4.08.2010

Vikings deal near?

Vikings stadium deal is heating up in Legislature

Excerpt:

A deal to build a new Vikings stadium seems to be gathering momentum at the State Capitol, with a top DFL senator saying Wednesday that "most of the pieces" of a legislative proposal were "pretty much drafted."

Senate Taxes Chairman Tom Bakk, DFL-Cook, said that he has been working on the bill with others and that there is "plenty of time" to pass it before the Legislature adjourns in mid-May.

Earlier in the day, Vikings President Mark Wilf told a group of business leaders that he was "confident" the National Football League team would be able to strike a deal to obtain public subsidies to build a new stadium.

The behind-the-scenes maneuvering for a controversial $870 million stadium appears to be intensifying, even though no formal legislation has been introduced.

Lester Bagley, who directs the Vikings' stadium development efforts, said Wednesday that a public subsidy request by the team would likely include "a number of different revenue streams" and that legislative leaders along with local business officials were privately conferring over which package would likely get the most support.

There's "progress every day about sorting out how and when to position the issue, and move it forward," Bagley said.

The Vikings' lease at the Metrodome expires after the 2011 season, and team officials have said they will not consider an extension without a stadium deal.

In recent months, the team has broadly outlined a proposal to possibly use a metro-wide hospitality tax, divert sales taxes already generated by the team and perhaps even obtain federal stimulus money to help build the stadium.

Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who has increasingly commented on the need to find a stadium solution, floated the idea in February of using proceeds from a state lottery game.


Comment: My own wish, is that any deal that involves new taxes be taken before the voters. I would vote "no"

3 comments:

  1. When the Anoka County board had voted in favor of contributing up to $220 million for a stadium built in Blaine, I had to shake my head at some of the justifications for raising that money via a county-wide sales tax. One of them was that because other communities already have extra taxes to pay for various projects, the tax would simply "put the county at the same level as everyone else." Yep, let's raise taxes just because it's lower than other places.

    Although overall I think a stadium would have been good for the economy in that area, I'm not in favor of paying for things like this with taxes.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Given that the stadium bills are always because "the old stadium doesn't have luxury boxes," it completely floors me that politicians don't just fall back on populist/class war instincts and tell the owners that if they want to make luxury boxes for corporate titans, they can do it on their own dime.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Really what it comes down to is that stadium bills are always because the owner of the team doesn't make "enough" money in the current facility. Unfortunately, professional sports teams are seen as such a quality of life necessity for a "real" city or state to offer its residents, that it's justifiable in some minds to make those residents pay for it (whether they use the facility or not).

    ReplyDelete

Any anonymous comments with links will be rejected. Please do not comment off-topic