[Mpls] Sid and stadia

[Chris Johnson]

According to Steve Brandt, Star Tribune sports columnist Sid Hartman wrote the 
following quoted material.  In it, he appears to be interested in making sure 
citizens who are polled have all the facts.  But is that his real interest? 
Or if it is, is Hartman perhaps himself suffering from the same lack of 
factual information the polled citizens are?

It's my contention that's the real problem here.  Partisans on both sides of 
the issues appear to know only a little about the facts, and only those which 
support their side.  My questions and remarks are interspersed with Hartman's 
below.

Hartman writes:
> "This newspaper ran a poll in Sunday's newspaper asking for opinions about
> the Hennepin County stadium plan.
> 
> Well, I am not a professional pollster, but I would have added a couple of
> questions that I think are important.
> 
> The first question I would ask is: Would you rather have a Hennepin
> County-wide sales tax of 0.15 percent to build the stadium, or allow the Twins
> to leave here and lose baseball?

I write:

How about a state-side or metro-wide sales tax at an even smaller rate to 
prevent the Twin from leaving?

Or, let's ask this question:  would you rather have a county-wide sales tax of 
0.15 percent to improve education, health care, homelessness or transportation 
(your pick), or would prefer to allow those problems fester?  Remember that 
investing in preparing children for school has a better return than just about 
any investment we can make.


Hartman writes:
> Second, I would ask if the people polled knew the state income tax paid by
> the Twins and visiting players, combined with the additional sales tax earned,
> could run up to an estimated $11 million a year in a new stadium. The sales
> tax from building materials also would provide a lot of money to the state.

I write:

Is that $11 million more in income and sales taxes than Twins and visiting 
players pay now?  Is it an incremental increase resulting from having a new 
stadium?   Frankly, that sounds like a fairly unsupportable and arbitrary 
number.  Where's the evidence that the state will collect more income tax and 
sales tax from players as a result of a new stadium?

This is especially suspect given the statement about building materials sales 
tax -- most of the materials used in constructing a new stadium and the 
infrastructure won't have a Minnesota state sales tax on them.  Since Hennepin 
County taxpayers will pay $353 million of the costs, and the Twins only $125 
million, the vast majority of any construction materials costs will be paid by 
the taxpayers.  Does it make sense to transfer money from one pocket of 
government to another pocket of government, while spilling some change on the 
floor, and call that a net benefit for the state?  For that matter, why should 
Hennepin County residents be the only taxpayers subsidizing this increase in 
sales tax revenue that goes to the State?


Hartman writes:
> Third, I would have asked if the people polled understood the number of
> jobs a stadium costing $478 million would provide.

I write:

What jobs would those be, after the construction work was done?  This kind of 
claim is made over and over for stadiums and arenas, but every competent 
economic study I've seen on the subject says that the number of jobs provided 
this way is actually very small.  So, is that small number of jobs associated 
with a new stadium greater than the small number of jobs associated with the 
current stadium, the Metro Dome?  And how much do those jobs pay?  Couldn't we 
get the same jobs or more for less tax money through some other means?


Hartman writes:
> Fourth, I would ask if there should be a referendum on the stadium, when
> there wasn't one when the Minneapolis City Council spent $4.7 million moving
> the Shubert Theater and gave $35 million to the Guthrie Theater and other
> government-sponsored projects.

I write:

There are several reasons why a referendum on a new stadium should happen but 
not on the other mentioned projects.  Foremost is a state law requiring a 
referendum when a new sales tax is imposed by the county.  I don't know where 
Hartman gets the $35 million figure, but the City Council most certainly did 
not give $35 million to the Guthrie.  The Guthrie *did* ask the State for $35 
million in bonding, however.  The Shubert is owned by Artspace, a non-profit, 
so unlike Carl Pohlad, taxpayer money spent assisting that theater project is 
not enriching some individual or for-profit business.


Hartman:
> Then I would ask if the people polled had any idea of the extent of the
> crime problems downtown and what 81 home games would do to improve that
> situation. Those games would attract more business downtown.

Me:
How many businesses?  Or, how many businesses has the Dome attracted downtown? 
  As far as I can tell, having the Dome downtown actually increases the crime 
rate in the area (I worked across the street from it for about 6 years).  Why 
would a new stadium decrease crime?



If everything Hartman claimed were true, it might be enough reason to publicly 
fund a new stadium.  But his presentation is all one-sided, and he makes a 
bunch of unsupported statements, including a few that look to be outright 
wrong.  With such incomplete and biased information, how can anyone make a 
reasonable decision?

--
Chris Johnson
Fulton