Reply #87: So you would rather [View All]

[Sorwen]

prevent a rich guy from making money off of public funds than to build a park that would be enjoyed by thousands, if not millions, of upper Midwesteners. Okay, I just don't agree with that.

Pohlad could build a stadium himself, but he never will. So if we want a stadium, we have to pay for it ourselves. There's no point in stubbornly holding out for something that will never happen. Also, I really think Pohlad would lose money if he funded it entirely himself. He could afford it, of course (dying with $1.5 billion is not much worse than dying with $1.9 billion), and it would be great if he cared more about his legacy, but I guess we can't really expect him to fund something that he'll lose money on. (The increase in team value and revenue sources would not likely be enough to fund the entire stadium, especially since much of the increased revenue is needed to increase the team payroll.)

As far as the smell from the garbage burner, most everything else I've read has said it really isn't an issue. And if it was, it would obviously make much more sense to build a new garbage burner in a new location than it would to build a new stadium. And unless significant climate change causes a dramatic increase in rainfall, I think the roof issue is overrated. A new stadium built right (unlike the Metrodome) should last much longer than 20 or 30 years.