[Mpls] "Stadiumus Giganticus!"

[David Brauer]

On May 16, 2005, at 11:16 AM, Gary Hoover wrote:

> In Minneapolis I don't see anything about Mayor Rybak or Peter=20
> McLaughlin to distinguish them from Republicans.  It is simply the=20
> stadium issue, but more the hypocrisy about taxation.  Regressive=20
> taxes are now acceptable to Democrats.

That's true, in the case of a stadium sales tax, so good point.

However, I would note both McLaughlin and Rybak =97 and DFLers in the=20
legislature =97 are working hard to increase reliance on the=20
*progressive* income tax for education and municipal finance (LGA).=20
That has to happen at the state level. Unfortunately, the state limits=20=

cities to two regressive taxes =97 sales and property.

So, while it's fair to ding the DFL candidates for their regressive tax=20=

policy on the stadium, it obscures a much more significant party-wide=20
effort to increase reliance on progressive taxation. I would say this=20
is a mild case of Stadiumus Giganticus. I hope all Greens have been to=20=

St. Paul to fight alongside the DFL on this one.

> Construction and operation of excellent transit and full funding of=20
> our schools would create more living wage jobs and invest in the=20
> future while
> the stadium will provide a bump in construction/sports entertainment=20=

> and then provide many sub-living-wage jobs.

I think both Peter and RT have worked their little heinies off for mass=20=

transit =97 Peter gets the gold star for LRT and RT gets the gold star=20=

for Bus Rapid Transit on I-35W. Both support higher school spending.

Again, I think it's fair to criticize them for adding a ballpark to=20
their wish list, but again, this touch of Stadium Giganticus has the=20
baby (their support for education and transit) going out with the=20
stadium bathwater.

> In contrast, excellent transit and schools will have beneficial=20
> economic ripples that far exceed those of the stadium investment, it=20=

> seems to me. But the Democrats seem to be focused on the circus of=20
> today, not on providing bread for today and tomorrow as well.

I think both candidates have argued =97 plausibly =97 that the stadium =
is=20
more a public obsession than their personal or political one. They=20
support it and would vote for it =97 that's significant and =
criticizable.=20
It is a big-money initiative.

However, to say both are not working  on more fundamental, progressive=20=

issues is the epitome of Stadium Giganticus, in my view.

> Only one candidate for local office --  Dean Zimmerman, a Green -- has=20=

> also mentioned preparing our local economy for a post-petroleum=20
> economy.

I like Dean, and I take a pass on any PRT judgment, but lots of folks=20
think Dean's PRT work harms better mass transit gains elsewhere.

> Together with "Stadium Giganticus" these themes will guide the local=20=

> Democrats to power.  Local Democratic politics: more diversion, less=20=

> substance; more circus, less bread.  I am voting Green.

As well many should. I'm really glad the Greens are there to provide an=20=

alternative when Dems line up all on one side, or the wrong side.

Again, though, my main point is that a "bad" vote on the stadium=20
shouldn't obscure everything else going on. Yes, it can be a legitimate=20=

and principled deciding issue for voters. But personally, I there are=20
more important issues and more complex judgments to be made.

David Brauer
Kingfield=