Harry Mares comments on possibility that the Minnesota Twins could be cut from MLB

Grants | Legacy Digitization | Topics | Politics | Business & Industry | Special Collections | Minnesota Twins | Minnesota Politicians | Types | Interviews | Sports & Recreation | Programs & Series | Morning Edition |
Listen: 3903386
0:00

With chances that Major League Baseball could delay plans for a year to eliminate the Minnesota Twins and Montreal Expos, Morning Edition’s Cathy Wurzer talks with Minnesota State Representative Harry Mares about what Minnesota legislators will need to accomplish this session regarding a ballpark discussion in order to save the Twins team.

Transcripts

text | pdf |

SPEAKER 1: Building a stadium alone isn't going to solve the issue. It's got to be a combination of probably a new ballpark for greater revenue for the team, and at the same time, Major League Baseball continuing that blue ribbon panel report of reform.

SPEAKER 2: Do you think those two things can happen during the upcoming season?

SPEAKER 1: I wish I knew. There's a lot of issues in front of us. Obviously, a deficit, and the budget is a big issue. We've got to have some leadership from the governor if the Twins are to remain. And there's got to be a different mindset at the Capitol amongst a number of legislators to lend some type of public support, not a subsidy in any way, shape, or form, but a loan that's going to be repaid.

SPEAKER 2: Now, you mentioned the shortfall, Representative. How much does that projected nearly $2 billion shortfall affect the stadium issue?

SPEAKER 1: Well, it affects it. But you have to keep in mind that we go in a two-year cycle, and the first year is a funding year, and the second year is a bonding year. And we are in the second year. We will have a bonding bill. And we have a triple-A rating.

We've got surpluses that we can look at we've put away, whether it's a rainy day fund or a cash flow account, et cetera. So there are some pluses along that line.

SPEAKER 2: So you think that the legislature can work on the budget shortfall and also work on the stadium but look at other revenue streams for a stadium?

SPEAKER 1: Well, obviously, sure. We have a government operations meeting tomorrow that's going to look at a gambling casino. I don't recall exactly all the bills that are up in front of us tomorrow. But people are coming forth with ideas, and I think that's a good sign.

SPEAKER 2: Would the Twins representative have to have a new owner to make a stadium or a ballpark more palatable to lawmakers?

SPEAKER 1: It could help in some people's minds. And in other people's minds, no, because he's not going to own the stadium. It's going to be owned by a city, town, county, et cetera.

SPEAKER 2: But the Twins, you think, would have to kick in for a ballpark?

SPEAKER 1: Yeah, well, absolutely. Our bill that we had this past session had the team stepping up with 50%, $150 million given to the commissioner of finance up front before one shovel of dirt would be dug. So the average for a market our size was about 23% or 24% by the owner. And the Twins stepped up with 50% as a starting point. But it just wasn't the right time.

And contraction is going to take place by Major League Baseball. I definitely believe that. They said that in the year 2000 with the blue ribbon panel report. And it's not over. But do we have a little breathing room? Yes. Is there the willpower to do something? I think that remains to be seen.

SPEAKER 2: Now, if they decide today to delay contraction and allow teams, the Twins and the Expos, to play the 2002 season, what happens now for you and other ballpark sponsors? Do you get a bill in the hopper right away? I mean, what's your timeline?

SPEAKER 1: Our bill, Senator Johnson and I had a bill, he in the Senate, myself in the house. The Senate bill is on the floor. Remember, we're a two-year cycle, so any bills introduced at the beginning of this cycle are still alive.

And the bill in the House was sent back to the Capital Investment Committee. So our bills are alive. Will others be introduced dealing with funding mechanism or ours amended? All those are possibilities.

Funders

Digitization made possible by the State of Minnesota Legacy Amendment’s Arts and Cultural Heritage Fund, approved by voters in 2008.

This Story Appears in the Following Collections

Views and opinions expressed in the content do not represent the opinions of APMG. APMG is not responsible for objectionable content and language represented on the site. Please use the "Contact Us" button if you'd like to report a piece of content. Thank you.

Transcriptions provided are machine generated, and while APMG makes the best effort for accuracy, mistakes will happen. Please excuse these errors and use the "Contact Us" button if you'd like to report an error. Thank you.

< path d="M23.5-64c0 0.1 0 0.1 0 0.2 -0.1 0.1-0.1 0.1-0.2 0.1 -0.1 0.1-0.1 0.3-0.1 0.4 -0.2 0.1 0 0.2 0 0.3 0 0 0 0.1 0 0.2 0 0.1 0 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.2 0 0.4-0.1 0.5-0.1 0.2 0 0.4 0 0.6-0.1 0.2-0.1 0.1-0.3 0.3-0.5 0.1-0.1 0.3 0 0.4-0.1 0.2-0.1 0.3-0.3 0.4-0.5 0-0.1 0-0.1 0-0.2 0-0.1 0.1-0.2 0.1-0.3 0-0.1-0.1-0.1-0.1-0.2 0-0.1 0-0.2 0-0.3 0-0.2 0-0.4-0.1-0.5 -0.4-0.7-1.2-0.9-2-0.8 -0.2 0-0.3 0.1-0.4 0.2 -0.2 0.1-0.1 0.2-0.3 0.2 -0.1 0-0.2 0.1-0.2 0.2C23.5-64 23.5-64.1 23.5-64 23.5-64 23.5-64 23.5-64"/>