Sports: Pro & Con

[mattaudio]

My point is that, ultimately, a dollar is fungible. Any restrictions on that dollar are a self-imposed political reality. It may be a political reality at the moment, but it originates from us and we need to take ownership for the outcomes of spending that are constrained by the political reality we have created and accept.

[MN_Build.org]

Not to mention that the argument that the $498 million "could have been better spent on..." is easy to say, but difficult to make reality. Do I wish we were spending this amount on better roads/transit/affordable housing? Of course! But that's not the reality of this money.

Same goes with when people write into the Star Tribune and make comments like "The $1.6 billion Southwest LRT money could provide free rides on all metro buses for 17 years..." That might very well be true - but the funding behind that $1.6 billion could never be used for that. So the argument isn't really an argument.

I don't think there will ever be agreement from all walks on whether stadiums are good or bad in the long run. Certainly, as with all things, there are winners and losers.

I'd like to think that all this development and money being poured into downtown will have a net-positive impact on our City and State.

Not to mention the $400 million private investment across the street that would not have happened without the new stadium. It even got the NY Times to write a piece about it, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/28/reale ... .html?_r=0.

[FISHMANPET]

Even within those political realities a dollar can be fungible. A bonded dollar is a bonded dollar, rather it go towards a stadium or a bridge or a building or streetcar or whatever. We're not paying for the stadium with stadium bux that are only good for stadiums. We may not currently be able to use those dollars for anything we want in the world, but there's still quite a few things those dollars could go towards in the current reality.

[BigIdeasGuy]

In an ideal world the owner's of professional sport franchises would pay for 100% of a new stadium or upgrades to a stadium, I don't think anyone would argue that, but sadly we don't live in an ideal world. Which leaves us (meaning the public) having to foot part or all of the bill. At the end of the day we have to make a decision to make, either hold our noses and paying up or letting the team leave and not be able to complain about it. Quite frankly that's the reality of the situation. I know many would argue that the Vikings leaving wasn't imminent but they would have left at some point in the not to distant future, I don't think that's an arguable point.

I would argue that Vikings are an important part of the culture and the heritage of this state and it is worth the public to invest dollars into keeping them here. I would venture to guess some people on this board wouldn't notice if the Vikings left, or at least couldn't tell you the name of the head coach, but huge amount of Minnesotan's would (the Vikings have some of the highest local TV ratings in the NFL). For those people the Vikings are huge part of there life every fall, all year round really at this point. It's how they spend time with family and friends, to me that's worth maintaining, I know many would also disagree with that and that's fine, reasonable people can easily do that, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Having major sports teams also helps raise the profile of metropolitan area and state, now most people won't forget Minnesota exists if we lose the Vikings or any sports team but you can't tell me there is zero benefit to have the word "Minnesota" on national TV on a regular basis. I also believe that sports teams, especially successful sports teams(insert joke about how terrible all Minnesota teams are here), bring people together and increases civic pride in our community. I've been communities when there was a very, very successful team and people rallied around that team. It certainly brought people together though that common, shared experience of watching the team and it created an entire buzz and energy to the community. To the argument that we shouldn't be subsidizing people recreational activities I would point out government spending on the arts, culture, museums, environment, etc. as other recreational activities that we subsidize, I will also freely admit there is a difference in for profit sports teams vs nonprofit recreational activities.

The final point I'll make is on opportunity costs, I think in many cases isn't spending dollars on stadiums vs homeless shelters or education it's spending dollars on stadiums vs not spending them at that point in time. I would venture a guess that if the Vikings Stadium bill wasn't passed in 2012 the roughly $500 million in public dollars wouldn't have been spent at all at then. Same thing with Target Field. Not to mention if spending $500 million now bothers you try the billion plus, and higher than that probably, it would take to get the NFL to come back to Minnesota with no guarantee the NFL would actually come back. That would happen eventually and probably sooner rather than later.

[BigIdeasGuy]

I pointed this out on page 1 or 2 but I think it's worth pointing out again but there is a decent chance that a soccer stadium won't be built on this location at all. There are some huge hurdles for the McGuire/Pohlad group to jump through before ground breaking happens.

First the McGuire/Pohlad would have to acquire the land for the site which isn't going to be a walk in the park considering how many land owners there are, including the city.

Second MLS will have to decided that they want a team in MSP which isn't a given, especially considering that they really only have 1 spot open at this point, although the Miami proposal could fall apart pretty easily for multiple reasons.

Third MLS would have decide on the McGuire/Pohlad team as the ownership group they want over the Wilf's. This isn't a slam dunk either but I would venture a guess that MLS would favor the McGuire/Pohlad group at this point.

Fourth the McGuire/Pohlad group would have to actually build the stadium, which is going to have it's challenges as well. Including possible neighborhood opposition, financing (especially considering there is going be basically zero public for any public financing), and naysayers from every corner about everything from the sport to parking to the location.

[bubzki2]

(insert joke about how terrible all Minnesota teams are here)

Clearly you're not a Lynx fan. EDIT: or MN United.

[Rich]

What if we spent that $498 million on education, job training, neighborhood revitalization, or other sorts of social programs?

Aren’t actual high-quality jobs and actual neighborhood revitalization preferrable to job training and hypothetical neighborhood revitalization?

There are hundreds of people working on the stadium right now. By next year there will be 1,000. They’re very well paid (between $26 and $73 an hour). A third of the workers are minorities. Of the 76 subcontractors currently doing business there, 70 are Minnesota-based. 86% of the materials and supplies have been bought from Minnesota companies.

And when all the construction is done there will be hundreds of new jobs available in Downtown East, not just at the stadium but at offices, restaurants, residences, the park and maybe a hotel. The surface parking will be gone and the neighborhood revitalized. All of which helps our economy and generates tax-revenue which we can use for schools and social programs.

[IllogicalJake]

Would it be unreasonable to spin out the whole "sports vs. no sports" debate to an Anything Goes thread and unclutter this one for actual construction and progress updates? It doesn't pertain to this stadium in particular any more than it does Xcel, TCF Bank or Target Field.

[moda253]

If this were to happen, I'd want to see a pretty substantial plan for redeveloping the entire Farmers Market / West Loop / Royalston Station area, including relocation of the Farmers Market to the Yard/Armory.

That said, can the soccer team really not play at any of our existing stadiums? (TCF, Vikings, Target Field??) I don't care if it's ideal...just can it be done? We are really, embarrassingly bad at this stadium stuff. Huge mistake #1 was approving gobs of state money for TCF Bank Stadium without any discussion of the Vikings stadium needs. That's as shortsighted as it gets. Huge mistake #2 was not moving the T-Wolves to St. Paul, and instead spending $100MM to renovate Target Center when it should have been torn down. The second one is obviously debatable (since the T-Wolves may not have wanted to go to St. Paul and who could blame them), but the Vikings and Gophers not sharing a football stadium is just insane. The metrodome site is literally adjacent to campus, and now directly linked by rail. A separate on-campus stadium is not worth the several hundred millions of dollars in public and student funds.

Gobs of state money for TCF bank stadium? The total cost of TCF was ~300 million of which 52% was paid for by the university. Sure some of that may have been state money but it was state money that was already allocated and not all of it was state money a large portion was alumni monies. Gobs of money??? <$150m.... caould shake that out of the cushions over in Saint Paul. There was plenty of discussion of the Vikings needs it went on for years leading up to the university wanting what almost every other university has... their own stadium on their campus. One that they can brand with their own identity not hanging vinyl banners that have to be taken down and a color scheme that has nothing to do with any of the teams that use the facility.

Anyone that doesn't realize the difference between where the metrodome was located and where TCF bank stadium was built has no clue about college sports. None. Now if you wanted to say that tearing down memorial stadium way back when and moving the gophers to the Metrodome was stupid I would agree wholeheartedly.

Fact of the matter is that the old met was a rickety old death trap that eventually needed to be replaced. The metrodome was built on the cheap at the end of an era of multi use stadiums and was obsolete the day it opened. It was a piss poor design that took 11 years to get through the legislature and through planning and so much was cut out of it that the thing was just awful in almost every imaginable way aside from sight lines. Why? Because we piss and moan about things like this instead of doing them right.

ON THE CONTRARY!!!! We are FINALLY doing things the right way around here. Building 1st class facilities instead of low budget barely passable designs that are failed to begin with. Target field was done right. It is a gem of a ballpark. The new Vikes stadium is going to be world class. Xcel is STILL one of the best arenas in the country how many years later? Yeah we have Target Center and it's an eyesore and it competes with Xcel. That's about all you have to hang your hat on.

No more building "good enough"

[moda253]

One deflated roof does not a collapsing stadium make. I don't think I ever heard "it's falling apart" as justification for replacement.

One???? ONE!?!?!?! The place was an absolute dump... Ok ignoring the fact that one is not the correct answer... it only takes ONE for thousands and thousands of people to be injured...

But here's the answer FIVE!

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Sports/201 ... fifth-time

[moda253]

Is it really a civic emergency if we lose a pro sports team? Sad? Sure. Civic emergency? Not even close.

Ask yourself why almost every single city/state/region fights like hell to try and get a sports team back after they lose them. Why?

[fehler]

You do realize that University money is, for all intents, state money. The weird transaction of having the U sell the U-more land to the state was almost comical.

Not that there is anything wrong with the state paying for a state university asset. But lets be honest about it.

[mplsjaromir]

Ask yourself why almost every single city/state/region fights like hell to try and get a sports team back after they lose them. Why?

People behave irrationally when it comes to sports. Few realize that professional sports leagues are very profitable, in no need of public subsidy. Leagues are simply highly sophisticated marketing groups that know how to manipulate people's emotions to reap immense profits and squeeze the public to subsidize their business.

[FISHMANPET]

One deflated roof does not a collapsing stadium make. I don't think I ever heard "it's falling apart" as justification for replacement.

One???? ONE!?!?!?! The place was an absolute dump... Ok ignoring the fact that one is not the correct answer... it only takes ONE for thousands and thousands of people to be injured...

But here's the answer FIVE!

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Sports/201 ... fifth-time

Yes, clearly, the stadium was literally collapsing around spectators during games. And since those all appear to be snow related, it's not like a massive load of snow instantly appears on the roof to collapse it.

We're all in a race to the bottom with stadium financing. If every city in the country just stood up and said "we're fed up, build your own damn stadiums" then somehow magically the stadiums would still get built.

But here again we hear these same arguments about how we needed to do this to keep that, as if the discussion happens in a bubble where literally the only two options are spend $500 million in funny money on a stadium or or do nothing, when the reality is far more complex. Of course everybody wants their own stadium, nobody's going to argue that, given an infinite amount of money, that sports teams wouldn't choose to have their own stadiums. But we don't live in a world with infinite money.

[Rich]

People behave irrationally when it comes to sports. Few realize that professional sports leagues are very profitable, in no need of public subsidy. Leagues are simply highly sophisticated marketing groups that know how to manipulate people's emotions to reap immense profits and squeeze the public to subsidize their business.

I agree with almost all of this. Except I don’t think “few realize…” is correct. On the contrary, I’d say virtually all fans are highly aware of how profitable sports are. And they know full well that these stadiums could (and sometimes do) get built without public subsidy. Also they know that they’re targets of marketing, and that being a “fan” is mostly an irrational act. But they really couldn’t care less. It’s entertainment. They’re just in it for the fun.

[nordeast homer]

Thanks Rich, I believe that is the most honest comment I've heard in a long time!

[moda253]

One deflated roof does not a collapsing stadium make. I don't think I ever heard "it's falling apart" as justification for replacement.

One???? ONE!?!?!?! The place was an absolute dump... Ok ignoring the fact that one is not the correct answer... it only takes ONE for thousands and thousands of people to be injured...

But here's the answer FIVE!

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Sports/201 ... fifth-time

Yes, clearly, the stadium was literally collapsing around spectators during games. And since those all appear to be snow related, it's not like a massive load of snow instantly appears on the roof to collapse it.

We're all in a race to the bottom with stadium financing. If every city in the country just stood up and said "we're fed up, build your own damn stadiums" then somehow magically the stadiums would still get built.

But here again we hear these same arguments about how we needed to do this to keep that, as if the discussion happens in a bubble where literally the only two options are spend $500 million in funny money on a stadium or or do nothing, when the reality is far more complex. Of course everybody wants their own stadium, nobody's going to argue that, given an infinite amount of money, that sports teams wouldn't choose to have their own stadiums. But we don't live in a world with infinite money.

The thing had been repaired 5 times! At some point it isn't worth keeping it up anymore. And yes public safety is a concern regardless of it failing for snow reasons or not. If you didn't see the place crumbling then you didn't spend much time in there because there were pieces of concrete that had to be patched and replaced regularly. The parking structure was falling to pieces. The concourses were an absolute disaster waiting to happen. The bathrooms were.... well disgusting because there simply weren't enough of them. The only thing the place had going for it was the sight lines. And that was with an outdated floor plan that was barely ADA compliant. The place was mold and rat infested and god knows what else.

And here we go with the money issue again. How much is it going to cost you or anyone else? How much after minusing any and all revenues that are generated and after minusing the amount of player and front office income tax over the next 30 years? how much? A handful of dollars?

[IllogicalJake]

One deflated roof does not a collapsing stadium make. I don't think I ever heard "it's falling apart" as justification for replacement.

One???? ONE!?!?!?! The place was an absolute dump... Ok ignoring the fact that one is not the correct answer... it only takes ONE for thousands and thousands of people to be injured...

But here's the answer FIVE!

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Sports/201 ... fifth-time

Yes, clearly, the stadium was literally collapsing around spectators during games. And since those all appear to be snow related, it's not like a massive load of snow instantly appears on the roof to collapse it.

You're really strawman-ing a lot of these arguments. Arguing an over-exaggerated version of the point is just avoiding arguing the actual point.

[FISHMANPET]

moda253 constructed the strawman of "it's falling apart" not me.

[IllogicalJake]

moda253 constructed the strawman of "it's falling apart" not me.

I dunno, there a half a million Google results for "Metrodome falling apart."