Man, it really must be a slow news week: The headlines out of Minnesota (where the state government remains shut down over a budget impasse) are that the St. Paul city council plans to vote for a non-binding resolution opposing a sales tax hike in Ramsey County to pay for a new Vikings stadium. That’d be the same St. Paul city council that’s already excoriated the stadium bill, and which has no actual say over the sales tax hike. And did I mention that the resolution is non-binding?
The move appears to be an attempt to push for more statewide funding for the Vikings, so that less of a share comes from Ramsey County; which would be a fine idea, except that 1) most of the economic benefits (meager though they may be) would come from stealing economic activity from surrounding counties, so on a state level it’s even less worth funding, and 2) it’s state legislators voting on this, and as noted, they already can’t agree on how to spend their own money. Which is why we’re talking about county money in the first place, just as happened with the Twins.
Over on the defense side, meanwhile, county commissioner Tony Bennett explained his sponsorship of a Vikings tax bill thusly: “I don’t want to vote for the sales tax either, but what other choice do we have?” Let me think … how about don’t vote for the sales tax? Yes, that would risk the Vikings turning to Plan B in Minneapolis, but given that Ramsey County looks like it’d be taking a loss on building a stadium, that’s the kind of risk that the county might want to take.
And, of course, there’s always the possibility that if you say no to the Vikings, they’ll sweeten the pot from their end. The Minneapolis Star Tribune writes that “reports on the behind-closed-doors talks have indicated the cost of the stadium may have dropped as low as $800 million while the Vikings’ contribution increased.” That still may not be enough to fill the $231 million funding gap, let alone reduce Ramsey County taxpayers’ costs, but at least it’d be something.
St. Paul resident. and huge NFL fan here.
Please please don’t make me spend money on something of such tenuous value.
If they want to have a voluntary surcharge I would glad chip in $50, but taxing everyone for some unclear benefits (or possibly costs) so that some billionaire can make profit is the core of what is wrong with our society.