[Mpls] Re: tax law. is it unconstitutional?

[David Brauer]

Dan McGuire writes:

> David, this is one of those times when it looks like you're not
> presenting the facts so much as you are arguing the case for why
> imposing the tax is OK.  You, of course, have every right to do so as an
> individual, but it does compromise the appearance, at least, of
> objectivity that we hope to see from journalists.

Dan, there are plenty of good reasons to oppose a stadium, as I think my
previous posts acknowledge.

I'd never challenge anyone's opinion that this is a giveway to a
billionaire, or that other priorities are more deserving. Personally, I
think the claim that this is a great economic benefit to Minneapolis is bunk
(though we won't know for sure, at least at this point), or that it will
greatly help downtown.

However, I do think opponents have overreached at times. I think I'm
upholding my job as a journalist to present facts, even if they are
unpopular (as I suspect they are on this forum).

In the case cited: there was a claim (not mine) is that there is no rational
basis the state to exempt Hennepin County from a referendum. I tried to cite
one possible rational basis - an 18-month delay's cost - and one factual
precedent: a St. Paul sales tax that had no referendum.

No one knows until a court rules, but I think the equal-protection "case" is
far from clear cut as it proponent made it seem, and that was the point of
my earlier post. I don't think it makes me a stadium stooge.

David Brauer
Kingfield