Vikings stadium bill may avoid a public vote

Getty Images

If the Minnesota politicians have little appetite for a publicly-funded stadium, the Minnesota electorate is downright nauseous.  And so any effort to build a new stadium for the Vikings with public money will deftly avoid the direct input of the voters.

According to Mike Kazsuba and Kevin Duchschere of the Minneapolis Star Tribune, the current stadium bill will allow a local government to increase sales taxes without a public referendum.  The Legislature employed a similar tactic in securing public funding for the Twins’ baseball stadium.

The thinking is that, if the citizens vote, the measure would fail.  Indeed, it’s believed that, if public funding of the Twins’ stadium had been put out to a vote, the effort would have failed, too.

This time around, the cause is less popular.  Even with the looming possibility of a move by the Vikings to Los Angeles, the sense of urgency to get this done simply doesn’t seem to be present.

The folks in Minnesota may never develop a sufficient sense of urgency.  The biggest danger is that the urgency will come when it’s too late to do anything about it.

33 responses to “Vikings stadium bill may avoid a public vote

  1. Amazing. How much will the Sales Tax have to be raised to fund a Stadium? Add that to the raised tax of the baseball stadium, and what are they paying?

  2. Of course you don’t “ask” taxpayers making $50,000 a year if you can give their money to a billionaire whose country club membership is $50,000 a month. Those selfish morons are going to say “NO.”

    You just go ahead and give their money to a billionaire. No questions asked, just slam dunk it.

    I only hope the owners can work out some type of agreement where they only have to pay the players $10 a game.

    As Roger Goodell so eloquently puts it “It’s what the fans want.”

  3. Build the stadium for cryin’ out loud! The Twin Cities are too large a market not to have a team. If the Vikings move, the drum beat for a new team will begin and Minnesota will end up with a team like the Clevland Browns. The local business leaders need vision and leadership to make this happen. Back in the late 50s and 60s local buisnesmen really did get it done. Sell naming rights for a retractable roof. 100 million dollars over 20 years. How about Allstate or Travelers? “You are covered by Allstate/Travelers” – Nike? “Just Do It” – Make it green and call it the “Jolly Green Giant”- 3M “The Giant Post It”- Mortons Salt “When It Rains, You’re Dry” etc.

  4. Gotta love that Minnesota State Government – forcing their agenda down the voter’s throat regardless of what they want – Twins Stadium, Light Rail and now the Vikings Stadium. And people wonder why we have a 5 billion dollar budget deficit…..

  5. I don’t get it. Can’t a billionaire get a free handout from the taxpayers without all this ruckus?

    Something is really wrong in this country if the richest 2% have to be held accountable by the other 98%. You can bet Rockefeller, Carnegie, and JP Morgan never had to put up with this kind of stuff….

  6. Funny enough, they take your money w/o asking then call the stadium theirs and make you buy tickets to get in…. Even tho you paid for it in the 1st place. Furthermore, if they dont get their way they can lock it down and make sure you dont get to see what you unwilling paid for in the 1st place.

  7. That’s a lot of money to watch a team without a pro quarterback.

    Seriously, I think every city in the US should just crack down and say “no tax dollars to stadiums, period.” Billionaire owners don’t need handouts.

    (The above sentiment does not apply to Green Bay, except for the part where we’re laughing at Minnesota’s situation at QB.)

  8. Vikingshipper has a decent point. If we allowed the Vikings to leave, we would find ourselves in a very similar situation to what happened with the North Stars. The team will leave, everyone will be sad that they’re gone, then we’ll end up getting a different team and building a new stadium anyway. Why go through a football-less decade when we’ll just end up in the same place? Especially since building costs will only continue to rise. Are they going about it the right way? Probably not. But no one can argue the success of Target Field.

  9. when its republicans doing it, the libs are up in arms, when the dems are doing it, the repubs are up in arms.
    Whats the Obama line?
    That why we have elections. and the dems lost big time.

  10. “The folks in Minnesota” aren’t stupid. We’re not dragging our heels, we know what the stakes are. this isn’t about urgency. we have a clear message: we’d rather lose the vikings than have taxes increased yet again. of course that’s not a popular message on a football website, but it’s the truth.

  11. michaeledits,
    neither do the poor or stupid deserve a handout.
    In fact, the rich will more than pay it back, as opposed to the the guy who is permanantly unemployed……

  12. I’m in favor of a stadium being funded by Packer fans who live in Minnesota. Seems fair to me. And as far as the method used to finance the Twins Target Field, I guess the end justified the means, as it’s been a huge success and benefit to Mlps. and the state.

  13. Oh I agree. Owners should NEVER EVER EVER get a dime of tax money to build a stadium structure. IT’S A PRIVATE BUILDING…PAY FOR IT YOURSELF.
    Sometimes fans can be nuts though. Here in Cle I think they let fans vote on the sales tax increase to build the stadium and it still passed.

  14. According to Kevin Duchschere of the Minneapolis STAR TRIBUNE. Target Field “brought in $18.6 million in sales and use taxes” in ’10, and the “biggest winners were Minnesota and Minneapolis.” The state took in $11.6M from Target Field, $6.6M more than it got from the Metrodome in ’09, while the city took $6.3M from Target Field, up from $900,000 in ’09. The Twins reported that the team “contributed $632,000 in 2010 for youth activities,” which is $175,000 “more than called for under the terms of the Twins’ ballpark lease.” (Minneapolis STAR TRIBUNE, 2/19).

  15. I have to say….I hate the Vikings. However, this is downright insane.

    Hey Vikings fans….move on over to Wisconsin where our politicians only completely erase federal funding and eliminate your job. Hey, at least your taxes didn’t go up.

    BTW….the Packers won the Superbowl…

  16. those who say you are ok with losing the vikes will also be the first to file a lawsuit…..LOL! damned if you, damned if you dont……

  17. Get this damn thing built!! Long overdue! No crying about helping out to fund it! It will help MANY in the community! Now or never already!


  18. Ironic considering MN has voted for EVERY tax increase on the ballot for as long as I can remember.

  19. They would be wise to avoid a public vote. The Viking fanbase is apathetic and worn out from the Packer SuperBowl victory on the heels of the near-high Favre (almost) gave them. That would take the wind out of anyones sails. I do hope they get a stadium though. It just wouldn’t be the same without the Vikings in Minnesota. The only pro football fans that would remain would be the diehards and they could elect to choose geographically from amongst the Chiefs, the Bears, and the Packers. Or, try to watch a team on cable that has no local connection whatsoever. Take my word for it…it feels good to be a Packer fan..always has…always will. The Packers will take you in as fans too….no hard feelings.

  20. Frankly, I’d rather my tax dollars go towards something I’ll actually get some benefit from, like a football stadium, than go to pay for things like benefits for illegal aliens and crack heads.

  21. mooseknuckle says:
    Apr 6, 2011 10:13 AM
    Packer fans are the lowest form of life in the universe. Not much else to say….
    Someone sounds bitter and jealous..

  22. rugdog100 says:
    Apr 6, 2011 9:45 AM
    According to Kevin Duchschere of the Minneapolis STAR TRIBUNE. Target Field “brought in $18.6 million in sales and use taxes” in ’10, and the “biggest winners were Minnesota and Minneapolis.” The state took in $11.6M from Target Field, $6.6M more than it got from the Metrodome in ’09, while the city took $6.3M from Target Field, up from $900,000 in ’09. The Twins reported that the team “contributed $632,000 in 2010 for youth activities,” which is $175,000 “more than called for under the terms of the Twins’ ballpark lease.” (Minneapolis STAR TRIBUNE, 2/19).

    Nice numbers. If you think the Vikings will bring in comparable numbers in 8 regular season home games versus the Twins 81 regular season home games, you’re out of your mind.

  23. File this under, “Actions have consequences”

    The good folks of Minnesota cannot elect idiots to public office without expecting idiotic results. The irony is that the Vikings move to LA will actually yield positive results, although clearly unintended. The crime rate in Minneapolis will decrease when the felons move west (unfortunately, the local police departments will be short some revenue when Adrian Peterson is no longer fined for exceeding 100 mph on a weekly basis). The local corporations will get to keep more of their money because the team will no longer be leaning on them to avoid the blackout rule. And lastly, the citizens of Minnesota will get to watch pro football every Sunday as the Fox affiliate will then be showing Packer games. There is a silver lining in this after all.

  24. I was a season ticket holder for the Vikes 3 years ago. I realized only 65,000 fans will see the Vikings live. So, let them move to SoCal, let’s watch the game on tv, and everybody will save some money.

  25. They love to trash Favre, yet they named their first child Brett and tattooed #4’s all over their bodies.

  26. This whole saga in Minny gives rise to a few questeions. First, I agree, taxpayers should not be forced to fund anything for anybody in the private sector. Second, local politicians in Minnesota should not force the Vikings to build a stadium downtown where land prices are too high. Third, if the Vikings are a profitable venture, the Wilfs should build the stadium through their own efforts, their own capital and debt financing. Fourth, if the players really believe they are “partners” in the ownership of the NFL, why are not the player/partners contributing to the construction of a new stadium? That’s the part I don’t get. The players want 50% or more of all the revenue, because they feel they are 50/50 partners, but they won’t participate in any of the expenses or capital requirements. Why not? Wouldn’t real partners, especially partners who believe that “they are the game”, contribute mightily to the cost of building the stadium where they will play the game, that they believe they are?

    Could one of the Samuel Gomper wannabe’s here explain why your hero partners should not contribute to the cost of building the Vikes a new home?

    Thank you.

  27. Why should there be a referendum for building a football stadium? We elect people to vote on issues like this. I don’t remember a referendum on my tax dollars being spent on the thousands of other things my tax dollars are spent on. Our representatives are supposed to make decisions on things like this. Believe me, we wouldn’t be $5 billion in debt if the taxpayers voted on every new bill.

  28. Start the impeachment process. Same story everywhere, government officials are not listening.

  29. Are some of you guys for real?? Country and your state is quickly sliding in to a financial abyss and you want to publicly fund a stadium for Billionaires and Millionaires?

    Get out of your KUMBAYA state and smell the free-fall. Smells like financial failure!!

Leave a Reply

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