Reply #59: They financed the Guthrie "without a whisper of protest"?? Hardly. [View All]

[Spike from MN]

They have been battling this for years. Here's a couple of quote with links:

2002-05-23
Ventura's Veto

Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura took out his veto pen and marked out the $24 million in state bonding for the new $125 million Guthrie Theatre complex even after the Guthrie demonstrated significant economic impact to the state.

http://ww3.americansforthearts.org/national_arts_news/2002/

(Note that that's $24 million, substantially less than the $353 million Pohlad is asking for.)

And from September 29, 2001:

In the past, Gov. Jesse Ventura has opposed public support for the arts. His veto of $3 million for the Guthrie was overridden. At his urging, the Legislature also rescinded $1 million of a $2.25 million bonding appropriation for the Penumbra Theatre.

http://www.childrenstheatre.org/releases/2001_0929.html

So to say that they financed the Guthrie "without a whisper of protest" is incorrect. And as you pointed out, the Guthrie is non-profit and that puts it in a whole different category. Taxpayer dollars aren't going to line the pockets of a billionaire and that's the main difference between financing the arts and financing a stadium.

And if "the tax is so small that it just isn't that big of a deal to them" why won't they let it go to referendum? Uh, maybe because they know the taxpayers would shoot it down?

As for the claimed increase in revenues that a new stadium will provide, I have already provided three links in a previous post that show that those myths are false. Please provide us with links to support your side of the argument. (I'll reply to your post #19 regarding Camden Yards shortly.)