The Vikings New Stadium in Minnesota

B

Bevo Incognito

5,000+ Posts
The stadium costs $975 million on paper, with over half coming from public funds, $348 million from the state and $150 million from Minneapolis -- not through parking taxes or other stadium-related user fees, but with a new city sales tax. In return, the public gets an annual $13 million fee and the right to rent out the stadium on non-game-days....

The reality of the Vikings deal is that the owners will gain the most, not taxpayers or fans. Taxpayers will bear most of the risk, while the expected increase in the franchise's value will accrue wholly to the owners -- who will also be free from facility-financing costs. The owners will also have new revenue opportunities in the form of higher ticket prices, club seats, stadium-naming rights, and advertising. With all these luxury goodies, the only fans who will be able to actually attend the games are those with luxury incomes, many of whom will surely be writing the cost off their taxes as a business expense.
 
BI,

This sort of thing is pretty customary. They are corporate welfare sleaze at their very worst. They're sold to the public on the basis of huge economic development and job creation, which usually never materialize. One thing I will say about the Vikings deal is that it is at least being financed with a sales tax - so the local citizens who attend the games will bear most of the burden.

When I worked at the Capitol back in 1997, the cities of Dallas and Houston wanted to fund new sports arenas to keep the Dallas Mavericks, Dallas Stars, and Houston Astros in their respective cities. Houston also wanted to be able to lure a NFL team after the Oilers ditched them for Tennessee. Both cities were taxing at their maximum statutory sales tax rates. Did they cut spending to finance the sports arenas? Did they ask the Legislature to enact a new statutory maximum on the sales tax so they could raise it? No.

Instead they asked the Legislature to let them raise the hotel occupancy and car rental taxes. The Legislature went along. Why wouldn't they want to just raise the sales tax? Because it's a harder sell. If a city or county raises the sales tax, the people who elect the city and county officials would get hit with a tax increase. But who stays in hotels and rents cars? Mostly people from out of town and therefore don't get to vote for the people imposing the tax. Next time you stay in a hotel or rent a car in Dallas County or Harris County, look at your tax bill. It is financial sodomy.

The politicians thought it was great. They would get a big hunk of cash to build sports arenas for their corporate buddies and pay for it with a tax increase on people who don't get to vote in their elections. Of course, the founding fathers had a term for that - taxation without representation. But why let little things like integrity and basic liberty get in the way of a good corporate welfare deal?
 
These deals always seem to hurt the taxpayers. However, the funny thing is that the taxpayers will throw their politicians out of office if they don't do the deal and lose their sports team to another city. It might be considered that the taxpayers get the exact government that they deserve.
 
I live in Dallas. I would have gladly been willing to be taxed for a period in order to raise capital for Jerryworld to be built at Fair Park. Sometimes, the taxpayer funded projects extend out farther than the owners' pockets. Some cities have manufactured tourist attractions when they didn't have them in existence, naturally (OKC's Bricktown for example). Some cities have opted to play hardball and refuse to make already wealthy owners wealthier (like Dallas). In my opinion, having major sports franchise stadiums in urban environments is a better option than losing them to fringe cities, or watching them pack up and leave altogether. Jerry was going to make his billions anywhere. At least he could have done it while giving Dallas a chance to revitalize the ******** of East Dallas and all of it's crime/drug riddled glory.
 
Did I read that the city of Arlington paid off the debt they took on to help build the Ball park early?
I know the citizens voted for a 1.2 cent tax increase to pay for the ball park
what i don't know is did they lower the sales tax after it was paid off. I am sure not..
Still I would bet the majority of citizens of Arlington would say they would vote for it again.
I am guessing the deal for jerryworld was similar.
 
True, Mr. Deez, and I doubt many in Dallas expected as much, but if building Jerryworld at Fair Park would have positively impacted just a 5 block radius from the State Fair grounds, then I think it would have been called a success. Analyzing my opinion, I admit that my take on cities and tax increases is more a complaint about the absolute failure of direction that Dallas has, than an argument for taxpayers needing to do the right thing in ponying up extra money to invest in a team's coffers while not reaping as much reward as the ownership.
 
The actual increase in sales tax that Arlington voted for to help build the Ball park was 1/2 , not 1.2.
and I know it was paid off really early

arlington voted for a sales tax increase for their 325 million in Cowboy Stadium. It ended up costing over 1 Bil and JJ had to come up with the rest. Considering the deal he has with the city ( arlington actually owns the Stadium and leases it CHEAP to jerry ) jery is still making out like an arkie bandit.

All that said and even knowing the owner makes more from the initial deal than the city does I still feel sure the citizens would vote for it again
just like they'd vote for the ball park again.
 
I see both sides on whether to have a city pay for a sports team to have a new state of the art facility.
And I am not sure Arlington is typical. What has happened there has benefited the city and its citizens in meaningful ways.
And I think if they hadn't been able to pay off the Ball park debt so early they may have not been so eager to vote another 325 mil debt for Cowboy Stadium. Now they are predicting that city debt will be paid off 13 years early.

The Minn deal seems similar to the Cowboy stadium deal. Remember arlington was on the hook for no more than 325 mil even though Cowboy Stadium ended up costing 1.6 billion.

the arguement that the city doesn't benefit loses steam once businesses open up around the facility and start paying texes into the city coffers.
 
I'd say that Minnesota is quite a bit different than some other NFL cities. I'm guessing many of oyu have been there and for about 4 months out of the year it is a great place, but the rest of the time it is pretty miserable. Having the NFL is good for the people.

It is also undeniably good for the city's growth efforts. Being an NFL city is a huge selling point to businesses wanting to relocate or start new.

Also, the terms of the deal allow the city to make quite a bit of money using the facility for other events like concerts and trade shows etc. that will benefit other citizens than football fans (although non football fans really are weird!).

I think it is a great decision for the city.

And Dallas royally ****** up the Cowboys deal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top