Soccer Stadium in Minneapolis (cancelled)

[HiawathaGuy]

Because when having a debate it's not possible to 100% separate the points made from the people that make them. And I enjoy debating in good faith. If it takes some snark to make that happen, then so be it.

If you just want this to be a repository of information with no discussion other than pats on the back, then I don't know, a forum isn't what you're looking for.

Your comment was hardly a debate meant in good faith - at least not to me. I have been a contributor to this site dating back years, long before urbanmsp! So to say that this may not be a forum I'm looking for is insulting and rude.
I oftentimes enjoy your comments and posts, and typically agree with you. But that certainly doesn't give you the right to not take responsibility for making things unpleasant on this forum.

Wanting to have a debate in good faith is not done through making fun of people's comments and/or beliefs. Especially if you have to be snarky about it. It simply makes you look childish.

I'm all for open discussion - nowhere did I state that I wasn't in my response.
I just think when it's directed at someone based on their beliefs (especially if they differ from yours), makes it hard to believe you're wanting to debate in good faith.

[FISHMANPET]

My problem isn't with David's beliefs, in this case I agree with him. My problem is that he uses the same pointless argument over and over about SWLRT that "this is what the Northside wants you guys should listen to what the Northsiders want" and here a case where Northsiders want this because they think it will lead to economic development for this (I know this because I saw a comment thread on Facebook with David and some North siders) and David says that they're wrong (and again I agree with this point). You can't use "Northsiders want it" for a thing you support and "I don't care if Northsiders want it" for a thing you don't support. That's not arguing in good faith.

[FISHMANPET]

And if it was anyone other than David I wouldn't be so snarky, but for literally years he's been saying "Talk to northsiders they want this" and basically ignoring all other arguments in favor of that one crutch.

[MNdible]

I think it would be spectacular if you just apologized and we could all move along.

[Viktor Vaughn]

What? No way. FMP, said it perfectly.

[EOst]

You can't use "Northsiders want it" for a thing you support and "I don't care if Northsiders want it" for a thing you don't support. That's not arguing in good faith.

You're making a false comparison. Yes, both issues can have arguments that strip down to "people in North Minneapolis want it." But that's the end of the similarity; one is "Northsiders want it because it gets them to jobs" and one is "Northsiders want it because they hope it will lead to a development boom." You have different people arguing the two, and from different premises. The argument is facile at best.

[FISHMANPET]

If the unflinching argument that's been made over and over is "Northside knows what's best for Northside" then I'm not really sure if it matters why they want a thing. David has never really attempted to refute any arguments related to how 3A specifically is a huge boon to the Northside compared to 3C or other things, and has merely held up the self empowerment of the Northside as an Absolute Truth that shall not be challenged.

Except when he happens to disagree with it.

Sent from my phone

[AccordGuy]

And if it was anyone other than David I wouldn't be so snarky, but for literally years he's been saying "Talk to northsiders they want this" and basically ignoring all other arguments in favor of that one crutch.

My home is on the Northside of Mpls and I certainly do not care about SWLRT or having more development in a forgotten corner of downtown by the farmers market. I also know lots of people from my twelve years of living on the Northside, and I know of not one single person who wants either of these two things. The area is slowly gentrifying with a lot of house buying Millenials, who don't want condo or apartment living, which is making a big difference in a lot of Northside neighborhoods.

[David Greene]

But David Northsiders say its true why won't you just listen to the Northsiders.

Because A LOT fewer Northsiders say it than say it re: SWLRT. And also, SWLRT is a public project for a public good. A stadium is a private venture for private good. ALL of the public investment around it could happen without a stadium. Not so for SWLRT because it is a public project.

[FISHMANPET]

Again, it doesn't matter. If we hold the agency of "Northsiders" above all else then it doesn't matter what it is or why they support it, all that matter is they support it. And maybe fewer people you've encountered support the stadium than support 3A specifically, but that's basically an anecdote, which is just as valid as AccordGuy's anecdote of nobody in the Northside caring about it.

Short of some scientific polling (which I don't believe exists) there's no real way to say what the "Northside" wants (and never mind the difficulty of assigning a single viewpoint to a few hundred thousand people). So it's a bad argument but as long as you continue to use it in defense of 3A, I'll continue to be incredibly snarky on basically anything you say that remotely involves the Northside.

[David Greene]

Again, it doesn't matter. If we hold the agency of "Northsiders" above all else then it doesn't matter what it is or why they support it, all that matter is they support it.

If you want to argue that way, go ahead. But don't put words in my mouth.

Concerning the stadium, a few Northsiders have said they'd like the public investment AROUND the stadium, not the stadium itself though they think that investment is intimately tied to the stadium. But that investment could happen tomorrow if we made it a priority.

This really has nothing to do with the stadium at all.

[MNdible]

Not to belabor this, but my issue is that you're not attacking an idea, you're attacking David for no particularly helpful reason. Feel free to engage on issues, but last I checked we're not keeping score about which person is right more often.

[David Greene]

And I think most of us agree that those investments would be a good thing.

So, yes, I do agree with those Northsiders that there are important investments to be made. But I disagree with them that we need a stadium to do them.

[FISHMANPET]

Not to belabor this, but my issue is that you're not attacking an idea, you're attacking David for no particularly helpful reason. Feel free to engage on issues, but last I checked we're not keeping score about which person is right more often.

Because, to be honest, I'm tired of mostly nonsense arguments in the SWLRT thread. Ok, yeah, this probably isn't the right place for that, but I can't unring that bell.

Look, David, I realize you are incredibly passionate about your advocacy of transit. And I have no doubt that you are completely sincere in your beliefs. But that doesn't change the fact that to me, and many others, your arguments in support of 3A make absolutely no sense.

So fine, there, I said it. Someone feel free to move this to the SWLRT thread or into a "Peter is mean to David" thread or just straight into the trash or something, because it doesn't belong here. But I had to say it.

[David Greene]

But I had to say it.

You've said it so many times I can't help but say, "I hear you loud and clear." Can you just accept that people have different thoughts and priorities? I mean it's really kind of amusing that I can push your buttons so easily and I'm not even intending to.

Your continued advocacy of 3C given its parameters makes no sense to me. We disagree. I for one can live with that.

[RailBaronYarr]

Feel free to engage on issues, but last I checked we're not keeping score about which person is right more often.

I was actually tasked by Nick with keeping score. It's been a really tough job reading every thread, and if you can believe it, I'm at the top of the rankings.

I'll throw my meaningless two cents in: I don't think most people know what they want. I don't mean that in a super dicatator-y way, just that I really have a hard time believing most people have the personal experience, technical knowledge, and a broad enough gaze to make super informed statements (I will lump myself in that as well - boy do I regret some opinions I formed early on re: transpo/urban design). How many people in Minneapolis have ridden a streetcar and/or a real BRT (or lite version) to know which they prefer? How many people on the Northside actually did the calculations for total travel time of 3A vs 3C for which would serve them better? How many people advocating for a soccer stadium in the West Loop have read any literature on stadium economics/impact to local economy/etc? Have even heard the term "opportunity cost"? I'm definitely not trying to say people or dumb or call out Northsiders (I pick on people from Linden Hills, the suburbs, etc all the time). There are passionate, informed advocates in any situation. But I look at the number of views for most streets.mn articles (maybe 3-500? some cracking 1,000? how many of those are multiple reads by me?), and have to think the majority people hear a person like (for example) Peter Wagenius tell us how great a streetcar down Nicollet will be and all the benefits (or listen to GOP reps tell them how urbanites and choo choos are stealing their road money) and decide "that's it!"

[bermanp7]

Hi everyone. I'm a newbie, so please be patient. I'd like to help the conversation get back on topic. I'm a little astonished that there isn't more skepticism about the stadium proposal. I know the blogger at http://www.fieldofschemes.com , and from that site and the book of the same title I've learned that the economic benefits touted by proponents of these stadium funding plans turn out to be a myth, every. single. time. There may be exceptions, but the burden of proof and the degree of taxpayer risk-mitigation (e.g. against cost overruns, bait-and-switches, future operating subsidy requests) ought to be exceptionally high. I'm not seeing much call for that, either here or elsewhere on social media.

I also wanted to follow up on the claim someone made that this stadium concept is a "once in a lifetime" opportunity for the site. Question: Before this soccer stadium issue came up, what were board members' thoughts about the development prospects of the Royalston LRT stop? What do you suppose the route designers were thinking when they planned that stop? Is it some kind of miracle that this stadium plan appeared to prevent that LRT stop from going undeveloped?

I also wanted to follow up on a FB exchange yesterday between David Greene and CM Yang (sorry, not finding direct link). David asked whether (e.g.) a hotel would create more economic activity than a stadium. CM Yang replied that David was free to propose building a hotel with private money, and also to come asking for a subsidy. My questions here would be: What kind of projects might developers propose for that site, if they knew that the city was willing to provide tax subsidies on the scale of what's being discussed for soccer? Is it possible that something could be built that's much better than a stadium that's used for 20-something number of home games?

I hope these aren't unhelpful questions to ask. I just have this feeling that our oligarchs and political machine are trying to sneak through yet another bad stadium deal, and there isn't enough public discussion on the matter. Thanks for reading.

[HuskyGrad]

Hi everyone. I'm a newbie, so please be patient. I'd like to help the conversation get back on topic. I'm a little astonished that there isn't more skepticism about the stadium proposal. I know the blogger at http://www.fieldofschemes.com , and from that site and the book of the same title I've learned that the economic benefits touted by proponents of these stadium funding plans turn out to be a myth, every. single. time. There may be exceptions, but the burden of proof and the degree of taxpayer risk-mitigation (e.g. against cost overruns, bait-and-switches, future operating subsidy requests) ought to be exceptionally high. I'm not seeing much call for that, either here or elsewhere on social media.

Most stadiums have been built with ridiculous government support in terms of 50% or greater direct public subsidy that also usually has the municipality taken on the burden of risk on the project. The asks related to the West Loop soccer stadium are more in line with what you would seen in commercial development, a break on material sales taxes, as well as property tax relief not necessarily in perpetuity.

[Wedgeguy]

I think it is time to lock this thread!!

[MNdible]

I was actually tasked by Nick with keeping score. It's been a really tough job reading every thread, and if you can believe it, I'm at the top of the rankings.

I'd suggest you re-read my posts, because I'm right all-the-freakin'-time.