You must be registered to comment and vote on comments.
Since the tax dollars are coming from the citizens of Minnesota, does this mean that no one will be turned away at the door who are seeking medical care? We know how this will help Rochester, create more jobs (hopefully) and bring in some tax money, but how does this improve the lives of every person living in this state? I wonder if there will be a class action suit by the other medical facilities in the state? How does the state government justify saying "no" to other towns and cities or businesses that want to expand and promise to create more jobs?
Subsidizing the profits (and non-profits) is simply not the job of all citizens to do. the state has zero responsibility for, or authority to, issue subsidies such as are being asked for here. When this goes throuigh9 because legislators believe themselves to be above the rule of law) we will have to provide subsidies to every single asker in MN. Don't think when my time of need comes that I'm not just going to write my own subsidy, as acts like this show me that I and everyone else am entitled to act outside the law in this area of subsidies. I think it's going to be a good one too.
What's wrong with this picture. We are willing to give the Vikings "public" money to play a game but we won't give an appropriate amount to save lives.
Gemie, if the other institutions ensure that none of the state assistance goes to them and they committ to ten times of reinvestment compared to tax payers with milestones in place prior to ant funding.....I am good with it. We are not subsidizing Mayo....we are investing in the State's third largest city in exchange for jobs. Where is the class action come into play? If the other town's can get their respective institutions to invest ten times then we are finally putting the tax payer dollars into a growth for all.
"We are willing to give the Vikings "public" money to play a game but we won't give an appropriate amount to save lives." -- The problem is that the majority of Minnesotans are NOT willing...that is why Ziggy, Dayton, Mondale, Ryback, the MPLS City Council and the Minnesota Legislature had to ram it down our throats. And now they are finally realizing that their underfunded mandate is woefully short of raising the revenue they need for this boondoggle.
How is this plan "better" for the taxpayer? So with this new deal the Minnesota Tax payer is on the hook for a bigger chunk of revenue.
A prime example of a double standard by our elected officials. They gave a sweet heart deal to the wealthy individual a build a building that will only be generating maxium income to the state a afew handful of dates throughout the year. Then there's a non profit organization that want to build facilties that would employ more people than the Vikings and do it 7 days a week! Would it have to do that the polictical views of Mpls & St Paul are the direct opposite of Rochester?
This is a jobs bill long term and short term. It is transit funding, for Rochester and the surrounding towns to improve ability to move patients and employees around. The net cost is 11,111 per permanent job added, per Mayo's estimate and that will be recovered in income taxes in about two years with the new jobs. As to the short term, the construction jobs and building jobs will create opportunity immediately. Compared to the stadium, this is a no brainer. The reason the bill is having issues is Senjem and his colleagues were such jerks to every other city an county in their two year reign of error. PAyback, but let's not lose sight of the long term. Make Rochester put more in and it will be win/win
Your comment is being reviewed for inclusion on the site.
Comments will be reviewed before being published.
425 Portland Av. S.
Minneapolis, MN 55488
© 2013 StarTribune. All rights reserved.
StarTribune.com is powered by Limelight Networks