Professional sports stadiums should be privately funded and owned.

Today, Thanksgiving Day, November 26, 2009, let us return to the proposition: RESOLVED, that private investors, not the Minnesota taxpayer, should build a new stadium for the Minnesota Vikings. I oppose a tax subsidy to build a stadium for the following reasons: 1. The U.S. is in an economic recession which probably will persist for a few more years at least. The rising national rate of unemployment now exceeds 10%! http://employeeissues.com... 2. Minnesota's faces a serious budget deficit: "The state faces a short-term problem — a projected budget deficit of $4.4 billion to $7.2 billion in the next two-year budget period — and a long-term predicament — slow economic growth combined with pressures to spend more for services for an aging population that will be less able and less willing to pay higher taxes. So the next governor is likely to face a fiscal crunch unlike any the state has seen." http://www.twincities.com... In light of the facts established in 1 and 2 above, an appropriation of millions of dollars for a sports stadium seems unwise. 3. Sources in the article http://www.twincities.com... claim that the Vikings are losing money. Yet, "Neither the Vikings nor the NFL would discuss the team's financial situation..." I contend that the Vikings are profitable. To receive any consideration for a public subsidy, the Vikings should demonstrate a serious financial need. The Vikings' owners refuse to open their books. I argue that they want a new stadium not to become profitable, BUT SIMPLY TO EARN MORE PROFIT. The article also states: "In the NFL, ticket and television revenue is divvied up among the league's 32 teams. The real way to make money is through stadiums — naming rights, premium seating, concessions, parking. That money stays home, but the Metrodome — with 100 luxury suites and no club seating — offers the Vikings little in this way." Clearly, during this economic recession, to receive any consideration for a public subsidy, the Vikings should open their books to show their current profitability or unprofitability. 4. If private investors in LA can build a stadium to GET the Vikings or another professional sports franchise, then private investors in Minnesota can do likewise to KEEP the Vikings here. I quote from the article: "The man behind the new effort is real estate developer Ed Roski. He's ready to break ground on a 70,000-seat stadium in Industry, Calif., with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's approval and a list of teams they expect will be interested in relocating." "The $800 million Los Angeles stadium is purported to be privately financed, though necessary infrastructure improvements are expected to be passed on to taxpayers. Schwarzenegger signed an environmental exception for the site to get the project off the ground. All it needs is a team. "This is a viable project," NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy said." 5. Two professional sports teams, The Minneapolis Lakers and the Minnesota North Stars, left the state in years past for greener pastures. The state endured. In due course, they were replaced by the Minnesota Timberwolves and the Minnesota Wild. If the Vikings do move to the greener pastures in LA or elsewhere, the state will endure. 6. The Vikings franchise is a privately owned business enterprise. Con errs when he fails to distinguish a private business enterprise from ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FUNCTIONS, some of which he mentions: "I would like my opponent to take a look at other subsidizations that benefit the people. Firefighters, police force, public libraries, museums, public beaches, etc. Public beaches are an excellent example of an positive externality that should be subsidized." I agree that these functions should be subsidized. These public services, and I would add public schools and public health programs, should be adequately funded (NO BUDGET REDUCTIONS; NO EMPLOYEE LAYOFFS) - BEFORE A SUBSIDY FOR A SPORTS TEAM IS EVEN CONSIDERED. In a serious economic recession, it is self-evident that public money should be appropriated for essential public services, not to subsidize private profit-making enterprises. Finally, I will simply note that Con has not really addressed my criticism of his use of the concepts of positive and negative externalities. My criticism basically is that the concepts are unlimited. In other words, Con has not articulated any limits on either public subsidies or public taxes. In closing, I respectfully the voters to carefully read the following article before voting. http://www.twincities.com... The choice seems to be tax money going to either (a) the wealthy owners of the Vikings or to (b) cops, firefighters, teachers, librarians, etc. A consideration of prudence in public expenditures should guide your vote in this debate. I love watching the Vikings and would hate to see them leave Minnesota. But the history of professional sports in Minnesota suggests that we can survive their departure, if, indeed, that does happen. Rest assured though, that I'll root for Bret and the boys wherever they play. Tom