Allianz Field and Snelling-Midway Development

[acs]

^Oh come on now, that was just blatant. Yellow card for you.

[twincitizen]

Sounds like the House Taxes Committee will take up the tax exemptions bill today: http://finance-commerce.com/2016/04/hou ... r-stadium/

Worst case scenario is the GOP tries to wage some weird culture war against soccer. Otherwise this shouldn't have too much difficulty. We already know the Senate and Governor Dayton are supportive.

EDIT: If you're a super soccer nerd, the hearing might be live streamed at 10:15 http://theuptake.org/live-channel/uptak ... 2-channel/

[KML_1981]

Informational only hearing.. We won't know if this passes or not until the very end of session. No tax bill, and this could be in trouble. Very unlikely this moves on its own.

[cascadia]

Informational only hearing.. We won't know if this passes or not until the very end of session. No tax bill, and this could be in trouble. Very unlikely this moves on its own.

From what I've been seeing from a distance, I get the impression there is little chance this won't happen. If it does end up getting killed off because of NIMBYism, I'll be greatly saddened.

Also, I wonder if some of the complainers forget that part of the reason it's being proposed where it's being proposed is access to the LRT lines? Let's compare Seattle Sounders FC here to Colorado Rapids. First stadium, Century Link Field, is in downtown Seattle, close access to transit, Sound Transit purposefully runs special trains for most home games. The result is while some people drive downtown and park, it's usually limited to families and people who aren't using their noggins. Compare to Dicks Sporting Goods Park, which is in Commerce City, really no transit infrastructure to speak of, and as a result traffic and parking are both nightmares.

Hell, I'm looking at finding housing so I can avoid driving period, much less to MNFC home games, which if budget allows I'll be attending many. Take a train/bus, hit a pub, march to the match, enjoy the match, train/bus home. I have a suspicion you're going to see many people avoiding driving to the stadium like the plague.

While a match is going to make traffic in the area worse for the duration of the event, it will be limited but more importantly it will be even more limited due to the close-at-hand transportation option.

[acs]

FWIW, the team and McGuire have been exceedingly progressive so far with regards to transportation. No parking ramps planned, encouraging a mixed use site, telling fans to take transit and making bike accommodations. They aren't the problem. The city has been more hesitant due to some pushback from neighbors but Mayor Coleman has always been more progressive than the council as a whole with transportation.

[cascadia]

I do think they're a little short sighted on the 'no parking ramps' idea. There should be one, as part of the mixed use site. Game day parking fees can then be set to make driving something you think 4 times about. A little bit of compromise doesn't invalidate the larger idea, nor would I think it would encourage more car use. "We have exactly 150 spaces. They cost $50 each the day of a match." Outside of match days, the businesses would have access to that resource.

[KML_1981]

The NIMBYism isn't affecting the debate at the Capitol at all. It is more the politics of the House Republicans wanting a large tax cut (with this in that bill) and the Democrats reluctance to allow a tax cut in order to get a stadium. To democrats, it could be better to have no tax bill at all, thus killing this proposal..

[amiller92]

I do think they're a little short sighted on the 'no parking ramps' idea. There should be one, as part of the mixed use site. Game day parking fees can then be set to make driving something you think 4 times about. A little bit of compromise doesn't invalidate the larger idea, nor would I think it would encourage more car use. "We have exactly 150 spaces. They cost $50 each the day of a match." Outside of match days, the businesses would have access to that resource.

If it's a resource, the businesses can build it.

[cascadia]

I do think they're a little short sighted on the 'no parking ramps' idea. There should be one, as part of the mixed use site. Game day parking fees can then be set to make driving something you think 4 times about. A little bit of compromise doesn't invalidate the larger idea, nor would I think it would encourage more car use. "We have exactly 150 spaces. They cost $50 each the day of a match." Outside of match days, the businesses would have access to that resource.

If it's a resource, the businesses can build it.

That's the responsibility of the site owner/developer, not the individual businesses.

[Tyler]

Responsibility?

[EOst]

If it's a resource, the businesses can build it.

If only there were some collective entity that could help coordinate it and defray some of the costs. I don't know, a "city" or something.

[FISHMANPET]

If it's a resource, the businesses can build it.

If only there were some collective entity that could help coordinate it and defray some of the costs. I don't know, a "city" or something.

If only there were some collective entity that could arbitrarily shovel money into a particular business. I don't know, a "city" or something.

[EOst]

If only there were some collective entity that could arbitrarily shovel money into a particular business. I don't know, a "city" or something.

Yes, heaven forfend that a city should invest in shared infrastructure which would benefit businesses in the city.

[FISHMANPET]

Yes, heaven forbid that a city should invest in infrastructure which would benefit one arbitrary business in the city.

[cascadia]

Oh look! A back-and-forth that isn't witty or furthering discussion!

The stadium plan, from what I've seen, is going to be a nice asset to the area in terms of commerce. It should stand that the asset try to be slightly less of a burden than it otherwise could be. The city should help defray some of the costs of something that's going to be a major attraction and development, and the developers should be kicking in.

In short, perhaps players involved should try to work together instead of against one another.

[FISHMANPET]

Snark aside, if the parking ramp is economically beneficial, then it would make financial sense for the developer to finance it. Especially since they're going to be able to capture all the "benefit" from it. The fact they aren't building it means it doesn't make financial sense for them. And if it doesn't make financial sense for them, it doesn't make financial sense for the city.

So we're left with the idea of the city subsidizing parking for a sports stadium because... why? Because sports?

[RailBaronYarr]

Especially since these things are also true:

- The Green Line and A Line provide pretty good alternatives to driving (even if not as good or convenient as Target Field/US Bank Stadium)
- There exist surface parking options within walking distance that could be contracted on game days (or, gasp, workdays)
- The owners have stated that providing shuttles from nearby ample surface parking is feasible
- There are actually city streets with plenty of on-street parking within reasonable walking distance, none of which is owned by the people owning houses fronting it

I don't think anyone on this board would argue that a public entity should never invest in "shared infrastructure," just that parking ramps are very expensive, take up a good amount of land, don't pay property taxes (when city-owned), and are expensive to maintain. When you've got the 4 things going for you AND the private developer isn't pushing parking, why not roll with it and let someone build a ramp as the Midway area redevelops and a market need for it emerges?

[amiller92]

If it's a resource, the businesses can build it.

If only there were some collective entity that could help coordinate it and defray some of the costs. I don't know, a "city" or something.

For structured parking that not even the developer thinks is necessary? Why would a city do that?

[amiller92]

It should stand that the asset try to be slightly less of a burden than it otherwise could be.

It's an asset and a burden? Okay.

In short, perhaps players involved should try to work together instead of against one another.

Except the ones interested in building parking are made up. As is, no one is working against anyone else.

[cascadia]

It should stand that the asset try to be slightly less of a burden than it otherwise could be.

It's an asset and a burden? Okay.

Yes, something can be both an asset and a burden. If I'm hungry, 500 pounds of potatoes is a win. 500 pounds of potatoes that I then have to haul is now also a burden.

In short, perhaps players involved should try to work together instead of against one another.

Except the ones interested in building parking are made up. As is, no one is working against anyone else.

I don't think the residents of the area are made up.

I don't think anyone on this board would argue that a public entity should never invest in "shared infrastructure," just that parking ramps are very expensive, take up a good amount of land, don't pay property taxes (when city-owned), and are expensive to maintain. When you've got the 4 things going for you AND the private developer isn't pushing parking, why not roll with it and let someone build a ramp as the Midway area redevelops and a market need for it emerges?

And that's a fine solution. I personally feel it's short sighted for the developer to not include some parking ramp into the design of a large facility like that. I've gotten quite used to folks basically thinking they can kill the automobile by pretending it doesn't exist. It's not going to work. I personally would include a ramp within a mixed use site, with commercial and residential around it and over it, with the ramp being a core of the building for a few levels open to the public.