Readers write for Dec. 27, 2010

A Dec. 21 letter writer said: "Let those who profit from the stadium, the game and the team pay for the new stadium."

Does the letter writer (and do those who agree with this statement) believe that this same strategy should be used for all publicly funded projects?

To be consistent would mean that only people who ride light rail should pay for it. It would mean that only those who use bike paths or parks should pay for them.

It would mean that only those who enter the doors of the Walker Art Center should pay for that new building.

I find it highly hypocritical to hold this sentiment only when it comes to stadiums.

PAUL NIEBELING, WOODBURY

• • •

My concern is that the fans pay not only for the building but also for tickets and cable or satellite TV fees to watch the games. The team owner gets all of the profit despite the fact that taxpayers pay a significant proportion of the stadium costs.

I have no problem with owners asking for the government to pay for a new stadium. It never hurts to ask, and we all want something for nothing.

But if there is to be government investment in the building of a new Vikings stadium, the government should get a proportional return on its investment. If taxpayers pay 60 percent of the cost, taxpayers should get 60 percent of naming rights, advertising rights, parking and concessions rights, etc.

The team gets all proceeds from ticket sales. That is fair, and I believe that a majority could support such a plan.

DAN SOLARZ, MINNEAPOLIS

Proponents of a new Vikings stadium should be upfront and admit the truth: Pro sports might be sources of pride for fans, but they don't improve state economies. They don't add jobs.

And the only real money that is being made is by the team owners and players.

Sports teams and their home stadiums only shift the regional economy laterally from other entertainment venues.

Without the Vikings, Minnesotans would still be spending their entertainment dollars, but some of them might be spent in Duluth or Rochester instead of in the Twin Cities.

And with a stadium, any new jobs that might be created beyond construction would be low-paying and seasonal.

Can the state afford this much fun? Maybe so, if you think about it in terms of quality of life.

But please don't frame it as some cash cow or economic stimulus for the state, because it's not.

DAVE LINDEMAN, MINNEAPOLIS

• • •

It was sad to see the Vikings end their home season, but one has to be impressed with the speed with which they found an outdoor venue to host the Chicago Bears ("Raising the roof," Dec. 21).

It seems to me the best course would be to play at TCF Bank Stadium indefinitely; certainly the University of Minnesota can use the rental income.

But even if that is considered beyond reasonable by the big-money interests, surely it would be a great interim solution.

JOHN T. GARLAND, MINNEAPOLIS

As a board member of the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA), I am troubled that the focus of a recent audit was on personnel rather than on processes and policies ("Housing chief called polarizing," Dec. 20).

The reason the audit was undertaken was to ensure that the agency was free of fraud and financial risk. The report found none. The audit did, however, affirm an almost-universal truth: Change is hard.

It also found that the board's recent move from a policy board to one more involved in management functions and decisions created confusion over who was in charge.

I believe that the audit ensures continued uncertainty for the MHFA board and its employees. During the next few months, the board will spend a lot of time figuring out its role and how it should operate.

Media coverage will likely follow the board and MHFA employees, which will in turn result in more attention and involvement from the new administration and Legislature than has ever been the case.

The commissioner and agency finance staff will also have to work to ensure that bond-rating agencies and investor confidence are not negatively influenced.

Commissioner Dan Bartholomay came to MHFA with an excellent reputation and work ethic, during the worst financial and housing crisis since the Great Depression. After his first year, he recognized the importance of restructuring the agency in order to break down silos and create teams that work across agency functions.

That plan, which the board approved in November, included many of the recommendations made in the auditor's December report.

The commissioner is not the person portrayed in the audit. Indeed, this story, like most change scenarios, is just as Board Chairman Michael Finch asserted: much deeper.