Calling all Homeless, all Suffering to the Stadium

Air Quality (0.00 / 0)

The results of the Environmental Impact Study (EIS) released in Jan. 2007: "In summary, the analysis establishes that the ballpark will not adversely affect dispersion of pollutants from HERC stacks and that the estimated risk to ballpark users from exposure to HERC emissions is below levels of concern."
(source: http://www.co.hennepin.mn.us/i...

The air quality in the area around the incinerator is some of the worst in the state.

Also, is there a "sunset" clause on the county tax (without referendum) being assessed?  Just sayin'.

---

by: Mark Bannick @ Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 12:31:51 PM CDT

Oh the humanity... (0.00 / 0)

.... not a stadium. God forbid we get upward of 3 million people and their wallets into Minneapolis each summer. Let Las Vegas or Charlotte or Portland, Ore., have them.

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: Chris @ Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 13:38:02 PM CDT

Whew! Let the people bowl! (0.00 / 0)

I always recall John Marty reciting his anti-stadium rhetoric a number of years ago before the Twins ballpark was approved.  He tried to repeat the line that a ballpark makes no difference to the economy.  As Marty put it: "If people don't spend their dollars at the stadium, they'll spend their money on other things, bowling for instance." (Marty's actual example).  So a stadium, in Marty's opinion, just shifts how money is spent; it doesn't increase spending.  

We'll I'm sure glad the ball park was approved.  Can you image how frustrating it would be if you couldn't even get a lane at the bowling alley because all those people from Iowa, the Dakotas and Wisconsin were filling up the bowling alleys?  After all, there's nothing quite like bowling in the Twin Cities to give all of those out-of-town people a reason to visit.

The Original Gordon

---

by: Gordon @ Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 15:13:55 PM CDT

The only difference between now and the mid 1990s... (0.00 / 0)

... is that it cost more to build the stadium.

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: Chris @ Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 15:32:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well.... (4.00 / 2)

Being a sports fan, I grit my teeth and accept the new stadium. All you guys who are supporting it for the jobs and economic stimulus benefits are liars though. Just admit you want the Twins/vikings/Wild/T-Wolves here instead of Los Angelos and you are willing to pay off a Billionaire's black mail.

It is funny how you guys, in essence, support socializing expenses for billionaires, but want to ensure you protect the privatized profits of Billionaires.

Last time I checked, good old boring Iowa is doing better than us with no pro franchises.

Paying off billionaires is dumb, fiscally irresponsible, maybe immoral, and definitely not fair, but I will admit I just want the Vikes et al here, so I hold my nose. But don't try and pretend it doesn't stink.  

---

by: Alec @ Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 16:12:33 PM CDT

I'm not sold on a football stadium... (0.00 / 0)

... haven't been convinced that the economic impact of 10 Sunday games a year -- w/ a whole bunch of people tailgating, rather than eating out, etc. -- is worth it.

I also don't like the idea of the state taking the lead on stadiums. Since Hennepin County and Minneapolis will gain the most benefit, they should bear the costs and have with Target Field.

For football: I actually prefer the Redskins' model, where Jack Kent Cooke built what was eventually renamed FedEx Field and the state of Maryland chipped in for an exit ramp, sewage, etc. It makes better sense because it's a huge asset for the team and when the stadium is obsolete, they can sell that acreage for new development and use the proceeds to pour back into the team.

Since baseball stadiums can generally serve as key components of redevelopment, with the heavy schedule and smaller stadium footprint, I'm more willing to have local gov't involvement.

For what it's worth: 3,600 jobs from start to finish on construction and countless more opportunities once it opens. And it's more intellectually honest than the federal stimulus bill since there's actually a plan in place to pay this money back.

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: Chris @ Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 19:42:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Ugh (0.00 / 0)

Yes, public spending on a stadium is a subsidy for billionaires.  And yes, the return on the spending in economic development terms is less than on many other things.   But I like the Twins and I am totally psyched about watching games in the new stadium, as are many other Minnesotans.  More importantly, bitching about the stadium and talking about the homeless is a HORRIBLE message for the DFL.  

---

by: Dan @ Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 11:22:33 AM CDT

I'm glad you're so concerned... (0.00 / 0)

I'm glad you're so concerned about DFL messaging.  I'm so glad that concern trolls relay their concerns about DFL messaging.  It's always so helpful.  We DFLers always listen and follow concern troll's suggestions.  It's why I offer offer helpful suggestions from time to time to Republicans.  

Republicans really ought to listen to me.  I mean seriously.  I only have their best interests in mind.

---

by: The Big E @ Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 11:55:52 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Someone needs to be concerned (0.00 / 0)

Do you remember when the DFL elected a governor back in 1986?  That was awesome.  Losing five straight elections since then is a reason for some concern in my book.  Or we could just pretend everything is just fine.  

So do you think that the stadium funding should have been spent on the homeless is a good message?  Or to put it another way, do you have a substantive criticism of my comment?  Or were you just going for the cheap shot?  

---

by: Dan @ Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 12:15:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Private Stadiums OK (0.00 / 0)

And improved air quality is a positive. However a chunk of the money is going to landscaping around the burners so it looks nice. At a time, when people are going to loss health care, it seems irresponsible to pay landscaping costs to pretty things up for billionaire team owners who are making a profit on the team. It shows the priorities!

---

by: Grace Kelly @ Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 11:46:57 AM CDT

NEXT PITCH (4.00 / 1)

Grace,

Complaining about something that is already decided and done is not very productive.  It's petty.  If you want to argue against stadiums, don't keep bringing up the Twins ballpark.  That one's a done deal.  If you don't believe it, take a drive downtown and look behind the Target Center arena.  You can see it with your own eyes. If you want a more forward-thinking conversation, bring up the Vikings stadium issue instead.  It's more sensible to discuss something that is an issue yet to come.  Really - it is.

The Original Gordon

---

by: Gordon @ Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 15:18:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Are you paid by the Twins? (0.00 / 0)

Not petty!

30 years!

30 years I am paying for the stadium!

Not petty, it is the cost of a major bridge - like the bridge the fell and killed people!

Not petty!

---

by: Grace Kelly @ Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 12:11:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]