[Mpls] Re: stadium

[David Brauer]

On Apr 29, 2005, at 6:52 AM, Bruce Gaarder wrote:

> 2)  Haven't I read that teams seem to think that 15 years is about
> as long as they want to stay in new stadiums?  That teams with
> facilities that aren't that old are already making noises about new
> ones?

The only major bleating is coming from the Chicago White Sox, who built 
"new" Comiskey Park in a wretchedly bad, old-style design just before 
Camden Yards. The talk there is of a new second deck, which is 
heart-attack-inducing (steeper than the Dome), but it won't happen.

Camden Yards is 14 years old, and is much beloved. Jacobs Field is 10 
years old, ditto. I don't think any other new stadiums are in danger, 
so I think the "15-year" expiration date is wrong. However, with the 
exception of Dodger Stadium, most parks built in the '60s and '70s - in 
your 30-year window - have crumbled.

> 3)  The editors of the Strib wrote on Tuesday that the Twins would
> be putting up 36% of the cost.  Other articles have stated the cost
> as $478 million with the team putting up $125 Million.  The editorial
> is either deliberately misleading (the public share is $478M - $125M
> = $353M, $125M is 35.4% of $125M) or sloppy editing ($125M is 26% of
> $478).  I'm not inclined to cut them slack on an editorial about what
> they consider so vital to their well-being.

As one who's attempting to distill this for readers, it's complicated.

The ballpark's estimated construction cost is $360 million - $125M from 
Carl and $235M from us. Carl pays construction cost overruns.

Add on $84 million for site improvements. 100% publicly funded. So if 
you want to add that up, the total cost is now $444 million, with $319 
million, or 72 percent, coming from the public.

Then there's $34 million for public borrowing costs on the 30-year 
bonds. That makes the total cost $478 million, with $353 million, or 74 
percent, coming from the public.

Hope that helps.

David Brauer
Kingfield
Editor, Skyway News and Southwest Journal