Show time? Not for a mall dinner theater

  • Article by: MIKE KASZUBA and SUSAN FEYDER , Star Tribune staff writers
  • Updated: May 21, 2008 - 1:54 AM

Chanhassen theater says legislators excluded it from MOA expansion to keep it from leaving present home.

  • 10
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
  • 1 - 10 of 10
kmantogoMay. 21, 08 6:58 AM

There have already been enough state subsidies for the MOA and other entities like, oh, say, Northwest. If Chanhassen wants to offer a special incentive to keep the Dinner Theatre in town, that's the city's business. Clearly the Dinner Theatre has a positive impact on the local Chanhassen economy. But why should the rest of us support any incentive to make a potential Dinner Theatre move to the MOA any easier? I've already seen enough of my tax dollars wasted on stadiums, airlines and somebody else's pet projects. Here's an idea, what say we put some of that into education?

22
6
swschradMay. 21, 08 7:25 AM

but looking at the things republicans state and national are being caught in, not surprised a bit.

2
12
lmwitt69May. 21, 08 8:27 AM

The legislature should not have to subsidize any private business. The MOA should have to go it alone not with tax dollars. Yes, the Carver County republican reps are generally sleazebags, but at least Hoppe got this one right.

3
8
calliarcaleMay. 21, 08 1:13 PM

...this doesn't just prevent state subsidies for the dinner theater. It prevents MOA from getting any subsidies *even if the theater moves there on its own dime*. Really, what raises my hackles about this change is not the whole public subsidy for private business thing, which bugs me anyway. It's the fact that it was done at the 11th hour, although the theater move has been in the works for months. I cannot imagine that the legislature only now realized that it would mean the Chanhassen Dinner Theater moving out of Chanhassen. The only reason they could've waited until now was so as to prevent any meaningful discourse on the addition. These sorts of last-minute changes to bills that everybody's already agreed on smack of fudging the purpose of representative democracy.

7
1
peastman1May. 21, 08 4:14 PM

It doesn't make any sense for us to pay to move a Minnesota business. If a new theater wanted to move in from out of state, that may be worth supplementing, but why give away tax dollars to Chanhassen Dinner Theater when they are already here?

1
2
MorecambMay. 22, 08 6:39 AM

The Chanhassen Dinner Theaters have always opperated splendidly without public subsidy. This is an amazing acheivment in theater. Why dim its spotlight with the political strings that come with such a subsidy for a more or anything. The Chan Theaters are culturally (if unusually, grounded in the SW suburbs -- its part of that fine operations cache and mystique that it benefits from.

1
1
rspauldingMay. 22, 08 9:09 AM

This language also prevents the mall from sucking all the energy - at taxpayer expense - from the venues in downtown St. Paul and Minneapolis. The Mall could use the theater to attract acts as "loss leaders", and further cut down the downtowns. I prefered the world when everything wasn't ultimately owned and controled by sociopathic brothers named Ghermazian.

1
1
jurbanekMay. 22, 0810:47 AM

We need to look to the long term future -- which is an investment in our children and their education -- not the profit margin of people who already are living lives most of us can only imagine.

0
1
GalliganSMay. 24, 0812:46 PM

Scallen should call his theatre company a baseball team so Republicans would trip over themselves raising taxes to build him a stadium. Any bridges that would need reinforcing to ensure safe passage for taxpayers would be another issue, however.

0
0
MRUZEKMay. 27, 0810:46 AM

To allow movies theaters and other forms of entertainment, while specifically disallowing theaters, is downright discriminatory. Yes, take out language that is so narrow it specifically describes Chanhassen, but do not substitute language that disallows all live theater. Theaters should be able to relocate (including Chanhassen Dinner Theater) and the Mall could definitely benefit from a theater. Restricting commerce in this way is very dangerous. This is not really about subsidies. This needs to be fixed. I have to think that the last minute insertion of this was simply petty. Last minute, impulsive lawmaking is seldom good lawmaking. I question the maturity of those who supported this.

2
0
  • 1 - 10 of 10

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