http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2012/05/01/john-marty/
Why public funding for a Vikings stadium doesn't make sense
May 1, 2012
By John Marty
Sen. John Marty, DFL-Roseville, is serving his eighth term in the Minnesota Legislature. This commentary is adapted from an open letter he sent to his colleagues late last week.
I recognize that many legislators have strong positions on the Vikings stadium issue and many have been tracking the issue closely. However, there are a number of misconceptions about parts of the issue, and many unexamined assumptions that deserve an airing. Before we give $700 million to Zygi Wilf for a new stadium, here is some information that I hope you will consider
Size of the subsidy
To put this proposal into terms to which we can relate, as it passed out of the Senate Finance Committee this week, the legislation would provide public money in an amount equivalent to a $77.30 per ticket subsidy for each of the 65,000 seats at every Vikings home game. That's $77 in taxpayer funds for each ticket, at every game, including preseason ones, for the next 30 years.
That's a lot of money. Especially when many Minnesotans are struggling to make ends meet. This calculation is based on 65,000 seats in the new stadium, with 10 games per season (if you don't count preseason games, the subsidy is more than $96 in taxpayer funds per ticket), for 30 years. It counts the payments for the state and city share of debt service on the bonds, and the state payments for operating expense and for the capital reserve. The real number would actually be significantly higher, because this calculation does not include the value of the property tax exemption on the stadium and the parking ramps (this subsidy is worth at least $15 million to $20 million per year more, year after year) or the value of the sales tax exemption on stadium construction materials (if it is included in the final legislation).
snip..
Public funds can create construction jobs, but those projects should serve a public purpose, constructing public facilities, not subsidizing private business investors. The need to employ construction workers is not an excuse to subsidize wealthy business owners, especially when there is such great need for public infrastructure work.
snip...
To Zygi Wilf's credit, back in 2006, he promised to keep the team in Minnesota forever: "From Day One... I have promised that I would keep the team here in Minnesota forever..." When asked whether he planned to keep the team in Minnesota , whether we had a new stadium or not, he replied, "Yes, I've stated that from Day One.... all I can tell you is this, that I live by my commitment."
The only reason for this debate over a public subsidy is that many politicians think that Wilf will break his promise and move the team, or sell it.
Both of the stadium financing proposals in Los Angeles are privately funded, without taxpayer money. Under one proposal, the investors would give the land to the team and the team owner would build a stadium without public money. Under the other, investors would build the stadium for the owner. Both L.A. proposals use revenues generated by the stadium to pay for the stadium, and the team owner gets the left-over revenue after paying for the stadium.
= new reply since forum marked as read
