PDA

View Full Version : I want to know your thoughts



nephilimstorm
02-19-2007, 05:11 PM
Going into the 2007-08 season we will still be without a stadium..much like the Twins for what i see and been hearing on Local TV and Radio..What are your thoughts as the new legislature will "soon" begin work on a new approval for a Viking Stadium?

Let me say this..
This Wilfs should build it themselves...your a multi-billion dollar industry and you want more money for revenue for your team...build it you fing self!!

Potus2028
02-19-2007, 05:27 PM
without a stadium? what's happening to the dome?

BadlandsVikings
02-19-2007, 06:29 PM
"Potus2028" wrote:


without a stadium? what's happening to the dome?


Nothing, but I believe the Vikings lease runs out in 2011.

Bretto
02-19-2007, 08:32 PM
I love the vikings so I don't mind paying a little more in taxes, but thats just me.

NodakPaul
02-19-2007, 08:37 PM
It doesn't matter if the lease runs out, the VIkings can still play there (the twins did for years).
As far as who pays for it, I think that everyone who benefits from a stadium should pay for a part of it.
That includes the tax payers, since the community will reap benefits as well.

COJOMAY
02-19-2007, 08:54 PM
The taxes on tickets, parking and food generates a lot of money for Hennipen County and the State of Minnesota. Why shouldn't they pick up part of the tab?

Zeus
02-19-2007, 08:55 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


It doesn't matter if the lease runs out, the VIkings can still play there (the twins did for years).
As far as who pays for it, I think that everyone who benefits from a stadium should pay for a part of it.
That includes the tax payers, since the community will reap benefits as well.


One of the proposals is for a metro-wide, multi-county tax.

As a resident of Dakota County, MN, part of the metro, how exactly (other than keeping the Vikings here) will I reap benefits from a stadium in downtown Minneapolis or elsewhere which is not Dakota County?

=Z=

Zeus
02-19-2007, 08:56 PM
"Nephilim" wrote:


Going into the 2007-08 season we will still be without a stadium..much like the Twins for what i see and been hearing on Local TV and Radio..What are your thoughts as the new legislature will "soon" begin work on a new approval for a Viking Stadium?


I think the Vikings will have a new stadium deal and ground broken by the end of the 2008 season.

=Z=

sleepagent
02-19-2007, 09:01 PM
I am vacationing with the family down here in Orlando, FL and who do we meet in line at one of the Disney rides (they noticed my son's Viking Jersey)?
A couple from Minneapolis, MN . . . who are Buccaneer fans (go figure!)

As residents of your great state . . . they are opposed to any state financing of a stadium . . . and said there were plenty of others with the same views.

Apparently Ziggy needs to launch a media campaign to sell the taxpayers first on why a tax / state funded stadium is a good thing!

BadlandsVikings
02-19-2007, 09:05 PM
"Zeus" wrote:


"Nephilim" wrote:


Going into the 2007-08 season we will still be without a stadium..much like the Twins for what i see and been hearing on Local TV and Radio..What are your thoughts as the new legislature will "soon" begin work on a new approval for a Viking Stadium?


I think the Vikings will have a new stadium deal and ground broken by the end of the 2008 season.

=Z=


is that a promise?

Zeus
02-19-2007, 09:11 PM
"WVV" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"Nephilim" wrote:


Going into the 2007-08 season we will still be without a stadium..much like the Twins for what i see and been hearing on Local TV and Radio..What are your thoughts as the new legislature will "soon" begin work on a new approval for a Viking Stadium?


I think the Vikings will have a new stadium deal and ground broken by the end of the 2008 season.

=Z=


is that a promise?


It's faith.

=Z=
Minimum.

arrested_developer
02-20-2007, 12:50 AM
i heard that the proposed tax was like .015% which, if true, would mean an extra 2 cents on every 10 dollars. is that really true? if it is, the opposers must either be dirt poor or greedy a-holes.

PacNWVike
02-20-2007, 01:25 AM
The Viking Update had an excellent article on the stadium debate.
Bottom line:
If Ziggy expects the taxpayers (metro or statewide) to contribute, he'll have to do a massive PR campaign proving the benefits...

NordicNed
02-20-2007, 07:53 AM
"Zeus" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


It doesn't matter if the lease runs out, the VIkings can still play there (the twins did for years).
As far as who pays for it, I think that everyone who benefits from a stadium should pay for a part of it.
That includes the tax payers, since the community will reap benefits as well.


One of the proposals is for a metro-wide, multi-county tax.

As a resident of Dakota County, MN, part of the metro, how exactly (other than keeping the Vikings here) will I reap benefits from a stadium in downtown Minneapolis or elsewhere which is not Dakota County?

=Z=






Not sure how the countys are layed out in MN Zeus, but I can say this for myself anyways.






When I come out to see the Vikings from CT.,
the airlines make money and they have many employees....I stay at a hotel, people work there also...I go out to eat breakfest, lunch, and dinner, lots of people working at these places also I see......I like to visit the mall and buy things.






My last trip, I also went Ice Fishing while there, and I'm sure I was in a different county than the stadium....Bait shop owner made good buisness with me that day, had breakfeast there and lunch also at some local dinners.....






Guess what I'm trying to say is, on any given gameday, or even days around the gameday, there are many others I'm sure who come to MN to see the game and do other things.....And if they are like me, they get back on the plane or maybe get in their car to go home, with pockets alot flatter than when we arrived....






So YES,
other countys can and do reap the benefits of having a NFL team in their State that atracts visitors and fans, who are happy to spend money while having a great time...And I'll also say this, MN is a beautful State, with beautiful people, I really enjoyed my visit....

snowinapril
02-20-2007, 08:08 AM
"WVV" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"Nephilim" wrote:


Going into the 2007-08 season we will still be without a stadium..much like the Twins for what i see and been hearing on Local TV and Radio..What are your thoughts as the new legislature will "soon" begin work on a new approval for a Viking Stadium?


I think the Vikings will have a new stadium deal and ground broken by the end of the 2008 season.

=Z=


is that a promise?


Yes I will promise that the Vikes will have a deal in place by the end of 2008.
These things just have a way of working themselves out.
Lawmakers will come around.


I have said this before, the lawmakers are going to try to push this as far down the contract (2011) as they can.
Makes sense to me!

snowinapril
02-20-2007, 08:14 AM
"PacNWVike" wrote:


The Viking Update had an excellent article on the stadium debate.
Bottom line:
If Ziggy expects the taxpayers (metro or statewide) to contribute, he'll have to do a massive PR campaign proving it...


The funny thing is that I didn't see any taxpayers beating down the door to pay for the new Stadium at the U and the new Twins Stadium.
Come on, how many of you Minnesotans went to your local rep and said we need a new Stadium for the Twins.
Raise your hands!

Now how many of you were totally disgusted about the TWO new stadiums and because of it went down to your local reps office and chewed him out.
Raise your hands!

LOL

It has nothing to do with the sheep called taxpayers.
It is the wooing of the officials and propaganda that matter.
I think the interpretation of the "people won't stand for it" is really, the "lawmakers aren't ready for it."

NodakPaul
02-20-2007, 08:38 AM
"VikingNed" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


It doesn't matter if the lease runs out, the VIkings can still play there (the twins did for years).
As far as who pays for it, I think that everyone who benefits from a stadium should pay for a part of it.
That includes the tax payers, since the community will reap benefits as well.


One of the proposals is for a metro-wide, multi-county tax.

As a resident of Dakota County, MN, part of the metro, how exactly (other than keeping the Vikings here) will I reap benefits from a stadium in downtown Minneapolis or elsewhere which is not Dakota County?

=Z=






Not sure how the countys are layed out in MN Zeus, but I can say this for myself anyways.






When I come out to see the Vikings from CT.,
the airlines make money and they have many employees....I stay at a hotel, people work there also...I go out to eat breakfest, lunch, and dinner, lots of people working at these places also I see......I like to visit the mall and buy things.






My last trip, I also went Ice Fishing while there, and I'm sure I was in a different county than the stadium....Bait shop owner made good buisness with me that day, had breakfeast there and lunch also at some local dinners.....






Guess what I'm trying to say is, on any given gameday, or even days around the gameday, there are many others I'm sure who come to MN to see the game and do other things.....And if they are like me, they get back on the plane or maybe get in their car to go home, with pockets alot flatter than when we arrived....






So YES,
other countys can and do reap the benefits of having a NFL team in their State that atracts visitors and fans, who are happy to spend money while having a great time...And I'll also say this, MN is a beautful State, with beautiful people, I really enjoyed my visit....


Exactly Ned.
I do the same as you.. only I do it eleven times a year.
Every game, including preseason, and the draft party.
I have even stayed in hotels in both Apple Valley and Burnsville on occasion, both of which are in Dakota County.

How much money would the super bowl bring in to the metro area, including Dakota County?
There are a lot of numbers out there, but everything I could find points to the area of $250 - $300 million in economic impact to the host community.
Details here (http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/stories/2004/01/05/editorial3.html).
An estimated 100,000 people come in from out of town, and up to 30% don't even go to the game.
The hotels in southern counties, including Dakota, will be filled the brim because they are closer to both the airport, as well as the major traffic arteries coming in to the metro area.

There is also extra tax money generated for the entire metro area during games.
This money can improve infrastructure, be used in schools, whatever the county government decides.
Plus the state as a whole sees a tax increase during big events like the superbowl.
I am assuming that Dakota County benefits from state money as well.

Zeus
02-20-2007, 08:42 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


There is also extra tax money generated for the entire metro area during games.
This money can improve infrastructure, be used in schools, whatever the county government decides.
Plus the state as a whole sees a tax increase during big events like the superbowl.
I am assuming that Dakota County benefits from state money as well.


NP - you are correct, there are impacts to the entire metro region from having the stadium.
Believe me, I'm one of the ones who talks about the "nickle on every $20" or whatever the tax rate works out to be.

But I also think that the most direct economic impact will be on the downtown area (if that is where a new stadium is built) and that they should pay a larger portion of the price to reap that larger portion of the benefit.

=Z=

NodakPaul
02-20-2007, 08:49 AM
"Zeus" wrote:


NP - you are correct, there are impacts to the entire metro region from having the stadium.
Believe me, I'm one of the ones who talks about the "nickle on every $20" or whatever the tax rate works out to be.

But I also think that the most direct economic impact will be on the downtown area (if that is where a new stadium is built) and that they should pay a larger portion of the price to reap that larger portion of the benefit.

=Z=


You're right, of course.
I wonder if that is any kind of a possibility.
A Metro wide tax where each county pays a different proportion?

Zeus
02-20-2007, 09:45 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


NP - you are correct, there are impacts to the entire metro region from having the stadium.
Believe me, I'm one of the ones who talks about the "nickle on every $20" or whatever the tax rate works out to be.

But I also think that the most direct economic impact will be on the downtown area (if that is where a new stadium is built) and that they should pay a larger portion of the price to reap that larger portion of the benefit.

=Z=


You're right, of course.
I wonder if that is any kind of a possibility.
A Metro wide tax where each county pays a different proportion?


That sounds like a reasonable plan, which is why, of course, it won't be considered.

=Z=

whackthepack
02-20-2007, 11:03 AM
First thing you have to understand is that taxes are not fair.

I have never been on welfare, food stamps or lived in low income housing but my tax dollars go to support those that are.

The new $125 million dollar public library in Downtown Minneapolis was funded by Minneapolis tax payers, does everyone in Minneapolis utilize that library?
No


The new Guthrie theater cost over
$100 million dollars paid for by the general fund, so do most people in Thief River Falls drive down to Minneapolis and go to that theater?
No


The cost to expand the bridges and roads going south of the Twin Cities 35W and Hwy 169 have cost hundreds of millions of dollars, are people in Moorehead going to use those roads very much?
Probably not, but that is general fund money and they are helping pay for it.


The renovation of the Walker Arts Center another 40 to 50 million dollar project that the tax payers of Minnesota are paying for, but most won't use.


The over a billion dollar renovation of the MPLS international airport most of the funding is being paid for by the general fund and what if you won't fly and refuse to get on a plane?
Do those people want that money spent on something they will not use.

The airport commission just gave NWA a big reduction in the cost they pay for the gates they use (95% of all gates) and will cost us tax payers more to fund the airport, but some people including myself think they should tell NWA to go screw themselves and let competition come into the airport and reduce NWA's gates percentage and we as consumers would have cheaper air fare.




Minnesota spends about 20 million a year maintaining snowmobile trails, bike trails, cross country skiing trails & hiking trails, but not all people utilize those.


Did you know in the Twin-cities metro area our county property taxes are higher because the 7 county metro area sends money to the other counties that don't make enough from their county property tax to support their infrastructure.
Do I want to help Cook county maintain their schools and their sheriff departments?
No!
But I see the reason for it.


So the taxes you pay will not always be used only for the things that you want them to or for things that you do personally!
And I am sure that enough people in the 7 county metro area will watch the Viking's play in person or on TV that a 7 county metro tax should not automatically be rejected..

JellyBean2144
02-22-2007, 07:57 AM
With the building of a new stadium, like many or some have already stated, the cost should be a shared event. They should put forth a certain amount, the city and state through taxes from the citizens, put up their amount, and we get this deal done. If we love the Vikings, as we say we do, we can get this deal done.

Zeus
02-22-2007, 08:00 AM
"JellyBean2144" wrote:


With the building of a new stadium, like many or some have already stated, the cost should be a shared event. They should put forth a certain amount, the city and state through taxes from the citizens, put up their amount, and we get this deal done. If we love the Vikings, as we say we do, we can get this deal done.


Do you live in Minnesota?

=Z=

Desertvikingfan
02-22-2007, 03:15 PM
"Zeus" wrote:


"JellyBean2144" wrote:


With the building of a new stadium, like many or some have already stated, the cost should be a shared event. They should put forth a certain amount, the city and state through taxes from the citizens, put up their amount, and we get this deal done. If we love the Vikings, as we say we do, we can get this deal done.


Do you live in Minnesota?

=Z=
I don't, but I do believe the cost should be borne by all who are going to benefit. That being first Wilf, second the city of MPLS and surrounding counties 3rd State of Minnesota. Like it or not the Vikes bring publicity (ok not all good) to the city and people travel there and spend money because of the Vikings. Not to mentioned jobs that are generated like any business.

JellyBean2144
02-22-2007, 03:27 PM
"Zeus" wrote:


"JellyBean2144" wrote:


With the building of a new stadium, like many or some have already stated, the cost should be a shared event. They(owners) should put forth a certain amount, the city and state through taxes from the citizens, put up their amount, and we get this deal done. If we love the Vikings, as we say we do, we can get this deal done.


Do you live in Minnesota?

=Z=


The last time I checked my mail box, I did. Why? Did someone mention that time I got lost in Mexico? It only happened that one time. :)

PacNWVike
02-23-2007, 02:47 AM
"JellyBean2144" wrote:


With the building of a new stadium, like many or some have already stated, the cost should be a shared event. They should put forth a certain amount, the city and state through taxes from the citizens, put up their amount, and we get this deal done. If we love the Vikings, as we say we do, we can get this deal done.


I believe it depends on the tax burden of those who are affected.
Will the tax payers in my hometown of Albert Lea benefit by the "possibly" state imposed taxes?
I think not.

Zeus
02-23-2007, 05:00 AM
"JellyBean2144" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"JellyBean2144" wrote:


With the building of a new stadium, like many or some have already stated, the cost should be a shared event. They(owners) should put forth a certain amount, the city and state through taxes from the citizens, put up their amount, and we get this deal done. If we love the Vikings, as we say we do, we can get this deal done.


Do you live in Minnesota?

=Z=


The last time I checked my mail box, I did. Why? Did someone mention that time I got lost in Mexico? It only happened that one time. :)


Just makin' sure!
:^)

I love discussions where people propose taxes and fees and stuff to get things built - only to find out that lots of those people won't actually be affected by the taxes and fees and stuff.

=Z=

sp0njah4Life
02-23-2007, 12:29 PM
I realy hope they get it done. I'd like to see the Vikes with a new stadium. Hope it's open air. Teams would hate playing us at home during the winter. Show Green Bay where the real frozen tundra is at!!!

Desertvikingfan
02-23-2007, 01:34 PM
"PacNWVike" wrote:


"JellyBean2144" wrote:


With the building of a new stadium, like many or some have already stated, the cost should be a shared event. They should put forth a certain amount, the city and state through taxes from the citizens, put up their amount, and we get this deal done. If we love the Vikings, as we say we do, we can get this deal done.


I believe it depends on the tax burden of those who are affected.
Will the tax payers in my hometown of Albert Lea benefit by the "possibly" state imposed taxes?
I think not.
Anytime anyone comes into the state and spends money the state of Minnesota gets a cut. That money is part of the General Fund and is used throughout the state. So yes, if people are employed because of the Vikings, or come to the state to see the Vikings, or buy Viking memoribilia, the state gets a cut and ALbert Lea citizens could benefit.

nephilimstorm
02-23-2007, 01:46 PM
Well as for a local in MN...so far there is no talk as to the stadium right now...but the legislature will pick it up alter on this session...i guess will see what happens.

WileEViking
02-23-2007, 01:52 PM
IMO,it's a partnership between the state and the Vikings.The Metrodump was paid off early without ONE CENT of taxpayer money used,yet most that I've talked to in the city of Minneapolis believe they did.The downtown ramps that are full on Viking' game weekends don't share one cent with the Vikings,even
though those lots and ramps would be all but empty without them.The Vikings salaries pay millions in state taxes every year.I myself show up multiple times a year and spend thousands in the state that,without the Vikings,I would otherwise not spend there.If the Vikings are going to be tenents,then the state should pay for it's share and enter into a long term lease with the team.They should also address the Vikings parking revenue shortfalls and let them get their share of that too.The Vikings are the reason millions of tourists dollars come into the downtown area,so to act as though the Vikings are carpetbaggers for wanting a venue to play in is laughable when you see what the state of Minnesota has done with it's taxdollars (Guthrie theater,light-rail,etc) that only
a fraction of the population uses.Wilf wants to put a BILLION dollars in re-developement to a new stadium site.I'd say that more than offsets the cost that the state is being asked to contribute.My .02 anyway... ;D

nephilimstorm
02-23-2007, 02:25 PM
"WileEViking" wrote:


IMO,it's a partnership between the state and the Vikings.The Metrodump was paid off early without ONE CENT of taxpayer money used,yet most that I've talked to in the city of Minneapolis believe they did.The downtown ramps that are full on Viking' game weekends don't share one cent with the Vikings,even
though those lots and ramps would be all but empty without them.The Vikings salaries pay millions in state taxes every year.I myself show up multiple times a year and spend thousands in the state that,without the Vikings,I would otherwise not spend there.If the Vikings are going to be tenents,then the state should pay for it's share and enter into a long term lease with the team.They should also address the Vikings parking revenue shortfalls and let them get their share of that too.The Vikings are the reason millions of tourists dollars come into the downtown area,so to act as though the Vikings are carpetbaggers for wanting a venue to play in is laughable when you see what the state of Minnesota has done with it's taxdollars (Guthrie theater,light-rail,etc) that only
a fraction of the population uses.Wilf wants to put a BILLION dollars in re-developement to a new stadium site.I'd say that more than offsets the cost that the state is being asked to contribute.My .02 anyway... ;D


Nice post..and in total agreeance....this state has no idea how to spendits tax dollars and I even say the lightrail was a waste...

NodakPaul
02-23-2007, 02:47 PM
"PacNWVike" wrote:


"JellyBean2144" wrote:


With the building of a new stadium, like many or some have already stated, the cost should be a shared event. They should put forth a certain amount, the city and state through taxes from the citizens, put up their amount, and we get this deal done. If we love the Vikings, as we say we do, we can get this deal done.


I believe it depends on the tax burden of those who are affected.
Will the tax payers in my hometown of Albert Lea benefit by the "possibly" state imposed taxes?
I think not.


That is another misconception I see quite a bit.
If state money ends up getting used to help the fund the stadium, there most likely won't be any new state imposed taxes.
Part of your taxes go into the state general fund every year regardless.
The legislature just has to decide how to spend the money each year.

So the tax payers in your hometown won't see any difference.
But will they see benefit?
Actually, probably, since Albert Lea is on one of the main corridors leading into the state and one of the few cities in the area, it is a pretty common stopping point for motorists heading north to the games.
Trust me, we stopped there every time when we lived in IL...

PacNWVike
02-23-2007, 03:36 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"PacNWVike" wrote:


"JellyBean2144" wrote:


With the building of a new stadium, like many or some have already stated, the cost should be a shared event. They should put forth a certain amount, the city and state through taxes from the citizens, put up their amount, and we get this deal done. If we love the Vikings, as we say we do, we can get this deal done.


I believe it depends on the tax burden of those who are affected.
Will the tax payers in my hometown of Albert Lea benefit by the "possibly" state imposed taxes?
I think not.


That is another misconception I see quite a bit.
If state money ends up getting used to help the fund the stadium, there most likely won't be any new state imposed taxes.
Part of your taxes go into the state general fund every year regardless.
The legislature just has to decide how to spend the money each year.

So the tax payers in your hometown won't see any difference.
But will they see benefit?
Actually, probably, since Albert Lea is on one of the main corridors leading into the state and one of the few cities in the area, it is a pretty common stopping point for motorists heading north to the games.
Trust me, we stopped there every time when we lived in IL...


I agree.
And that's where the PR machine comes into play.