DeLand column: proposal for a Stadium like returns reflux

We're going to pause here a moment to give everyone a chance to throw down their newspapers and run screaming outside the Chamber, shortly before we write it again the three infamous words:

Vikings.

Playground.

Proposal.

It's baaaack. For more than a decade, this stadium has made an annual resurgence January, making the type of acid reflux issues to come before the Minnesota legislature.

Only this time, the same old problem has a new sense of urgency.

Vikings one season left on the lease with the Metrodome, where the last time we looked at was really the Metrobowl. The dome collapsed on Dec. 13 under a cascade of ice and snow, perhaps symbolizing broadly in the era of Vikings or the State of the facility.

The deflated housing and beeping clock simply add layers to a debate that has raged from the eras property of Roger Headrick and Red McCombs. After years of procrastination, arrived at the time – by.

In some respects, of course, nothing has changed. Legislators and the general public, have mercy endlessly around the land question: who will pay for this, who derives benefit, there must be public subsidies for billionaires, ritual blah ritual blah ritual blah.

But in other respects, what has changed. First of all, there is the period of limitation: If nothing happens during this legislative session, Vikings can play their contract and literally become free agents available to move in any city (like, say, Los Angeles) to build a stadium for them.

There is also changing the guard at the legislature. Republicans have now a majority in both the House and Senate, and it seems clear that the Vikings believe this is advantageous for their hopes for public funding.

In an interview he gave earlier this week with the Associated Press, Lester Bagley Vikings ' Vice President of public affairs and development stadium Gets the tone: the team is willing to pay one third of the cost of an open-air stadium.

This is exactly the same pitch their mercy last year and went nowhere. One can only assume that the Vikings believe this will be reduced to more receptive ears this time, perhaps because of the looming deadline, and perhaps because you're elephant ears (Republicans) instead of Donkey ears (Democrats).

(2 of 2)

Regardless of what the majority party catching tuna, however, is somewhat hypocritical Vikings proposal.

Bagley and Vikings is very careful to stress that we pay one-third of the cost of an open-air stadium.

The fraction, by the way, came from the Minnesota Twins, who paid approximately one third of the cost of possible field goal.

But nobody speaks about an open-air Vikings stadium, except perhaps team owner. Zygi Wilf. Zygi, made it clear I was happy with a domed stadium, too, but the offer of the contribution does not increase if you raise the roof on the place.

And this is problematic. According to estimates published last April by the Vikings themselves, the cost of an open-air stadium was 632 million dollars contribute one third of the approximately 211 million dollars.

Adding a fixed roof increases the overall cost by 159 million dollars. Retractable roof would be even more expensive.

That brings the cost of a domed stadium to at least 791 million dollars, meaning that Vikings want 580 million dollars or so on public funding.

Vikings preferences aside, any initiative stadium is a null-terminated without a roof.

State Sen. Julie points by (R-Fairmont), probably the sponsor lead this year's Bill stadium, prefers a facilitation 365 days that can be used for amateur sporting events and Super Bowl and NCAA tournament and anything else. This makes no sense in Minnesota to do otherwise.

But are the two major questions: who will pay for this? How do I?

The legislator is facing a State budget deficit roughly 6.2 billion dollars. No one seems to have been any popular ideas about how to eradicate, or any particular inclination to do so. Add 580 million dollars for a Vikings Stadium increases tab by almost 10 percent.

Bill the Rosen will be introduced in February, probably sometime and it'll be interesting to see what it entails and what financing proposals.

All kinds of options have been discussed for raising tax revenues that hospitality, a game featuring a racino of Canterbury, a souvenir sales tax surcharge, TIF, etc., but still there is very little public enthusiasm for Finance stadium.

Proponents point out that the project will create jobs (Vikings 2010 report estimated 7,500 jobs on-site), tax revenues, plus a variety of other benefits. They're all part of the mishmash of numbers that make the head spin media observer.

And, who knows? The average Observer has perhaps already thrown down the newspaper and run screaming outside the Chamber.

For those who don't, and they want to see where this thing goes, stay tuned. Once the process has begun.

Again.

This is the opinion of the times sports editor Dave DeLand. Contact with the driver at 255-8771 or via e-mail at ddeland@stcloudtimes.com.

View the original article here