Soccer Stadium in Minneapolis (cancelled)

[Didier]

I'm glad somebody brought up Field of Schemes. Northern Pitch, the new site that writers about local soccer, actually interviewed Field of Schemes author Neil deMause about this specific project.

http://northernpitch.com/topic/389-arti ... l-demause/

Needless to say, he agrees that the soccer proposal is a bad deal. But his take on the subject is much more educated and nuanced than most of what you read. Also, the factors bermanp7 mentions are more related to the direct subsidy model that the Vikings and most other teams use. There are still negative factors about the Minnesota United proposal, though, which he talks about.

[Didier]

I also wanted to follow up on a FB exchange yesterday between David Greene and CM Yang (sorry, not finding direct link). David asked whether (e.g.) a hotel would create more economic activity than a stadium. CM Yang replied that David was free to propose building a hotel with private money, and also to come asking for a subsidy. My questions here would be: What kind of projects might developers propose for that site, if they knew that the city was willing to provide tax subsidies on the scale of what's being discussed for soccer? Is it possible that something could be built that's much better than a stadium that's used for 20-something number of home games?

More specifically to this, I'll offer three takes.

1. There's no precedent for waiving property tax except on private developments, but there is precedent for doing so on sports stadiums. That doesn't mean we are obligated to exempt Minnesota United (and technically the other stadiums are "public" while this would be private). But there'd be no basis for a hotel developer to ask for this same exemption. Therefore, it's not really worth considering.

2. On page 37, David Greene says, "But this has absolutely nothing to do with the stadium. We could make those investments TODAY. We simply choose not to." And yes we could, but you can't disregard the politics that exist. When a private developer promises $130 million for an area, there's a basis to consider public investments to that area. Preemptively making those local infrastructure investments, while technically possible, is understandably a low priority. Having private money on the table matters.

2. When talking about the investment into this area, we're talking a lot about "what else." But let's not disregard the actual investment: a $130 million stadium. If the stadium is built and nothing else happens, that's already a huge private investment that completely transforms the area. At least physically. For comparison, a new hotel just opened a few blocks from this location, and it sold for $39 million. So you're talking about quite a few speculative hotels and apartments before you really make a dent here. (And that's fine if your opinion is to scrap the stadium and wait for subsidized hotels and apartments, but there are legitimate consequences to both decisions)

[David Greene]

The asks related to the West Loop soccer stadium are more in line with what you would seen in commercial development, a break on material sales taxes, as well as property tax relief not necessarily in perpetuity.

The current property tax ask is nowhere near what commercial development gets. That is a non-starter. I could live with a TIF district or maybe even some short-term period of reduced taxes. Would prefer TIF though.

[Lancestar2]

I was actually tasked by Nick with keeping score. It's been a really tough job reading every thread, and if you can believe it, I'm at the top of the rankings.

I'd suggest you re-read my posts, because I'm right all-the-freakin'-time.

How am I NOT surprised this conversation is taking place over on Urban instead of SSC. Typical pointless ego inflating. When your done talking about how great you think of yourself come down here and discuss the MLS development issue again OK? ...Thanks

[Anondson]

You thought that was serious? Interesting.

[Snelbian]

didier, I find it unhelpful to talk about the investment being proposed in terms of how much money someone is planning to spend in a given neighborhood. Not only because in this case we're talking about an investment that the investors don't want to pay property tax on, but also because it doesn't address what the neighborhood gets out of it. $130 million dollars can be invested in a wide variety of buildings with a wide variety of outcomes and benefits. The number itself is borderline meaningless to the discussion of whether this is a good idea for Minneapolis.

[Snelbian]

I was actually tasked by Nick with keeping score. It's been a really tough job reading every thread, and if you can believe it, I'm at the top of the rankings.

I'd suggest you re-read my posts, because I'm right all-the-freakin'-time.

How am I NOT surprised this conversation is taking place over on Urban instead of SSC. Typical pointless ego inflating. When your done talking about how great you think of yourself come down here and discuss the MLS development issue again OK? ...Thanks

http://cdn.grumpycats.com/wp-content/up ... Awful.jpeg

[Didier]

didier, I find it unhelpful to talk about the investment being proposed in terms of how much money someone is planning to spend in a given neighborhood. Not only because in this case we're talking about an investment that the investors don't want to pay property tax on, but also because it doesn't address what the neighborhood gets out of it. $130 million dollars can be invested in a wide variety of buildings with a wide variety of outcomes and benefits. The number itself is borderline meaningless to the discussion of whether this is a good idea for Minneapolis.

I'm not really following.

The cost represents the scale of the development. Sure, a $100 million building can be many different things. But in this case, we know that a $130 million soccer stadium would drastically change the physical area. There's no hotel being proposed here, but if there were I think it's safe to assume it would be similar to the Hampton Inn that just opened a few blocks away. The Hampton Inn is a relatively small project, and one Hampton Inn would barely change this area at all.

As far as what the neighborhood gets out of the stadium:
• An underdeveloped part of town get overhauled
• The farmer's market is expanded or redeveloped in some way
• The city is able to get more use out of existing "big event" infrastructure, namely the existing parking ramps

What the neighborhood gets from not building a stadium:
• Potential to do something else

This is the problem with Mayor Hodges' position. If she wants us to believe that something better than a stadium could go here, she needs to present some evidence that something else could actually happen here.

I see this as a vast, unappealing part of downtown that has more potential to sit vacant for another decade than to redevelop in any meaningful way. Of course, you, the mayor and many others believe in the potential to redevelop organically. But given that the North Loop, Mill District and Downtown East all have room to grow, and that those neighborhoods are already light years ahead of the West Loop — and that nothing else is proposed in the West Loop area except a light rail station in 2021 — the mayor's argument only seems to be convincing people who are already staunchly against any stadium subsidy.

[BoredAgain]

First off, I have no dog in this fight, except that I am a fairly regular visitor to the farmer's market. I am jumping in to hopefully clarify, and because I am bored on my lunch break at work.

I'm not really following.

The point that Snelbian was trying to make is that it doesn't matter if they are spending $1 million, $100 million, a $1 billion. If the taxes on the property are waived as requested, then the DIRECT affect on City finances are the same. The city gets the same property tax revenue from the new Vikings stadium as it would from this soccer stadium, which is the same as it gets from the baseball diamond at Bossen Field. It gets $0.00 in tax revenue.

From a purely dollars and cents perspective, it doesn't matter how much they might spend on the stadium because the current land use is more profitable than any tax free stadium would be.

The cost represents the scale of the development. Sure, a $100 million building can be many different things. But in this case, we know that a $130 million soccer stadium would drastically change the physical area. There's no hotel being proposed here, but if there were I think it's safe to assume it would be similar to the Hampton Inn that just opened a few blocks away. The Hampton Inn is a relatively small project, and one Hampton Inn would barely change this area at all.

One Hampton Inn would still pay taxes. And it would leave a lot of room to build other things. Drastically changing the physical area is not always good. For examples in our city history, consider the age of Gateway district clearing. I'm sure the K-mart on Lake drastically changed the physical area as well. In retrospect, neither has been great. There are positive examples of massive overhaul as well (clearing freight yards for new development, positive changes in Riverfront districts, etc), but only time will tell what might happen here.

As far as what the neighborhood gets out of the stadium:
• An underdeveloped part of town get overhauled
• The farmer's market is expanded or redeveloped in some way
• The city is able to get more use out of existing "big event" infrastructure, namely the existing parking ramps

What the neighborhood gets from not building a stadium:
• Potential to do something else

The neighborhood overhaul and the farmer's market re-do could be (and partially would be anyway) funded by the city as an independent effort. Personally I think that they should bring the farmer's market away from the viaduct and move it closer to the rail stop (if it still happens) no matter what else might happen in the neighborhood. The infrastructure and connections need work also. The stadium folks asked the city to handle all of that, which is where the city direct funding gets put anyway.

This is the problem with Mayor Hodges' position. If she wants us to believe that something better than a stadium could go here, she needs to present some evidence that something else could actually happen here.

No she doesn't. The small area plan and LRT station plan already show what some potential growth could be. Mayor Hodges is not a developer and her concern is city budget and growth. From a city budget perspective, the current built environment is more productive than the stadium would be. From a growth perspective, there is no guarantee of additional development caused by the stadium. Look at the metrodome, or any of the well done research from fieldofschemes.com.

I see this as a vast, unappealing part of downtown that has more potential to sit vacant for another decade than to redevelop in any meaningful way. Of course, you, the mayor and many others believe in the potential to redevelop organically. But given that the North Loop, Mill District and Downtown East all have room to grow, and that those neighborhoods are already light years ahead of the West Loop — and that nothing else is proposed in the West Loop area except a light rail station in 2021 — the mayor's argument only seems to be convincing people who are already staunchly against any stadium subsidy.

It is mostly unappealing. You are right. If the other neighborhoods are doing so well, then do we think that the proposed stadium will change any of that? It can only re-direct new development. It can't create it.

As I said at the start, I don't really care if they build a stadium, but I thought someone (new) should chime in. If they do decide to support the stadium (for whatever reason), I won't lose any sleep over it either. I thought the deal for the Vikings was terrible. This potential offer doesn't seem terrible, but that doesn't make it "good" for the city.

[Wedgeguy]

^^^^^^^^
Agree with all you said BoredAgain.

[J2K]

The Twins played in a football stadium for 28 years. Why the soccer team can't play in a 1B football stadium is pure blasphemy. The field is basically the same shape. Qwest Field in Seattle sure works good, on field turf as well. This soccer stadium is ridiculous. This idea has Miami 2.0 all over it.

[HiawathaGuy]

Nice to see him discussing things more - not that there's any new news.

http://www.startribune.com/local/blogs/301901771.html

[acs]

Umm yeah there is. He's open to a publicly owned stadium.

http://www.mprnews.org/story/2015/04/30 ... er-stadium

[Didier]

Re: BoredAgain's post, three responses:

• I appreciate your take. I'm obviously in favor of the stadium development, but I understand that there are very legitimate reasons to oppose any public component to a sports stadium.

• I thought it was pretty clear that my post was talking about physical nature, not property tax revenue. It should go without saying that any private building would pay more in property taxes than a stadium that pays no property taxes. And while property taxes are certainly important, this decision is far bigger than Yes vs. No on property taxes.

• We can agree to disagree about Mayor Hodges' role in all of this, but I think this proposal carries enough merit that she needs to either entertain negotiations or offer a more substantive reason for rejecting it.

[Archiapolis]

didier, I find it unhelpful to talk about the investment being proposed in terms of how much money someone is planning to spend in a given neighborhood. Not only because in this case we're talking about an investment that the investors don't want to pay property tax on, but also because it doesn't address what the neighborhood gets out of it. $130 million dollars can be invested in a wide variety of buildings with a wide variety of outcomes and benefits. The number itself is borderline meaningless to the discussion of whether this is a good idea for Minneapolis.

I'm not really following.

The cost represents the scale of the development. Sure, a $100 million building can be many different things. But in this case, we know that a $130 million soccer stadium would drastically change the physical area. There's no hotel being proposed here, but if there were I think it's safe to assume it would be similar to the Hampton Inn that just opened a few blocks away. The Hampton Inn is a relatively small project, and one Hampton Inn would barely change this area at all.

As far as what the neighborhood gets out of the stadium:
• An underdeveloped part of town get overhauled
• The farmer's market is expanded or redeveloped in some way
• The city is able to get more use out of existing "big event" infrastructure, namely the existing parking ramps

What the neighborhood gets from not building a stadium:
• Potential to do something else

This is the problem with Mayor Hodges' position. If she wants us to believe that something better than a stadium could go here, she needs to present some evidence that something else could actually happen here.

I see this as a vast, unappealing part of downtown that has more potential to sit vacant for another decade than to redevelop in any meaningful way. Of course, you, the mayor and many others believe in the potential to redevelop organically. But given that the North Loop, Mill District and Downtown East all have room to grow, and that those neighborhoods are already light years ahead of the West Loop — and that nothing else is proposed in the West Loop area except a light rail station in 2021 — the mayor's argument only seems to be convincing people who are already staunchly against any stadium subsidy.

Well said.

[TroyGBiv]

I am not sure that this development should be the priority for the city - I would love for it to get built but I feel like a huge amount of resources have gone to stadiums. If you are a resident of Minneapolis you are already paying extra for the Vikings stadium. I wish that if the city wants this that there might be a way to finance that portion through development rights to adjacent parcels to better coordinate the design for that area. It would be better to not look at these projects as part of a larger strategy. In the past stadiums were "sold" as economic development tools - but that rarely happened without a bigger plan. The Metronome never generated any development. More recently we are seeing this change - but planning is key to making the most of the development.

[BigIdeasGuy]

I've read Field of Schemes on and off for a few years and the author(s) have always left me with the impression that they started with a preconceived narrative that they were going to make fit no matter what. I'm not discrediting there research, because all of the academic research comes to the exact same conclusion they do, but every time I read the site I get the impression that they are not just anti-stadium subsidies but anti-sports.

I read the Northern Pitch interview with the Neil deMause of Field of Schemes and to me about his argument about property taxes could be applied to every building ever. The core of his argument was because the city wouldn't get the maximum amount of property taxes dollars from the stadium and that should be considered a subsidy and therefore the stadium should be opposed, which is fine. Now I know that HBU is inherently subjective but the HBU that the Mr. duMause was talking about clearly related to property taxes. The problem to me is if you carry that logic out every building that doesn't meet it's potential to pay the maximum amount of property taxes is receiving a subsidy as well. Your home receives a subsidy, the building that you work in receives a subsidy, the parking lot where you park receives a subsidy, hell the IDS Center receives a subsidy.

I realize the flaw in my argument is that the stadium is exempted from paying property taxes compared not paying the maximum amount but I believe the principal remains the same.

[nfschauer]

Good article on their efforts:

http://www.southwestjournal.com/voices/ ... m-proposal

[Didier]

Good article on their efforts:

http://www.southwestjournal.com/voices/ ... m-proposal

Just read this now. It's by far the most-balanced and best-reported story on the topic.

Unrelated, but the Southwest Journal's editor tweeted this earlier today. I don't really know what it means, though, and I have a feeling "community ownership of a team" is not the correct wording.

Sarah McKenzie
‏@smckenzie21
Rep. @PhyllisKahn introducing legislation today for community ownership of a MLS Soccer Team #mpls #mnleg

[acs]

Well that would be one quick way to kill this whole thing. McGuire is being generous but he's not a socialist. Or does the crazy cat lady really think the city/state wants to pony up $100 million for the expansion fee?