Gambling is back in the mix for stadium

  • Article by: MIKE KASZUBA and BAIRD HELGESON , Star Tribune staff writers
  • Updated: October 26, 2011 - 7:34 AM

Plans to build a casino in downtown Minneapolis or install slot machines at horse racing tracks are re-emerging at the Capitol as possible funding sources for a new Vikings stadium.

  • 43
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
wplettfanOct. 22, 1110:09 PM

Why not. People don't have to go there if they don't want to. It's user choice. Let's get this done.

57
12
snoebirdOct. 22, 1111:08 PM

Perhaps Mayor Rybak could be mollified with a portion of the casino revenue being earmarked for a Target Center renovation. And perhaps a new Saints ballpark in Lowertown would make the project more palatable to Mayor Coleman. Construction workers in Hennepin and Ramsey counties would be very grateful if this were to happen. Just think how much business a Block E casino would have done this weekend with thousands of visitors from Nebraska and Wisconsin in town.

38
7
bhappyOct. 22, 1111:24 PM

If Ryback opposes it, then they will build a casino in St. Paul, which will likely welcome this if it reduces the Ramsey County sales tax and brings more visitors to St. Paul. Ryback does not seem to understand he does not have a strong hand in this game. He is probably going to lose not only the Vikings but more. He has been outfoxed time and time again. Is he really this short sighted?

30
7
pitythefoolsOct. 22, 1111:48 PM

As long as Wilf has to pay for any shortfall in the "projected" revenues from these sources I'm all for it. Minnesota is saturated with gambling already. Adding more gambling won't change the amount people will spend on gambling. So at best this will simply transfer money from the Indian tribes to the State. When that fails to meet expectations, as long as the taxpayer isn't stuck with the bill, go for it.

29
6
LandsharkOct. 22, 1111:49 PM

Why not simply put electronic gaming in bars in conjunction with Minnesota charities. Bada Bing, Bada Boom, New Revenue for Minnesota and no New Taxes.

26
9
effinheimerOct. 23, 11 6:00 AM

The Mayor's concerns are undoubtedly focused on pathological gambling which effects a small percentage of the population, including some who can least afford it. Pathological gamblers will always find a game, and it is doubtful that the number of casinos available would significantly increase the number of pathological gamblers. A downtown casino in Minneapolis seems like a reasonable stadium funding solution in a state where there seems to be a lot of resistance to increased taxes for this purpose,

23
7
nitewindOct. 23, 11 6:55 AM

Instead of giving the proceeds to Wilf, how about we do something else with it.....maybe, pay off our 5 BILLION dollar deficit? For crying out loud people, this guy doesn't need nor deserve any funds from the state.

14
29
highlife75Oct. 23, 11 6:56 AM

pitythefools - For once I totally agree with you. I see no other way to get this done, the Native Americans are not going to give up their monopoly without a fight, but they will still have great opportunity even with a little competition for their exclusive market, besides they are already established and have had a huge head start. The fight for gambeling revenue will be a bonus for the gambelers, more perks, better pay outs, and a choice of where their loss will do the most good.

32
3
gking2mnOct. 23, 11 7:43 AM

the tribes monopoly would not stand up in the appeals let alone the supreme court, it was already tried in i belive in AZ.Ramsey county should not carry the tax burden for a small town development, how many poele wouldn go out shopping or eating in arden hills when there is no game that day.

13
4
RossbergOct. 23, 11 7:48 AM

Putting a casino in downtown St. Paul is actually not a bad idea. It at least partially defuses the argument from the tribes about competition with Mystic Lake since it would be farther away than a Minneapolis casino or a Canterbury Racino plus the light rail would give it good public accessibility. Of course, it probably wouldn't get many more votes because anti-gambling and pro-tribe legislators will be opposed to any new gambling. It is the only plan, though, that has public support and gambling will ultimately expand someday so this is as good a reason for it to do so as any.

23
0

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT