63.5% of Minnesotans Oppose Public Financing for Vikings Stadium

Is gambling an appropriate revenue source for publicly funding a Vikings stadium?

Shouldn’t we first be asking if publicly funding a Vikings stadium is appropriate at all?

Fine, let’s talk gambling first:

Don David, writing for the Bemidji Pioneer, takes a look at political support for gambling as a revenue source that could be created then earmarked for Zygi Wilf’s business.

Funding is the key question.

In recent weeks, liberals and conservatives have joined hands to oppose a stadium with any public support, and they specifically fight any gambling proceeds from being used.

“The governor’s suggestion that we fund a new Vikings’ stadium with predatory gambling dollars is fantasy football, Bernie Madoff style,” President Tom Prichard of the conservative Minnesota Family Council said. “It will only drive more Minnesota families deeper into debt, and create thousands of new gambling addicts.”

Most Liberal Democratic-Farmer-Laborites also oppose expanding gambling to fund a stadium because it could hurt American Indian tribe casinos. They, and some Republicans, say any new money the state receives should go to education and health care, not an entertainment facility like a stadium.

I question the first sentence of the last paragraph of the above block quote. While many DFL candidates do receive campaign contributions from American Indian tribes, many DFL candidates would oppose gambling expansion for the benefit of a private entertainment business with or without campaign cash. It’s like pro-life groups giving money to Amy Koch. They can count on her vote either way.

The last sentence seems much closer to bi-partisan reality to me.

The StarTribune’s Vikings wilfare poll results show that 54% of men and 73% of women in the state oppose public financing for a new stadium:

Men are far more accepting of public funding for a stadium than women, the poll showed — 46 percent of men in favor, versus only 27 percent of women.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but it sure looks like that poll data shows that 63.5% of Minnesotans oppose public financing for a stadium. That should have been the headline to the StarTribune’s poll results.

Emotional but not Financial Support

It’s been interesting watching overly entitled Vikings Wilfare supporters claim that I’m not a Vikings fan if I don’t support extracting money from the public to subsidize an NFL franchise. The StarTribune’s polls help illustrate that I’m far from alone in my position as a Vikings fan who opposes Vikings Wilfare. As their polling shows, 67% of Minnesotans don’t want to see the team leave, yet 63% don’t want public financing used to pay for a new stadium.

This tells me that the most loyal Vikings fans need to demonstrate their loyalty by writing checks for personal seat licenses. It’s time for the legislature to start asking the Vikings and Vikings fans to work together to come up with a larger percentage of the stadium costs. Separate sport and state. Build it privately.

10 thoughts on “63.5% of Minnesotans Oppose Public Financing for Vikings Stadium”

  1. Given that the recent movement in the state seems to be that the gov’t should not be providing any funding for people who ‘make bad choices’ that cause them to be unemployed or unhealthy or underfed or undereducated…I find it incredible that funding a Viking stadium would be proposed from expanding gambling since that will obviously be creating more ‘bad choices.’

    Then their fallback funding source is to create new general taxes after the 30 years of anti-tax movement in the country, after being so strongly anti-tax so as to shut down the entire state government just last summer?

    Do they purposely create this incredibly illogical and stupid debates just to see how confused and forgetful the citizens have become?

    Well, it appears 46% of men and 27% of women have been successfully confused and forgot their priorities.

    But given 20% are perpetually be ‘For’ or ‘Against’ any scheme given their Special Interest or Special Ed status…what this poll really says is that none of these proposals are even close to being desired.

    They should all be thrown out and told to come back when they are serious about getting something done.

    And given your revelations regarding the evils (to Zygi) of the LA private group, how he would basically be reduced to being a co-owner in a city that has successfully lost the most football franchises in world history…we now know (1) Zygi should pony more a more serious investment, and (2) Viking fans had better put their money where their mouth is–PSLs for all.

    Short of that–Zellers and Koch were right to say no to a special session.

  2. “As their polling shows, 67% of Minnesotans don’t want to see the team leave, yet 63% don’t want public financing used to pay for a new stadium.”====== This Tells Me: they need a poll that poses a question along the lines of: “If given the choice of state and the taxpayers providing some public funding or watching the Vikings leave, which would you choose? Then we’d be getting to the nub of things. My hunch: Lots of people don’t like don’t like it and are against it, but if it meant losing the Vikings, a good portion of the 67 percent might just say: bite the bullet.

  3. Well, it appears 46% of men and 27% of women have been successfully confused and forgot their priorities.======= Or, maybe they’re not rigidly dogmatic, and evaluate issues as they’re presented at that point in time. You think that could be?

  4. @Rat, I’m sure how a question is asked makes a big difference. For example, I think a relatively fair question would be:

    “Should the State of Minnesota enter into a contract with the Minnesota Vikings where the public pays more in annual debt payments than the state earns back in revenue generated by the Vikings?”

    Some would see the insanity in such a proposal. Others would still agree to the terms since tey really don’t care if the state can’t afford to do things like educate people, or build and maintain roads and bridges if it means forcing Zygi Wilf and Vikings fans to spend more of their own money.

  5. “Men are far more accepting of public funding for a stadium than women, the poll showed — 46 percent of men in favor, versus only 27 percent of women.”

    it’s this kind of thing that makes me question the viability of male sufferage.

  6. We have been trying to get someone at the Vikings and The State to listen to a solution we can provide that could eventually be exported to other states as the Minnesota Solution. Everyone is focused on the same old, same old with taxes and gambling. Here’s what we’d like to throw into the discussion:

    The curenci solution is based on natural synergies that currently exist and operate daily within society between merchants and their customers. What we have is politically neutral and does not require imposing a special tax or engage gambling of any kind. There is no need for dipping into a Legacy Fund, nor would it need a voting referendum.

    curenci is available to all populations regardless of their credit history or whether or not they believe in traditional bank products. Merchants in the program realize no additional fees and nonprofits realize a new source of unrestricted funding that they can control. curenci empowers nonprofits, causes, religious organizations and football teams to have a say in how much they can raise.

    A broadly implemented curenci program will provide an annuity for Civic projects and community programs well beyond the Viking’s stadium being built.

    curenci is a Minnesota invention. We are based in Minnesota and our primary business partners are all Minnesota based.

    You’d think the powers that be would have started the vetting of a program openly making such claims, but no one with any authority seems to be interested in a solution that can engage and profit ALL participating Minnesotans while money for the Stadium accrues.

  7. @Mike, your comment reads like an ad for curenci, which I suppose makes sense. It seems like the problem we have here is a group of loyal fans who don’t want to put up the kind of money needed to finance a stadium. Whether it’s done one transaction at a time or in bulk, it’s still the same problem: fans don’t support the Vikings enough to pay for what the Vikings are demanding.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *