“It’s Good!”
Vikes stadium, not such a bad thing
By Katie Kieffer
Image credit: http://tinyurl.com/yf336u8
The Vikings are hot. Minnesotans who used to ignore football now hustle into grocery stores and stock up on chips, dip and beer on game day, reported the Pioneer Press on Nov. 29. Thanks to dynamite players like Favre and Peterson, both fair-weather and hard-core fans are embracing the Vikings with open arms and new zeal.
If you’ve read my blog before, you’ve probably gathered that I’m fiscally conservative. So, let me explain this: I think we need to build the Vikings a new stadium – even though Minnesota currently has a $1.2 billion budget deficit.
The Vikings’ lease with the Metrodome expires in 2011, and the Vikings are frustrated with current proposals to extend their lease. Minnesota needs to stop beating around the bush and work with the team on a clear plan to put up a new stadium.
I am not an advocate for using tax-payer’s money for many things – particularly for initiatives that throw money down the drain like Cash for Clunkers, a failed $787 billion stimulus package, flowers for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) or doughnuts for House Majority Whip James Clyburn. But, I think a Vikings stadium provides a community benefit and makes long-term sense for Minnesota. Here’s why:
- Do we really want to let Favre go? Image credit: http://tinyurl.com/yg865w8
Financial considerations:
Vikings owner, Zygi Wilf, has skin in the game. He has proposed to contribute financially to the stadium. Furthermore, even though the Vikings are at the bottom of the league in team revenues, he’s not skimping on the team. Unlike the team’s previous owner – Red McCombs – Wilf has invested in the team to the highest extent allowed under the existing salary caps.
If we lose the Vikings, we also lose about $26 million in annual tax revenue to the state. If we get a new stadium, it’s a guarantee that Minnesota would get to host a Super Bowl game, bringing in tons of revenue for the state and for local businesses. We could also cut down on the cost to taxpayers to build the stadium – particularly on those who aren’t football fans – by implementing creative financing ideas from fans, such as:
- Merchandise tax on Viking apparel
- Increase the ticket tax on tickets sold
- Concession tax increase at the game
- Scratch off lottery tickets
- Image credit: http://tinyurl.com/yj5g5wk
Work force and competition considerations:
A football team makes Minneapolis competitive with other states and helps attract young professionals to our city. Contrary to popular thinking, even during this recession, jobs alone do not suffice to attract and retain a young, skilled workforce. According to Next Generation Consulting, young professionals weigh at least seven factors into their decision to live in any particular city – including a factor called “After Hours.” Said differently, young professionals want to live in cities where there are things to do and places to socialize after work.
Minneapolis currently has a big advantage in attracting young professionals to the state: She boasts all four primary professionals sports – Football, hockey, baseball and basketball. If we lose our football team, we lose this advantage. We would join the ranks of many other competing Midwest states that lack all four pro teams such as Wisconsin (no pro hockey team), Kansas (no pro basketball or hockey team), Iowa, Nebraska, Indiana, Kentucky and the Dakotas. By having all four major sports, we join the elite ranks of big-name cities that share this advantage.
Football is “the most popular sport in America,” reports Parade Magazine. So, it’s logical to think that Minneapolis would need football to remain popular with a young workforce and college graduates. Having four major professional sports teams gives a city credibility.
Why do you think you frequently see studies ranking the “Top 10 Cities for Young Professionals?” Well, because a high population of young professionals is a sign that a city is desirable and has growth potential. We need to attract and retain bright young professionals to Minnesota if we want to stay competitive.
Los Angeles is building a football stadium, but doesn’t have a team yet. The Vikings are gaining national attention, with a star quarterback and only two losses. If Minnesota doesn’t put a palatable deal on the table, Wilf has other options for his team. We lost our basketball team (now the LA Lakers) and our hockey team (now the Dallas Stars), and Minnesota’s sports fans could not deal with it. We now have pro basketball and hockey back in Minnesota with the T-Wolves and the Wild.
So, we could say goodbye to the Vikings to save the taxpayers money – but, given our history of shedding and rebuilding pro sports teams – it would only be a short-term reprieve. I think Minnesotans are passionate about live sports and we’d end up doing a stadium down the road one way or another. So, why not build on the current enthusiasm, excitement and positive energy that the Vikings are bringing to Minnesota and build them a new stadium before they leave? We can and should be smart and creative in the financing, and the Wilfs should pay for a piece of the pie.
Questions to consider:
- How much longer can we get the Vikings to stay in the Metrodome? Ideally, we’d get them to agree to use the existing stadium for another five to seven years.
- How to spend the least amount of taxpayer money on the stadium?
- How soon will Favre retire?
- How much will Minnesotans pay for football tickets?
- Can we buy a new horn that doesn’t look like it’s made out of tin foil?
- How can we best utilize the new stadium during the off-season?
Tags: LinkedIn
4 Responses to ““It’s Good!””
Leave a Reply
Thanks for visiting KatieKieffer.com! Please know that your comments are your sole opinion and they are not endorsed by Katie or KatieKieffer.com even if they are posted. Please remember you are a visitor on this site and your commenting and posting privileges may be revoked if you fail to comply with the Terms of Use.
You must be logged in to comment on this site. See our Terms of Use
[...] There are conservatives who make valid cases against stadium subsidies – my NARN colleague King Banaian has written on the subject on an academic level, to say nothing of blogging – and for it (this’d be Katie Kieffer). [...]
You wrote: Kansas (no pro basketball or hockey team)
Are you under the impression that the Kansas City Chiefs and the Kansas City Royals play in Kansas? Both teams play in Missouri. Kansas itself has no major professional sports teams.
A new stadium will cost about $60 or $70 per seat, over the 25 year life of the stadium. Seems to me like the people who want such a facility would be in position to pay for it.
Totally. Although many of your readers probably aren’t on board with tax hikes that Wilf seems to also be pushing for, a stadium will reap huge dividends for the state in the long-term.
This reminds me of Wizards owner Abe Pollin, who passed away last week. He paid for each of his arenas with his own cash. Here’s how he described walking into one of them:
“As the 20,674-seat arena was set to open, Mr. Pollin, then 74, told The Post: ‘I walk through that building (and) I get tears in my eyes. . . . It’s unbelievable. I’ve got everything I’ve ever done in my life on the line. I’ve pledged everything. My advisers think I’m nuts. But I wanted to do something special for my town.’”
It’d be awesome if MN had someone like this, instead of getting stuck with Zygi Wilf or Norm Green, who seem more interested in their bottom line and dire warnings of the team moving, than in stepping in to support their community and state in the midst of an enormous state deficit and huge economic downturn.
Still, even though I’m not a huge Vikes fan, this is good for the state….. just wish there were better options for state citizens.
I like it. I’d love a new stadium as soon as possible myself. One complaint I kept hearing though was that Zygi Wilf’s proposal had a bunch of things attached to it like a hotel, condos, restaurants, etc. I’m not sure if he was trying to get taxpayers to pay for all that or not, but it might be worth noting. In my opinion, a mega complex like that on the east side of downtown Minneapolis would do a lot for the development of that area.
Also, I believe that a new stadium with a roof is a requirement for the NFL to give us a Superbowl. Wilf’s proposed stadium had a retractable roof on it. But this is also worth noting just in case plans are altered to cut costs.
Finally, all the scheduled Final Four basketball tournaments through 2017 are scheduled to be played in NFL stadiums with roofs on them. Of those, Houston’s and Indianapolis’ new stadiums are each scheduled twice. Detroit’s new stadium hosted the tournament last year. Dallas’ new stadium will host in 2014. The Dome hosted Final Fours in 1992 and 2001, but there are no current plans for it to host any more Final Four tournaments. It’s speculated that we would need a new multi-functional stadium to get back into the rotation of host Final Four cities. Just another way of contributing to the offsetting the costs of building a new NFL stadium.