Policy Statement
By Mitch Berg
To: Legislature
From: Mitch Berg, Overburdened Taxpayer
Re: Public Financing for Vikings Stadium.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Not just no, but hell no.
That is all.
34 Responses to “Policy Statement”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
March 15th, 2011 at 8:21 am
To: Mitch Berg
From: Minnesota State Legislature
Re: Minnesota Sports Facilities
Mr. Berg,
Minnesota has a long and happy tradition of supporting professional sports franchises, including the Twins, Vikings, Wild and that basketball team that nobody goes to see. It is the overwhelming opinion of the public that these amenities add greatly to the quality of life in Minnesota, and keep our great state in the top tier of the United States. This is just one of many reasons so many people fled North Dakota and settled here.
Please be assured that your elected officials will make the most financially sound decision in regards to a Vikings stadium, and when it is built it will have some form of Target branding.
Best regards,
Your Government
March 15th, 2011 at 8:40 am
Holding the electorate hostage and threatening to move one of their favorite past times to, say, LA – is a sport for these owners. The problem is it works! They sit in their owner’s meetings and chuckle over how many politicians they’ve bought to do the heavy lifting for them.
March 15th, 2011 at 8:50 am
Some people want to get their sports fix on someone elses dime.
For some this is consistent with their other avenues of political thought (“Happy To Pay For A Better Minnesota With Your Money”), and for some it’s not.
It’s worth paying attention to, since we are where we are today (“budget autopilot” anyone) because too many didn’t see the value in sound and consistent fiscal policy.
March 15th, 2011 at 9:10 am
Can’t the ViQueens pay for their own stadium by sending lewd text messages? :^)
Seriously, it baffles me why government types never figure out that paying tens of millions of dollars a year to import a new criminal class is a bad idea.
March 15th, 2011 at 10:18 am
Some people want to get their sports fix on someone elses dime.
For some this is consistent with their other avenues of political thought (“Happy To Pay For A Better Minnesota With Your Money”), and for some it’s not.
As I recall, one of the leaders of the HTPFABMWYM group were the Pohlads right after they got taxpayer support/funding/financing for their new stadium.
March 15th, 2011 at 11:26 am
If the owners DID reassign all the sports teams presently allocated to Minnesota, we’d be nothing more than a cold Omaha.
We’d have no sports teams and a lousy $1 billion budget deficit, which is pocket change compared to our $5 billion deficit.
As Jack Benny used to say: “I’m thinking.”
March 15th, 2011 at 11:33 am
I’ve always said that if stadium ownership made any financial sense there would be a private company called “Stadiums-R-Us”.
March 15th, 2011 at 11:39 am
Actually Nate, the deficit would likely be higher without the pro sports. They are without a doubt a major source of tax revenue. Leave aside ticket sales, you have taxes on parking, concessions, lodging, mass transit, local businesses, on and on and on.
It is economic activity, and that generates government revenue.
March 15th, 2011 at 12:18 pm
I’m not sure how it is that we have so many conservatives, especially in this session, who go weak in the knees for a Vikings stadium.
But it could be so much worse. Last week the pipefitter’s union bought a golf course. What if all the unions in Minnesota went together to fund a stadium instead? Then we would have the Education Minnesota Stadium, the Vikings would play on SEIU Field, and a series of statues on the plaza dedicated to pioneers in the labor movement.
Considering how much the unions spent on last year’s mid term elections, they could probably pay for the stadium in 2 or 3 years.
March 15th, 2011 at 12:41 pm
If we’d be nothing more than a cold Omaha, we’d at least have the consolation of being less than an hour’s drive from the five time national champion Nebraska Cornhuskers–and ten minutes’ drive to some great steakhouses.
What’s the downside again? We’d actually have a football team in this state if the Twin Cities became a cold Omaha!
March 15th, 2011 at 12:56 pm
“It is economic activity, and that generates government revenue.”
That may be true, but assuming “no economic activity will happen” if they aren’t around is not realistic.
March 15th, 2011 at 1:04 pm
Kermit, are we to assume that all of the revenue from ticket sales and such would not have occurred anyways? Are all of the ViQueens fans going to spend that money in South Dakota or something?
Never mind the fact that a large portion of player salaries (what we really pay for when we buy a stadium) are spent outside the state to begin with. Stadiums are a net economic LOSS for the state.
March 15th, 2011 at 2:16 pm
Bubba, whenever you gather 40 to 50 thousand people in one place you are going to have a massive revenue generator. Case in point: compare Target Field with Block E. Which one is bringing in more revenue to the city?
Troy, we are talking orders of magnitude here. Economic activity happens at First Avenue, but compare that to Target Field. Which one is bigger?
March 15th, 2011 at 2:57 pm
Just cause the activity is concentrated at a stadium on a single day doesn’t make it better or worse than the same dollars of activity dispersed throughout the metro and state area.
Entertainment dollars are easily subject to the substitution effect. If i don’t spend the $150 at a Vikings game, I go to the suburban pub/eatery and spend $50 there, drop $50 at the theater, and spend the remainder around town. Same amount of economic activity, just not concentrated at a single venue.
Now the amount of the revenue that immediately leaves the area w/r/t professional sports via salaries, I have never seen any studies quantifying it. Is it more or less than the same activity brings into the area from out of state? I don’t know. It would be interesting to know whether it truly is a net win or loss.
It’s easy to point to a full stadium and say “look at all that economic activity!” Much harder to imagine that same group of people spending the money they would have spent at the stadium elsewhere, because it is so dispersed.
Professional sports are sort of a “broken window” economic activity.
March 15th, 2011 at 3:24 pm
“It is economic activity, and that generates government revenue.”
Time to encourage more people to smoke!
Spending a buck to get a ninety cents in value is foolishness, unless you are the government.
March 15th, 2011 at 3:30 pm
Terry, since when does the government get ninety cents in value when it spends money? I’m thinking a dime is probably closer to reality. :^)
And Kermit, like Loren says, it doesn’t matter whether those 50 thousand people are in the Roller-Dome, Rosemount, Bemidji, or wherever, they will put their money into the same basic categories of spending, saving/capital formation, giving, and taxes. The $10 not spent on a beer in the homer-dome is $10 spent on a six pack of beer at the local liquor store.
A good rule of thumb; if it isn’t a truly public good (national defense, police protection, jails, etc..), the private sector will take care of truly worthwhile projects. Your first hint about a bad investment is often that lobbyists are talking to your legislators.
March 15th, 2011 at 3:39 pm
Sure Loren, but I’m not going to spend three hours watching you at the suburban pub/eatery on my TV. And Fred’s Bean Palace doesn’t exactly add to the whole “top tier” status we would prefer for our state.
As for the revenue generated, it’s pretty big. More than Fred’s Bean Palace contributes over a year.
March 15th, 2011 at 3:41 pm
Loren said:
“Much harder to imagine that same group of people spending the money they would have spent at the stadium elsewhere”
Indeed, and I would say it’s even harder to imagine the same group of people _NOT_ spending the money they would have spent at the stadium elsewhere.
March 15th, 2011 at 4:01 pm
I don’t think that I would spend the money elsewhere, but then I am a season ticket owner. I belong to a tailgating group of about 35 people. We have debated these same topics while tailgating. It’s pretty much unanimous within this group that if there isn’t a Vikings game to go to, we don’t go out and drop the same money elsewhere. In fact, my wife and I rarely go out to eat, because we both do lunches with customers at least a couple of days per week or while we’re on the road.
I’m not sure that the loss of jobs for the workers or surrounding businesses are valid arguments, either. Of course, the parking lot operators gouge everyone at lots that would otherwise be empty, so I’m not sure if I care if they lose out. Of course, if it ends up in either Blaine or Arden Hills, their wouldn’t be too many surrounding businesses to suffer.
I’m OK with a Racino or dedicated slots, but, if the Demonrats ever get back in power, we know what would happen to that money.
March 15th, 2011 at 4:30 pm
Do we know what the value of the Twins went to with the new digs they have? Ole Fred of Fred’s Bean Palace is looking forward to the big equity bump he’s likely to see when the state builds him a new bean palace (at tax payer expense).
March 15th, 2011 at 7:29 pm
Well Scott, Fred is moving a lot more beans that he used to move. He’s hired four new bean delivery technicians, and is thinking about adding a legume patio.
March 16th, 2011 at 7:12 am
Nah, Fred’s in Eden Prairie, and he’s seen a drop in business because of the tax hike and people going to the city to spend their money.
March 16th, 2011 at 9:26 am
AP has just compared the NFL to slavery. I say we should help free him by not paying for his oppressors new plantation.
It’s the only moral thing to do.
March 16th, 2011 at 9:44 am
Fred is in multiple locations? Luxury tax!!! Sick it to the Man, man!
March 16th, 2011 at 10:51 am
Bosshoss, if the Vikings were to disappear, the money you would have spent on season tickets and tailgating will be put to other use, unless you put it in a can and bury it in the back yard. Even if you just put it into a savings account, you are allowing the financial institution to leverage it to further lending. And ultimately, you or your heirs will spend it.
March 16th, 2011 at 11:10 am
Bosshoss, if the Vikings were to disappear, the money you would have spent on season tickets and tailgating will be put to other use, unless you put it in a can and bury it in the back yard. Even if you just put it into a savings account, you are allowing the financial institution to leverage it to further lending. And ultimately, you or your heirs will spend it.
Good point, I’ve never understood why some in the government think that encouraging people to spend more money on entertainment should be a priority. I’m a firm believer that adults should pretty much be able to do whatever they want with their own money but that doesn’t mean that I think that this is something that government should be encouraging people to do. It’s a frivolity like public broadcasting and one that taxpayers can no longer afford IMO.
March 16th, 2011 at 11:43 am
Anyone who really thinks Minnesota will not build a new stadium for the Vikings probably believed the “hope and change” bullshit Obama was peddling in 2008.
March 16th, 2011 at 11:47 am
I think it would be real nice for Fred to add a legume patio to his shiny new state funded palace. But if he’s even thinking about allowing smoking out there he’ll need to make sure at least 2 sides are open to the elements so he conforms to anti-smoking regulations. T-Paw can take a good portion of credit for that.
Maybe they could use the tabacco settlement money to placate poor Ziggy.
Well we’re movin on up,
To the east side.
To a deluxe STADIUM in the sky.
Movin on up,
To the east side.
WE FINALLY GOT A PIECE OF THE PIE!
March 16th, 2011 at 1:30 pm
Sorry, Kermit. You may indeed be correct, but a new stadiums inevitability does not convince me that it’s the right thing to do, nor does it make me want to get on the bandwagon. :-/
March 16th, 2011 at 1:52 pm
If you are the Mayor it certainly is the right thing to do.
And although it is not money that the government should spend, at least it doesn’t require year after year after year additional spending.
At this point the best we can hope for is minimal state spending.
Will it be called the Target Plantation?
March 16th, 2011 at 3:39 pm
Troy, I’m just the messenger. It’s gonna happen, even with the opposition.
March 16th, 2011 at 4:05 pm
Kermit you’ve just spent several pages trying to argue that a stadium produces substantial economic activity that wouldn’t take place if it didn’t exist.
Ok let’s say you’re right (not all would agree, but let’s pretend). Can you demonstrate that it produce enough to offset the VERY substantial and VERY quantitative cost of building and having a stadium?? Especially for a team that only plays eight home games?
March 16th, 2011 at 6:10 pm
Of course not, Kevin. No one can. It’s a moot point. The VERY substantial and VERY quantitative cost of building and having a stadium is going to be expended. It is a fait accompli. Like I said, I’m just the messenger. It will produce more economic activity than would occur in the same space without a stadium. That is beyond question.
March 16th, 2011 at 9:35 pm
Now let’s see. Football…the Vikings…That’s the game that involves a non-circular ball that is often called a pigskin and that bounces funny, isn’t it? And that’s the team that cannot seem to bring home the bacon. Right?
Mitch, I’m with you.