Football can be played in any town

The Star Tribune's editorial board has reiterated its foolhardy support for everything Minnneapolis.

Here's the web link.
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/editorials/116505978.html

Their rationale is that Minneapolis is the best place because of restaurants and transit, and that the upfront costs will be lowest. They base on that on absolutely nothing. I think their position is based on the fear of losing the tax revenues that come from the Vikings.

First, the issue of transit is meaningless, the issue of whether the Metrodome is easily accessible should be the consideration. The light rail is useful for people in south Minneapolis and near the MoA. That's it. Washington Ave is a complete mess before and after any sporting event at the Dome and there's little flexibility to change that, along with any other exit nearby the Dome, and the north loop area for a different stadium.

Second, restaurants are great to have, I won't argue with that. But football fans do more than just go to restaurants.

Last, I don't think the upfront costs to build a new stadium are really shown to be less in downtown Minneapolis. Whether that's really the case is up to the Strib editorial board to show because they suggested that's the case.

A co-worker of mine recently said that Minneapolis was the only place it would "work". I think this boils down to the fact that people are either afraid of losing tax revenue generated by the Vikes, or people think the Vikings are really the "Minneapolis Vikings", and not the Minnesota Vikings.

What I do know is that the Army facility in Arden Hill is huge, up for sale, and it's polluted. The cost of buying the land versus demolishing the Dome or acquiring land in downtown Minneapolis is more or less than the munitions facility should be a factor. How much it would cost to clean the land should be a factor. Also, football fans come from all over the state, not just from south Minneapolis and the MoA, and they like to tailgate. If anyone's been to Miller Park, which isn't in downtown Milwaukee, they know that a non-downtown stadium can work.

The economic impact of a new stadium is relevant if you want a multi-purpose location. But Vikings fans want a Superbowl championship. Whether Minneapolis can bring a Superbowl championship to Minnesota should be the question. Otherwise, for the rest of us as fans and taxpayers, we should want the best deal. If that means traffic jams in Minneapolis will guarantee Vikings wins over traffic jams in Arden Hills, then Minneapolis is the place. Minneapolis is already a viable location for a strong economy for dozens of reasons besides the Vikes. Otherwise, let's look at the real costs and benefits in different locations around town, and insist that public funding for a stadium is accompanied by public funding for schools, roads, bridges and the stuff we use everyday.

This pivotal moment in time

We are living in a pivotal moment in time. A "pivoment in time", maybe. The move by Wisconsin governor Scott Walker to take away collective bargaining rights is a major attack on public workers, there is unrest in the middle east which will drive fuel prices even higher, there is a major increase in the cost of food worldwide, healthcare costs are rising, wages are stagnant, federal debt and deficit are skyrocketing, and House Republicans have moved to ease environmental laws. Our society is nearing a breaking point. If something isn't done soon, the dollar will crash, public unions will be destroyed, gas will be $7/gallon, and global warming will suffocate our ecosystem.

Okay, now let's take a deep breath and put things in perspective.

First, journalists like to couch events as being pivotal. I don't think it's fully intended to be a fear tactic, but it's similar to the ads on TV saying 'prices will never be this low again'. It's meant to draw people in.

The protests in Madison, WI are actually pretty relevant. Walker's law would undo several decades of standing law that allows many public unions the power to bargain for wages, medical insurance costs, and pension benefits. If Walker and the Wisconsin legislature prevail, pay will go down, and the cost of medical insurance and pensions will go up, much like what's been happening for years. Now the other effects of this will likely be that the education system in Wisconsin suffers. Having gone to school with and known many Cheeseheads, I can't say that I've ran into many that I find to have had a poor education. I believe the Wisconsin unions would make concessions; Walker's move seems purely political, made to break the unions. Except this way he's doing it through policy. The last time I saw a union broken was by Northwest Airlines. Northwest Airlines regularly needed bailouts from the state of Minnesota, and still managed to lose tons of money during economic booms. When bought by Delta, they were saved, probably because Delta had better leadership.

The unrest in the middle east might be a sign that democracy is on the march. The hard part for me is that it always seems like there's some level of unrest in the middle east. Regardless if there's a democratically-elected government, there will still be religious and cultural differences that will cause more "unrest".

Any type of unrest in the middle east will cause fuel prices to go up, like they have been for years. Back in 2000 when gas prices were nearing $2/gallon, our country didn't pause to understand or even care why they were going up, and ask what may happen in the long-term. Our government didn't stop and think that maybe a new policy would be needed towards gas consumption. Maybe at the time, if we had imposed a higher gas tax, or raised CAFE standards, we'd have a different attitude towards how much gas we use, and what a factor personal vehicles are in our lives. Not one single thing could have been done to fix the issues associated with gas prices, but over the long term hopefully mitigating the factors over which we had control, that big sign at the corner filling station might not worry us.

The budget deficit and debt have been climbing for years. When we were running 'record deficits' of $300 billion+ between 2000 and 2008, I was always curious why the government didn't do something to balance the budget or at least minimize the deficit. Yep, had we started that, and had Washington taken steps then to take our budget seriously, the banking and real estate crises may have not had such a strong impact on our economy, and in turn government revenue. While fighting two wars, dealing with US jobs going to other countries, and competing for resources and markets worldwide, had a tax hike taken place, or some deal to reduce Social Security benefits long-term, we might not be looking at trillion dollar deficits.

To address the budget issue, the government created the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/. This group got together and came up with a list of policy changes to reduce the deficit and debt. Like most government commissions, they are mostly ignored by Congress. Most recently, news came out that the House Republicans passed a continuing budget resolution for the current federal budget cycle to reduce $60 billion in spending. It seems like a nice Band-Aid on the budget, but it does nothing to address the budget long-term.

If you've actually read this blog to this point, you'll notice how many times I've suggested that nothing could be fixed immediately, only by making incremental adjustments could we make any difference in several years.

So the next time you read or hear about this pivotal moment in history, please consider the perspective I've proposed here. Democracies tend to move slowly in terms of change. There will be victories and losses in government. Consider the decisions made and policies maintained by our government for the last decade. If we continue the policies we've been using, will things get any better?