<B>You just don't. I care less about other programs. </B> And you're calling the taxpayers and lawmakers arrogant? Pro-sports franchises (Rockets & Astros included) routinely use threats of moving and "capitalism" to squeeze stadiums and money out of cities and states. That's their right, and if it works, good for them. It's also the right of the cities and states to say "screw you". That's exactly what Minnesota is saying. How is saying "My child's education is more important than a stadium" arrogant? What a load of crap.
North Star doesn't believe that states should fund schooling. He feels he'd have been better off had he not attended schools during his life (this came out in a separate discussion I've had with him over the Minnesota stadium situation).
Maybe I don't have a child. I am only a college student. How would overbuilding schools benefit me? I am for increasing teachers salaries and that's it. Look, school is not for everyone. School was definitely not for me but I was forced to go anyway. That does not make sense. Yes, I agree that A-Rod's contract and the Yankees high payroll is crazy, but Minnesota should not take it out on the Twins. Twins owner, Carl Pohlad was not around when the idea came up to build the Metrodome. The Twins are not the Yankees, a wealthy team that is. The Yankees can afford to build a new ballpark themselves since they are in the nations largest media market unlike the Twins are.
Cleveland said the hell with schools and other programs. Lets worry about getting the Browns back first. They also built Jacobs Field for the Indians and Gund Arena for the Cavs. Downtown Cleveland is now the place to be. 10 years ago, people did not go to downtown Cleveland unless they went to see the Browns. The 3 projects created other development such as housing, shops, theaters, museums, restaurants, hotels. All of the money Cleveland spent on downtown projects was worth it.
You are advocating the use of <i>existing</i> taxes to fund a new stadium which would necessitate the redistribution of money from current projects. Cleveland used <i>new</i> taxes (alcohol, tobacco and vehicle fees to name a few) to fund the Browns' and Indians' new stadiums. Cleveland may have said to heck with all the other stuff BUT they did not take current money away from them as you propose doing.
That was even proposed and Minnesota still said no. -gambling/lottery funds -tourist tax -alcohol/cigarette tax -sales tax The people in Minnesota said NO to all of that. There was even a proposal at one time for the Twins to pay for the construction and only the construction of the new ballpark provided that they get free land, free infrastructure, and 100% tax relief and Minnesota still said NO. Twins owner, Carl Pohlad even offered to pay for half of the new ballpark provided he gets tax breaks and Minnesota said NO, pay for it entirely. The people in Minnesota want no public funding of any sort to build new stadiums for the Twins and the Vikings just because the owners have billions. Tell me, is Minnesota ignorant or what? My answer, YES.
Back in 1997 when Pohlad offered to "pay" 111 million towards a new stadium, it was later found out that he offered to "loan" the 111 million. Again, when did the people of Minnesota vote on this issue? I don't remember it. There were a couple of bills that never made it out of the legislature, but nothing ever made it to the citizens of Minnesota to vote on. I believe that there was a vote specific to St. Paul within the past few years that would have helped pave the way for the Twins to relocate to St. Paul, but again, nothing state wide.
<B>Maybe I don't have a child. I am only a college student. How would overbuilding schools benefit me? </B> That's fine if you don't want to fund schools. My question is why do you think <B>other</b> people are arrogant for wanting their taxes going to fund their kids educations rather than a baseball team they may not care about. It seems to me you're the arrogant one thinking that they should want their tax money used to fund something for you.
Also, if he is a college student at a state university in Minnesota, he gets a substantial tuition break due to the money the state kicks in. If that is the case, perhaps he is willing to forego that benefit in order to keep the Twins.
Why should every resident in the state have to put up hundreds of millions of dollars for social programs that few of them will ever use? We rarely use everything we pay for, but most of what we pay for increases the quality of life as a whole. Your argument is based on class envy and holds no water. Just because you resent the rich doesn't mean that they are any more or less deserving of things than anyone else.
<B>Why should every resident in the state have to put up hundreds of millions of dollars for social programs that few of them will ever use? We rarely use everything we pay for, but most of what we pay for increases the quality of life as a whole. Your argument is based on class envy and holds no water. </B> The difference is that education and other social programs are <B>basic support services</B>. Building ballparks is <B>entertainment</B>. Would you agree that there is a difference there? Regardless, my argument is not based on class envy. My argument is based on the people having every right to vote on whether they want their government to fund certain things. If people don't want education to be funded, that's their choice too. They can vote out the people who support education. You seem to think its "arrogant" for the people to choose what they want to fund. Instead, they should just fund whatever YOU want -- that's not arrogant at all.
You would be hard pressed to find any resident of a state that does not have at least an indirect benefit of a solid school system. Good schools bring in more residents (thus more taxpayers) than a good sports team will. Good schools improve the quality of life and, in general, reduce crime. Good schools tend to bring folks into an area in which they wish to establish roots, thus bringing stability. Sports teams are great and any city that has them has an asset. They are a source of entertainment and a source of pride (or dismay). That being said, there is no direct evidence that any sports team in Houston or Minnesota has ever put one dollar into my pocket. I have never seen a report that indicated that my taxes would be higher if the <insert pro sports team here> did not exist. Did the cost of anything rise to any citizen of Houston when the Oilers left? I am willing to support public financing of stadiums if the plan is reasonable. You keep mentioning that the people of Minnesota are "arrogant", "morons" and "ignorant". I have yet to see you post any information concerning any election in which the people of Minnesota have had the opportunity to vote on a new stadium for the Twins or Vikings (in the 1990's). Incidentally, the "ignorant, arrogant, morons" got the Xcel center built for the Wild and bought out Target center to keep the T'Wolves. By the way, which state representative did you vote for in the last election? How does he/she reflect your views concerning the stadium issue?
I'm not from Minnesota. If St. Paul voters would have gotten a say on whether of not to build a Xcel Energy Centre, there would be no such thing as the Minnesota Wild. I'm glad the voters did not get a say. I love the Wild. What makes you think that the public, who oppose building new stadiums for the Twins and the Vikings, would want to build the X? That was why there was no referendum to build the X. Why should the public get a say in everything anyway? Back in 99, had Norm Coleman not given St. Paul voters a say on whether or not to build a new ballpark for the Twins, the Twins would be moving into the new ballpark next season. Instead, they might die.
I am still wondering how the people of Minneota are to blame when they have not had an opportunity to vote on a reasonable (or any) stadium issue in the past 10 years. Anytime public funds are put to use for something other than their original intent OR new tax dollars are involved, then the public better have the opportunity to decide how those dollars should be used. By the way, since you're not from Minnesota, you sure are liberal with our money and our tax base.
<B>Why should the public get a say in everything anyway? </B> Maybe they shouldn't (but you certainly seem to want a say). In this case, the legislature & governor rejected the funding, right? So why do you then have a problem with it? Or do you not want the public, the legislature, or the governor to have a say? Who SHOULD have a say (besides you)?
The government knows that there are a majority of people in Minnesota who does not want to build new stadiums for the Twins and the Vikings. They know a referendum would be a waste of time. That's why Ventura(stadium opponent) is the governor and not Norm Coleman(stadium advocate) and Skip Humphrey(stadium advocate).
Believe me, Ventura is NOT governor because he is not a stadium advocate. Ventura was elected with about 37% of the vote. With your logic that means that 63% of the population was FOR a stadium!
