Today’s lesson in how to read newspaper journalism, courtesy of the Minneapolis Star Tribune:
Negotiators in Minneapolis may be making progress on a menu of mostly local tax breaks for a Major League Soccer stadium, even though the proposal appeared dead Monday in the closing hours of the legislative session.
On the face of it, that’s … what? A Minnesota United stadium tax-break deal “may be making progress,” but also “appeared dead.” That is not a particularly useful diagnosis, unless you’re Erwin Schrödinger.
If you read a little further, you find a bunch of stuff on how city officials and United execs are pushing for a package of tax breaks — a freeze on property taxes on the stadium site (which isn’t a full tax exemption, but given that it’s currently undeveloped land, it’s pretty close), plus extending the city’s 3% entertainment tax liquor/restaurant tax (thanks to longtime Minneapolis journalist David Brauer for the correction) to the stadium district and kicking that money back to pay for the arena — and then reporting on how nobody thinks there’s time to get this done before the state legislature, which would have to sign off on the breaks, adjourns on Monday.
What seems likely to have happened is that the Star Trib’s reporters collected a bunch of info on how United is preparing a new tax-break plan, but then got word that it probably couldn’t pass this session, so had to hurriedly piece together something that indicated both. So you get this mashup of a story, under a headline that doesn’t do a great job of explaining to anyone what’s going on (“Mpls. negotiates MLS stadium subsidy as lawmakers adjourn”).
A better way of putting this would be: “Clock running out on Minnesota United tax breaks, but pols lay groundwork for future deal.” In fact, I think I’ll use that one myself.
There is most likely going to be a special session, and they could sneak these tax breaks into a deal then.
They could be sneaked back in there, but even if they did, Minnesota allows line item veto of spending items, though I’m not sure if tax credits qualifies as that. Surprisingly I doubt Dayton, who was the main person behind the monstrosity of the New Minnesota Stadium (TM) will want to throw money at a league that clearly did not do its homework on what was the most viable plan going forward. MLS goofed when they didn’t give the franchise to the Viking ownership group.
vikings? Mls didn’t want one of their teams playing indoors on plastic grass. If push comes to shove United will find the best deal and build the stadium at 501 Royalston with or without city,,county and state money.
Brian, if that’s true, why on earth should the city offer any tax breaks at all?
Sean, MLS didn’t “goof.” I doubt anything that has happened to date is a surprise. The Vikings stadium – because of the turf/dimensions – is not an attractive home to MLS. The league is much better positioned today than when they awarded Vancouver or Atlanta their respective teams (see announcement of LAFC stadium yesterday for example). If the United stadium plan falls through, the league will just expand to Sacramento instead and bypass Minnesota. There is zero chance that MLS will ever play in the Vikings stadium.
Neil, it’s called negotiations. Ask for the moon and see if the DFL blinks or not. There is no way the four billionaires come this far only to lose, many of them will start asking for favors or some other stuff. I really don’t have problems with people not wanting to give them money many of us have problems with both parties giving everything under the sun for the six stadiums we have already built in the last 7 years but will not do it for soccer. They are having subsidy discussions and not asking for public money to actually build the stadium so we will see but I would be surprised if this doesn’t get done by next year at this time.
Don the four billionaire owners will not let them be bypassed for Sacramento or anybody else. Their legacy would be at stake. For example, you saved United Health care but you couldn’t get the stadium done. Next owner, you saved the Timber wolves from moving but you couldn’t get the stadium done. Twins owner, you found a way to build a baseball cathedral but with all your business stadium connections you couldn’t even build a privately funded soccer stadium. Finally, you have given plenty of money to charity and you still couldn’t get the stadium done. IMO, this is why this gets done.
Oh, I get why the United owners are asking. But if they’re really prepared to move ahead with or without subsidies, the city should respond with “We’ll take ‘without,’ please.”
Neil the Twins and Wolves are in the city and they may have relationship issues with the city if they decide not to negotiate with United. If they were not a part of the ownership group the city and DFL party may say thanks but no thanks. It’s going to be interesting to see what the team receives in this deal.
“Relationship issues”? The Twins and Wolves already got their own subsidies in exchange for agreeing to long-term leases — I wasn’t aware that that included an express window for demanding more money for other teams they may own.
(I mean, of course I understand that this is how lobbying works — those with connections reap the benefits. But I still find it hard to see how you justify giving tax breaks to a project if the project would happen just the same without the tax breaks.)
You don’t justify it but the DFL will give them some sort of tax breaks. I have found politicians and pro sports owners to all be friends. You slap my back I slap your back.
This is a little unconventional in the team was awarded a franchise to a certain area before the politicians could say yes or no to a privately funded stadium. The ball is in the DFL party and if they say no in my opinion they lose out in a developmental area that needs serious help. This area where the stadium is going has been a drag for thirty to forty years it MAY help jump start the area.
“…many of us have problems with both parties giving everything under the sun for the six stadiums we have already built in the last 7 years but will not do it for soccer.”
“You’ve been throwing money at businesses that don’t need it, so you should throw more at other businesses – which we support – that don’t need it. It’s only fair.” Unbearably sad, but I suppose inevitable.
Now taking bets on when the first Major League Lacrosse team uses this argument.