It's never been about whether or when. It's always been about why, where and who. As in who pays, which really means how much will the millionaire owners of the Vikings be able to lap up from the public tax trough?
The Vikings lease on Mall of America Field expires at the end of this year. The clamor for a replacement goes back at least as far as the previous ownership of the team. It has grown louder and more intense since the introduction of the present owners, the Wilfs, who are shopping center developers based in New Jersey. Downtown Minneapolis business interests, with the Star-Tribune newspaper leading the pack, enthusiastically support redevelopment, particularly of the property the Strib has for sale in the neighborhood of MOA Field, or, more familiarly, the Hump. Build a billion dollar stadium for the Wilfs and allow them also to redevelop nearby property, consisting mostly of surface parking lots. Start with the expiration of the Vikings' current lease. Those are the answers to whether and when.
Why is easy, too. The answer is simply greed. Professional sports teams, including the Vikings, do not share profit and loss data. Being private business enterprises, they have no obligation to do so, even when they seek public support by any means, the favorite of which is blackmail. But Forbes Magazine, which slavishly chronicles wealth, avers that the Vikings realized a net operating profit of $3.7 million in 2010, after servicing $300 million in team debt. The Wilfs want more from football, and they wouldn't mind having the right to develop the surrounding area, because retail and business development is what they do.
Where is seemingly a little more complicated. Developers lick their collective chops when there is opportunity to select locations from competing tax jurisdictions. The Wilfs have already given a limp leg to Anoka County [a football metaphor whereby a running back in football seems to offer a leg to an oncoming tackler, only to pull it quickly away, leaving the tackler flailing. Notice how Adrian Peterson does it]. The present overtures to Ramsey County by the Wilfs have the same intent.
The site of the WWII ammuntion factory in Ramsey County, a considerable number of acres, is for sale. But the land is so polluted that nobody has been willing to touch it, even at the height of the postwar expansion that began 65 years ago. Also, the financing part of the Wilfs' plan based on a half-per cent sales tax on the citizens of Ramsey County was DOA. There is fierce opposition to it. The county's largest tax base, St. Paul, has already said no. So will the voters who are entitled to a referendum on sales tax matters, as provided by state law.
Ah-ha!, you may say. What about the Twins' bludgeoning Hennepin County for their stadium? All part of the feint. It's true that a compliant legislature that abrogated the law to accede to the Twins' blackmail is again poised to do as directed. But it's also true that nobody in the decision making process wants to permit taxpayers to express themselves by putting the matter to a referendum Polls are running 70% against. Although it may be some time before another poll is taken, there's small doubt about where taxpayers presently stand.
Not so with the location. It will be downtown Minneapolis, either on the Hump's location, or on the west side, close to Target Center and Target Field. The Star-Tribune, and common sense favor the Hump site. The Wilfs did once and will again. Unidentified powers may go for the west side, although some real wedging would be required to locate a stadium that's a third again the size of Target Field on the land fragments being mentioned. Which will prevail? At this stage, the Star-Tribune's incessant plumping for a new play pen for the Vikings gives it the edge. The venture capitalists who own the paper no doubt wish to liquefy their investment and will cause the drums to keep sounding. The Wilfs will, with professed reluctance, agree to buy and develop the Star-Tribune's propery, thereby entrenching themselves ever more firmly in the Top One Per Cent.
Meanwhile, Minnesota will continue its struggle to contend with a $5.5 billion debt, Minneapolis will bob and weave and continue to settle for painful reductions in city services, disgracefully underfunded schools, and unaddressed conditions of the poor. All for the sake of subsidizing already rich participants in one of the most lucrative endeavors on earth, network and cable television. With hockey and baseball as exceptions, presently, the NFL, NBA, collegiate football and basketball rely on TV. These games have become television productions, generators of great audiences and amazing amounts of income. The Vikings get more than $131 million a year from network and cable TV alone.
Of the tens, or even hundreds of thousands of Vikings fans, it would be interesting to know how many have ever attended a game. Or ever will. The team is secretive about the business side of its operations, but there are a few clues. The Hump seats 64,000 for football. The new stadium will seat about the same. The ten home games each year are sold out. They must be sold out because the NFL requires them to be, in order to permit television fans to see them, and then only after paying cable company fees.
It was mentioned recently in the paper that there are 15,000 season ticket holders. Some time ago, also in the paper, it was revealed that each season ticket holder purchases an average of four tickets. In other words, 60,000 tickets to each game are bought by season ticket holders and 4,000 tickets are sold to the public. It's conceivable, then, that over the course of ten home games, the Vikings are seen live and in person by a mere 100,000 fans. But even if the 640,000 total was comprised of 64,000 different people at each game, the number of the people who will benefit from the the new stadium is not significant. Wouldn't you think a cost-benefit analysis would go into the discussion? Has anyone heard any mention of one?
Another canard refuses to die. That is the claim of great economic benefits resulting from new sports stadiums. Specific studies prove there are none.
Money spent by people attending games would have been spent on other amusements. Those conclusions are contained in the book, "Sports, Jobs, and Taxes," by Andrew Zimbalist and Roger G. Noll. Their study is not new, but has never been refuted. Mention of it is universally avoided by proponents of new sports stadiums. You can Google it for details.
We are left to ask what the conclusion to all this might be? Concerning need, the answer is no. Concerning affordability, it's a resounding no. Yet history begs the question: when does no, mean no? In Minnesota, when it comes to sports stadiums, the answer is never.
Rev Cox
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment