Divided Minneapolis council now at center of Vikings stadium debate

  • Article by: ERIC ROPER and MIKE KASZUBA , Star Tribune staff writers
  • Updated: January 20, 2012 - 5:13 PM

3 of the 13 members back mayor's plan to redirect existing sales taxes.

  • 115
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
wyovikingJan. 19, 1210:42 PM

I hope the council supports the Mayor's plan. The Vikings belong in Minnesota.

sfod93Jan. 19, 1210:43 PM

How about gambling and legalized prostitution to pay for the stadium... why not?

RossbergJan. 19, 1210:54 PM

The obvious question which will come up is "Why would the Legislature grant a referendum waiver for Minneapolis but not for Ramsey County?" Good luck trying to get that passed.

doobiechadJan. 19, 1211:19 PM

Not likely, Linden Ave.-c'mon man! This looks like our secondary. Tear down the dome, level the Trib and the old vets memorial. New stadium at the dome site with expanded tailgaing. Therefore I won't have to change the address on my garmin.

rshacklefordJan. 19, 1211:32 PM

"Rybak and City Council President Barb Johnson have proposed redirecting existing sales taxes to pay for the local share of a new stadium and want the Legislature to override a requirement that gives voters a say." Redirection of an existing tax is considered a NEW TAX as its new purpose was not approved by the people. Do you not understand that Rybak? And, an override of the voters' legally written say? If you have to SEEK an override, you definitely know you're doing something wrong!

rshacklefordJan. 19, 1211:46 PM

"...Kevin Reich, prefers the Metrodome site. But he is concerned about overriding another charter requirement -- that the public must vote on stadiums that cost the city more than $10 million." Well, someone on the council that recognizes the peoples' rights! Well done Reich.

sharkysharkJan. 19, 1211:54 PM

Just say NO to any public funding of any new stadiums.

jackstpaul4Jan. 19, 1211:57 PM

It's ridiculous that Mpls and Dayton are proposing to bypass Mpls voters on the city's use of taxes to pay for the stadium. If it doesn't violate the LETTER of the law requiring a referendum, it certainly violates the SPIRIT of the law. Which is just as bad for for a democracy--it's anti-democratic. The double-standard demonstrated By Dayton--Arden Hills can't be built because voters won't approve it and the legislature won't let them bypass the referendum,but it's OK for Mpls to ignore the voters and not hav a referendum is appalling. One standard applied equally, Gov. Dayton and legislators.

rshacklefordJan. 19, 1211:57 PM

"Senjem said that once stadium legislation is introduced, naming a location and a funding plan, legislators would "chug and churn on it." ---- Meaning they would discuss it privately amongst themselves and horse trade projects in their own interests. I'll vote yes for your district's taxpayer stadium funding if you give me my NW Minnesota project's money. Chug and churn... Nice way to put it. Do us all right by doing right thing. No more public funding for professional sports. Just because other teams have gotten away with it does not make it right. It needs to stop now.

brokenglassJan. 20, 1212:01 AM

The proposed shell game converting convention center taxes to a stadium won't be enough to cover Minneapolis' contribution. Not enough cash flow to bond the amount needed for the city's share of the construction cost. Build it in Arden Hills, and fund state and local costs with gambling. Let's go.


Comment on this story   |  


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