending any games EVER for the next 34 years.

Its nice to be reminded of the quality of the reasoning we are opposing.

And I doubt almost anyone here is "anti-stadium". People who are "anti-stadium" just ignore these issues. I suspect most people here are pro-sports, pro-stadiums, and just don't think the public should be bearing as large of a burden for their financing as they do. Is that such an alien concept to you?

As for your bizarre point...I doubt I will go to a Vikings game at the new place (better view from home), but if I did how would I be a hypocrite? My position was never that no one should attend games? My positions wasn't that the Vikings should be bankrupt and run out of the state. My position was that the state should pay for a much smaller portion of the stadium. What does that have to do with my behavior after it is built? Are you familiar with concepts like sunk costs, or cutting off your nose to spite your face?

If I oppose a tax cut am I then obligated to pay more if the tax cut passes? Surely that isn't a standard of "consistency" you or anyone meets in their day to day life, specifically because it is not "consistency" and instead just obstinate stupidity.

The stadium was a foregone conclusion when Minneapolis mayor Rybak volunteered to pay it. Just like with the Twins ballpark, the rest of the state got a free ride and Hennepin County residents pay the bill. It's easy to vote for something when you don't have to pay for. So 95% of the state voted that Minneapolis can pay for this. Just wait, it'll be Minneapolis' stadium (not the People's stadium) when revenue falls short.

Hennepin County is cutting its budget, as will Minneapolis, because sales revenue is in decline. The state will have to bail out Minneapolis, but not until it becomes unlivable. It's already expensive to live in Minneapolis. Downtown residency was actually up. This has the potential to undo all that when the City Council has to raise property taxes despite the mayor's rosy scenario.

Finally, how to you debate with children? That's how Vikings fans acted. Like little children, they were scared that some monster would take away the best toy ever, their precious Vikings. You can reason with someone who's only debating skill is holding their breath until they turn blue.

I really do feel sad for Minnesota (and people like LOL@...). There was a time when we valued real things like business, education and the environment. Now, it's all a game to people (like LOL@...) and we consider a loss by the Vikings or Twins to be a bigger failure than our failure at running a state or educating a child. But hey, throw on a jersey, apply a little purple face paint and it all goes away for 3 or 4 hours. Anything to avoid thinking about the sorry existence where "wins" are product sold to us by teams and owners who couldn't care less about any of us. SKOL Vikings.

Thanks Joshua and Wisher for your comments. People object to being railroaded and also object to being lied to, and that's what's happened here in Santa Clara with the 49ers stadium, and also what's happening statewide with high speed rail (no pun intended.) People also object to campaigns being bought and paid for so that outside entities can get whatever they want from a city.

Here in Santa Clara, there's not only opposition to a public subsidy for a stadium from a city of 117,000 people (no other city ponied up to help pay for the stadium, nor did the county step forward, or the state step forward, to help pay for this) but there's opposition to our city's agency taking on $950 million in stadium construction loans without any proof that the loans can be repaid.

And then there's the opposition to the location.
It's got to be the stupidest location for a NFL stadium ever. 1) There's no dedicated parking lot - they're expecting local businesses to allow their parking lots to be rented out - recall the August 2011 post 49ers/Raiders game violence and ask how many hi-tech businesses would want to risk that, plus open grills, drinking etc. in their parking lots. 2) Despite what the media say, the location is not right off of a freeway. The EIR shows massive gridlock and up to 1 hr 45 minutes to get to the freeways after a game. During the stadium campaign, a pro-stadium sportscaster said it would take 5 minutes to get to the freeway after a game ends. 3) Despite the 49ers campaign claims, there's very little mass transit (much less than at Candlestick or the Oakland Coliseum.) 4) the site is located very close to homes, which are now impacted by the construction, and later will be cordoned off during games - residents will have to show i.d. to get to their homes.

Pre-construction has started and residents are complaining about all sorts of violations - such as construction during the night which is waking up local residents. There are assigned hours for construction via Santa Clara's building dept., but apparently the people working on the stadium project don't think that applies to them. Any one who thinks the pro-stadium faction actually care about the people of Santa Clara is delusional.

Pro-stadium CCM only care about themselves and free city tickets to the games. Interesting that none of them have purchased their own PSLs as sales might be going a little bit slow. You'd think they'd be willing to make a "good-faith" show of confidence for appearances sake.

Stop your whining and fork over your yummy tax dollars.

When will you guys realize you don't speak for a majority of people?

One thing about the Minnesota situation is that lawsuits can be filed against the city of Minneapolis for ignoring the situation on the northside of town. If I were a member of the Minneapolis city council, I wouldn't have voted for the deal unless I got the Vikings paying 70% of the cost.

As far as Santa Clara Taxpayer is concerned, he/she just described what could be about to occur in Santa Cruz as well, but on a smaller scale. There the Golden State Warriors want to move the D-League Dakota Wizards of Bismarck ND to the area. The plan is to build a temporary tent arena on top of an employee parking lot owned by the Santa Cruz Seaside Company. However the lot is in the corner of Spruce and Front Streets, which there is very little room for parking. This will result in massive problems getting home from any event in that temporary tent arena, and a lot of the parking will be along residential streets. That is unless the Seaside company comes up with a shuttle service that would allow the fans to park in one of their big parking lots, but even that would have its problems. Of course, the Santa Cruz city council approved the plan by a 7-0 vote. What's next, the Dodgers building a new ballpark at the Santa Monica Pier? The Bucs demanding a new stadium and it is built on Tampa Bay? The Miami Heat get a new arena at Miami Beach? The Buffalo Sabers build a new arena at Niagara Falls?