Public Funded Stadiums

I've long been on the fence over publicly funded stadiums. Overall I hang out on the "We've got the metrodome, good enough" crowd, not that I believe baseball ought to be played indoors, but there it is, you know?

The Metrodome seemed like a pretty good investment - used for some 8 Viking football games a year, maybe another 8 Gopher football games a year, 81 baseball games a year, and who knows what else. It's a central location, right on the "Light rail line", for easy public transportation.

Now the Vikes want a Stadium in Blaine, and perhaps the Twins will get an open-air stadium in Minneapolis, and the Gophers will get their new Stadium somewhere near the U I expect.

It all seems so, well, extravagent! We take a perfectly good shared Metrodome and replace it with THREE separate stadiums.

The Viking stadium itself seemed most insane to me. I forgot how short the football seasons is - only 16 games apparently, 8 at home!? We're supposed to spend some $400 million dollars for 8 games a year? Say it lasts 25 years like the Metrodome, that's 200 games. That's $2 million dollars per game! Say a game holds 50,000 fans. That's $20/person/game just for the stadium construction! OF course this doesn't count interest on the debt, doesn't count maintenance costs.

Maybe with TV contracts and such, there's many more people benefitting from the Vikings, and advertising can expand the base for covering costs.

But let's go back to 8 games a year. WHY build a stadium that will only be used for 8 games a year? We've got a Metrodome with its costs divided among perhaps 150 events per year. How will a Viking Stadium way up in Blaine earn it's extra pennies on the 357 "off days"?!

The pro-stadium people talk about how sports brings in extra tax dollars. Probably the "pro-sports" people in general can talk about "Community pride" and "Diverting aggression into sports" and all that.

Some might argue that the state should invest in casinos as well because it will expand our tax-base. Seriously, it's true. Casinos can take in lots of money to pay off their construction costs. It's just a bit more tricky without as much "virtue" to claim in gambling.

Comparing Stadiums to Casinos, I see overall I disapprove of using tax money to build either, even if a claimed economic advantage is possible. If there's so much advantage, private enterprise would do it first.

I see if there's going to be public funding for buildings, they ought to have diverse uses, not just "8 events per year" in the middle of the country side.

I think of the Superdome or whatever in Louisana, taking in people during the hurricane. I guess it wasn't that useful place to store people, although maybe they just needed a few more bathrooms and food.

I see a stadium is a great place to bring people together, and there are events, beyond sports where collecting together thousands of people might be valuable. Well, I think of the Billy Graham event I attended a few years ago.

Back to "boonyland", I see that a metropolitan area ought to be designed to pull people into the center, not the outskirts. I see the Metrodome as central. Maybe football's 8 games per year doesn't need to be central, unlike everyday baseball.

I am still wondering what Stadiums "ought" to be used for, outside sports. I think that question should be asked before any state/county/city government money is spent on them.

I do like the thought of an open air stadium for baseball. Baseball with 162 games can afford to lose a few to weather. The "boys of summer" SHOULD play in sunshine when they can.

Well, I'm mostly still on the fence. I'll live if Minneapolis builds a Twins Stadium, and Anoka County builds a Viking Stadium, taxes and all.

But I do feel sorry for the nice Metrodome. We shouldn't be so quick to build, or so quick to destroy.

I'm sure times will come when we'll wish we invested our time and money better.