The Vikings stadium debate is often framed as people who are pro-stadium vs. people who are anti-stadium.
In reality, there are people who support a new stadium and the jobs it would create but think the current financing plan unfairly relies on regressive taxation from just one city. Minneapolis looks forward to being the home of the Vikings for generations, but we need to make sure the terms of the deal are equitable.
This week the Minneapolis City Council should send the bill back to the Legislature to ask for a financing plan that spreads the cost fairly to all who value the Minnesota Vikings.
Gov. Dayton and the Vikings negotiated a stadium financing package that was good enough to pass at the Legislature, but perhaps one of the reasons they were able to come to an agreement is because they've offloaded the largest share of stadium costs onto Minneapolis.
Minneapolis' share of the stadium costs is not limited to the $150 million construction costs often mentioned. In the financing bill, the city is also responsible for interest on the construction debt, plus ongoing operating, maintenance and upgrade costs over the next 30 years.
The minimum cumulative cost to Minneapolis sales taxpayers will be $675 million, while another clause in the deal allows the subsidy to swell to $890 million. Minneapolis is being given a white elephant -- with horns.
In fact, the Vikings stadium bill has a provision to override a voter-approved amendment to the Minneapolis City Charter, which I co-authored in 1997, which requires a citywide vote if more than $10 million is spent to finance a professional sports stadium. If the state had passed a bill that was favorable to the city, there would be no need for that.
From a national perspective, this financing package is unique. Stadium deals rarely rely upon a large percentage of money from a single city. It's far more common to see NFL stadiums financed at the county level (in states with more than one NFL team) or the state level.