[Mpls] "Stadiumus Giganticus!"

[David Brauer]

First, a couple of notes from the coiner of Stadiumus Giganticus...

Laura Waterman Wittstock, very nicely, reminded me that "stadium" is=20
already Latin, so the correct term should be "Stadium Giganticus."

Also, "Stadium Giganticus" does not mean stadium opponents are out to=20
lunch =97 far from it. It refers to the tendency to overrate the=20
stadium's place in the political firmament =97 to pronounce politicians=20=

as "enemies of the people" (my quote, for illustration purposes) even=20
if they have labored hard and long for progressive causes. It's fine to=20=

say they're wrong, or worse, but it does not wipe out their good work=20
or flush it down the memory hole.

Another, more important manifestation of "Stadium Giganticus" is that=20
it distracts from other, often more important outrages.

For example: did anyone notice that yesterday the Metropolitan Airports=20=

Commission blithely approved another $120 million for Northwest's=20
unnecessary, anti-competitive airport expansion plan? That's one-third=20=

the public cost of the stadium...where's the outrage?!

On to Jenny Heiser, who I applaud for proposing a stadium solution!

On May 18, 2005, at 9:51 AM, Jenny Heiser wrote:

> I believe [Phyllis Kahn] submitted legislation for consideration
> about community ownership. Perhaps my memory is faulty about this. I=20=

> will check the Mpls.
> List archives.

I'm pretty sure she has. And it's a great idea! If you look at City=20
Pages' analysis of the size of the Twins' operating profit in a new=20
stadium, the idea of owning the ballclub makes more sense than ever.=20
The CO plan is not pure public ownership =97 there can be a single=20
managing partner who, I believe, can own 30 percent of the club with=20
the public owning the rest. That eliminates the "do you want the=20
legislature running the team?" argument. The public's cash and majority=20=

stock ownership is ballast to assure we can't be held hostage in a=20
move.

> Shuman relates clearly what the NFL rules have imposed on team=20
> ownership and thus
> shut-out any additional community owned football teams: "Every=20
> franchise, with an
> exception carved for the Packers, now must be at least 51 percent=20
> owned by a single
> individual."

I don't think so. If you look at the current Vikings sale, NFL rules=20
only require a single owner to own 30 percent. It may require an=20
ownership GROUP to have a majority, but that's different and can=20
include many minority partners.

The managing partner/public ownership plan is a way to work within=20
sports rules. I disagree with Dean Carlson that baseball would reject=20
it. I think the details could easily be worked out.

Now we get to Jenny's specifics:

> What IF: The City of Minneapolis purchased the Metrodome from the=20
> Metropolitan Sports
> Commission. [Financial details can be worked out by financial =
wizards.]

> What IF: After purchasing the Metrodome, the City partnered with a=20
> not-for-profit
> citizen-owned organization that would bring old-time baseball back to=20=

> Minneapolis, in the
> Metrodome, as the St. Paul Saints have in their fair city. [No, this=20=

> locally-owned team
> would not be on ESPN, but games could be broadcast on MTN.]

My not-very-thoughtful reaction: Ugh.

I think the term "old-time baseball" and "Metrodome" are incompatible.=20=

And as much as I love the Saints (inaugural season ticket holder), you=20=

don't need the Dome to get a club over here. And I'm not even sure a=20
Minneapolis club would work here =97 the Saints are a metro resource,=20
with declining attendance, so plenty of good seats available. Help them=20=

before we get too parochial!

> Minneapolis could realistically become a two-baseball team city --=20
> wowza! The success or
> failure of either the NPC team or the Twins would be entirely up to=20
> the free market.

I'd just as soon see the Saints as risk any city investment on the=20
Dome, but I sincerely applaud Jenny for taking a whack at a proposal.

David Brauer
Kingfield