Vikings Stadium Legislation/Financing Package

[Viktor Vaughn]

The point is that if every new user feels the need to write three paragraphs about how they're mad the stadium got approved, I'm going to have an aneurysm before any shovels even get in the ground.

Well for your heath's sake I'd recommend against goading 'em with dismissive comments.

[ECtransplant]

So there isn't going to be a referendum on the stadium?

[Didier]

Guys, maybe we should have considered racino?

[woofner]

You guys, they should just build the stadium in Block E and combine it with the new Surly brewery and a catsino. Then Rybak will eliminate property taxes. Problem solved.

[dmdhashw]

You guys, they should just build the stadium in Block E and combine it with the new Surly brewery and a catsino. Then Rybak will eliminate property taxes. Problem solved.

Surly brewery + Catsino =

Gambling_Cat.jpg

[sushisimo]

Finally, somebody thinking outside the (litter) box.

[m b p]

People who think stadiums have no impact on local economies should go talk to some business owners on west 7th street in St Paul. Ask them if they are doing better or worse with the NHL lockout.

[Le Sueur]

^^^I'm not 100% sure how serious you're being with this comment so my apologies if this is an overreaction but...
Do the revenues of those businesses balance out with all the other costs and revenues associated a 30 years facility as well as the positive and negative externalities such as private investment and crime?

Of course stadiums have "an economic impact" but please don't tell me businesses (that have been bolstered or created because of the stadium) suffering during the NHL lockout by themselves justify the initial $130 million public investment (in the case of the Xcel)?

That is unless one accounts for the stadium as a sunk cost which is just silly.

[m b p]

^^^^ I'm not saying anything justifies anything. I am saying that, if done correctly, stadiums, arenas, ballparks etc. can have a huge positive impact on a local economy. The stadium may not generate enough money to pay for itself. But... new tax revenue with new development around the stadium, sales of team related crap, 65,000 people spending money downtown every once in a while... Those things are huge.

I remember what the area near the river center in saint paul looked like before they built an NHL arena. I know what it looks like now. If that only cost the state 130 million... money well spent... because... there are an infinite amount more people spending money down there now.

[Wedgeguy]

^^^^ I'm not saying anything justifies anything. I am saying that, if done correctly, stadiums, arenas, ballparks etc. can have a huge positive impact on a local economy. The stadium may not generate enough money to pay for itself. But... new tax revenue with new development around the stadium, sales of team related crap, 65,000 people spending money downtown every once in a while... Those things are huge.

I remember what the area near the river center in saint paul looked like before they built an NHL arena. I know what it looks like now. If that only cost the state 130 million... money well spent... because... there are an infinite amount more people spending money down there now.

I very much agree with you. In economics, you talk alot about the multplier effect. You have the people who stay at the hotel when they come to the city to see the games that come from out of town, Sales taxes up, Hotel lodging taxes up. Wages of the extra employes, income tax and payroll taxes up. Those dollars in wages get spent all around town and create wealth for other businesses as well as they spend money on household goods and food, on recreation.
Restraunts and bars buy good from Wholesalers who are here in the city as well. This also creates and supports jobs thru the metro area. As I've said many time on this site. People have to take their narrow focused blinders off and start looking at the BIG picture and outside the box. You will be suprise and what you learn once you do that.

[mattaudio]

I have no idea how cities thrived before stadium subsidies, TIF, JOBZ, mortgage interest rate deduction, bridges to nowhere, subsidized parking, etc?

As someone with an econ background, I must say the opportunity cost outweighs the silent multiplier effect.

[Didier]

I'm a proponent of stadiums too, but news came out of Saint Paul earlier this week that overall revenues at hotels have not been affected by the NHL lockout.

http://www.startribune.com/local/stpaul ... ml?refer=y

[Nick]

Eventually, I'm going to sit down and try to split this sucker up into two distinct, intelligible threads about stadium financing/logic/people arguing over the city charter and then the Vikings Stadium.

Until then, I'll throw out that the academic bandwagon against public investment in sports facilities is correct overall, but overlooks specific examples. So it's really silly to make a blanket stadium about public funding for stadiums, which of course everyone does anyway.

For example, people have a pretty static budget for entertainment. This is established. They won't spend money on entertainment that they wouldn't otherwise just because there's a new stadium. But it grinds my gears a bit to then extend that argument to "there's no economic benefit at all ever to building stadiums period" because that seems to miss a lot of points. Because we can change where the dollar is spent. I'd rather have someone spending money at a food truck downtown than the Dave and Buster's in Maple Grove.

[helsinki]

I'd rather have someone spending money at a food truck downtown the Dave and Buster's in Maple Grove.

Biden wouldn't have the choice:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/biden- ... ers,17285/

[Wedgeguy]

Could the reason that hotel revenue has not changed much have to due with the after that a majority of the hockey fans are with in driving distance.. Could it be that right now there is incresed use of the Rivercenter for meetings and conventions that are keeping the rooms booked. You need to ask the parking lots that are sitting empty if they have seen revenue down this year. You need to ask the restraunts along W 7th if there number are meeting last years numbers. Again you look for answers by looking in the wrong place for those answers.

To get to the opportunity cost of things. Yes, you give up something to go do another. But if I quit going to Twins games it would not mean that I would go out to a movie or a bar to drink for the shear boredom of it. Hockey fans, fotball fans, baseball fans are not going to go out and do something like do a movie instead of seeing their favorite sport. They will stay home and watch them on TV. Maybe they go to a bar to watch the game. Are they spendng the same anount of money that they would going to a game, most likely not. No parking revenue, no concession revenue except maybe that nacho plate that they get. Before game meal, probably not, or post game meal to let the traffic work itself out. Where is the greater tax revenue, where do the greatest multipler work

[Viktor Vaughn]

For example, people have a pretty static budget for entertainment. This is established. They won't spend money on entertainment that they wouldn't otherwise just because there's a new stadium. But it grinds my gears a bit to then extend that argument to "there's no economic benefit at all ever to building stadiums period" seems to miss a lot of points. Because we can change where the dollar is spent. I'd rather have someone spending money at a food truck downtown the Dave and Buster's in Maple Grove.

Are we still talking about this? Is it only kosher to rehash tired arguments on this forum that justify the stadium?

Stadiums are sold with visions of increased economic activity, not just changing where the dollars are spent. Shifting economic activity from one area of MSP to another is a strange thing for the state to spend a few hundred million dollars to accomplish.

[Le Sueur]

if done correctly, stadiums, arenas, ballparks etc. can have a huge positive impact on a local economy. The stadium may not generate enough money to pay for itself. But... new tax revenue with new development around the stadium, sales of team related crap, 65,000 people spending money downtown every once in a while... Those things are huge.

Right. I wasn't disagreeing with you on that point. Nor was I trying to stand up for "people who think stadiums have no impact on local economies." I am a proponent of the new stadium and Xcel for that matter. I was trying to stand up for the idea that each individual stadium is unique, and it takes more than a couple restaurants in St. Paul to make the Xcel successful, which is where I thought you were going.

To Wedgeguy's point, I prefer to look at this issue from a much broader scope. If you really want to look at opportunity cost, you could expand this to the opportunities lost by not spending stadium dollars on other things that would also create jobs and multiplier effects. (but let's not for some sake of sanity)
Also to what Nick stated. He is correct that individual entertainment spending will stay mostly static. So to your example:

Hockey fans, fotball fans, baseball fans are not going to go out and do something like do a movie instead of seeing their favorite sport.

The data suggests that is exactly what they do.

Anyway this is likely to turn into another 10 posts so sorry to anyone who thought this was real news.

[Wedgeguy]

^^^
As I say, I'm not the general public. Going to the movies is not like going to ballgames. Going out to eat is not the same experience of a night at the Guthrie. What you say hashas it's meeits, but there are alot of holes in that logic also.

[Nick]

I made an executive decision as the great and powerful Grand Poobah moderator to break this off and create a separate topic. I'm really not trying to squelch discussion (because I, even as a stadium supporter, realize the financing package is made up) but it's going to get incredibly distracting in the future as every single new user on the forum feels the need to write three paragraphs about how OUTRAGED they are about the circumvention of the City Charter. They won't be able to tell you a single thing about the rest of the City Charter (Granola: Banned?) but by gummit they have to make their voice heard. The stadium will be built. That topic is for that conversation.

[beykite]

Can you also make a separate thread where all we talk about its how all LRT should be built underground and routed through uptown???