Transcripts

text | pdf |

---

SPEAKER: Sports breeds a bandwagon mentality. And we face that now as the once lowly Twins continue to win on the field, and the team's effort to get a new ballpark stands poised to make one last emotional stand. But just because the Twins are in first place today doesn't mean they blindly deserve a new stadium. Likewise, just because they were in last place all these many years shouldn't have been reason enough to cynically reject every stadium plan that came down the pike.

Minnesota's public policy on pro sports shouldn't be driven by runs and shutouts, but by thoughtful ideas, responsible finance plans, and strict public protections. Believe it or not, the stadium plan that is now on the legislature's table is digestible. It is better than anything we've seen the past seven years. It has many flaws, but it deserves your attention.

Let's be clear about it. With an interest-free loan, as was given to the wild hockey team, and a tax increment financing component, as was given to the Timberwolves basketball team, the latest Twin stadium bill would provide a subsidy to the team and its owner, Carl Pohlad, that Minnesota Senate researchers estimate at $80 million over 30 years. That's how much interest Pohlad, a banker, won't pay to the state for its loan.

Let's be clear. No matter how much private money Pohlad kicks in, this is a good deal for him. But let's also put this into perspective. That foregone interest amounts to about $2.7 million a year. That's about $0.54 per Minnesotan per year. All things considered, is having a modern big league ballpark and a team to play in it worth a half dollar a year to you? What's the best part of the bill? It says that no stadium will be built unless and until Major League Baseball reforms its economic structure. This is a first in the nation, and a victory for those who have correctly argued that a new stadium won't fix the Twins status as a small market team until baseball's richest owners share their wealth.

But here's what's bad about the bill. As written, that provision to get the baseball industry to change has to be tightened a lot. A three-judge panel appointed by Governor Ventura is now the proposed body for certifying that baseball has changed. But the bill includes no specific reforms that must be in place. The judges are given no guidance, and we as citizens are given limited protection.

Another shortcoming. No provisions for what happens to the Twins if and when Pohlad sells the team. For all the stench around the deceptive 1997 Twins stadium bill, it had one brilliant component-- the public would get a share of the team. Not this time round. There's not even a guarantee the team supported by that interest-free state loan must be locally owned if Pohlad sells.

One more thing. Earlier bills required the team pre-sell a certain amount of season tickets and luxury suites in the proposed new ballpark. After all, we don't want to subsidize a ballpark that's bound to fail for lack of customers. That's not in the legislation this time. All of this is not meant to bash the revival of the Twins stadium bill. To the contrary, this bill has moved firmly in the right direction and is helping establish policy guidelines for another steamroller sure to come next year, the Vikings cry for a new stadium.

Know, rather than jump on a bandwagon, it's time to improve what's soon to be revived in the House of Representatives. Could it be that this newfangled Twins ballpark bill, sufficiently reworked, can become acceptable to a skeptical public? Is that possible? Who knows? But times change. And who to [? thunk? ?] The Twins would be in first place.