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.