May 18, 2006
For your edification
This is what Sviggum said last Sunday on the Sports Huddle with Sid and Dave:
"I wanted to finish a week ago. Here's where we are at. The constitution says we have to finish by the 22nd. We can not pass any bills that day. We're not going to meet next Sunday. That brings it to Saturday. That means to come out of conference committee you have to have an agreement no later than Thursday. Preferably, Wednesday. It takes some time to get back through the process and have bills drafted."
Tonight is the night. I don't know how hard this deadline is, but it would appear a deal must be struck by Thursday night for the Twins bill to have time to be voted on either Friday or Saturday.
Keep your fingers crossed ...
Posted by snackeru at May 18, 2006 4:20 PM | Stadiums 2006
It's typical with so many state legislatures in this country. Procrastination is the norm and not the exception. lol ;o)
Anyway, in a way I can understand why the Vikings want to accomplish things this year. Cost of building materials will only escalate in the coming years because of stiff competition from India and China (even Russia and Brazil). Take a look at the happenings in Washington, D.C.. Originally, the ballpark was going to cost $535 million, then it escalated to $585. Finally an agreement was struck for $611 million dollars, with a cost cap written in for the city. Why? Well, part of the problem was the debate lasted for a couple of years but also because of cost of land and materials. Then, the league insisted on certain demands with respect to location of club seats and suites. Now with the new ownership coming in, there may be even more changes in the design. They'll going to have to figure out a way to keep it within the cap or chip in to make up the difference.
With respect to the Twins, I think the House members understand that Carl Pohlad is not wont to pay in any more than he has agreed to do thus far. Needless to say, they would prefer that the professional clubs not to come up to them and ask for their permission to use tax dollars, even if the sources are mainly locally-based, but, instead, find creative way to finance stadia construction. My sense is -- and I can only assume from my own observations -- that this time a calculation was made that the league might be willing this time to yank the club out of the market in a couple of more years. Evidence in the past did not support this. What changed is that the Expos relocation saga actually set a precedent. The league has now shown it is willing to withstand years of losses by taking over a club while shopping it around to prospective cities. In a way, it's somewhat of a comedown for the league's bargaining position because they would rather that owners themselves do the leveraging, with commish pretending to be neutral on all of this. What happened with the Expos is that several owners (more likely Reinsdorf) did not want to (because MLB is exempt from anti-trust laws) lose out on expansion-like payouts by allowing Jeffery Loria to have the potentially-lucrative Washington market to himself. Hence, the convoluted three-team ownership swap.
I'm still not 100% sure that they would move but I have always thought that the Twins would be the club to move after the Expos. The Marlins haven't moved because of Loria's stubborness but there are questions about whether he can sustain more losses until the Marlins move to their new ballpark. The Athletics have new ownership, who has shown more willingness to work out a deal within the Bay Area. A lot can change between now and the end of this year, though.
Sorry for the long message. ;0)
Posted by: Transic at May 18, 2006 6:21 PM
Anyone know if there will be any online coverage of the hearing? The Senate webcast is the bonding bill and House webcast is the tax committee?
Posted by: David Howe at May 18, 2006 8:05 PM
Does anyone know what time the session starts tonight?
Posted by: MOJO at May 18, 2006 9:38 PM