Reply #98: You can't measure the true benefits! [View All]

[Sorwen]

Show be a study measuring the utility the public gets out of a new stadium and keeping the team in Minnesota. You can't, it's not measurable. I'm not talking about economic development or tax revenue. I'm talking about the level of enjoyment, entertainment, and community spirit that thousands, if not millions, of people in the region benefit from 162+ times per year. It's not just the 25,000 at every game who experience this, but also the many thousands who watch or listen to every game. Building a new stadium will guarantee that we will keep the team, and it will make the baseball experience much more enjoyable. Have you ever been to a playoff game or walked around the Metrodome before a big game? It's exciting. The energy from the fans and the community spirit are great. You can't measure the value that has. I expect that some people may not understand or appreciate this.

Afternoon spent with son at the ballpark: Priceless. That's what I'm talking about.

To keep saying that the only beneficiary from the stadium is the rich owner is just wrong. This argument clearly demonstrates a lack of knowledge about how valuable a new stadium and keeping the team in Minnesota is to the region. I can guarantee you that the value of the team to the thousands of die-hard Twins fans is much greater than the value of $360 million to Carl Pohlad. That isn't justification for a new stadium, but it means that the major benefit of the stadium would not be to Carl Pohlad but rather to the many across the region who enjoy Twins baseball.

You can say that lots of people don't care about baseball and would not benefit from this. I would say that lots of people don't care about libraries and zoos, but we still fund those. You'd say those things are not owned by a private businessman, but I'd say that the reason to provide public funding for a stadium is the same reason to provide public funding for libraries, zoos, parks, etc: To provide something that the public would benefit from but is not being provided for by the private sector. When we fund libraries or parks, we don't base it on whether or not it would spur enough economic growth to pay for itself, because that's not the point. It's the same with the stadium. Sometimes a private enterprise may profit from it. So what? Are you always against any form of corporate welfare? What about corporate welfare for ethanol or biodiesel production? Those industries would not exist if not for corporate welfare, but I think the public is better off because of it.

You can still argue that despite the value to baseball fans in the region, it's just not worth it ($0.03 per $20) to fund an expensive new ballpark. Fine, but please acknowledge the immeasurable value that it has to ordinary people across the upper Midwest.

If you want to respond by saying "Then pay for it yourselves." First I would say that that's very libertarian of you, then I would say that it's probably not feasible to do so. The sales tax had to be used instead of user's taxes in order for the county to be able to issue tax-free, low-interest bonds. I would also say that I'm happy to pay taxes for things that lots of people benefit from, even if I don't.