The editorial "Rebuild Public Trust in Stadium Leadership" (Feb. 12) missed the mark. There has never been any public trust in stadium leadership.
Gaining the public trust in the stewardship of some $1 billion over 30 years in total public contributions and subsidies will require far more than the cosmetic changes currently under review. These proposals will only move a few chairs around on the U.S. Bank Titanic — to build on a metaphor used by Rep. Sarah Anderson, R-Plymouth, when she called the misused suite fiasco "only the tip of the iceberg."
In the aftermath of the 2013 municipal elections, the Star Tribune's Jon Tevlin wrote a column titled: "Stadium deal was as transparent as the Berlin Wall." Three years later, as we prepare for our next municipal election, the Vikings are proposing that a literal permanent wall be built around the "People's Stadium." Pay no heed to yet another story in the saga of dysfunction that only serves to make discovering the real issues more difficult.
In the spirit of resisting walls of all kinds, and instead of getting bogged down in distractions, let's clearly lay out what legislation obligates the city of Minneapolis to cover regarding both construction capital and ongoing operation and maintenance costs for the stadium and surrounding infrastructure. Then we will begin to see the real scandal: how far beyond its legal obligation and into the realm of charitable contributions to Zygi Wilf our city has gone.
First let's talk about construction costs.
The stadium legislation set the city's contribution to the construction of the stadium and any surrounding infrastructure, including open space and parking facilities, at $150 million. The city will use sales tax to pay its $150 million, which has gone exclusively towards stadium construction.
That's transparent enough, right?
Wrong! Remember that the $150 million limit included construction costs of surrounding infrastructure as well (open space and parking facilities). As pointed out in former Gov. Arne Carlson's recent letter to the editor, the city is in clear violation of the construction spending limit, because of construction costs for surrounding infrastructure.