Reply #106: okay [View All]

[Sorwen]

In post #27 that you cite, you might notice the use of the word "and." My support for the stadium is based on the quality of life argument, but some will also try to enhance the argument by mentioning the economic benefits. So in that post I said "if you don’t buy the quality of life argument, and if you don’t believe the stadium would result in enough increased economic activity and tax revenue." I didn't mean to imply that my support was based on the economic benefits, but just that that is one reason why some people may chose to support it.

I think that I've stated each time that I think there are some economic benefits, but I don't really know if it's enough to justify the sales tax. You've said that studies "have shown that the net economic benefits of a new stadium are zero at best." I've suggested that there are some economic benefits which reduce the real cost of the stadium, but I don't know if the net economic benefits would be positive. If the net economic benefits actually are zero, I think it would be a pretty good deal because the quality of life benefits that I mentioned in the previous post are immeasurable.

The claims that the stadium would enhance economic activity in the region are usually just made to enhace the position, though there may be some that believe it is enough to justify the stadium. Maybe some people are overstating the economic benefits, but like I discussed in the previous post, you can't measure the real benefits from the stadium. I know a little something about baseball. I've followed the Twins closely for over 20 years, I've been to a number of games at the Metrodome, and I've been to games in other cities. I know why the Twins and baseball fans want a new stadium. Trust me on this one.

Regarding whether or not Pohlad would invest the increased revenue in player salaries, you might want to find some newer information. The Twins payroll did increase when they developed some good players that were worth keeping. For example, Pohlad did open his wallet to sign Radke, Hunter, and Santana to some relatively big contracts. But at the same time, other less important but nevertheless good players have left for more money, and the economic advantages that teams like the Yankees and Red Sox have is quite large. Now that the Twins have a couple young superstars in Mauer and Morneau, the Twins will have to pay the big bucks to keep them here long-term. The public relations disaster would be huge if the owner didn't use the increased revenue to sign these two players to long-term deals.

I understand that you don't want to spend any public money so fans have a nicer place to watch games and so the Twins can field a more competitive team. That's fine, I can respect that. To argue that the economic problems with major league baseball should not have to be solved by the taxpayers is hard to disagree with. But despite that, I think a new stadium (and keeping the team in the state) is something the region would really enjoy, and I think that the public can get involved in these types of things. Ideally the private sector would fund this. That would be great, but it is just not going to happen. Funding it with user fees would be acceptable, but I don't think there's been a feasible proposal funding it in such a way.

I'm much more pragmatic than I am idealistic. I believe that sometimes we have to compromise some things in order to achieve the best possible results. I'll pay taxes on things that you want and you'll pay taxes on things that I want.