On the homepage
Scanners
Out There
Gas lines
Club Outdoors
Editorial: August primary is finally in sight
Feb 9, 2010 at 06:55 PM
Decades of calls for an earlier primary election date in Minnesota are finally getting support at the Capitol. With bipartisan backing, early enactment appears likely of a bill to move the primary to the second Tuesday in August -- Aug. 10 this year -- from its traditional "first Tuesday after the second Monday" in September.
A shove from Congress is the biggest reason for improved prospects for an earlier primary. Legislation signed into law by President Obama in October lengthened from 30 to 45 days the legally required absentee balloting period for military and overseas voters. With the second-latest primary election in the nation, Minnesota's current-law political calendar this year permits a scant 31 days for absentee voting. It's clearly out of compliance with federal law.
What's more, Minnesota legislators were reminded by the 2008 Senate election's recount that a sizable share of absentee ballots are disqualified and go uncounted, simply because they arrive too late. More than 500 ballots from overseas voters suffered that fate in 2008, Secretary of State Mark Ritchie said.
One other thing has changed since a multifaceted election reform bill containing an August primary was felled by Gov. Tim Pawlenty's veto last May. A handful of legislators from both parties who specialize in election law put themselves through a detailed negotiating process during the intervening months, at the instigation of Larry Jacobs of the Center for the Study of Politics and Governance at the University of Minnesota's Humphrey Institute.
With Jacobs as their convenor and former Anoka County elections director Rachel Smith, now director of the Institute's Election Administration Project, rounding up resources and answering questions, the legislators' talks proved unusually productive. The legislators most regularly involved included Senate DFLers Ann Rest and Katie Sieben; Senate Republican Chris Gerlach; House DFLers Ryan Winkler and Steve Simon; and House Republican Tom Emmer.
Away from the Capitol's partisan pressures, the legislators settled into sorting various election reform proposals, identifying ones both DFLers and Republicans could accept, ones that both might accept after deliberation and modest adjustment, and ones favored by one party and anathema to the other.
As they worked, they forged an agreement to advance only those measures that could win mutual favor. That's the bar that Pawlenty set last year for him to sign any bill related to elections. Both parties' legislators backed off positions they had taken in 2009. DFLers said they would set aside proposals the Republicans disliked; Republicans said they would not withhold their votes from otherwise agreeable bills to protest the omission of provisions they favor -- such as a required showing of a photo ID card to be able to vote.
"These people put aside the nasty division that has polarized us," Jacobs said, praising the legislators' willingness to act on the merits rather than the politics of election reform. "They responded to the bell when all of us said, stop the fighting. Let's get something done."
Several of the negotiating legislators preferred a June primary date, as does this newspaper. But holding out for June would not get the job done, the legislators determined. Too many of their fellow legislators fear a primary date too close to the usual end of the legislative session, on the third Monday in May. In this exercise, the perfect was not allowed to become the enemy of the good.
The turnaround in the prospects for an earlier primary date, and the positive working relationship that developed among the legislators involved, has Capitol observers wondering whether their process of mediated negotiation has wider application. Balancing the state budget is another highly partisan issue, but within it lie points of possible bipartisan accord. Those points are too often obscured by the Capitol's political theater, which can be expected to become particularly intense in this election-year session. This might be the year to try early negotiations about the state budget, mediated by a trusted neutral broker.
1 Comments
Michael Gerson: Man with a plan -- and that makes Paul Ryan a credible threat
| Feb 9, 2010 at 06:54 PM
The new era of Democratic bipartisanship, like cut flowers in a vase, wilted in less than a week. During his question time at the recent House Republican retreat, President Obama elevated Congressman and budget expert Paul Ryan, R-Wis., as a "sincere guy" whose budget blueprint -- which, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), eventually achieves a balanced budget -- has "some ideas in there that I would agree with." Days later, Democratic legislators held a conference call to lambaste Ryan's plan as a vicious, voucherizing, privatizing assault on Social Security, Medicare and every nonmillionaire American. Progressive advocacy groups and liberal bloggers joined the jeering.From a political perspective, Democratic leaders are right to single out Ryan for unkind attention. He is among their greatest, long-term threats. He possesses the appeal of a young Jack Kemp (for whom both Ryan and I once worked). Like Kemp, Ryan is aggressively likable, crackling with ideas and shockingly sincere.
But unlike Kemp -- who didn't give a rip for deficits, being focused exclusively on economic growth -- Ryan is the cheerful prophet of deficit doom. In a few weeks, he expects the CBO to report that, in the 10th year of Obama's budget, the federal government will "spend nearly a trillion dollars a year, just on interest! This traps us as a country. Inflation will wipe out savings and hurt people on fixed incomes. A plunging dollar will make goods more expensive. High tax rates will undermine economic growth. It is the path of national decline."
But unlike other deficit hawks, Ryan courageously -- some would say foolhardily -- presents his own alternative. His budget road map offers many proposals, but one big vision. Over time, Ryan concentrates government spending on the poor through means-tested programs, patching holes in the safety net while making entitlements more sustainable. He saves money by providing the middle class with defined-contribution benefits -- private retirement accounts and health vouchers -- that are more portable but less generous in the long run. And he expects a growing economy, liberated from debt and inflation, to provide more real gains for middle-class citizens than they lose from lower government benefits.
Ryanism is not only a technical solution to endless deficits; it represents an alternative political philosophy. Democrats have attempted to build a political constituency for the welfare state by expanding its provisions to larger and larger portions of the middle class. Ryan proposes a federal system that focuses on helping the poor, while encouraging the middle class to take more personal responsibility in a dynamic economy. It is the appeal of security vs. the appeal of independence and enterprise.
Both sides of this debate make serious arguments, rooted in differing visions of justice and freedom. But the advocates of security, including Obama, have a serious problem: They are currently on a path to economic ruin.
Michael Gerson's column is distributed by the Washington Post Writers Group.
Ezra Klein: A radical plan, proportionate to the problem
| Feb 9, 2010 at 06:55 PM
aul Ryan's budget is a radical document that rolls a live grenade under current policy. Social Security? Ryan adds private accounts. Medicaid? Ryan privatizes it. Medicare? Same thing. Health care? Ryan repeals the subsidy for employer-provided insurance, replacing it with a tax credit. The boyish Ryan is a conservative darling, but there's nothing conservative about his document. It does not respect, much less preserve, the status quo. But then, that's a point in Ryan's favor. The status quo will bankrupt our country. On that, Ryan's radicalism is welcome, and all too rare.The size of his proposal is shocking, but it is proportionate to the size of our problem: According to the Congressional Budget Office, which examined a simplified version of his proposal, it would wipe out our projected long-term deficits.
Facing up to how he does this is a worthwhile exercise. It's not the privatization. His proposal to add optional private accounts to Social Security actually increases the program's cost. Similarly, his proposal to privatize Medicare increases costs.
Ryan saves his money after he privatizes the programs. Under his proposal, seniors stop getting Medicare, which is both government-run and pays for any procedures that can be shown to help improve their condition. Instead, the seniors get a voucher to buy private insurance, and that voucher grows more slowly than medical costs. That means the coverage that voucher buys is going to grow more slowly than medical costs. Seniors will be in the same position the rest of us are in: Either you can afford the coverage and care you need through savings or subsidies or both, or ... you can't.
Ryan's hopes are different. In his telling, his proposal unleashes market forces by pulling people out of Medicare, out of Medicaid and out of the employer-based market. He envisions insurance exchanges and better information on quality and cost. Combine that many consumers with that much money and that much transparency, and it'll have to reform itself into something we can afford. "This sector isn't immune from free-market principles," he says.
That may be so, but we don't necessarily want to treat health care the way we treat normal markets. The way markets deal with scarcity is by pricing some things out of reach. Are we comfortable with life-saving treatments being out of financial reach for the people who need them?
There's an argument to be made that we should be. Resources are limited, and they need to be apportioned somehow. This is rationing, and as Ryan notes, "It happens today. The question is who will do it? The government? Or you, your doctor and your family?" I think that's a bit off: The question is more about whether society should ration in consultation with voters and doctors and politicians and researchers, or whether your bank account should ration in consultation with pharmaceutical companies and medical-device manufacturers and hospital companies.
But Ryan is right that we will need to ration somehow, and along the way, we will need to change the health-care sector dramatically. His radical embrace of the free-market vision is one option. So, too, is the liberal vision of a nationalized system modeled off the far more affordable and efficient examples we see in France, Germany, Japan and elsewhere.
Liberals and conservatives may disagree over Ryan's solution, but I imagine most Americans would support his approach to the work.
"This is my 12th year," he says. "If I lose my job over this, then so be it. If you're given the opportunity to serve, you better serve like it's your last term every term."
Chicago Tribune: Getting the government out of space
| Feb 9, 2010 at 06:52 PM
For decades now, America has been lost in space. Ever since the Apollo mission landed men on the moon in the 1960s, the nation has asked: OK, what's next?
The answers have failed to stir the imagination: A space shuttle that is little more than a glorified barge into low Earth orbit. An international space station that's been a white elephant for years. Another moon mission? Been there, done that. Mars? Not in this lifetime.
Last week, President Obama, who has been compared to Mr. Spock, the flawlessly logical Vulcan of "Star Trek" fame, charted a different course. He scrapped the planned 2020 moonshot and told NASA to turn over rocket-building to private companies that are more innovative and nimble than the sclerotic space agency.
The mission: Develop rockets to deliver space travelers to Mars and other planets and asteroids in the solar system in weeks rather than years.
Sounds ... well, logical.
Last October, a special independent panel advising Obama on space issues said that NASA picked the wrong destination with the wrong rocket for the 2020 moonshot. That's after four years and about $9 billion spent on developing the Ares 1 rocket and an Orion capsule to carry astronauts.
In a fact sheet released with the 2011 White House budget proposal, the federal Office of Management and Budget said the rocket's development was "over budget, behind schedule, lacking in innovation due to a failure to invest in critical new technologies."
No wonder Obama wants to hand the rocket-building off to private firms operating with NASA oversight.
He'll get a fight from members of Congress from states or districts with lots of space-industry jobs. Alabama Republican Sen. Richard Shelby called the Obama budget a "death march for the future of U.S. human spaceflight."
Not exactly, senator. For one thing, even though NASA's mission is slated for downsizing, its budget isn't. Obama increased NASA's $18 billion-plus budget by $6 billion over five years. Go figure.
And then there are all those jobs that will be created by private companies jockeying for a chunk of the rocket-building business.
In a blog on the Huffington Post, Peter Diamandis, chairman and CEO of the X Prize Foundation, called the shift from NASA bureaucracy to space entrepreneurs "brilliant." The foundation, you may recall, put up a $10 million prize for the first private rocketeers to launch a small piloted craft to the threshold of space. At the moment, Diamandis' foundation is dangling a $25 million prize for entrepreneurs to land a rover on the moon that can travel at least 500 meters and send high-resolution video and other data to Earth. "The U.S. government doesn't build your computers, nor do you fly aboard a U.S. government owned and operated airline," Diamandis wrote. "Private industry routinely takes technologies pioneered by the government and turns them into cheap, reliable and robust industries."
The stars are already in space entrepreneurs' eyes. They see money to be made in space tourism and industry. We hope they're right. It's time to let them take more of the risk -- and reward -- in finding out.
Lily Coyle: Some things are just better left untaped
| Feb 9, 2010 at 06:51 PM
OK, here's what I don't get: Sex tapes. As in the alleged recordings of John Edwards in action.
Why is it that so many people in positions of power will so readily consent to being filmed in a compromising position -- or several positions -- which inevitably leads to complete loss of power?
If you are a pasty, middle-aged politician, how does a low-quality videotape of your sweaty backside in action make the world a better place? How does this make you a man of the people? I mean, find me one normal middle-aged American who can stand to see a photo of him or herself in a bathing suit.
It does take a uniquely resilient ego to weather a campaign. If you're cheating on a cancer-stricken wife while running for president, chances are you're not doing the kind of self-reflection that leads to insightful decisions about photo documentation of your sexcapades.
But it's not only politicians or celebrities getting caught in this situation. Maybe you're just an average citizen. Maybe you're just drunk, and it's Mardi Gras, and there's a "Girls Gone Wild" film crew in the vicinity. What to do?
I offer these simple guidelines:
1If you are naked, and somebody wants footage of that, and you don't have an agent or a six-figure contract, and it's not a union shoot with Oscar buzz -- don't do it.
2If you are naked, and somebody wants photos, and it's not your plastic surgeon, and you don't have arrows in magic marker to show where the scalpel will go -- don't do it.
3If you are naked, and somebody wants to capture the moment with a cell phone, and it's not the father of the child you are in the process of giving birth to -- don't do it.
And even then, really, think twice.
When I was a kid, I remember visiting my aunt and flipping through a photo album sitting out on a coffee table and being traumatized by pictures of my cousin being born. Yeah, yeah, it's a miracle -- whatever. I'm a mom now. I've been there. It's pretty gross. I don't need visual proof that this kid made it to the other side.
In fact, there is very little for which we need visual proof. Why are we so camera-happy? If you can't remember it on your own, it probably wasn't that great.
Lily Coyle is a writer in Minneapolis.
John Rash: Super Bowl ads may portend trend
Feb 9, 2010 at 06:49 PM
Smashing the "M*A*S*H" series-finale record of 106 million viewers, Sunday's superb Super Bowl was watched by 106.5 million, making it the biggest TV event in U.S. history.
Transcending a traditional sporting event, the Super Bowl has become America's biggest undeclared secular holiday, with families and friends gathering in living rooms or barrooms to watch together. And aggregating this many Americans can't be done with an energized base of male sports fans alone. Of all adults watching, 54 percent were men, 46 percent were women. Those are numbers rarely seen in prime-time programming, which usually skews significantly more female.
Given those demographics, many viewers may have been surprised by the theme running through several highly hyped Super Bowl commercials. No, not the sex-sells spots with Megan Fox for Motorola, or Danica Patrick, this year's "GoDaddy girl." They've always been there. What stood out were blatantly sexist spots featuring henpecked husbands, boyfriends or lovers being implored to take back a more traditional relationship role.
"Calling all men: it's time to wear the pants," said Dockers. "Man's last stand, " exclaimed an ad for Dodge Charger. "Change out of that skirt, Jason," scolded Jim Nantz in Flo TV's "Injury report" ad, which reports that Jason's "girlfriend has removed his spine, rendering him incapable of watching the game." Of course, most of it was in good fun, and many of the ads ranked high in influential "ad-meters." But maybe men -- who are now outnumbered in the workforce and on college campuses -- responded well in focus groups for the ads. If so, it's a trend to watch for in pop culture, which invariably influences politics as well.
One thing's for sure: Women not only aren't keeping men from watching the big game(s), they're often getting the guys together in the first place. Next up, the Winter Olympics, which in past years has been more popular with women than men.
JOHN RASH
Letter of the day: Veterans lost a true friend with the death of Murtha
Feb 9, 2010 at 06:49 PM
RUSS SIMMONS, SOUTH ST. PAUL
Readers write for Feb. 10, 2010
Feb 9, 2010 at 06:48 PM
TEA PARTY CONVENTION
Nothing but a bunch of sore losers whining
Since they first appeared last summer, I have been trying to figure out if Tea Party members were truly principled Americans who had some wisdom to share with the rest of us or just sore losers whose candidate didn't win in the last election.
Their convention last week in Nashville finally answered my question. From Tom Tancredo's disparaging remarks, calling the 67 million who voted for Obama "civic illiterates," to Sarah Palin mocking the same 67 million as "hopey and changey," the Tea Partiers have finally revealed their true identity -- sore losers.
What is sadder is that the media treats these sore losers as if they have some serious thoughts to offer to the rest of us.
STEVEN ADAMS, MINNETONKA
• • •
So Palin wants to know "How's all that hopey changey stuff workin' out for ya?" Apparently it's working out well for Palin, an election landslide loser who now makes buckets of money by baiting and sneering at those less wealthy and privileged than herself. The last thing this country needs is any more polarizing, ill-informed media celebrities like her.
LOIS STRAKA. EAGAN
A VIKINGS STADIUM
Team should wait until economy turns around
It appears the Star Tribune Editorial Board will never "get it." The state is a few billion dollars short of what it needs to operate, and yet it is still intent on spending more.
Does it make any sense to build a new tent (stadium) for the big circus (Vikings) during dire economic times? The argument is always the threat of them moving. Please name a city or state that has an extra billion dollars laying around to spend on frivolity?
Like the rest of us, the Minnesota Vikings may just have to make do until better times.
DOUG CLEMENS, BLOOMINGTON
REVAMPING MIDWAY
Saints have been good citizens for St. Paul
The Friends of St. Paul Baseball, a nonprofit group that focuses on maintaining safe and accessible fields for St. Paulites of all ages, takes exception to Dean Reinke's claim that the St. Paul Saints misuse Midway Stadium (Readers Write, Feb. 6). The Saints are a generous partner of amateur sports organizations throughout the state, having given invaluable assistance to several hundred amateur groups over the years.
Midway, a city park, is as old as the Metrodome, but has not been kept up as such and is long overdue for replacement. Indeed, it should be noted that the Saints tore up their original lease to pay for the last renovation in 1994.
The ballpark is built on an old landfill and, among many deficiencies, is not compliant with the Americans With Disabilities Act, meaning not everyone can attend the 160-plus events Midway hosts each year. Those events include high school, American Legion and college games, along with the games of other amateur groups. It also hosts some community events.
Of the 160 dates, 50 are Saints games, which generate parking, concession and merchandise income for St. Paul. This revenue significantly offsets ballpark operational costs that otherwise would be borne by the city.
At a time when government is challenged to creatively solve many economic problems, the public-private partnership proposed by the city and Saints for a 7,500-seat regional ballpark in St. Paul's Lowertown should be encouraged, not denigrated. Replacing the dilapidated Midway makes good, common sense, and ensures the viability of, and respect for, amateur sports in our region.
BILLY PETERSON, WOODBURY
PRECINCT CAUCUSES
Unhappy with politics? Then get involved
To the people who complain about a lack of choices in the two political parties (Letter of the Day, Feb. 4), I have some advice: Get off your duff and do something about it. Start a new party or change an existing one.
As a long-time DFL volunteer I can tell you politics is a lot of work. A lot of work. All of the caucuses held by both of the major parties -- 8,258 of them -- were done with volunteer labor and donated cash. I helped organize 34 caucuses, and it was a major effort.
Most news outlets have little more understanding of nuts-and-bolts politics than the average voter. And as a former newspaper journalist, I can tell you that more work goes into putting on caucuses in Minnesota than goes into the production of a newspaper. Just try putting out a newspaper with unpaid volunteers.
Those of us who are volunteers do so because we think the way we are governed is important, even if 90 percent of this country is satisfied with complaining about it.
Politics belongs to those who show up. Sitting around complaining gets you exactly what you deserve -- nothing. Don't like the state of affairs? You've no one to blame but yourself.
JEREMY POWERS, FRIDLEY
PAWLENTY AND THE UNIONS
Guv might be hoping we have short memories
So our governor-in-abstentia thinks the teacher's union members "stand in the way of almost every reform imaginable" and are always "demanding more money without reform."
I'm sure his annoyance with this powerful body will be curbed when the real campaigning starts and he comes around to the teacher's unions, the postal workers unions, the auto workers union, the electricians and the service industry workers and the dozens of other union workers in Minnesota looking for endorsements, contributions and to tap our legendary volunteerism.
Moral? Don't bite the hands that elect you.
JOSEPH SADOWSKI, MINNEAPOLIS
Bonding bill: Politics as usual, and positive signs
| Feb 9, 2010 at 04:41 PM
A billion-dollar building projects bill won state Senate approval Tuesday, 52-14, on the strength of a lopsidedly DFL vote, and drew a fresh veto threat from GOP Gov. Tim Pawlenty. In other words, bonding politics seemed to be playing out as usual at the Legislature.
Still, the day produced a few signs that lawmakers may be able to agree on a capital investment bill in time to put unemployed construction workers back on the job this spring and summer. The Senate has never before acted this early in a legislative session on a bonding bill. The House companion bill was moving apace through committees and is also on a fast track.
And some give was exhibited on both sides on what may be the bonding bill's most contentious issue, Pawlenty's proposal to borrow $89 million to enlarge a sexual offender treatment facility at Moose Lake. DFLers had omitted that facility from their bills, arguing that Minnesota's policy of housing in a $325/day facility an increasing number of offenders after their criminal sentences have been served is too costly, and needs review.
Pawlenty seemed to be responding to that criticism Tuesday when he proposed doubling the prison sentences of sex offenders, thereby keeping them longer in facilities with an average per-person cost of $63/day. For their part, Senate DFLers added to their bill a $1 million line for design work on the proposed Moose Lake expansion. Capital investment chair Sen. Keith Langseth, DFL-Glyndon, said he wanted to "send a message to the governor that this is up for discussion." Those talks should commence very soon.
Editorial: Toughen DWI laws and save lives
Feb 8, 2010 at 07:06 PM
Against the backdrop of a busted budget and with several members running for governor, it will be hard for the 2010 Legislature to agree on much. But both Republicans and Democrats should be able to quickly coalesce around Gov. Tim Pawlenty's proposals to stiffen drunken-driving laws.
To be sure, some progress on stopping this scourge has already been made: A report released last week by the state Department of Public Safety found that alcohol-related deaths hit a low in 2008 at a still-staggering 163 fatalities. Still, the 14 percent annual decrease in fatalities in Minnesota compared with a 19 percent drop nationally. Most notably, alcohol-related crashes accounted for more than one-third of all traffic fatalities.
Statewide, there were 4,245 alcohol-related crashes, with 2,896 people injured. Law enforcement is doing its best, with an average of 98 DWI arrests a day and a total of 35,794 in 2008.
While the trends are moving in the right direction, it's time to get more aggressive, especially by taking advantage of ignition interlock technology, which acts as a Breathalyzer that won't allow a car to start if alcohol is detected.
"If you don't breathe, you don't leave," Pawlenty pronounced in introducing the plan. And he means everyone convicted of a DWI, not just second-time offenders, as happens in many of the 47 states that have some version of the law.
But while this new rule would be tougher, it's actually a measure of compassion, according to Public Safety Commissioner Michael Campion, who described the use of ignition interlocks as "a balance that's reasonable," one that allows people "who are working, and going to school, and are productive -- but make a stupid decision and get a DWI" to continue to drive, and doesn't take them out of society by taking their licenses away. This is especially important in greater Minnesota, according to Campion, because there are so few public transportation options.
"It's a tremendous tool, but it's not a silver bullet," University of Minnesota Law School Prof. Steve Simon, who studies drunken-driving laws, said of interlock systems. "It contributes to their sobriety, and if it's used with education or treatment programs it will increase the likelihood of long-term sobriety and decrease long-term recidivism."
And unlike so many fiscal issues that will torment the Legislature this year, it's relatively cheap: Offenders have to pay for the device to be installed, with costs usually running about $100 a month.
Other legislative changes being proposed involve lowering the blood-alcohol level at which tougher penalties are triggered to 0.15, from 0.20. The state also wants to crack down on repeat offenders, significantly extending license revocation periods, depending on the number of offenses. As the ongoing Star Tribune series "Smashed'' highlighted, 46,748 Minnesota drivers have at least four DWI arrests.
It's clear the fiscal crisis the state faces will dominate the discourse in St. Paul this session. Efforts to develop stiffer rules on drunken driving are not likely to get the attention the budget battle will attract. With smart public policy decisions, however, lawmakers can make Minnesota roads safer and save lives.
Cory Merrifield: Why replace the Dome? Here's why.
| Feb 8, 2010 at 07:05 PM
Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones recently said that 93 percent of NFL fans have never stepped foot inside an NFL stadium, and I can understand why the Metrodome, where the Minnesota Vikings play, seems sufficient to someone who has never been there. But for those of us fortunate enough to attend Vikings games, it's clear that the Dome does not fit the team's needs, as Craig Cox says in a recent commentary ("Why replace a perfectly fine Metrodome?", Feb. 3).
Why does the Dome need to be replaced? Let's look at the issue from a fan's perspective and from the team's financial perspective.
At almost 30 years old, the Dome is one of the NFL's oldest nonrefurbished stadiums -- and ranks among the worst, according to a Sports Illustrated fan survey. It was built on the cheap even by 1970s standards, and was designed to meet the building codes of that time.
Since then, demographics have shifted, and more females attend games than ever before. Today, lines for the women's restrooms snake for nearly two blocks through the already congested hallways. The men's restroom lines are almost as challenging. Concession lines extend to the back of the hall, blocking through traffic. Fans frequently leave in frustration, never to make their purchases. Metrodome concessions can't take money as fast as fans want to spend it.
Perhaps these issues are tolerable for the average fan. But what if you are in a wheelchair? I recently received a letter from a disabled veteran who had attended his first Vikings game at the Metrodome. He called it old, inadequate, cramped and even scary. He said he understood why there is a "desire for a stadium that better represents not only the Vikings organization but Minnesota as well."
Cox makes the absurd claim that fans aren't asking for a new stadium. Perhaps he's not aware that fans sent more than 20,000 supportive e-mails to their legislators and to Gov. Tim Pawlenty over the NFL's wildcard weekend. I invite Cox to visit the Facebook pages for two fan groups, "Save the Vikes" and "Keep the Minnesota Vikings in Minnesota," where more than 25,000 have joined in support of the stadium effort.
From a financial perspective, Cox points out the millions of dollars that the franchise earned in 2008. While it is a sizable sum, Cox fails to mention that out of 32 NFL teams, the Vikings were 31st in profit. The NFL has actually subsidized the team to keep it financially competitive. Unfortunately, the league recently indicated that those subsidies are coming to an untimely end.
Among the options for increasing revenue, raising ticket prices is often one of the first ideas offered. But because the fan experience is so poor, the Vikings' owners cannot raise ticket prices every year like the rest of the league's teams can. This puts the team at a serious financial and competitive disadvantage.
Cox also mentions that the business community "seems uninterested" in a stadium. In reality, the Vikings have a board of advisers consisting of 24 key business leaders from some of the state's largest employers. They have a vested interest in maintaining a culture that attracts business partners, tourism, events and top talent to Minnesota.
Cox closes with the insulting accusation that Zygi Wilf is extorting us, but again leaves out some important facts. Wilf started negotiations by offering a large portion of his net worth to cover 30 percent of stadium costs. That is for a stadium that would be publicly owned and used by his team 10 to 12 times a year. The venue would be used another 200 times for national, community, cultural and high school events.
This is not extortion, it's a partnership. It's a negotiation between the team, our elected officials and the citizens of Minnesota. All parties stand to gain by building a stadium and keeping the team in Minnesota. Let's work together to find a reasonable stadium resolution this legislative session.
Cory Merrifield is founder of the grass-roots fan group SavetheVikes.org and is an IT consulting account manager in Minneapolis.
About Opinion Exchange
Opinion Exchange is produced by the Editorial Department, which is dedicated to hosting the discussion on a range of issues of interest to Star Tribune readers online and in print. In its new format, it's our hope that Opinion Exhange will create a more dynamic dialogue between Star Tribune readers and the Editorial Board. Many individual posts will be written and signed by members of the Editorial Board and will reflect their own opinions. Daily editorials will continue to represent the institutional voice of the newspaper and be researched and written by the Editorial Department, which is independent of the newsroom.
Subscribe to RSS|Learn more about RSS
Do you use Twitter? Follow Opinion Exchange.
Recommended links
Categories
StarTribune.com: Steals + Deals & Classifieds
Open positions!
A new career awaits. Look through thousands of listings to find your new job. Start now!
Save $$ Every Time You Shop Online
Learn how. More than 10,000 discount codes listed in one source.
Win tickets to The Midnight Movie Society's screening of cult-classic film "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls" at Red Stag Supperclub.Vita.mn and DJ Jake Rudh present the first meeting of The Midnight Movie Society at Red Stag Supperclub on Feb. 19, with drinking, dancing and a midnight screening of cult-classic film, "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls." |
