Vikings stadium clears final hurdle

  • Article by: ERIC ROPER , Star Tribune
  • Updated: May 25, 2012 - 9:36 AM

The 7-6 vote represents a political victory for Minneapolis mayor. A foe called it a huge corporate subsidy.

  • 67
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
DufferHMay. 24, 12 9:55 PM

This vote does not "seal the deal." The whole bill will face a lot of court challenges before it becomes a reality.

10
56
twelvegaugeMay. 24, 1210:21 PM

sorry duffer but it wont. who is going to shell out that kind of money to fight it when it will be less to pay it? its as good as done. good job minneapolis, way to step up.

49
13
elo_62May. 24, 1210:22 PM

Golly, still no word from the Vikings on PSLs, ticket costs, etc. for the new stadium. Not sure how the legislature and city could pass the new stadium without the Vikings totally disclosing what the costs would be for fans and the general public. I am happy about the new stadium being built but an extremely disappointed that Vikings ownership has declared war on the fans.

11
29
turgidMay. 24, 1210:37 PM

"The momentous nature of the debate was not lost on council members, who frequently wondered aloud how it would be viewed by future generations"... Considering the NFL will tell us to tear it down before it's paid for, I doubt future generations will even know we had such a thing.

14
25
mconedMay. 24, 1210:48 PM

Thank you for creating the best situation to get the highest return on investments already made by the state in downtown Minneapolis. Most notably light rail. The Vikes will get the $ from their customers however they can. I wonder what the captive audience will have saved in event parking fees in Arden Hills?

11
9
ottlukkMay. 24, 1210:54 PM

aahhh. The Minneapolis City Council is going to lower the taxes of their constiutuents by agreeing to pay $785 million dollars in support of a private entity that could pay for it themselves? Minneapolis taxpayers "own" the stadium, but the hundredss of millions in naming rights go to the Vikings/NFL? Where is the legislator who has the courage to insist that the Vikings/NFL cover all shortfalls from the "fairy dust" that is electronic pulltab gambling? This sell-out of the taxpayers will be a case study in business schools for years to come.

19
26
swannyriversMay. 24, 1211:03 PM

Done deal! Build it baby!

40
17
johnramboMay. 24, 1211:06 PM

I'm glad it finally passed. Still very puzzled why it had to be a billion dollars. The state really has noone to blame but themselves. Could have gotten this done years ago for far less money. Racino would have been the perfect funding mechanism had we not already sold our souls to the Indian tribes.

34
11
PBJMay. 24, 1211:30 PM

wow new fancy dancy stadium but the same old losers for a team

12
31
tsinakisMay. 24, 1211:56 PM

(The following is from somebody earlier today who I thought told the facts perfectly.) To recap for some of you who still don't seem to get it: the city share is from an existing sale tax, which is collected in Mpls, but which the state controls. Currently, only a portion of the tax goes to pay for the Convention Center, and the state is keeping the rest. The City of Mpls doe not control where that tax money can be spent. Hence, the money is under state control. The legislature just passed a bill allowing that tax to continue after 2020, and allowing the city to use of part of the tax to help fund a new stadium, and to pay for Target Center improvements. By getting Target Center debt off of property tax support, property taxes can be modestly decreased. So: 1) Between now and 2020, there will be absolutely no difference in sales taxes, with or without the new stadium, and we will get some small property tax relief. 2) At least between now and 2020 more of the taxes collected will be used in Minneapolis, not just getting turned over the state. 3) There would have been the potential for a tax break after 2020. Whether that would have happened, or there would have simply been some other use put forward to continue the tax is a matter of speculation; the history of taxes suggests that it would have been renewed anyway, to fund something else. 4) It is not City of Minneapolis tax money being spent, hence no triggering of the charter-mandated vote. 5) 4 is moot point, because state law can and in this case does supercede the city charter, just like a federal law can supercede a state law. It may not seem fair, but is is clearly legal.

24
8

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