http://www.startribune.com/357/story/1453473.html

"Bitter Nick" must have some kind of auto-script writer that whips up his columns for him. "Rich get richer"... "stomp on the little guy"..."Bush and Cheney"...adjective adjective...

Does he just pluck names out of the air and plug them in?

Nick's outdone himself this time. Sure, I am not particularly pleased with a billion dollar taxpayer financed stadium, so we have that in common. Nick sure isn't going to look very hard at his partisan brethren who made it happen, though- considering that building public projects with tax dollars to cuddle up to contractors, unions and financiers is the lifeblood of Minneapolis politics.

But methinks Nick goes too far with his bile. Have you seen Carl Pohlad lately, Nick? I have. Twice this year. Once at a local restaurant, and once at Twinsfest at the Metrodome.
If you're half as clever as I think you are, Nick, and Carl's half as disabled as he appears to be, you should realize that it's highly unlikely that Carl is making any decisions regarding the Twins or his business empire. Rip the Pohlad Empire all you like. They're fair game. But lay off the 92 year old guys in wheelchairs, ok? Someone might get the impression that you're just like the nasty bullies you spend so much printer's ink railing against.

Oh, give me a break - Pohlad should be prtoected from judgement because he's old and frail?

Screw that. Even if he doesn't make the calls anymore, he made 'em all the way up to then, and Carl has only been interested in Carl.

Don't get me wrong, GF. I don't really like the way Carl Pohlad has handled his ownership of the Twins. It just irks me a bit that Coleman singles him out as the villain in the new Twins stadium scheme. Pohlad bought the team in 1984. Calvin Griffith is the one who got them the Metrodome, so we can't blame Carl for that one. The new stadium iniative has only been kicking around for a couple of years. If you want to blame anyone for that boondoggle, go after the kids, who are really running the team. And don't selectively leave out the Minneapolis and Hennepin County officials who pushed it through. The Pohlads could not build that stadium without politicians carrying the torch for them, period, unless they used their own money to do so. The politicians are every bit as culpable in that deal as the Pohlads are, if not moreso, but I don't hear Nick hanging them out to dry. Might that be because they mark the same side of the election ballot as he does? I think so.

I don't want to be insensitive or cruel, but I really doubt Carl knows what year it is, and he's likely been approaching that state for some time. Blame him for being a cheapskate owner, but leave him alone on the stadium issue, because I doubt he had a thing to do with it.

Of course he has something to do with it. Why couldn't he put in some chips to see it get built? Doesn't that make sense as owner of the team to want to help pay for a new home for the team? I think Coleman makes a valid point that Pohlad's sitting on a pile of money while local taxpayers pick up the tab of the new stadium. He may not have been the one to make that decision, but didn't he threaten to move the team out of state if the Twins didn't get a new stadium?

For starters, MN, I grossly overstated the cost of the new stadium at a billion. Was I thinking Vikings? Don't know. The actual proposed cost of the new Twins stadium is $522 million, including infrastructure improvements. The Twins are kicking in $130 million, with the balanced to be financed with a .015 sales tax.

Yes, there's been talk of selling the team (certainly the owner's perogative) back in 1997, and volunteering for contraction, back in 2002. While those things are definitely pressure to build, if they'd happened it would not have cost taxpayers anything. The history is interesting. I don't like the pressure tactics, and would have bucked them myself. On a related note, I wish other owners had fought the insane free agent market that George Steinbrenner and others pumped up to ridiculous levels of pay for players, i.e. the $25 million per year that A-Rod's getting, and the similar pay level that's going to cost us Johan Santana, the best pitcher the Twins ever had.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Twins

The Minnesota Ballpark Authority is headed by Steve Cramer, former Minneapolis city councilman and mayoral contender, and has former councilmember Joan Campell as secretary, along with Republicans Barb Sykora, Michael Vekich, and John Wade. The general contractor on the stadium is MA Mortenson, one of the largest in the State, which has enjoyed a long and extremely profitable relationship with the City of Minneapolis.

You know, we have heard time & again that new stadiums are wise investments/good business decisions/necessary.

If that is truly the case, I can only wonder why the various teams (well … their owners, actually) don't just pony up the money & own the things outright. I mean: If it's such a great investment … why are they sharing it (if that's the right verb, which of course it's not) with us? Wouldn't they be happier w/o all that damned gub'ment red tape, to say nothing of reaping the full benefit from the profit-stream? I must be missing something …

Also: Thrice, no matter how grossly you may've overstated the cost, it will probably rise to that in the end. $522 million is the estimated cost today but in truth—as financing becomes more expensive & the interest rates change or are renegotiated—that price will undoubtedly rise.

The Heretic watched in awe as the city of Seattle (his previous home) willingly threw itself on the hook for not just one but two new stadiums earlier this century. The city's price tag now estimated in excess of (adopts Dr. Evil voice) one … billion … dollars. Sure, Safeco Field is pretty, but even for a locality awash in money, that's a lotta dough.

I've touched on this issue before, Heretic. I believe there are very compelling studies suggesting that stadium construction NEVER recaptures the public cost in additional employment and economic activity attributed to it. In my view, it's strictly make-work activity, designed to lure and reward the political contributors of urban politicians, and those benefits can be clearly demonstrated in dollars, free manpower for campaign work, and political success at the ballot box. It would probably be poopy of me to point out that those urban politicians are overwhelmingly Democrats, so I won't. It could lead to accusations of taking formula out of the mouths of babes to help billionaires, and that would be a rather awkward turnabout for the Guardians of the Oppressed.