Minnesota House passes financing plan for new Twins ballpark

AP on Yahoo ^ | 4/26/06 | Brian Bakst - ap

[NormsRevenge]

ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) -- The Minnesota House gave the Twins stadium hopes a big lift Wednesday, voting 76-55 in favor of an open-air ballpark that would be paid for mostly by taxpayers.

The focus now shifts to the state Senate, where the proposed increase in the county's sales tax could run into some early trouble. The Senate Taxes Committee, headed by a lawmaker opposed to the plan, will begin its deliberations on Thursday.

The downtown Minneapolis stadium project would cost $522 million -- three-fourths from a higher Hennepin County sales tax -- and would allow the Twins to leave the Metrodome, their home since 1982 and the place where they've clinched two World Series crowns.

"We're overwhelmed by it," Jerry Bell, president of Twins Sports, Inc., said of the vote. "It was more votes than we expected." Bell was in the gallery during the voting and gave high-fives to other team officials when the vote came down.

In the House chamber, one legislator had a baseball jersey draped over his chair and another had a Kirby Puckett figurine on his desk. Outside the chamber, Bell paced like an expectant father during the debate that lasted more than seven hours.

Twins owner Carl Pohlad would be required to put $130 million into the project upfront before the stadium opens and annual payments for upkeep. They expect the building to generate $40 million a year for the franchise.

Even with House consent, there is no guarantee the Senate will pass identical language on the stadium bill.

In fact, the chairman of the Senate Taxes Committee has hinted he'll put forward an alternative financing plan. Sen. Larry Pogemiller, DFL-Minneapolis, has scheduled a Thursday hearing on the bill. His committee is comprised of several lawmakers who have expressed concern with the current bill.

If there are any differences, the House would have to vote again once a compromise is struck.

If the bill passes this year, the Twins say the new ballpark would open in time for the 2010 season.

[DrDavid]

The only upside is that the tax is being levied without a vote upon more DFLers than Republicans.

Personally, I'd like to see a $0.01 tax per copy of the Red Star to fund the stadium. The paper benefits greatly from the presence of pro sports and puts little into it..

[KurtZ]

Allow me to express an opposing viewpoint, which I'm sure many of you disagree with. While I generally do not support most public funding for private organizations, I think sports teams might be an exception. The cold hard fact of the matter is if Minnesota does not build a new stadium, we could loose the Twins. The Metrodome is possibly the worst ballpark in the country, and while I do have many good memories there, baseball is to be played outdoors on grass IMO. 2 cents out of every $20 spent until the stadium is payed off is a small price to pay for the amount of entertainment the Twins organization provides to us Minnesotans. If you don't like it, well, vote with your feet I guess. After all, its the Minnesota Twins, not the Carl Pohlad Twins.

[DakotaGator]

They expect the building to generate $40 million a year for the franchise.

If this is such a great deal then the Twins can take out a loan to build the stadium and then pay it off with the revenues generated.

Bottom line, it's a waste of taxpayers' money.

[SoDak]

I'm happy it's being built, and will pay the tax when I visit. I've seen far worse things done with 2 pennies on a $20.

[Valin]

"We're overwhelmed by it," Jerry Bell, president of Twins Sports, Inc.,


So am I Oh boy I get to give my money to one of the richest people in the country so he can build a stadium...be still my beating heart.

"Nobody's life, liberty or property is safe while Congress is in session."

[Valin]

Have the Hennepin County taxpayers voted on this?

NO. The Hennipin county board is seeking an excemption from the law that requires county voters from voteing on this. The reason is it would fail overwhelmingly if it was put to a vote.

[dfwgator]

It's no coinkidink that the Viqueens haven't been back to the Super Bowl since they left the Met. Playing in those conditions in December definately gave them a huge advantage.

[clodkicker]

Not possible but maybe Minnesota should buy the Twinkies (ala Green Bay) so they couldn't move.

[Wurlitzer]

No taxpayer funding for ANY sports facility! Let the free market forces work. If the owner or team builds the stadium then lets see how many million dollar offers are made to the players. The only reason these steroid filled ego centric clowns can get these huge salaries is that the tax payers are footing the bill for the stadiums no matter if they never attend a single game.

If a team can build a stadium, fill the stands at $X/seat, get $Y in TV revenue and still pay the players $XX,XXX,XXX then wonderful for everyone involved.

I on the other hand do not like paying for a stadium that I will not attend so that players can get more money then I will ever earn, use drugs, swear on TV, be excused for all sorts of crimes, on and on and on.

[kidd]

I worked as an usher for the Twins when they played at Metropolitan Stadium in Bloomington. I saw hundreds of games there.

The stadium was bare-bones, but the seats were cheap, comfortable and unobstructed.

Parking was cheap and plentiful - and tailgating was part of the experience.

While its good that they're going back to an open air stadium, the enjoyment of the fans will not increase one iota - in fact they can expect to pay even more to see a 0.400 team. And I really doubt that parking will be cheap and plentiful in Minneapolis

Why don't the legislators go one step further and give the Twins some money to buy some established talent at taxpayers expense, rather than relying on rookies and the farm teams and hope they get lucky - that would do more to improve fan enjoyment than a new stadium...and its just as ridiculous as giving the owner a new stadium.

[MNlurker]

I may be one of the few that agrees with you here... ;)

Couple of questions as I can't remember if I heard them correctly or not.

1. Isn't the tax to pay for the Metrodome still on the books even though that stadium has been paid for for years? If true (and I thought it was) why isn't anybody saying a thing about this?

2. Nobody discusses the fact that opposing teams have to pay MN state taxes on paychecks received. The State never mentions the rewards they have reaped from that for years. That's why I don't have a problem with Pohlad. The State of Minnesota has enjoyed a tax stream they don't have to answer to their constituents for.

I love baseball but have not gone to a game in 3 years because the stadium is an embarrasment (and refuse to sit indoors during the MN summer). Personally I think a larger tax on beer and food in the downtown area bars and resturants would work better ($.05 more per drink? Is anyone really going to complain?).

[NormsRevenge]

I remember going to a late season game against the Rams there with my brother in the mid or late 50s or so, it snowed and snowed, ya couldn't see the field .. great game, the Vikes even won.

I played in a blizzard or two or close to it, love outdoors fields, anytime of the year.

[KurtZ]

People have to look at this as an investment for Hennipen County. The tax revenue a new stadium will generate will eventually outweigh the cost.

[WorkingClassFilth]

Yep, we're a 'shall issue' state and good thing, too. With all the Trotskyite politicians, union thugs and what-not communists, it is a good thing that the citizens ARE armed.

[IslandJeff]

Despite the ridiculous cost overruns (and Seattle voters rejecting it, only to be overridden by the State), Safeco Field has just about paid for itself already. Of course, I'm a baseball fan, so take my primary assessment accordingly.

Certainly, the SoDo area (SOuth of DOwntown) has improved. It was the roof on the damned thing that ran the cost way up, but the "Public Stadium Authority" had its reasons, I suppose.

What about the Vikings?

[Rembrandt]

"Allow me to express an opposing viewpoint, which I'm sure many of you disagree with. While I generally do not support most public funding for private organizations, I think sports teams might be an exception. The cold hard fact of the matter is if Minnesota does not build a new stadium, we could loose the Twins. The Metrodome is possibly the worst ballpark in the country, and while I do have many good memories there, baseball is to be played outdoors on grass IMO. 2 cents out of every $20 spent until the stadium is payed off is a small price to pay for the amount of entertainment the Twins organization provides to us Minnesotans. If you don't like it, well, vote with your feet I guess. After all, its the Minnesota Twins, not the Carl Pohlad Twins."


If Minnie a no place loses the Twins, that would be a shame. BUT, save Hubert's!!!!

[KurtZ]

Yeah, the Vikes should get a new stadium too. Ziggi Wilf is going one better, though. He's going to invest $1 billion worth of businesses surrounding the Viking Stadium. Now why he can't take that $1 billion and invest it in a new stadium is beyond me.

[IslandJeff]

It's a dangerous game they play: one team gets public funding, the next demands the same thing (Sonics now onscreen). In the case of Football Seattle, the City was never involved, and the Seahawks (Paul W. Allen) put up a legitimate share of upfront cash, due, primarily, to the fact that the facility only hosts ten dates a year, while Washington and Seattle can clean up on 81 M's dates.

It seems to have all worked out, though, admittedly, a little voice inside me screams "corporate welfare". Culture is culture, I suppose. I'd rather rejuvenate neighborhoods and have accountable public employees (to a point) than continue to dump money into ratholes like "public education". Good luck with the Twins and Vikes. I've always liked both teams, and the Twin Cities are probably similar to Seattle. If nothing else, politically.