Skip to content

Sales tax for proposed Vikings stadium won’t be subject to public vote

Arizona Cardinals v Minnesota Vikings Getty Images

During a weekly Tuesday morning visit with Vikings play-by-play man Paul Allen on KFAN, I predicted that the powers-that-be in Minnesota would figure out how to build a new football stadium precisely one day too late.  With the timetable for a team to move to Los Angeles potentially accelerating, the folks elected to lead — and not merely to bend to the will of those who are inclined to complain about something/anything/everything — are beginning to actually lead, and not pander to others or protect themselves.

The Minneapolis Star Tribune reports that the Ramsey County Commission has decided not to place on a public ballot the question of whether a local sales tax should be employed to pay for a portion of the proposed stadium.  The vote came after a public hearing that was more “evenly balanced” than a prior meeting dominated by opponents to the plan to impose the tax without giving citizens a chance to shout it down from behind the curtain of a voting booth.

On the same day, the Metropolitan Council issued a report questioning the viability of the plan, suggesting that the costs to clean up the site of the proposed stadium — a former munitions plant — will be more than estimated.  And this report could make it harder to finagle a special legislative session aimed at formalize the three-pronged approach to building the venue with a combination of money from the Vikings (and the league), from the state government, and from Ramsey County.

Absent a special session, the issue would be delayed until the regular session of the Legislature in 2012, the same year in which every seat in the state’s lawmaking body will be up for election.  And with the politicians having to choose between an unpopular (until it’s built) project and the prospect of getting booted out of office, it will be much harder to get it done next year.

In turn, it will become much harder to keep the Vikings, whose Metrodome lease expires after five more games there, in Minnesota.

Permalink 68 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Minnesota Vikings, Rumor Mill, Top Stories
68 Responses to “Sales tax for proposed Vikings stadium won’t be subject to public vote”
  1. vikefan says: Oct 12, 2011 7:41 AM

    Allelujah, Allelujah, the dream is still alive!!!!!

  2. abshire22 says: Oct 12, 2011 7:48 AM

    Yeah, it would be ridiculous to let voters decide how to spend their money.

  3. vadog says: Oct 12, 2011 7:57 AM

    Vikefan says:

    Allelujah, Allelujah, the dream is still alive!!!!!

    __________________________________
    Just barely Vikefan. I would say that the dream is on life support. Remember, nothing will screw up progress like a state legislature!!!

  4. kennyrogerschicken says: Oct 12, 2011 7:58 AM

    Sweet. As a tax payer in Ramsey County, I’m all for the government telling me what I can and can’t have a say in. Voting is too much trouble in Minnesota, right Mark Dayton and Al Franken?

  5. pooflingingmonkey says: Oct 12, 2011 7:59 AM

    Sounds like the taxpayers of Los Angeles will be subsidizing them pretty soon.

    They’d have to rename the team to something more indicative of the area, like the Los Angeles Vagrants.

  6. mhalt99 says: Oct 12, 2011 8:10 AM

    yes, maybe the taxpayer should shoulder then entire burden to have a Vikings in town……….that has worked out so well for Cincy. Mike Brown spends all of the money he saves on the team….that is why Cincy is so good year in and year out.

  7. packfaninchitown says: Oct 12, 2011 8:12 AM

    The L.A. Vikings will still suck…

  8. gustavejfrerotte says: Oct 12, 2011 8:16 AM

    I am ready to come back, replace McNabb and lead the Vikings to Glory.

    That’ll put some butts in the seats.

    -Gus-

  9. budgrant says: Oct 12, 2011 8:23 AM

    We have way too many liberal know-it-all people in the twin cities. Instead of realizing the economic benefits of finally having a real home for the vikings, they only look at the small fraction they would contribute through taxes as some heavy burden. It’s ridiculous. Just get the damn thing built already. We need some leaders with balls. Downtown Mpls will try every trick in the book including smear campaigns and biased articles from star tribune to keep the vikings a low budget team with a joke as a playing field. Enough, just get it done.

  10. dan7800 says: Oct 12, 2011 8:23 AM

    LA doesn’t need a team. They had their chance (several really) and blew them all.

    It will be sad if the Vikings/Jags go.

  11. blackqbwhiterb says: Oct 12, 2011 8:30 AM

    How come some franchises can build their own stadiums and others need taxpayer money? If I had any say, I’d say no to every taxpayer subsidized stadium. The government shouldn’t own such things, the private sector should pay for it, run it, and keep the profit. Everything wrong in America is because of government getting involved in things where they have no legitimate authority.

    And having said that, Minnesota doesn’t want to build it, they should pay for it themselves or leave and go somewhere else.

  12. sterling7 says: Oct 12, 2011 8:31 AM

    Lets’ face it, if the Vikings are able to build a new stadium incompetence will reign seemingly forever. However if the Vikings move to L.A. or wherever they’ll probably win a Super Bowl within three years after the move-either way we (the Minnesota Viking diehard faithful fans) lose.

  13. squared80 says: Oct 12, 2011 8:34 AM

    Just build it already.

  14. savannahrose44 says: Oct 12, 2011 8:44 AM

    It’s not right that the people who will have to pay that extra tax should not get a vote on the matter. Just seems a little to close to home considering we are Americans and America was founded to stop over taxation without representation. This is not the way to go about it.

  15. cjw1197 says: Oct 12, 2011 8:45 AM

    It’s about time the people put in leadership positions stand up make a decision to keep the Vikings in Minnesota. I will pay a nickel on every ten dollars to keep the Vikings here for 50 more years. Oh, and refresh my memory; that Target Field project, that was a bad idea, right?

  16. snaponrules says: Oct 12, 2011 8:46 AM

    Wow Mike.. You think people should have no choice in what the people want to pay for. How about instead of taxing the people that dont wish to pay for a place they wont use, they make up the difference with huge parking fees and seat licenses?
    AKA let the people who want to go to the games pay (the 100′s of millions shortfall) for the stadium instead of charging some poor homeowner (who is barely making the payments now) more money for something he doesn’t want.
    Or have the 100 billion dollar league pay the difference.
    Your left leaning side is showing with all your “we know whats best for the people and we are going to give it to them. No matter how much it cost, THEM .

  17. bucsraysboltsfan says: Oct 12, 2011 8:49 AM

    Why would you want to give the people a choice? After all, what do the tax-paying citizens know about such matters?

    At least in Tampa, we had a vote on the Community Investment Tax (aka- “Make the Glazer Family Filthy Rich Tax”) before RayJay was built.

  18. johnsticle says: Oct 12, 2011 8:53 AM

    If Dayton doesn’t get us a special session… the project is done for. End of story.

  19. douc66 says: Oct 12, 2011 8:56 AM

    Why don’t the Vikings and the state of MN look at doing to the Metrodome what the city of Vancouver and the province of British Columbia did to BC Place (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bc_place). It is the same style of stadium and the renovations were done for about $563 million. Just make the home of the Golden Gopher NFL ready and have them play there until the renovations have been completed. The only problem with this solution is if the new roof could stand the snow loads.

  20. randomjim says: Oct 12, 2011 8:57 AM

    kennyrogerschicken says:
    Oct 12, 2011 7:58 AM
    Sweet. As a tax payer in Ramsey County, I’m all for the government telling me what I can and can’t have a say in. Voting is too much trouble in Minnesota, right Mark Dayton and Al Franken?
    ====================================
    The gov. pays for, builds things all the time that you don’t have a say in personally. That’s why you vote for representation. Do you have the time to look into every pro & con of things paid for by taxes?
    If you do maybe you should run for office, but with your logic I can’t imagine you getting very many votes.

  21. skimbell says: Oct 12, 2011 9:03 AM

    Get ready to hear a ton of this chit…
    “…the costs…of the proposed stadium…will be more than estimated…”
    No wonder they don’t want to get the tax paying citizens involved in the decision making.

  22. Carl Gerbschmidt says: Oct 12, 2011 9:06 AM

    The last hurdle is if they can somehow stop Minny citizens from collecting enough signatures on their petition to force a public referendum.

    So, we’ll finally get to see whether Minny does in fact hate the vikes.

    Should be interesting.

  23. bcjim says: Oct 12, 2011 9:11 AM

    @kennyrogerschicken

    “Sweet. As a tax payer in Ramsey County, I’m all for the government telling me what I can and can’t have a say in. ”

    *********************************************

    To be fair, this is what a democratic republic is. We elect people to do these things. Do you want to vote also on the road projects, the new playground, the school budget, the police budget, and all the other minutia elected officials have to spend time on?

  24. bigperm33 says: Oct 12, 2011 9:12 AM

    so last week there was the story that the NFL owners tend to give large amount of money to Republican candidates; and then we have this story – yet another NFL team insisting on tax payer money in order to build a stadium. Seems to make sense. Less government, less taxes, unless it helps build a sports stadium.

  25. michfan says: Oct 12, 2011 9:16 AM

    L.A. Vagrants! Classic lol

  26. butlers91 says: Oct 12, 2011 9:23 AM

    I think the people should get to have their vote. And I think the Vikings should then enjoy their time in Los Angeles…aside the Lakers. I don’t want to hear any “we need an expansion team!” crap in 5 years either. Keep them now, or go buy a cheese head.

  27. cosanostra71 says: Oct 12, 2011 9:27 AM

    Cue the ignorant “LA can’t support a team” comments in three, two, one…

  28. fwippel says: Oct 12, 2011 9:32 AM

    This is the same approach taken with building the Twins stadium. At least there is a glimmer of hope of keeping the Vikings in Minnesota.

  29. blaz0037 says: Oct 12, 2011 9:42 AM

    who cares? I live in MN and I can tell you this state has NEVER seen a tax increase that it didn’t approve of.

    Suddenly….NOW they want to put up a fuss?

  30. minnesconsin says: Oct 12, 2011 9:45 AM

    This is such a boondoggle of a decisive issue. Everyone has an opinion and seems to think their politics support that opinion, thus blaming the opposite party for the mess.

    So in the same thread you get comments from a dude like kennyrogerschicken, ripping democrats Mark Dayton and Al Franken — and then a comment from bigperm33 decrying the NFL’s involvement w/ the republican party and the hypocrisy of asking for less government, less taxes, while taking taxpayer handouts for stadiums — You guys both sound anti-stadium to me, but you’re both convinced that the other side’s politics are to blame… wake up!

    Everyone is so eager to find someone to blame. The truth is, it’s a mixture of both parties and a horribly managed football team who have all contributed to put MN in this situation.

  31. minkytails says: Oct 12, 2011 9:50 AM

    Please let them leave. The council broke state law by not permitting a vote on this tax. The state should not give any tax money, including that on sports memorabilia or gambling to a multi-BILLIONAIRE family to build a stadium that only multi-MILLIONAIRES can afford to attend.

  32. madmike66 says: Oct 12, 2011 9:53 AM

    Anyone on these boards crying about not having a right to vote for this issue is grossly ignorant of the Government we have thrived under for hundreds of years. We do not live in a pure Democracy (no country ever has, or will). We are a Democratic Republic. Which means you vote for your leaders, and they then go make the decisions for us. We make it their job to get the information and then make the best decisions on our behalf. Seriously, what the hell are we teaching in our schools these days that people don’t understand this?

  33. minkytails says: Oct 12, 2011 9:54 AM

    bcjim, if you can’t see the difference between the things you listed and a billion dollar stadium that will have ticket prices ranging from $115 to $750, then, well, I can’t help you. Good luck.

  34. davikes says: Oct 12, 2011 10:00 AM

    If the salary cap was cut by a third, all the teams could pay for their own stadiums. AD would get $20m guaranteed instead of $30m. There is absolutely no reason the taxpayer should subsidize millionaires and billionaires.

  35. pigskinswag says: Oct 12, 2011 10:05 AM

    The offensive playcalling will also not be subject to public vote.

  36. bdickey33 says: Oct 12, 2011 10:06 AM

    blackqbwhiterb says:
    Oct 12, 2011 8:30 AM
    How come some franchises can build their own stadiums and others need taxpayer money? If I had any say, I’d say no to every taxpayer subsidized stadium. The government shouldn’t own such things, the private sector should pay for it, run it, and keep the profit. Everything wrong in America is because of government getting involved in things where they have no legitimate authority.

    And having said that, Minnesota doesn’t want to build it, they should pay for it themselves or leave and go somewhere else.
    ————————————————–

    Ok, sounds good and then how about Zigi gets to keep the sales tax, property tax, and income taxes from this unused land that the government doesn’t want to develop. You have got to be kidding me! This brings so much more in terms of value to any property owner in the area than it takes from any individual. It is a no brainer. Unfortunately there are many without the proper equipment to make a logical decision.

  37. snaponrules says: Oct 12, 2011 10:15 AM

    cosanostra71 says:
    Oct 12, 2011 9:27 AM
    Cue the ignorant “LA can’t support a team” comments in three, two, one…

    If they could support a team wouldn’t one of the many teams that have been there, still be there?

    You want to keep trying the same exact thing over and over and expect a different result this time. Seems kind of ignorant to me.

  38. citizenstrange says: Oct 12, 2011 10:27 AM

    Where’s your free market now Moses?

  39. 4gone says: Oct 12, 2011 10:33 AM

    I do not understand why Football Fans come to a Football site to complain about keeping their football team. You don’t want to pay a tax that you won’t even feel the impact of but that would help generate revenue to keep your taxes lower??

    You folks in MN really do have it all figured out.

  40. Robert says: Oct 12, 2011 10:41 AM

    No worries.

    Los Angeles Vikings will be official.

  41. scudbot says: Oct 12, 2011 10:51 AM

    Move the team to Eau Claire.

  42. fordwuzanazi says: Oct 12, 2011 10:55 AM

    Don’t Vikings fans know Ziggy needs your help. There is nothing more that Ziggy would like than to keep the team in the twin cities, but he needs middle class tax payers to build his stadium. Then he’ll charge you just your arms and legs to visit his stadium to see his team play. Not only do you pay for the majority of his stadium you’ll also overpay to see a below average team. Today’s America is full of harsh realities and inconvenient truths… even in sports a place we all use to go to escape the rat race.

  43. lovesmesomeme says: Oct 12, 2011 11:12 AM

    Billionaires asking hundredaires to pay for something…..

  44. glac1 says: Oct 12, 2011 11:16 AM

    a project like this when the state is flirting with bankruptcy needs to be brought to a vote of the people.

  45. scudbot says: Oct 12, 2011 11:21 AM

    Queue the misspelled “Cue” cliches… Oh, wait. Too late.

  46. bresilhac says: Oct 12, 2011 11:39 AM

    Now that the stadium plans in Los Angeles are now officially snafu, the Vikings can begin planning for their move to San Antonio. If they haven’t done so already. The Alamodome is a more viable venue to house a pro football team than either the Coliseum or Rose Bowl. At the same time funding can be arranged for a new Dome in the San Antonio-Austin area.

    Wilf can detach himself and his team from that political nightmare going on in Minnesota and play before a legitimate, loyal and enthusiastic fanbase in San Antonio-Austin as opposed to the one they’d have in California.

  47. txxxchief says: Oct 12, 2011 11:52 AM

    I third team in Texas would be welcome. However, expect Jerry to aggressive guard what he perceives as his “turf” in the San Antonio-Austin corridor.

  48. dukemarc says: Oct 12, 2011 11:54 AM

    Without a special session, which if Dayton does at this point he might get recalled, the voters will have some say in the matter – vote for who backs your agenda for/against the stadium bill.

  49. The Phantom Stranger says: Oct 12, 2011 12:08 PM

    blackqbwhiterb says:
    Oct 12, 2011 8:30 AM
    How come some franchises can build their own stadiums and others need taxpayer money? If I had any say, I’d say no to every taxpayer subsidized stadium. The government shouldn’t own such things, the private sector should pay for it, run it, and keep the profit. Everything wrong in America is because of government getting involved in things where they have no legitimate authority.

    And having said that, Minnesota doesn’t want to build it, they should pay for it themselves or leave and go somewhere else.
    ____________

    Absolutely correct that the government shouldn’t be involved in these things. Unfortunately, the reality of the situation is that governments all over are involved. So if the Minnesota government doesn’t want to be involved, the team leaves for someplace else where the governments wants them. There are two stadiums that were built privately and they still cost some public money for infrastructure improvements.

    And here is a fact that can’t be denied by anyone: If the Vikings leave, the politicians will be falling all over themselves to try to get a team back and that will mean building a stadium that is entirely publicly financed.

  50. The Phantom Stranger says: Oct 12, 2011 12:11 PM

    savannahrose44 says:
    Oct 12, 2011 8:44 AM
    It’s not right that the people who will have to pay that extra tax should not get a vote on the matter. Just seems a little to close to home considering we are Americans and America was founded to stop over taxation without representation. This is not the way to go about it.
    ____________

    This is not taxation without representation. This decision was made by elected representatives. Americans almost never get a vote on a new tax.

  51. The Phantom Stranger says: Oct 12, 2011 12:16 PM

    skimbell says:
    Oct 12, 2011 9:03 AM
    Get ready to hear a ton of this chit…
    “…the costs…of the proposed stadium…will be more than estimated…”
    No wonder they don’t want to get the tax paying citizens involved in the decision making.
    ______________

    Cost overruns will be paid by the Vikings. The county contributes $350 million and the state contributes $300 million. That can be written into the bill.

  52. cusoman says: Oct 12, 2011 12:17 PM

    abshire22 says:
    Oct 12, 2011 7:48 AM
    Yeah, it would be ridiculous to let voters decide how to spend their money.

    ——————-

    We live in a representative democracy, you elect representatives to vote on the issues and taxes for you. If all the citizens got to vote on every issue, tax increase, budget, etc, we’d NEVER pass ANYTHING.

    If you don’t like that, move to another country that has the type of system you want, like… erm, you know what? I don’t think any other country does that – goes to show you how well that type of system works, eh?

  53. 4thandnone says: Oct 12, 2011 12:21 PM

    Why was stadium funding not part of the nfl labor negotiation ? Why did the NFL agree to give players so much money if they can’t afford a place to play the game ? I think I read that teams have a salary cap this year of around $120 Million. Maybe they should have had a $20 Million cap so they could pay for the stadium themselves.

  54. The Phantom Stranger says: Oct 12, 2011 12:45 PM

    scudbot says:
    Oct 12, 2011 11:21 AM
    Queue the misspelled “Cue” cliches… Oh, wait. Too late.
    ____________

    Queue (verb): To form in a line while waiting.
    Cue (noun): anything that excites to action; stimulus.
    Cue (verb): to provide with a cue or indication; give a cue to; prompt.

    The proper term is “cue.” The objective of this hackneyed cliche is to prompt others to take action in writing a comment on a particular topic. The goal is not to form the comments in a line.

  55. purpleman527 says: Oct 12, 2011 12:54 PM

    @blackqbwhiterb says:
    Oct 12, 2011 8:30 AM
    How come some franchises can build their own stadiums and others need taxpayer money?
    ———————————————
    WRONG.

    There is NOT ONE totally and privately funded NFL football stadium. NOT ONE.

    The Zigs are offering private cash to potentially make the new stadium one of, if not, the HIGHEST privately funded stadiums in the NFL.

    Yet people like you, and other idiot Minnesotan’s, always complain about a taxpayer funded stadium, as if it would be the first time in NFL history to have a taxpayer funded stadium.
    (I did grow up in Minneapolis, which at times I feel embarrassed about, due to uneducated Minnesota posters)

    Get your facts straight before you make idiotic statements please.

  56. dtrb10 says: Oct 12, 2011 1:08 PM

    The Vikings are going nowhere but to Arden Hills.

    Robert you are a douche!!!

  57. jusford says: Oct 12, 2011 1:23 PM

    Just build it already! Ziggy already blew the deal years ago and could have had one opening in Blaine next year. The only reason I’m for it is this is about the only realistic opportunity to clean up and use the space area and straignten out I-35. Otherwise just leave already.

  58. theduuuuuuuuuude says: Oct 12, 2011 3:04 PM

    @Snaponrules

    Never s shortage of ignorance regarding the NFL in L.A. Fan support had nothing to do with the Rams or Raiders leaving L.A. Both teams left because of stadium issues, not poor fan support. Do your freaking homework before you start regurgitating misinformation, friend.

  59. twesty85 says: Oct 12, 2011 3:55 PM

    L.A. team’s stadium issues were due to fan support theduuuuuuuuuuude. Do YOUR homework. These people in Minnesota need to realize that while it seems like a lot of money right now the state will lose a LOT more money by not building a new stadium to keep the Vikings in Minnesota. Just like what happened with the Minnesota Northstars if football leaves Minnesota they will be kicking themselves for not building the stadium and if they ever get a team back in the state it will cost them much more than it would have to build this stupid stadium. This is a no brainer. L.A. doesn’t deserve to have a football team anyways the only reason the Lakers have a following is all the hollywood actors and the snobs who would never show their face at a football game unless it was the Super Bowl.

  60. warvette says: Oct 12, 2011 4:11 PM

    no to a .05% tax to save your team? meanwhile, packers fans are lining up to give $200 to the team for a piece of paper saying they did. how can two places geographically next to each other be so far apart idealogically? logically?

  61. The Phantom Stranger says: Oct 12, 2011 5:07 PM

    warvette says:
    Oct 12, 2011 4:11 PM
    no to a .05% tax to save your team? meanwhile, packers fans are lining up to give $200 to the team for a piece of paper saying they did. how can two places geographically next to each other be so far apart idealogically? logically?
    ______

    First it’s a 0.5% sales tax, not .05%. Second, the sales tax is mandatory for everyone living in the county. The fake stock certificate is voluntary and only bought by rubes who want to pretend they’re owners.

  62. pack13queens0 says: Oct 12, 2011 5:45 PM

    It still won’t happen. The Minnesota politicians care more about keeping their jobs than they do about keeping a team there. It’s not like the Vikings have any fan support anyway. Minnesota has by far the worst fans in the NFL. When the Vikings do move to Los Angeles, the word blackout may never be heard for an NFL game again. And Minnesota will save money because the team doesn’t bring in any tax revenue to the State plus the fact that there are more Packer fans in Minnesota than there are Viking fans. It’ll be a win for everybody, the team in Los Angeles where they will be supported better, and Minnesota gets to see all Packer games. The NFL made a mistake putting a team in Minnesota, time to move them out and never return.

  63. warvette says: Oct 12, 2011 8:05 PM

    $5 on every $1000 then, phantomstrangler? that’s your comeback? too much for ya then? you “non-rubes” are so frugal and smart…

  64. randomjim says: Oct 12, 2011 9:25 PM

    I heard on the radio that the Vikings organization pays $20 million per year in taxes. Who makes up that loss if they aren’t tied in to a long term lease?

  65. Robert says: Oct 12, 2011 11:14 PM

    L.A. team’s stadium issues were due to fan support theduuuuuuuuuuude. Do YOUR homework. These people in Minnesota need to realize that while it seems like a lot of money right now the state will lose a LOT more money by not building a new stadium to keep the Vikings in Minnesota. Just like what happened with the Minnesota Northstars if football leaves Minnesota they will be kicking themselves for not building the stadium and if they ever get a team back in the state it will cost them much more than it would have to build this stupid stadium. This is a no brainer. L.A. doesn’t deserve to have a football team anyways the only reason the Lakers have a following is all the hollywood actors and the snobs who would never show their face at a football game unless it was the Super Bowl.

    ***************************************

    The Minnesota North Stars and their owner snuck the team out of town.

    Nobody, I mean nobody wanted this team to leave. They had a great venue that was packed.

    Minnesota is Hockey state first and formost.

    The Wild did replace the North Stars and is a huge success.

    If The Vikings go, another team will come.

  66. bdickey33 says: Oct 13, 2011 10:18 AM

    pack13queens0 says:
    Oct 12, 2011 5:45 PM
    It still won’t happen. The Minnesota politicians care more about keeping their jobs than they do about keeping a team there. It’s not like the Vikings have any fan support anyway. Minnesota has by far the worst fans in the NFL. When the Vikings do move to Los Angeles, the word blackout may never be heard for an NFL game again. And Minnesota will save money because the team doesn’t bring in any tax revenue to the State plus the fact that there are more Packer fans in Minnesota than there are Viking fans. It’ll be a win for everybody, the team in Los Angeles where they will be supported better, and Minnesota gets to see all Packer games. The NFL made a mistake putting a team in Minnesota, time to move them out and never return.

    ————————————————–

    what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul

  67. savannahrose44 says: Oct 13, 2011 10:39 PM

    randomjim says:
    Oct 12, 2011 8:57 AM
    kennyrogerschicken says:
    Oct 12, 2011 7:58 AM
    Sweet. As a tax payer in Ramsey County, I’m all for the government telling me what I can and can’t have a say in. Voting is too much trouble in Minnesota, right Mark Dayton and Al Franken?
    ====================================
    The gov. pays for, builds things all the time that you don’t have a say in personally. That’s why you vote for representation. Do you have the time to look into every pro & con of things paid for by taxes?
    If you do maybe you should run for office, but with your logic I can’t imagine you getting very many votes.
    ————————————————-

    “the question of whether a local sales tax should be employed to pay for a portion of the proposed stadium. ”

    There is a difference between the government spending tax dollars that have already been collected and creating a new tax to be added on to the existing taxes. The citizens absolutely should have the opportunity to say no. A new additional sales tax affects everyone rich and poor alike. If our elected officials are given the power to just create a new tax, and enforce it on the public when it suits their fancy, then we might as well call this country New England and not the United States of America.

  68. savannahrose44 says: Oct 14, 2011 4:16 AM

    The Phantom Stranger says:
    Oct 12, 2011 12:11 PM

    This is not taxation without representation. This decision was made by elected representatives. Americans almost never get a vote on a new tax.

    —————————————–

    They do where I come from…thus the reason we have no sales tax here.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!