On stadium finance

Target Field's financing mechanism
has been working well so far.

The Star Tribune today has a story on how quickly the public debt on Target Field is being paid off.

Hennepin County, the paper reports, has prepaid $31.3 million — which will ultimately reduce the county's interest payments by more than $53 million.

The original plan was for the county to finish paying off its $350 million in bonds in 2037, but the story says that could happen five to 10 years sooner. Which would take out the 0.15 percent county sales tax that much earlier.

Revenues from that sales tax have been a bit lower than projected (because of the recession), but the interest on the bonds has been lower still (also because of the recession).

The Target Field financing mechanism always seemed sound to me -- a low but broad sales tax in the state's biggest retail jurisdiction. In comparison, the public financing scheme for the Vikings stadium -- which is supposed to come up with more money than Target Field required -- strikes me as too flimsy to be called a plan. Electronic pull tabs? Really?

I believe this: If something is worth having government do, it's worth taxing openly and honestly to do it. If it's not worth taxing openly and honestly, it's not worth doing.

The value in public financing for sports facilities is debatable at best. This, however, is not: Target Field has a plain, broad-based tax behind it. The Vikings stadium has a gimmick.

Talking stadiums

The push for a new Vikings stadium took a step toward collapse Tuesday with the joint statement from Gov. Mark Dayton and the legislative leadership that the Legislature will not approve a stadium bill that bypasses a referendum on a local sales tax.

Minnesota has a new baseball stadium,
but a new NFL playground appears
increasingly unlikely.

Such a exclusion was a crucial component of the legislation that enabled the construction of Target Field, but that bill was passed by a different Legislature and signed by a different governor in a different political and economic climate.

It's my guess that the governor's efforts to concoct a passable stadium bill are doomed, that there are simply too many legislators opposed to (a) any broad-based taxes for any purpose; (b) subsidies for professional sports; and-or (c) expansion of gambling.

On a purely personal level, it makes no difference to me if the Vikings are in Arden Hills, Minneapolis or Los Angeles; I have trouble staying awake for the entirety of any NFL telecast. I recognize that this is a minority view among sports fans. It's not the first time I've been out of step with the public, and it won't be the last.

But I do think the state will be a lesser place without the Vikings. And as one who lost sleep at times over the possibility that the Twins would leave over their stadium desires, I feel for those who love the Purple and would be crushed if they depart.

A few observations about the current debate:

• It intrigues me that -- there may be exceptions, but I don't know of any -- that football-only stadiums cost vastly more than baseball-only ones. The Arden Hills plan to which the Vikings currently cling is put at $1.1 billion; Target Field cost (including financing and infrastructure) $522 million.
• It's difficult to justify public subsidies for the jobs created by a stadium, but if they can be justified, it would seem a lot easier to justify it for a baseball stadium's 80-plus games than for a football stadium's 10.
• My opinion is that -- whether it be for public works projects or anything else -- broad-based, open and obvious taxes are vastly preferable to gimmickry financing, such as expanded gambling.
• The Target Field legislation was not widely popular at the time, yet I know of no public official who lost an election over it. I suspect the same would be true if the Legislature passed a Vikings stadium bill with open and obvious financing.
• I further believe that a serious effort to use the Legacy fund to pay for a stadium would, in fact, be political suicide for its proponents. 
• If a stadium bill is passed, I predict it will be for the Metrodome site, which figures to be less expensive than the others and comes with the transportation infrastructure already in place. That is also the site that least interests the Vikings ownership, because they would have practically zero control over nearby development.

Target Field of dispute

The Star Tribune this morning published a Minnesota Poll on the lack of public support for a new Vikings stadium.

It's built, but that doesn't
mean everybody's happy
about it.

What struck this baseball fan was the poll's findings on Target Field:

While 40 percent still say the subsidy was not worth it, the poll shows that the level of approval for the public subsidy for Target Field has risen to 48 percent, up from 29 percent four years ago, before construction had started.

My initial thought was that 40 percent seemed high. I've heard only one person grumble about the public money since the stadium opened.

But ... I'm not necessarily that plugged into public opinion on this topic. I'm not running scientific polls; I'm writing a baseball blog that draws readership and reaction from baseball fans. I'm not running for office and going door-to-door. I'm in touch with people who have an interest in baseball and/or know me personally. It's a self-selecting audience.

Certainly people can both admire the park and detest the financing. In my ideal world, governments wouldn't be building stadia, but that horse escaped the barn long ago.