Viking stadium went off as scheduled at the Nokomis Rec Center, 7:30 to 8:30
p.m. This is my report.
Immediately striking was the disproportionate number of men compared to women.
I counted 35 women to 94 men. (My method was to identify gender as people
entered the gym, without subtracting when people left. I cut off the count at
exactly 7:32. A few more people may have entered after that, and there may
have been a few double-counts, but I feel certain that the actual number was
close and that the proportion was approximately 3 men for each woman. There
were also 2 children present, both girls but not counted on the woman side of
things.)
In addition to the mayor, 4 city council members attended: Sandra Colvin Roy
(in whose ward the meeting was held), John Quincy, Cam Gordon and Gary Schiff.
(Council Members Colvin Roy and Quincy are now on record as supporting
Minneapolis financing of the Wilf stadium, while CM Schiff and CM Gordon are on
record as opposing.)
My concern was that the mayor would spend all the time talking and give no
chance at all for citizens to express their concerns; this was not the case.
After 9 minutes of introductory remarks by the major, written questions were
read and answered. These were naturally extremely brief and the mayor's
answers quite lengthy. I again became concerned that the mayor would
completely control the entire evening; again, I was mistaken. After perhaps 10
minutes of answering written questions, the mayor opened up the discussion to
the floor.
>From the very first written question to the end of the forum at 8:32, I kept
carefully track of how much citizen input time occurred, whether in asking a
question or having a question read or voicing an opinion. The total number of
seconds from citizens was 1,084, or about 18 minutes. So the proportion was 18
minutes to all citizen questions and opinions as compared to 43 minutes for the
mayor (including about 4 minutes for the city's chief financial officer, Kevin
Carpenter).
Arguments in favor of public financing of the stadium included the following:
jobs in construction, encouragement of the Minneapolis hospitality industry and
gaining city control of "hospitality" taxes in such a way that would result in
lower property taxes (even though they would extend hospitality taxes from 2020
to 2045, increasing the total amount of hospitality taxes by about $600
million, once interest is compounded).
Many objections were raised, including the specific objection of allocating
city funds in direct violation of the city charter, as amended. People also
clearly addressed that there was a $600 million dollar and 25 year extension of
the city sales tax, which the mayor did not dispute.
Among the speakers were those both supporting and those opposed to city
financing of the new stadium. Stickers were roughly even, with pro-financing
stickers warn primarily by people in the construction trades and those having
key positions in the DFL (Dan McConnell would be a person who fit both of these
criteria). Many of those opposed were those who had previously campaigned
against the Pohlad stadium, as quite a few non-activists who asked questions
about numbers and statements that simply don't make sense.
Not one public statement was made by any of the city council members present,
not even by Sandra Colvin Roy, in whose ward the forum was held. Questions
were asked specifically of council members, which the mayor fielded and which
no council member ever answered. CM Colvin Roy, in fact, left almost
immediately as soon as the forum officially ended, again leaving her aide Loren
Olson to answer any questions from ward 12 constituents.
I sincerely doubt that many if even one opinion was changed. Feeling were very
strong on both sides of the issue.
It was truly discouraging for me to hear the twisted rationale being used to
justify the massive expense of this proposed stadium. Several specific points
were particularly disappointing.
First, the mayor repeatedly claimed that public funding of the stadium would
result in great public economic benefit, but not one study or even a single
case was ever mentioned. When one audience member specifically cited the
studies indicating no public benefit for such a public expense, the mayor again
responded with his own unsubstantiated opinion. I would characterize this and
other crucial moments as dancing around the question, rather than anything at
all resembling an answer.
Second, the mayor was specifically asked why he would not take the question to
a city referendum, as required by the city charter. He then spoke against
"government by referendum" and "taking a courageous position" and again
asserted that the referendum requirement did not apply, again mentioning the
"informal opinion" of the city attorney, while point-blank admitting that no
written opinion was been given and that the communication itself was only
advisory to the mayor.
Third, there is a truly innovative way of understanding what it means to incur
$600 million dollars of public debt. At one point, the chief financial officer
said that cities incur expenses and that there was no guarantee that this one
would result any financial benefit to the city. I was shocked to hear such
frankness, but it turns out that I was looking at things a bit too broadly.
What Kevin Carpenter told me after the meeting was that the proposed agreement
would certainly result in lower property taxes, since the Target Center and
Convention Center debt would now be paid by the "hospitality taxes" and that
there simply was no exact way of determining any city benefit after those debts
were paid.
The only moment that I would describe as mean was one that came from Mayor
Rybak. Carol Becker (who was elected to the Board of Estimate and Taxation and
who has become one of my heroes for her consistency in defending our public
financing) spoke for several minutes with specific and direct contradiction of
several statements made by the mayor. She specifically mentioned that the
"hospitality tax" was actually merely a sales tax and that buying a roll of
toilet paper at Target would directly go to pay for those sports facilities.
She was also specific in saying that that "hospitality" tax was indeed a local
tax and that it had specifically been voted on by the city council and was even
named as a "local" tax. When the mayor responded, he blasted her pretty
directly, holding Carol Becker responsible for the "mess" created by the
ill-advised Target Center deal. Carol immediately described her exact position
at the time, showing that she did not hold any decision-making position at the
time. The mayor, to his credit, did not continue falsely accusing her.
This was a discouraging meeting. Others have described the mayor as more
skillful than anything on Dancing with the Stars. That only starts to describe
the show, in my opinion.
$600 million dollars in city obligations is being described as tax relief.
Legal accountability for violating the city charter is being avoided by simply
asking the question in a different way, for example approving an agreement with
the state rather than actually appropriating funds for a massive construction
project. Slippery doesn't begin to describe the twisted logic being used.
What I believe the mayor and some city council members don't understand is how
difficult people's lives are already. I can guarantee that there were many
people in tonight's audience who haven't had work in over a year. I can
guarantee that some there have already had their homes go into foreclosure and
that many others are close to foreclosure. I can guarantee that there are
already quite a few of tonight's audience who are having trouble paying for
special assessments for sidewalks or streets or alleys. There were clearly a
large number there living on retirement or disability or other fixed incomes,
who have a very real fear how they will manage if the city commits us to such
an enormous expense. I can absolutely guarantee you that everyone paying
property taxes in that audience is paying twice as much as they were when the
mayor took office, in constant dollars.
I don't understand these fancy dance moves. I don't understand how $600
million in additional public obligations will not result in increased taxes
somewhere. We may not pay for it as property taxes. We might call it sales
taxes or hospitality taxes or something else, but make no mistake that we will
eventually pay for it. I do not understand how anyone with a law degree can
say that the city council could approve such an agreement and that it would not
violate the city charter, and thus be legally actionable.
If this bad deal goes through, I am quite certain that it will result in great
pain for the city. I clearly see our taxes going up; how could they not? I
clearly see our city services in decline: how could they not? These people are
making a huge gamble with out money and, if they succeed with their plan, I
believe that things will end really badly.
There are two more opportunities for citizens to voice their concerns.
Tomorrow (Wednesday) night, April 11, 6:30 p.m. at the Logan Rec Center, 690 -
13th Avenue NE, there will be a second forum with the mayor. This is in ward
1, represented by Kevin Reich. (Along with CM Colvin Roy, he was also heavily
lobbied by the governor to change his position on supporting a stadium without
the required referendum; he was previously opposed to such a vote, but now has
written a letter in support of the mayor's plan.)
The last remaining opportunity, to my knowledge, will be a meeting of the
Intergovernmental Sub-committee of the city council, meeting 4 to 6:30 p.m. on
April 24 in room 317 of City Hall.
I have tried to be quite specific in being factual about what I observed.
Certainly, I have given my own opinions about the validity of arguments made,
but I have tried to be very clear about what was objective observation and what
was my own conclusion or concern.
If there were any other forum members present who would like to correct me in
any details, I welcome their response here.