Sign feud could block Downtown East project near Vikings stadium

  • Article by: Eric Roper , Star Tribune
  • Updated: December 6, 2013 - 5:55 AM

As more details are revealed, Wells Fargo and the Vikings remain at odds over signs near the new stadium.

  • 57
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
oyoo15Dec. 5, 13 8:28 PM

So the story accounts for over $70 million in public funds toward Ryan and Well Fargo's "investment, and there are surely more public dollars embedded. We Minneapolis residents are borrowing to acquire and knock down the Star Tribune building, which is a cost it seems like Ryan and/or Wells should pay. Otherwise why are we paying $18 million to build a $1 million park (a third of which we are giving to Ryan so they can develop it)? For a park that will primarily benefit Wells Fargo employees and Ryan's tenants? Who knows what other public funds are embedded in Ryan's "costs" or Wells' agreement to move in, or the rearrangement of infrastructure. All that money plus what Minnesotans are giving the Wilfs for a stadium - all toward subsidizing the Wilfs and Wells Fargo and Ryan Construction. Quite a needy trio indeed. As the Strib writes these articles and politicians go into self-congratulatory mode, the immense public costs for these largely private gains should not be forgotten.

49
15
mnpls123Dec. 5, 13 8:42 PM

Why do the Queeners even get a vote. The city can develop the land as they see fit.

69
6
oyoo15Dec. 5, 13 9:01 PM

The Vikings get a controlling vote because the public servants who negotiated this deal gave them veto power over the use of public funds in exchange for giving them hundreds of billions of dollars.

53
5
freedubayDec. 5, 13 9:10 PM

This is kind of like when the Twins went berserk when Stanford Insurance sign appeared on Target Center. The Twinks claimed it ruined the view in reality the Twinks were ticked they didn't think of it first and get the money. Same here for Wilf, he wants all the pie.

79
4
liberallymnDec. 5, 13 9:18 PM

"Demolition of the Star Tribune headquarters." Best part of the whole story. Put this rag to rest, or maybe they can write out Senator Al Franken now and then instead of keeping him in cold storage until next December.

11
59
lakevilleguyDec. 5, 13 9:34 PM

Wow, one day into it and our Viking "partners" are now wanting to derail a major new development because it's not in their interest. Hmmm...we have a major corporation that brings hundreds (perhaps thousands) of good, full time jobs to this state being blocked by a small business that mostly provides crappy, minimum wage jobs 10 days (actually 30 hours) a year. If they block this then the stadium should be stopped.

75
7
sidhartmannDec. 5, 13 9:47 PM

Greed, greed, greed.

65
2
ajnaguyDec. 5, 13 9:50 PM

Anyone who has read the Wilf's profile in the New York Observer will recognize both the tactics and the sneering derision behind them.

54
3
drudgemonkeyDec. 5, 13 9:56 PM

This is the part that is so funny…this part of the project will never be built, as the Vikings will not give in to Wells Fargo's signage demands. You what that means? Another Metrodome. A stadium with no development around it. A Billion Bucks doesn't buy much anymore!

40
4
mnlifeDec. 5, 1310:01 PM

This is ridiculous. The rooftop sign would be seen for 1-2 seconds at a time on TV if visible at all depending on the camera angle.

60
4

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

question of the day

Poll: Can the Wild rally to win its playoff series against Colorado?

Weekly Question

ADVERTISEMENT