< Links of the day | Main | Songs for a Desert Island IV >

June 28, 2004

What's good for the goose...

One of the most popular links on this here blog is an old post entitled Restaurants to Avoid. It probably gets hit at least once a day since I put it up, usually from a search on Google or another search engine (yes, there are other search engines). The page lists restaurants in St. Paul that signed a petition against a restaurant/bar tax in St. Paul to fund a Twins stadium. The list was graciously provided to the Greet Machine from long-time reader Jim in St. Paul. What usually happens is a person will see the post and either agree with my stand against these restaurants, or disagree. However, a couple of weeks ago someone left a comment. It went a little something like this:

"It seems wrong to penalize a business for a political position, would you want that to happen to you, because you support something[?]"

So let me get this straight, these buisnesses have a right to take a political position, one that severely affects my potential quality of life, but I shouldn't do anything about it because ... what was her reasoning ... oh, because if it happened to me I might feel bad? Yikes! I am swooning from her well reasoned argument. Again, apparently businesses can take a stand on a political issue, but as potential patrons of those businesses we should disregard that stand because if we disagree we might affect their business. I am dumbfounded by this reasoning. She goes on to state:
"As for the Twins, you're right that we should support them staying here - just not sure forced restaurant tax would lend to that, what about those pitiful cigarettes, alcohol, or other things that add to policing costs in our communities?"
That is interesting. I don't know enough about the potential of a cigarette tax, but we all know that a state-wide alcohol tax is about to expire. I have been harping for months that this tax should be extended to pay for all of our stadium needs in the Twin Cities, even if we just extended it in the Twin Cities area. I agree that this kind of tax would see more support from metro area residents than a forced restaurant and bar tax, but I'll support either one. She goes on:
"Many of us feel that on what the Twin's make, they should be able to support their own stadium, or at least find the high-rollers to do so. It's not the citizen's job to finance activities many of us can't afford to attend. Never been to see the Twins, tickets too high. Love a good Saint's game."
I agree that the Twins should be able to finance their own stadium, but as has been proven in many, many other metropolitan areas, they don't have to. This is the way the game is played. Either we pony up and prove we are a major league city, or they leave and we are left with nothing. And for those of you that would say, "Good riddens," I've got news for you. In about 10 years our state will again be desperate for baseball and it will cost us three times as much as it does right now to bring in another team. If you don't think it will happen I need only point out the Minnesota Wild. So, I've got an idea. Why don't we keep the team we have, save ourselves a lot of money in the long run, maintain our quality of life, and keep the Twins in Minnesota? I don't see Milwaukee crumbling into dust as a result of building Miller Park. In fact, I see a reviatlized and very proud city.

Finally she pointed out that Twins games are too expensive for her. Sigh. This is just plain nuts. I will agree that Saints tickets are cheaper, but you can still go to a Twins game for $6. And if you do what I do and park at the U of M's West Bank, parking is usually free. Sitting above the baggie in right field is not a bad deal. Consider that the Boston Red Sox charge upwards of $100 per ticket for the privilege of sitting above the Green Monster. Anyway, if she had said she doesn't attend Twins games because she wants to be outside, that I would have understood.

Posted by snackeru at June 28, 2004 12:51 PM | Stadiums | Twins


eXTReMe Tracker
View My Stats