Mayo looks for jumpstart in Minnesota House committee

  • Article by: Associated Press
  • Updated: April 2, 2013 - 5:49 AM
  • 11
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
EleanoreApr. 2, 13 8:07 AM

No, pay for your own profit and standing, that is the american way.

2
2
thinkb4uspkApr. 2, 13 8:46 AM

@Elanore, Mayo will be paying the entire cost of their own expansion, they are simply seeking the State to pay for the surrounding infrastructural (i.e. roads, highways, sidewalks, etc.) that will become necessary to accommodate the larger Mayo campus. Unlike the wealthy owners of the Twins and the Vikings who sought state funding (and got it, by the way) to build their actual stadiums, Mayo is simply looking for the state to upgrade their own roads and highways. Plus, the state will always need healthcare - when have you ever felt that our state "needs" football or baseball? Mayo is a good investment for the state both in terms of jobs and commerce.

3
3
EleanoreApr. 2, 13 9:37 AM

"they are simply seeking the State to pay for the surrounding infrastructural (i.e. roads, highways, sidewalks, etc.) that will become necessary to accommodate the larger Mayo campus." - This is not a state responsibility, this is either a Mayo responsibility if we are talking infrastructure to serve private for profit or non-profit infrastructure amenities (as you claim it is), or a Rochester responsibility if it is focused on infrastructure amenities that the community NEEDS. The public Twins and potentially Vikings stadiums funding are unethical, criminal takings of private property for private profit. You really shouldn't be holding them up as examples to emulate anywhere if you want to justify state funding, it's simply not justifiable.

1
1
spenditallApr. 2, 13 9:45 AM

Until Mark Dayton figures out how to either cancel or pay for the new Vikings Stadium I suggest that the State defer funding on any additional large projects.

2
0
jjminblzrApr. 2, 13 9:45 AM

ELENORE "If it were not for Mayo", Minnesota would not need these infrastructure items. Mayo will receive "zero" from these funds! The taxpayers of Minnesota will benefit from an additional 20-40,000 new employees in Minnesota, all paying taxes. These will NOT BE low wage paying jobs for the most part. Mayo must compete with other Medical Clinics who have copied the Mayo Model of Care, AND HAVE RECEIVED LARGE AMOUNTS FROM THEIR STATES to compete with Mayo. It is either get better, get bigger, or get out of the way. Minnesota must select the right path for the state to grow, and for Mayo to continue to be the best in the World! Once again, this is NOT FOR MAYO! They are putting their own money in, NOT TAXPAYERS MONEY! Read the bill, Learn what is in the bill. THIS IS BEST FOR EVERYONE IN MINNESOTA!

1
2
spenditallApr. 2, 13 9:46 AM

Let's help them out and levy an additional tax on all owners of medical clinics to pay for this.

1
0
EleanoreApr. 2, 1310:15 AM

Another thing the locality could do would be create a new taxing district around the Mayo expansion area and levy an additional tax on anyone doing business there or operating within, or buying stuff from, that district. This would be just and a benefit to the community as it would pay for the improvements though fees derived only from those profiting from the improvements. How about you take that idea to the city council and run it around the block? The legislature is wasting Minnesota’s time when they consider another private subsidy for the Mayo expansion plan.

0
0
gemie1Apr. 2, 1310:23 AM

jjminblzr, the way for Mayo to be the best is in medical treatment and research. The powers that be at Mayo Clinic got very complacent the past 20 years and are now playing catch-up. This is the responsibility of Rochester and not the state to fix the roads. I also believe that in this time of a slow economic recovery, the owners of the Vikings could have waited until we had a more sustained economic recovery. The fact that the state cannot get its act together to appropriately fund the new stadium, says that they need to slow down and thoroughly look over each project. We do not have the money right now with a projected deficit and we have citizens in this state that are being taxed out of their homes.

1
0
thinkb4uspkApr. 2, 1310:48 AM

It is always interesting to me that when we are talking about Rochester, St. Cloud, Duluth, Mankato or other "out-state" cities needing state funding it is seen as something those communities should pay for themselves, while when it is in Minneapolis or St. Paul there is no mention of this. There is booming life outside of the twin cities, yet they get little to no recognition because they are not Mpls or St. Paul.

0
2
EleanoreApr. 2, 1311:06 AM

"THIS IS BEST FOR EVERYONE IN MINNESOTA!" - False. We have a right to responsible taxation for public use. This is not responsible for MN when we have NEEDS, in schools, in infrastructure to support ALL of MN. This proposal is asking for a subsidy to enrich the local area surrounding Mayo. The state answer must be no. Now the local answer may be yes, though I'd suggest that once you start allowing taxation for private profit there will never be an end and no one’s property will be safe. If you want to get to that we can but I'd guess you want to be superficial and promote benefit rather than justice in rule of law.

1
1

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

ADVERTISEMENT