Transcripts

text | pdf |

---

GARY EICHTEN: Thank you, Tim. Six minutes now past 12 o'clock. Programming on Minnesota Public Radio is supported by Glenwood-Inglewood Water, clean, fresh, pure, and plenty of it. Home and office delivery available-- 374-2253.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

And good afternoon. Welcome back to Midday here on Minnesota Public Radio. I'm Gary Eichten. Glad you could join us this hour. And we hope you'll be able to stay tuned through the hour. Matter of fact, we hope you'll be able to call in and join our conversation.

Today, we're going to talk about the stadium. After years of discussion, the Twins stadium debate may finally be coming to a head. Governor Arne Carlson says he plans to call a special session of the legislature early this fall to decide whether public money should be used to help Minnesota's pro sports teams.

In response, a special 16-member legislative task force has been holding a series of hearings on the issue this summer. Hearing proposals to spend somewhere between $400 and $700 million in public money on a new stadium for the Twins, perhaps a new stadium for the Twins and Vikings, perhaps a new arena for a hockey team, and perhaps add some help for the basketball Timberwolves as well.

Time is short. The Twins can break their lease at the Metrodome this fall and theoretically, could leave Minnesota at the end of next season. And today, we're interested in your comments on what, if anything, the state should do about all this. Give us a call. Our Twin City area number is 227-6000, 227-6000. Or if you're calling from outside the Twin Cities, you can reach us toll free at 1-800-242-2828. 227-6000, Or 1-800-242-2828.

Minnesota Public Radio reporter Bill Wareham has been following the hearings. And he'll be here throughout the hour to keep us on the straight and narrow. And also joining us by phone, Star Tribune sports reporter and weekend edition commentator Jay Weiner, who has also been covering the hearings, writing extensively about them. Hi, Jay.

JAY WEINER: Hi, Gary. How are you? Hi, Bill.

GARY EICHTEN: Hello, Jay. Hello, Jay. Jay, our legislators are now talking about how to do this rather than whether it should be done at all.

JAY WEINER: I think that when the task force started about two weeks or so ago, the intention was more of a how do it, how to get a funding source in line. And then the first two hearings in particular, in which all the teams came forward-- the city of St. Paul, the city of Minneapolis came forward, a little mind numbing, actually, as to exactly all that the teams wanted.

And then it got back to the question for a lot of the task force members as to why and shouldn't we in Minnesota, in fact, have a policy on how to interact with sports teams before a decision is made to actually build a stadium for the Twins and/or for the football team. So it's kind of a table tennis match between how and why, while there are some activists on the task force that just want to figure out how. I think the prevailing opinion is still why.

GARY EICHTEN: Do you get the sense that they actually have time for that full-blown philosophical discussion?

JAY WEINER: Well, I don't really believe this is my opinion that the special session will occur in September. I think we're looking more at October at this point. And after they do what they're supposed to do tomorrow, which is tour the dome and the proposed stadium site in Minneapolis, and after they probably visit one of these stadiums in either Baltimore or Denver, there's probably not a whole lot more research that needs to be done.

If, in fact, you want to set a policy, you need to figure out, how much you want to move, whether professional sports are important to the community, what the tax impacts are, and then just do a balancing act. And yeah, there's probably enough time for this group, as small as it is, to figure out where to go. Then, of course, they need to sell it to all 201 members of the legislature.

GARY EICHTEN: Mm-hmm. What are they actually talking about? I remain fairly confused about that. Are we talking just in terms of the Twins now? Let's forget about the other three elements here-- just in terms of the Twins, are they talking about if and how to build an open air stadium? Are they talking about a retractable dome stadium? Are they talking about a stadium that both the Twins and Vikings could use? What are they talking about?

JAY WEINER: Well, there are a couple of points to be made. One is, they haven't really started to talk about anything yet. They've just fielded the desires of the teams and they heard from the public with some creativity actually last week. What the Twins want and what the task force will be talking about might be two different things.

But what the Twins want right now is a retractable roof stadium, probably on the Mississippi riverfront. That would cost at least $439 million, including the land costs, and that the public would almost totally pay for. So that's what the Twins want.

The task force members, and then during the regular session of last winter/spring were trying to find ways to maximize the private investment and to find ways for the general tax dollars wouldn't be used to pay for it. So I think that that's what's on the table right now.

As for the Vikings, I think most legislators are talking about or are thinking about either still holding off the Vikings for a couple more years until it looks as if they would actually threaten to leave town, or it looks as if the dome won't work anymore, and to possibly refurbish the dome.

The dual purpose idea raised by the Vikings hasn't really exactly seemed to catch fire, particularly because the Twins don't want anything to do with it. But it is an option out there that perhaps could save the public money, assuming the public wants to spend any money, if a dual purpose stadium is somehow cheaper than a new Twin stadium and refurbishing the dome. I think right now, most of them are still focused on the Twins.

GARY EICHTEN: And do they seem receptive to the idea of giving the city of St. Paul $65 million to help pay for the new Civic Center for the new hockey team?

JAY WEINER: Not really. At least in the public meeting, there was a lack of receptivity to the inconsistency of bonding $65 million for the St. Paul arena, while the Twin stadium never got that far on how it would be funded.

So there seems to be a desire to fund the stadiums and arenas in a uniform way, if that's possible, although it looks like the St. Paul arena funding might be linked more to Minneapolis Convention Center funding than it would be to a Twin stadium.

GARY EICHTEN: And is there any sentiment that you can detect to support giving the Timberwolves some financial aid?

JAY WEINER: None. I wouldn't think so, just because, of course, the Target Center was purchased in the end by the city of Minneapolis just three years ago. Getting through $750,000 from the state during that session was incredibly painful for the people that were involved. And I think the Timberwolves are at the end of the line.

However, if a public policy-- if some-- if consistent policy is created that says publicly owned facilities should be run in a certain way, that is, should be funded through let's pick gambling, let's pick metro area sales tax, let's pick some other ways, maybe the Timberwolves and the city of Minneapolis would get into the mix. But for right now, in the [INAUDIBLE] I would say the Timberwolves are way at the back of the line.

GARY EICHTEN: Last question before you run, Jay-- what is your sense? Do legislators really believe that one or more of these teams will leave town if they don't get the money they're asking for?

JAY WEINER: I think that many, if not most of them, do believe that team will leave. I've written that in baseball right now, it doesn't look like there's any place for the Twins to really go. Twins management and ownership say they just need one place. They don't need many. Exactly where that is right now, I'm not quite sure.

As it goes to the NFL, there are some open markets, big city markets, Los Angeles and Cleveland most notably. But football teams can up and move a lot more easily because of the anti-trust laws that do not prevent them from moving, because it's pretty easy to find a football stadium somewhere. You just need 10 games a year and you, presto, add water, you've got an NFL franchise like they did in Jacksonville and in Charlotte.

So I think when the bouncing balls are bouncing, it's probably if you ran it through the computer more easy for the Vikings to move than for the Twins, whether they would or not, it's uncertain. Those threats are hovering about. The timing, however, really isn't in the Twins favor to the extent that even if they escape after the '97 session, and season rather, and then really get out after '98, not only where would they go, but would any city be able to catch them is really a question, too.

So I think it's come down to more of trying to get this settled before the '98 election than it is to get this settled before the Twins really up and take one step out of the state. So it's a political decision as much as it's a sports funding decision, because no one wants the stadium debate and the specter of the Twins moving to get mixed up in the '98 legislative and gubernatorial elections.

GARY EICHTEN: Thanks, Jay. Appreciate you joining us.

JAY WEINER: Sure.

GARY EICHTEN: Jay Weiner, who is a sports reporter for the Star Tribune and weekend edition sports commentator, as well, Bill Wareham of Minnesota Public Radio reporter is with us. And of course, Bill has been covering this issue for Minnesota Public Radio.

Bill, you get the sense that legislators are still pretty open minded as to what to do about this, or in your mind, have they made a decision one way or the other, either to spend money and not or not to spend money, and now it's just a question of dotting the Is and crossing the Ts?

BILL WAREHAM: Oh, well, I think they're more open-minded about this than they probably have been for the last nine months. It was turned into an election issue last year, before the last legislative session, and a lot of legislators went on record about it and really had-- it made it difficult to talk about during the regular session.

I think now that the whole issue has moved on to a table all by itself, with no welfare reform or any of the other issues, taxes or anything like that, I think they'll talk about it a little more. And since the spotlight isn't on the legislature as a whole right now, they may think a little more about some of the options up there. So I think there may be more willingness than there was in the regular session to discuss the various options for funding the Twins in all sports.

GARY EICHTEN: We're talking today about the proposal to spend lots of public money on Minnesota's pro sports teams. And legislative task force is wrestling with that issue, taking a look at whether it should be done at all, and if so, how. And we'd like your comments today.

Give us a call. 227-6000 is our Twin City area number, 227-6000. Or outside the Twin Cities, the number is 1-800-242-2828. 227-6000 or 1-800-242-2828. It does look like a decision will be made relatively soon now. After years and years of talking about this. So great opportunity to get your oar in the water. Gary, you're first. Go ahead, please.

GARY: Yeah I'd like to ask, with all of the obvious public sentiment against spending tax money on stadium. I want to know where the governor and the legislative committees involved in this stuff really have the guts to keep this subject open.

GARY EICHTEN: Where do you think they get the guts from? Gary?

GARY: Where do I think?

GARY EICHTEN: Yes.

GARY: I have no idea. I really don't. It's just beyond me why elected representatives, who are supposed to be representing their constituents, can keep ramming this thing through the public. What-- are they just trying to wear everybody out to where they get complacent? I think a lot of them ought to be out of office and next election?

GARY EICHTEN: Bill, why is it-- now you followed the legislature for a long time. Why is it that legislators-- they keep having polls about this, which would seem to indicate people really don't want this money spent, and yet it does. It's still out there as an issue.

BILL WAREHAM: Well, frankly, there's a fair amount of money behind the people who want to see a stadium built, whether it's a business interest in Minneapolis or the Pohlads themselves. And it's easier for those people to mobilize behind this one issue than it is for a more disenfranchised group of people who generally may not want the stadium built, but they haven't mobilized behind their opposition.

There are a few groups working to oppose tax dollars for a stadium. But as a whole, you don't see the money and the lobbying and everything working in opposition to a stadium, at least not to the degree that you see the Harvey McKays and Bob Daytons. And the people want to see a stadium built. There's a lot more lobbying to get it done than there is to get it not done.

GARY EICHTEN: Ruth, what's your thought on this issue?

RUTH: Oh, Hi. Well, my thought is, I agree with the previous caller. I don't think it's ethical to even consider spending tax money when it's obvious that the majority of citizens are so opposed to it. And then when you think of the needs that could be addressed with those millions of dollars, I don't see how any legislator. I admit I'm not a sports fan. So I'm prejudice, I suppose.

GARY EICHTEN: Can I ask you a question? Have you called or written your legislator?

RUTH: Oh, I've called my legislators, yes. I have. Just recently, I did when they were in session before. And they said they wouldn't vote for it. I'm going to call them again, of course. But I don't understand how they can consider paying these millions of dollars for something like that. I say, let the team go. All over the country, they're holding people up to blackmail. And I don't think we should fall for that.

GARY EICHTEN: The reason I ask whether you called or wrote is because if people truly oppose this with a great deal of fervor, they have to keep up the pressure by informing their legislators of that, because otherwise, the campaigns in favor of this just keep driving it.

RUTH: I've done it. I'm going to do it again.

GARY EICHTEN: Let me ask you one more question, Ruth, before you run. Let us say your legislator truly believes that it's important to keep these teams. Should he or she take that stand at public stand anyway, despite fairly strong public opposition?

RUTH: I don't think so, because I don't think it's ethical to take taxpayers' money when you know that the majority of people are against it. And I don't see why they don't put it on as a referendum on the next-- I think they've been trying to keep that off because they know they'll lose.

GARY EICHTEN: Thanks for your call.

RUTH: All right.

GARY EICHTEN: Next caller is from Minneapolis. Bob, go ahead please.

BOB: Well, I was really going to address what you had just suggested in your question. And that is that, while we all can see that the polls show that this is not something the public wants, it takes a legislator and having some guts to do what he or she really thinks is in the best interest of the community.

And it clearly is in the best interest of the community to have Major League sports. And it seems to me what a legislator has to do is just hold his nose and do it. We don't want to do it. We don't like doing it. But we know we have to do it in order. It's just a fact of life.

What troubles me so much-- and I'm speaking really just now of the Twins. What troubles me so much is the "me too" attitude of the Vikings for whom the domed stadium was built in the first place. You'll recall that was built when the Vikings said if we don't get a domed stadium someplace for us to practice, because we need practice five days a week, we'll just have to leave town. And we built them the domed stadium, and then they built a separate practice facility in Eden Prairie.

That's my recollection of the history. But maybe yours is different. But the real issue, it seems to me, is right now the more immediate one. And that's the Twins. And as I say, well, none of us likes it. It just seems to me it's something that we have to do.

GARY EICHTEN: Do you think--

BOB: It may be political suicide, unfortunately. But that separates the gutty legislators from the others. I just can't believe we are such a single issue constituency that we would vote out a legislator because of this one vote, as opposed to his or her entire voting record.

GARY EICHTEN: So money for the Twins. No money for the Vikings. What about money for the hockey team or the basketball team?

BOB: I can't fathom the basketball team situation after last time. That's an absurdity. They have a state-of-the-art facility. I don't know what they're asking for. On the hockey, it's much the same thing. We really got to jolted when the North Stars left.

Because the North Stars didn't leave as a result of poor attendance or poor fan reaction. The North Stars left because we had they had a pig of an owner, frankly, who simply wanted more. And I don't know where I come out on that. I guess I haven't crossed that bridge yet. Frankly, I wasn't aware that they were asking for more money than what they were asking St. Paul's contribution to the new hockey arena to be.

GARY EICHTEN: About $65 million, they'd like the state to pick up. The total cost, as I understand it, is $130,000. The city and the people who would own the team would pay $30 and $35 million. And then the city of St. Paul wants the state to add the additional $65 million.

BOB: See, on that, on the hockey facility, we're not faced with the team leaving. And there is a distinction. These fellows who promoted the hockey thing got it. As I understand it, they did not promise that there would be state funding. And now they're coming again as the "me too."

Right now, the more immediate catastrophe would be the Twins leaving. And even if you don't like baseball, it would be terrible for us to lose a Major League Baseball team. And for those who say, well, we'll just get an expansion team in five, six, or 10 years, the answer is yes. And we'll have to build them a new stadium to get them.

So as the expression I used before, it sticks. You just have to hold your nose and do the vote and hope that we have a broader-minded constituency than the lady who just called you.

GARY EICHTEN: Thank you, Bob. Well, you know one thing that lawmakers are thinking about, especially the ones on the task force and Jay referred to this, is that, yes, maybe they are thinking up front about the Twins.

But they're starting to realize from these hearings, as Bob refers, that there's going to be this "me too" thing going on, and that if you take care of the Twins, there's another three teams lined up. And one of them is going to be the first thing on the agenda another legislative session away.

And I think Jay's right that they would like to come up with some overriding policy for sports teams. I'm not sure they can do it in the couple of months they have here to do it. And given the different way that the different sport leagues operate and the different financing arrangements for the arenas and stadiums we're talking about here, it's going to be difficult for them to come up with a one-sentence policy to cover everything.

Has it come up yet, Bill, the idea that, well, if tomorrow they were to wave a wand, build a new stadium, build two new stadiums, build a new Civic Center, pay off the Target Center debt, that the economics of pro sports are such that this at best would buy these teams another five, maybe 10 years of economic stability, and then they'd be right back in it because of rising salary costs and all the rest?

BILL WAREHAM: That's been a big question for everybody, is-- they're confused, number one, as to 15 years after building the Metrodome why they're in this place right now. And I know that there's a big concern that this problem of-- well, I don't know if it's a problem-- but this the rising salaries and everything will shorten the economic lifespan of these deals, if not the physical structures themselves, than the deals.

What happens if salaries continue to go through the roof and 10 years from now they've got one of these four teams saying, well, the structure is fine, but we still can't afford to be in this marketplace? Can you help us out in some other way?

GARY EICHTEN: Jim, your thoughts on this issue?

JIM: Yeah what a lot of smug nonsense from that last caller. Just forget what the people want. These insiders always know best. I would point out to our last caller that we're still paying-- us the taxpayers are still cutting a quarter million dollar check every year to Mike Lynn for his share of the luxury box revenue. The fact of the matter is, it's real easy for these legislators to get together with these insiders and to cut some sort of deal that's not necessarily to the benefit of the public.

GARY EICHTEN: Well, actually, the Vikings are paying Mike Lynn.

JIM: Well, but it's still eventually comes out of the whole kitty, in my opinion. And of course, they're crying that that's part of the reason they need more money from us is because they're broke supposedly. But I think there was a good commentary in yesterday's Star Tribune by representatives Krinkie and Knight where they said there shouldn't be any deal that goes through without the public approving it.

There should indeed-- as another caller previously suggested, there needs to be a referendum on this. And I think I'm not sure. A referendum might just pass, because I think if the people want to save the Twins and stuff like this, it's not necessarily a bad decision if the deal is structured in a certain way.

But I will guarantee you that they will have to think twice about the deal they cut if they have to present it to the public in a referendum. Even if it's non-binding, they're going to have to structure the deal, I think, more carefully. So I think it would be all to the good if we follow Phil Krinkie and Kevin Knight and demand a referendum.

BILL WAREHAM: Well, other places-- you have a point there. But that in other places referendums have been tried, deals have been restructured, arguably more to the benefit of the public. The problem at this point is more political than anything because they can amount to a terrific political bloodletting here.

They can get very nasty. And heading into an election year for the House of Representatives and for governor, I think there are a lot of people that would rather avoid that kind of fight, even if in the end it might create a better deal for the public. But yeah, this has been tried in several places where they're now building stadiums, and it has changed the deal. So it can have an effect. You're right.

GARY EICHTEN: We're talking about the stadium issue this hour. Bill Wareham, our Minnesota Public Radio reporter, is with us. He's been covering the legislative task force, which is taking one last look, what presumably will be one last look at this issue before a special session is held this fall. And if you'd like to join our conversation, give us a call.

227-6000 is our Twin City area number, 227-6000. Outside the Twin Cities, 1-800-242-2828. We'd like to get your thoughts on the idea of spending public money on these sports teams. And if you think that's a good idea, well, how much and for what? Pat, your thought, please.

PAT: Hello.

GARY EICHTEN: Hi there.

PAT: I need to say I am not a sports fan or knowledgeable about it as a whole. But this situation, I think, is a vitally important moral issue. And our society, not too long ago, decided we have no money, or we're running out of money, to nurture mothers and children.

And then we decide to pour all this money into a institutions which produce role models who are wretched, for the most part, for our young people and our society. There are a handful of good ones. God bless Kirby Puckett and his like, that sort of thing.

But as a whole, I feel that it is not the best thing for our community at all. And I do think that we should have a referendum so that the people-- if the people are going to have to pay for them, let them, for heaven's sakes, decide whether or not they want it.

GARY EICHTEN: Pat, one of the objections I heard to the idea of a referendum is that, especially as if people are opposed to this idea, is that the folks with the most money are presumably are the people who support the construction of stadiums, and that they would be able to, if not by the referendum then something very close to that. Have you given that any thought?

PAT: Well, if it were handled right, would that have to be the case?

GARY EICHTEN: I don't know.

PAT: Well, and another thing I wonder in this research of stadiums, do they go around and look at the stadiums around the country that have been financial disasters? And we all know this is shaping up for the people are going to be left holding the bag. And the very wealthy people, handful of people who want this, it's all structured so that if things go well, they get the cream. And if things go bad, the taxpayers get the shaft.

GARY EICHTEN: Bill, you have been around to look at these stadiums. Are most of them pretty financially successful?

BILL WAREHAM: Well, so many of them are. The financing is structured in different ways. I think Camden Yards is financed by a lottery mostly, and that seems to be successful. Right now in Seattle, I think they're going more towards what a lot of Minnesota lawmakers would like to see which is sort of user fee financing tax, tickets tax, souvenirs bought in the stadium, that sort of thing.

Whether they're successful, in most cases, it's really too early to say because most of the new breed of stadiums really haven't been open long enough to make any long-term prognostications of how it's-- whether they're going to last more than 15 years. But right now, the ones that are up and running are successful for now. Yeah.

GARY EICHTEN: And the Metrodome, as far as I know, has essentially paid for itself, especially once they sell the land out at the Met Center site. That basically is a wash then for the taxpayers.

BILL WAREHAM: Yeah, I think the operators of the Metrodome, which is the Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission, are very happy with the way the financing has gone for that. They have a good Reserve account out there.

And they were able to lift the blink on liquor tax fairly early in the history of that. So there are no taxes of that sort paying for it. It is user fees, taxes on tickets, and that sort of thing that are paying for it. So the financing for the Metrodome has been very successful.

- 227-6000 in the Twin city area, if you'd like to join our conversation today. Legislators are getting close to making a decision on what they're going to recommend in terms of stadium construction, or lack thereof. And we'd like your thoughts on what legislators ought to be doing-- 227-6000. Or if you're calling from outside the Twin Cities, 1-800-242-2828. Brian, your thoughts, please.

BRIAN: Hi, Gary. Hi, Bill.

BILL WAREHAM: Hello.

BRIAN: I guess I admit I'm not an expert on this whole situation. But what I do have to say is that I was rather young when the Metrodome was built. And being 15 years old and wanting a new facility to me seems a little bit odd. But I know with the state-of-the-art facilities and the higher baseball salaries, that can be an odd situation also.

I guess we saw hockey leave Minnesota. We're getting hockey back. We're spending all this money to get hockey. I think right now is the time to make the compromise so we don't lose any more teams and then have to pay a lot of money to bring them back in years to come.

GARY EICHTEN: Thank you, sir. Appreciate the call.

BRIAN: Thank you. Let's move on to our next caller from Duluth. Sandy, your thoughts please.

SANDY: Hi. I was just calling to bring up a point that a lot of companies have a foundation as where I work, and the employees put money in. How come some of the baseball players themselves and the owners themselves aren't contributing for the stadium that they feel they need?

GARY EICHTEN: Bill, has that been brought up?

BILL WAREHAM: Well, taxing players, player salaries has come up. And I think that's very appealing to some lawmakers in terms of voluntary contributions. No, that hasn't come up. My guess the reason is it hasn't is they don't have to do this anywhere else. And the fear would be and the guess would be that they'd be loathed to do that.

They don't have to do that in Cleveland for Jacobs Field. They don't have to do it in Baltimore for Camden Yards. And I think the feeling is players would say, why should I throw money in the pot for a Twin Cities of Minneapolis stadium when none of my colleagues elsewhere in the league have to do that?

GARY EICHTEN: Lowell, thanks for calling. Your thoughts, please.

LOWELL: Well, we live up here in Minnesota. I'm sure that stadium would be a benefit to the Metropolitan area a lot. But when we got the politician [INAUDIBLE] messing around with tax dollars, that's the whole state's money. And it's not going to really benefit us that much.

GARY EICHTEN: Do you ever come down for a ball game?

LOWELL: No.

GARY EICHTEN: Do you know any people--

LOWELL: 400 miles away.

GARY EICHTEN: Yeah, do you know any people who do?

LOWELL: Once in a while.

GARY EICHTEN: Mm-hmm. So your principal objection is that it really wouldn't be of any benefit to you whatsoever because you live outside the Twin Cities.

LOWELL: Well, very little.

GARY EICHTEN: Yeah.

LOWELL: I don't think politicians should get involved in private enterprise anyhow.

GARY EICHTEN: Thanks for your call.

LOWELL: You bet.

GARY EICHTEN: The question of who benefits is a big one when it comes to financing this deal. People have argued whether there should be a Minneapolis sales tax to pay for this because people say many Minneapolis businesses benefit. But some argue that the greater Twin Cities area benefits, so you should tax the entire Metropolitan area.

And then you get into things like whether to put a roof on it, which many argue is mostly for the benefit of people outside the Twin Cities area who have to travel long distances to get to the deal. And should they be taxed for the benefit of having a roof on the deal?

And that's going to be the nuts and bolts of the financing debate once they get down to that part of it-- who should pay for this? And that's going to be one of the hardest things to figure out in coming weeks here. Karen, you're up next. What's your opinion?

KAREN: Oh, hi. I was calling to ask. I saw on the news the demolition of the Atlanta stadium. And I was wondering who financed that or who's financing the renewal, being the Turners and so forth owned so much of that. And I'll hang up and listen.

GARY EICHTEN: Do you know, Bill?

BILL WAREHAM: I can't say with any certainty. I thought Ted Turner-- well, the new stadium was paid for out of Olympic proceeds.

GARY EICHTEN: I'm pretty sure that Turner actually owns that because it was the reason I say that there was a story about how expensive the concessions are at the new stadium. And he went and bought some beer and hot dogs or something himself and was outraged at what the fans were being charged and what he was being charged, for that matter, to buy a hot dog. And I think issued some dictum lowering the prices right away. But I got the impression from that he's the owner.

BILL WAREHAM: Yeah. I can't say for sure. There are half a dozen to a 10 of these in the works right now and up and running. And I know I have this information back in my desk. But it's really hard to keep them all straight because there is no set way to finance a stadium. And every stadium deal is different. Really, it's hard to keep track of.

And that's one reason when every time you convene a new task force to look at this stuff, they have to start from scratch because they have to go back over this background and see how other people are doing it.

GARY EICHTEN: John, your thought on this issue, please.

JOHN: It's a double hit on the taxpayer. This is not like a business coming into town and saying if you build where the community goes and then says, well, geez, if you build a business and you employ people, we'll reduce your property taxes. They're asking for everybody's tax money up front to pay for this thing.

And then nobody has covered it from this angle. I was in Los Angeles when Al Davis of the LA Oakland Raiders left LA because he was packing the Coliseum every game, but he couldn't get the luxury skybox revenues. So whenever the Twins talk about being competitive, to me, that says, oh, skybox revenues.

And if you look in their current proposal for a new stadium, I'm sure they're going to try and max out on these things as much as they can possibly get. The thing is, let's say the Twins-- what happens when the skybox revenues-- they lease them to, let's say, the Dayton Hudsons, and the 3Ms, and the General Mills, and all the other Fortune 500 big companies here for whatever, let's say, $2 million a season?

Then these companies then turn around. And at the federal level, that luxury skybox has turned into a tax-deductible business expense. I'm sure by the time their accountants get done-- so what it winds up being is a multi-million dollar year in and year out subsidy for Major League sports.

So what's happening is-- it's amazing how the people in the stands are financing or subsidizing the executive-level playpens for billionaire owners and multi-millionaire players to--

GARY EICHTEN: So if you were a legislator, then John, having processed all that information, you would say--

JOHN: Well, here's what I would do. I would say maybe we could restructure the lease on the Metrodome, but no new stadium. Maybe we can make the lease arrangement a little bit better deal for you. But I'm very much against this idea that public money has to go out and finance basically a bunch of billionaires and multi-millionaires to play baseball.

GARY EICHTEN: Thanks for your call, John. Appreciate it. Let's move on. Susan is on the line now from Northfield. Go ahead, please.

SUSAN: Hello. I'd just like to say that if we do public financing of a stadium, I think it should be 10% or less of the total expense. These guys are private enterprise. They do have a lot of income coming in. And if they threaten to leave without our help, then perhaps they're not worth having. We do have a number of other sports up here after all.

GARY EICHTEN: So keep the public subsidy to a minimum if there's going to be any at all-- it's kind of the long and the short of it. And if the teams leave, so be it.

SUSAN: Mm-hmm. Offer a little bit of support to show that we do welcome them here, but at the same time recognize they are a private enterprise and if they don't like where they are right now, they can change it.

GARY EICHTEN: Thanks for your call.

SUSAN: Thank you.

GARY EICHTEN: We're talking today about proposals to build the Twins a new stadium, maybe do something for the Vikings in terms of a new stadium or a renovated Metrodome, come up with $65 million so that the city of St. Paul can build a new Civic Center for a new National Hockey League team and perhaps help the Timberwolves out as well in their financial arrangements at the Target Center.

Legislative task force is considering all of those proposals, whether any of them make any sense, and if any of them do, how they might come up with the money for those to pay for those proposals. And today, we thought we would get your thoughts on that issue. 227-6000 is our Twin City area number-- 227-6000. Outside the Twin Cities, 1-800-242-2828 is the number to call.

Minnesota Public Radio reporter Bill Wareham is with us. And he's been following this issue for a long time and zeroing in now on this legislative task force. He's been good enough to stop in today to keep us on the straight and narrow and make sure that we know what we're talking about.

BILL WAREHAM: I'm not sure I know what I'm talking about anymore, but I'm with a lot of lawmakers at this point.

GARY EICHTEN: Jim, go ahead, please.

JIM: Hi. I just had to call when I heard earlier in the show you had a caller-- I wasn't sure who it was-- who was saying, legislators just have to hold their nose and vote for it. And I got just a couple things on that. We must have a stadium. Why? And if there's money available, it's like, oh, well, we can go tax the Indians or we can go tax Canterbury Jones.

If that money is available, use it on education and roads. Don't use it on a ball game. And people talking about, oh, I hope somebody doesn't get reelected because of this single issue. But it isn't a single issue. If somebody votes for that stadium, it just says that their priorities are mixed-up.

The amount of time they've spent talking about that stadium shows that something's broken up there, and their priorities are messed-up, and they're susceptible to big money lobbyists. And that's about all it shows. I think this is going to turn out to be a midnight deal. And they'll probably get their stadium. But I got to say, any politicians that vote for it are going to pay.

GARY EICHTEN: Now, Jim, before you run here, there's another school of thought on this, which is to say that if, for example, the Twins pack up and leave town, that those same politicians are going to pay dearly. What do you think about that?

JIM: Then I think they'll pay-- you mean-- I don't-- if people really, really wanted this team, and wanted teams in general, fine. But I'd much rather be a politician, and I'll vote for a politician, that says I didn't keep baseball, but I voted for education or I voted for family welfare or I voted for better roads in the Twin Cities. I'll vote for that guy. To heck with the baseball. They shouldn't even be talking about it. It's a waste of time.

GARY EICHTEN: Thanks for your call. Appreciate it.

JIM: Thanks.

GARY EICHTEN: One thing I think people have to keep in mind is that even if polls show that there's a majority of people who oppose this kind of deal, the minority is still pretty significant. There are a lot of people who go to Twins games and a lot of people who would like to see a stadium done, regular people out there-- friends of mine, people I talk to all the time.

It's not a small number, and it's not just-- I mentioned the lobbyists before. Well, lobbyists are skilled at keeping legislative issues alive. That's what they're good at. But this isn't being driven purely by lobbyists and Carl Pohlad. There are people out there. And if you look at the poll numbers, we're talking tens and hundreds of thousands of people, whatever, that are interested in this issue and keeping the Twins here.

So that's something that I think callers like this have to keep in mind that even though the polls show that there's a majority of people who maybe don't want to see a deal done, the minority is still pretty sizable here, and lawmakers know that, too. Mark, where do you stand on this issue?

MARK: Well, I go back to a lot of the callers have echoed a lot of my sentiments of politicians are supposed to be representing the people. And although the point of the minority is fairly large, the majority is the majority.

- The lobbyists are there, and that's their job to try to keep this alive. But the majority of us are working 40 to 60 hours a week. And we go home, and we have to go grocery shopping and buy diapers and do whatever. We don't have time to be spending a lot of our energies trying to sway politicians one way or another, other than what we can do with a phone call here or there, or a letter or an email.

In the end, it comes back to that issue of, why did this die in the first place? Well, there were elections to be considered. Now the elections are over, now we're talking about it again. There's been all kinds of arguments. They talked about the similarity between Northwest Airlines, us financing them and saying that this is the same type of deal.

Well, it really isn't the same type of deal. Northwest provides many, many jobs. And what would this do? This would keep Dennis Rodman-type role models around here, athletes spitting in umpires faces. I've been here in the Twin Cities for my whole life, a little more than 30 years. And I know you're Wally Hilgenberg and those heroes from our past are gone. This is a different society. And I think people are kind of fed up.

GARY EICHTEN: Thanks for your call.

MARK: Yep. Appreciate it.

GARY EICHTEN: Off to Two Harbors. Bill is on the line. Your thought, please.

BILL: Hi. Hi. Good afternoon. First of all, I never could understand where the assumption comes from that in order for the Metropolitan area there to be a nice place to live that you have to have professional sports. There's cable people that need that stuff can just go and watch it when they need it if it's that important. I don't know why it has to be right in their backyard.

And if someone can't produce an entertainment where the revenue equals their overhead and fixed costs, then maybe they're in the wrong place. This discussion would not exist if it was possible to run a profitable team there, I would assume.

And as far as the salaries going through the roof for players, Minnesota, I believe, could do baseball a real service by letting the Twins leave, if they indeed have to leave. And the way that could be provided is that would be a signal that states are no longer going to subsidize the salaries of entertainers that play baseball. That's really what pushes salaries up, is when you have other people covering overhead costs.

GARY EICHTEN: Let me just take issue with that last point, Bill, and if you react to this. I know in football, just a couple of years ago, a team picked up and moved from Los-- well, actually both teams moved. The one team moved from Los Angeles to Oakland. The other team picked up and moved from Los Angeles to St. Louis because they got much, much better deals from the new communities.

BILL: The new communities continued the cycle.

GARY EICHTEN: Right. But there's no sense that this in any way, shape, or form-- it wasn't like Los Angeles sent anybody a message, I don't think.

BILL: Well, but take an example. Say, a team needs $450 million bucks to provide themselves a nice place to play ball. If they wanted to pay for that over 30 years, I think they'd only have to come up with $35 or $40 million a year.

Now, if they can't come up with $35 or $40 million a year out of the revenue that the games produce, well, then they have to make a smaller place to play baseball, or else they might have to get a $2-million-a-year shortstop instead of a $4-million-a-year shortstop. You have to. They should be able to make that work somehow.

GARY EICHTEN: The pay-as-you-go concept.

BILL: Yeah.

GARY EICHTEN: I was just talking about this last part of what you had to say, this notion of trying to send a message to the larger sports community.

BILL: I'm not saying that Minnesota would try to send a message, but once somebody finally stops the cycle, then the message would get sent. And like it is in many things in this country, Minnesota could lead the way in making sure that professional sports pay their own way.

It would really be a godsend for the whole country, I think. I'm sure the mayor of our town, of your towns down there, would get calls from all over the country saying, thank you, thank you, thank you if someone would just stop it.

GARY EICHTEN: Thank you, sir. Appreciate the call.

BILL: Goodbye.

GARY EICHTEN: Toby is on the line now from Wayzata. Go ahead, please.

TOBY: Yes. I heard this about a year, year and a half ago when all this started on MPR-- I think it was a guest sports reporter-- that the real reason why the Twins want a new stadium is because the Metrodome has the least seating behind home plate of all the Major League stadiums. And that's where the main teams-- that's where they make their most money.

And I heard that. I have not heard it since. And I was just curious if there's any validity to that. Or can they reconstruct? Why can't they reconstruct. And I really haven't heard a good reason since I heard that.

GARY EICHTEN: Bill, do you know about that?

BILL WAREHAM: That sounds like a story I did. And it's still an issue for the Twins. That issue hasn't gone away. And it's the number of seats between first and third base, which are the prime seating for any baseball stadium. The seats behind home plate are just fine, but the farther you get out to first and third base, the seats face towards the outfield rather than home plate and the pitcher's mound.

They say when the market is basically soft for baseball tickets, when people care less about baseball in a season, they have trouble selling those seats. And they feel and they say that the numbers in the new stadiums backed them up that those seats will sell themselves easier if they're better-quality seats in slower seasons.

GARY EICHTEN: We have call time for at least one more caller here. John?

JOHN: Yeah, I've got a question. I was wondering what percentage of the team Pohlad owns, and also if a team has ever been sold to the actual town, and if that was the case, if that could ever be done in this type of scenario. I'll hang up and listen.

GARY EICHTEN: I think Carl Pohlad owns 90%-plus of the team. In fact, I think he even bought back the 10% he didn't own earlier this season. He's by far the majority owner. And in terms of-- the only really successful case of a community owning a team is Green Bay, and that their situation goes back to the '20s, I believe.

Since then, nobody's really tried it. So there have been some smaller experiments with like the Boston Celtics selling some stock and the Florida Panthers. But mostly, the leagues discourage it, if not outright outlaw it in their bylaws.

So it would be difficult to try, although they're still talking about it, at least on the fringes of the current discussion with the Twins. I think we can get one more caller on here. Scott, quick comment? Oops. Well let's see. How about Steve? Go ahead. Steve?

STEVE: Yes. Just a quick comment. I think the value system is one issue. I think each person has to resolve in their own mind whether or not the sports has gotten out of hand. But purely from a business standpoint, the role of a taxpayer in subsidizing sports to me seems wrong.

Now the Twins have a problem because they don't have the advertising revenue that the New York Yankees have. But I think that for the taxpayers to have to foot the bill on a $365 million stadium, which the economic value is probably $30/$40 million a year, and their revenues are $30/$40 million a year, seems to me to be an intrusion of the taxpayers into an area they don't belong. And with that, I'll end my comments.

GARY EICHTEN: Does that come up a lot, Bill, during the discussions at the legislature that this is really no role for a public body to get involved with, whether it's a good idea or not, it's just something that public entities ought not to be involved with? It's a private business.

BILL WAREHAM: Yeah, certainly, there are lawmakers that feel that way. And we'll see how large a contingent that is if they finally get something to vote on in a special session. But I think a majority of lawmakers-- communities get involved in all kinds of little deals, whether it's a loss in software in St. Paul or tax increment financing plans in Cities that are too complicated for most people to understand.

I think they feel that-- this falls in the category where we help businesses all the time. And if we can find a way to do it for the Twins and whomever, we should take a look at it.

GARY EICHTEN: Thanks for coming by today, Bill.

BILL WAREHAM: Sure.

GARY EICHTEN: Appreciate it. Minnesota Public Radio reporter Bill Wareham who has been covering and will continue coverage of the legislative task force, which is holding hearings, visiting sites and the rest, trying to decide whether the public should spend some money on the pro sports teams here, and if so, just where that money might come from.

I'd like to thank all of you who have been with us this hour, especially those of you who called in, or tried to call in, with your questions and comments. If you missed part of the program, we'll be rebroadcasting it at 9:00 tonight.

Programming on Minnesota Public Radio is supported by Corporate Report Minnesota, providing research insight and focus on doing business in Minnesota. That's it for Midday today. Gary Eichten here. Thanks for tuning in tomorrow. Press club luncheon with Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.