Daily Herald editorial

If there was any economic benefit to a taxpayer-subsidized stadium for the Minnesota Vikings, would Ramsey County and Minneapolis be offering separate proposals to host the stadium? Of course not.

Minneapolis officials revealed their plan on Monday, proposing that a new stadium be built on the site of the Metrodome (which is currently undergoing expensive roof repairs). Meanwhile, Ramsey County is proposing its own site in Arden Hills. The two sites are but a few miles apart, both in the metropolitan area. Seems like if there was any real economic benefit to a new stadium, both entities (the city of Minneapolis and Ramsey County) wouldn’t be proposing a site; they’d simply be content to have the stadium built in Minneapolis.

Furthermore, the argument that a new stadium would benefit Minneapolis is particularly weak since the new plan would be to build it on the site of the Metrodome. Other than the 10-or-so days a year when the Vikings play a home game, why would a new stadium be a bigger benefit to the community than the old one? It wouldn’t, unless one believes that the pride of having a pro football team has some intrinsic value, and that it’s wise for communities to submit to NFL-style leverage: Build us a stadium or we’ll leave.

Neither of the plans that are out there call for the use of state general fund money. They’d both, however, use tax revenue of some sort to pay for between two-thirds and 60 percent of the $900 million stadium.

As competing proposals demonstrate, there is no real advantage to Minnesota as a whole in subsidizing privately owned sports entertainment.