Why register with the Steelers Fever Forums?
 • Intelligent and friendly discussions.
 • It's free and it's quick. Always.
 • Enter events in the forums calendar.
 • Very user friendly software.
 • Exclusive contests and giveaways.

 Donate to Steelers Fever, Click here
 Our 2014 Goal: $450.00 - To Date: $450.00 (100.00%)
 Home | Forums | Editorials | Shop | Tickets | Downloads | Contact Pittsburgh Steelers Forum Feed Not Just Fans. Hardcore Fans.

Go Back   Steelers Fever Forums > General Football > NFL Football

Steelers Fever Fan Shop

Doc's Sports Get FREE NFL Picks and College Football picks as well as Football Lines like live NFL Lines and updated NFL Power Rankings all at Doc's Sports Service.

Pro Bowl
8:00PM Eastern on ESPN

Thread Tools
Old 05-04-2010, 10:06 AM   #1
Living Legend
SteelersMongol's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ulaanbaatar, MONGOLIA
Posts: 4,083
Gender: Male
Member Number: 2401
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Vikes stadium plan given long odds by Minnesota lawmakers

ST. PAUL, Minn. -- A sports-themed lottery game and new taxes on hotel stays, car rentals and sports memorabilia are the linchpins of a Minnesota Vikings stadium proposal that top Democratic legislators characterized Monday as a long shot to pass this year.

Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty also said he wasn't willing to budge on his resistance to tax increases even as Minnesota leaders worry about the team relocating after its Metrodome lease expires next year.

A new Vikings stadium projects to cost $791 million, but Minnesota lawmakers have their doubts about the plan.

That public money would be expected to amount to about two-thirds of a $791 million project, with the Vikings paying the remaining third -- about $264 million. The city where the stadium would be built hasn't been determined.

Lawmakers behind the plan admitted the bill is receiving a late start, with just two weeks left in the 2010 legislative session and a budget deficit still unresolved. The tardiness led legislative leaders to downplay its chances.

House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher said the proposal has "a lot of problems" and predicted passage would be "very difficult." Senate Majority Leader Larry Pogemiller called it "a tall order." Both Democratic leaders, who represent Minneapolis districts, say they won't keep the session open just for up-or-down stadium votes or give the bill special treatment to move it along. Neither committed to supporting it themselves.

The bill made a splashy debut at a Monday morning news conference, where backers from labor unions and downtown Minneapolis business groups insisted that action was critical to keeping the Vikings in Minnesota. The legislation starts heading through a series of committees Tuesday.

"There are a lot of things to like in this bill, and there are things that are going to give people heartburn," said Sen. Tom Bakk, DFL-Cook, the chairman of the Senate taxes committee and the bill's chief sponsor.

Bakk said a stadium project could mean $300 million in wages for the construction trades, which have been hit hard by the recession. He also said low finance rates make it a good time to build a stadium. He said waiting a year likely would add $50 million to construction costs and be more politically difficult as well because next year is a budget year.

Pawlenty, who's considering running for president, said he opposes stadium legislation that includes new state taxes.

"The Vikings are a valued asset in Minnesota. We want to keep 'em in Minnesota. But we're not going to be raising or dealing with state taxes to subsidize that," Pawlenty told reporters during a Washington trip Monday. "If somebody has a creative solution, we'll take a look at it."

Vikings executive Lester Bagley said the team wasn't ready to commit to the proposal, but he called it "a great start to the conversation."

The biggest portion of the public money would come from a nearly 7 percent tax on jerseys, trading cards and other sports memorabilia, which would bring in an estimated $17 million per year. The 1.5 percent hotel surtax in the seven-county metro area would bring an estimated $8 million, and the sports-themed scratch-off game and rental-car tax would each bring in an estimated $5.5 million.

An alternative proposal discussed Monday would use the lottery game and an extension of taxes now being used to pay for Minneapolis Convention Center after that debt is satisfied in 2020. That option also allows Minneapolis officials to use a portion of the convention center taxes for police and fire protection downtown and to help retire debt for Target Center, the aging arena where the NBA's Timberwolves play.

While backers pitched the taxes in the bill as affecting people who benefit from the stadium, it would draw money from a much wider circle. The state Chamber of Commerce has voiced opposition to the lodging tax because it would rope in business travelers.

Former state Rep. Phil Krinkie, president of the Taxpayers League of Minnesota, also took aim at the plan.

"It's just an outright fabrication to say they can do this with 'user fees.' It just doesn't work," Krinkie said, adding, "People who buy a Twins jersey are going to be paying for a Vikings stadium. You're asking people who buy a Wild jersey to pay for a Vikings stadium."

The proposal calls for the Vikings, whose lease expires after the 2011 season, to sign a 40-year lease. And it would require the NFL to commit to hosting a Super Bowl in the stadium.

Bagley said the $264 million contribution expected from the team is a higher amount than the owners of the franchise are ready to agree to pay. He also said they have reservations about the 40-year lease. The team amount is based on a stadium with a fixed-roof. Bagley said the Vikings' share should be calculated based on a roofless stadium, which would lower the obligation to about $210 million.

The legislators said that besides Vikings games, a new stadium would host up to 300 major events annually.

Lawmakers pushing the plan are counting on excitement over the Twins' brand-new Target Field to focus attention on the product instead of the cost.

"I would challenge anyone to say 'Target Field was a mistake,'" said Sen. Julie Rosen, R-Fairmont.

So I don't get it. If they can't build a new 1, can't they just extend the current contact?
SteelersMongol is offline   Reply With Quote


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:00 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Shoutbox provided by vBShout v6.2.1 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2015 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.0.8 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2015 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Navbar with Avatar by Motorradforum
no new posts