April 9, 2007
Everything is peachy ... right?
As tato has pointed out, MPR is running a story claiming that the "logjam" between the County, the Twins, and the land owners has finally been broken. The Hennepin County Board is expected to vote in favor of taking the land through eminent domain:
The Hennepin County Board of Commissioners is expected to vote Tuesday on a resolution that would authorize the county to take the eight-acre ballpark site through eminent domain. According to the county's lead negotiator, Commissioner Mike Opat, the county still has to finalize an agreement with the railroad. Those negotiations involve a plan to move the train tracks, so they're not so close to the ballpark.
This is good news. No doubt about it. Reading further we find out just what shape the Twins new contribution will take:
"Actually the team will assist us with non-land infrastructure primarily," Opat said. "The bridges and plazas are proving to be a little more expensive than we had thought. So we're going to get a little help from them. We're not going to talk about the details. But that's their additional involvement."
In other words, Opat isn't saying how much the Twins have agreed to kick in.
Personally, I don't care how much extra the Twins are kicking in. I'm just happy they are bridging the gap. Derek R. wrote a funny comment today where he suggested that all of this, all the worrying and gnashing of teeth, was orchestrated by the County and Land Partners II to extract more money out of the Twins! Ha! That is so funny ... man ... funny, funny stuff. If that ever turns out to be true, though, I will kill someone. Preferably someone involved. Just want to throw that out there.
Now, to throw a wet blanket on our celebration, I have received an email suggesting that things might not be as peachy as they seem. Someone is telling me that there is a rumor that the County will vote on whether or not to proceed with a "conditional quick take." In other words, the quick take we are all so excited about may not actually proceed unless certain conditions are met. Actually, probably, only one condition is important. That's right: the fricken railroad. I'm being told that the negotiations to move the railroad, while positive right now, could derail everything (pun intended).
So, the MPR article does a good job of spelling out some of the stuff we still may have to worry about, but this is the first I've heard about this so called "conditional" quick take. Let me be clear that this is a rumor, though. Needless to say I'll be paying close attention to what the county actually votes on tomorrow. Hopefully it is a normal quick take, but we'll see.
Posted by snackeru at April 9, 2007 9:16 PM
Why the hell am I not surprised? The land purchase is resolved, but now there's another wrench thrown in. It's a nightmare that never ends.
Posted by: Bruce at April 9, 2007 10:06 PM
Don't dispair over "speed bump" #2, when there's going to be a #3 and #4 and #5 along the way.
Personally, the "condition" doesn't surprise me. Oputz has been reluctant all along to leaving anything to chance, especially something that could just hand the negotiating "lever" over to the rail road from LPII. I also believe that whatever the Twins have decided to kick in, will be nominal and in retrospect abysmal considering their ultimate return - but, whatever gets the deal done....right? and I'm sticking with 2011. This deal aint done yet.
Posted by: Stadiumshill at April 9, 2007 11:07 PM
Don't take it from me, take it from one of your own "die hard" baseball fans;
"This past week my wife and I spent our spring break in Milwaukee and Chicago. The trip was planned around a trip to Miller Park and U.S. Cellular Field for baseball games.
Despite April flurries and temperatures in the 20s, the Brewers and Dodgers were able to play their night game because of Miller Park's retractable roof. Yet, despite it being an indoor baseball game, fans were carrying blankets and spectators donned winter coats, caps and gloves. Despite the closed roof, the temperature could not have gotten above 45 degrees inside the ballpark.
Chicago was a different story. The White Sox Friday night game was canceled because of cold weather, and the chance to see our hometown Twins on the road was thwarted.
This is all relevant because of a burning desire in Minnesota to build an outdoor baseball stadium. Why? Dish out the extra money for the retractable roof that will guarantee fans April and September baseball. Fans from Moorhead to Mankato to Duluth need to know a game will be played, and their presence in the ballpark will hang in the balance of weather forecast projections. This is a logical decision that has been lost in the romanticism of outdoor baseball returning to Minnesota.
JARED ESSLER, PLYMOUTH"
Posted by: STM at April 10, 2007 7:59 AM
Having to endure a few weeks of chilly baseball in April is far less depressing than sitting inside the Metrodome for 4 - 5 months of sunny, warm summer weather.
Posted by: Jeff T. at April 10, 2007 8:41 AM
Please. This is a once-in-a-decade kind of weather pattern, and it's affected pretty much every team north of the Mason-Dixon line.
Furthermore, the proposed roof for the Twins stadium would have been an open-walled roof (ala Seattle), and not sealed like Milwaukee's. If it only got up to 45 degrees in Milwaukee, do you really think it would have made a difference if there weren't any walls?
Posted by: Alex at April 10, 2007 8:43 AM
Jacobs Field in Cleveland has been open for 13 years and this is the first time games have been cancelled due to cold. I'll take 1 in 13 any day of the year.
Face it, it's been a screwy April with very cold, below normal temps. MLB could do a better job of scheduling cold weather teams in warmer climates during the first two weeks of the season or take a 1 in 13 year chance that some games will have to be canceled.
For the same reason we don't expect a shopping mall to build parking spaces to accommodate all the cars for the day after Thanksgiving sales and then having surplus stalls the rest of the year, I don't think we should force the County and Twins to spend upward of $150 million on an ugly roof to accommodate a couple of cold games once every 10-13 years.
Posted by: Freealonzo at April 10, 2007 8:46 AM
Sorry, per the records Miller Park was in the mid-sixties for the Dodger series. So obviously this person is incredibly biased that their weekend to see the Twins game was ruined, thus decided to greatly exaggerate the negatives about their experience.
As for the winter clothing, well, it was in the 20's outside so you think people might wear these articles of clothing outside on their way to the game and last I checked, Miller Park does not have a coat check and therefore the people would have had to keep said items with them.
Just a cheap shot by a bitter Minnesotan towards WI is all it is. Easily debunked argument as well.
Posted by: Cheesehead Craig at April 10, 2007 8:48 AM
I used to post under the name Aaron, but since we have another Aaron on here, I'll change names.
Anyway, it simply amazes me that we now have a potential issue with the railroad. I don't get it. It wasn't like the railroad was installed two weeks ago. I imagine they've been there for at least 50 years.
Does anyone working on this project have any project management skills whatsoever?
As for the cold weather argument, using this unusually cold spell for a reason to have a retractable roof is like saying this weather is clear cut proof that Earth's temperature isn't rising.
Posted by: IowaWigman at April 10, 2007 9:01 AM
My speculation with the railroad is that they had no trouble negotiating to purchase the air rights, but as the design process has progressed, they've realized exactly what they'll need to do in order to actually build the stadium over active tracks. That, apparently, requires a temporary re-routing, and that's a new and relatively recent addition to the negotiations.
Posted by: Alex at April 10, 2007 9:06 AM
Why doesn't MLB just cancel April? cutting 25 games from the schedule won't affect any outcome and would make the remaining 137 games more meaningful and weather wouldn't be a problem.
Posted by: STM at April 10, 2007 9:26 AM
It didn't take long to start talking about cost overruns did it?
The Twins are NOT going to help with what appears to be certain land cost overruns but are going to help with "other" infrastructure cost overruns already anticipated ----- before a single shovel of dirt has been turned!
What a total blithering FIASCO. Thanks stadium supporters. You just affirmed once again that Governments need to stay out of the stadium business because baseball billionaires are obviously 1,000 percent smarter than government employees and 2,000 percent smarter than the large waisted baseball watchers.
Posted by: mark at April 10, 2007 9:41 AM
Did he say "large and wasted?" I resemble that remark!
Posted by: Kaz at April 10, 2007 9:49 AM
Here is a list of reasons why I think that putting a roof on the ballpark would be a bad thing (not to mention that it has been stated several times that a roof cannot be put on a ballpark at the current designated site). Some of you might recognize these from a post of mine on BYTO.
1. It makes more sense to risk rescheduling a few games a year than to pay $125 million for a roof.
2. The idea of the occasional double-header as a result of rescheduling a few games is far more appealing than knowing that, no matter what, rain, snow or fantastic Minnesota summer sunshine, I am going to be in a dark dreary dome.
3. It's about time Minnesotans who pride themselves as being hardy, winter weather folk get out of their 72 degree dome and experience the diverse weather our state has to offer.
4. Sitting in a ballpark, bundled up on a 20, 30, or 40 degree night in the spring or fall, watching a great sport while drinking a coffee or hot chocolate, sounds like a great time.
5. The ballpark will be truly open, rather than a huge canyon with a glorified moon roof like Miller Park.
6. Pretty much every MLB ballpark without a roof looks better than the retractable roof parks (with Safeco being maybe the exception).
You may disagree with me (STM will for sure), but those are my thoughts.
Finally, in response to STM's paste of a letter from Jared Essler who had great concern about "fans from Moorhead to Mankato to Duluth" knowing they would see a game if they came down. I think that "fans from Moorhead to Mankato to Duluth" need to pay for that roof if they want to be guaranteed to watch a game. Hennepin County is already paying for the ballpark. If the roof mainly benefits out-state fans, then they should pay for it. I know that has been said a thousand times before, but it makes sense. I know it creates logistical problems trying to figure out how to get those people to pay for it, but if those fans want it, they should convince their legislators to take the lead. I know that if out-state legislators propsed a way for out-staters to pay for the roof, they would have the support of the Hennepin County legislators (if I used smiley faces, I would put one here).
Posted by: The Rational Actor at April 10, 2007 10:38 AM
Since when is Mpls at the same latitude as Cleveland? I'd guess Minnesota "Aprils" like this one are more common than not.
Posted by: STM at April 10, 2007 12:41 PM
Anyone hear anything yet?...The meeting was supposed to be this morning.
Posted by: MOJO at April 10, 2007 12:50 PM
I'm a Minnesota native and lifelong Twins fan now living in Milwaukee, and I can tell you that watching Brewers games in Miller Park has its pluses and minuses.
Miller Park is a nice, modern baseball stadium. The stadium's exterior walls are very high and the retractable roof has seven panels that open and close like a fan.
Because of the high outside walls and the fact that the roof, when opened, still covers part of the park, even when the roof is open it feels like you're indoors. It doesn't have the feel of a true, outdoor ballpark. Of course when it's 25 degrees and snowing outside you can close the roof and still play, as Cleveland and Anaheim realize this week.
However, the roof here at Miller Park has been a major debacle. Since Miller Park opened in 2001 the roof has rarely worked properly. Problems with the tracks the roof runs on have and other problems have resulted in lawsuits filed against the manufacturer, Mitsubishi Industries. Last season the roof remained closed even on 65-plus degree spring and summer days because the team didn't want to risk embarassment if the roof didn't open properly and became stuck so it couldn't be closed when needed. Brewers' games at County Stadium - though it was in need of major repair - had that true outdoor feel.
We in Milwaukee County (and four other neighboring counties) pay a 0.1 percent sales tax to pay for Miller Park. The tax is supposed to retire in 2014 but cost overruns for roof repairs and other things mean itaxpayers may be paying beyond that.
With all the issues surrounding the roof at Miller Park, I think the Twins and we Twins fans will have a better experience with an open air ballpark. Most years will be free of this extended freak cold weather.
I began reading this site a few months ago about the time the land impasse issues had started. Growing up on 16th Ave. (just west of Cedar Ave.) in Bloomington, I remember walking to Metropolitan Stadium as a kid. I look forward to once again watching an outdoor Twins home game in the open air park in Minneapolis.
Posted by: The Great Bretzky at April 10, 2007 1:06 PM
While Minneapolis is not "at the same latitude as Cleveland," it also does not get lake-effect snow like Cleveland does. Lake-effect snow is what caused the game postponement in Cleveland. http://cleveland.about.com/od/northeastohioweather/p/lakeeffect.htm
As for climate comparisons... here you go:
Minneapolis (2.3 inches of precipitation and 2.8 inches of snowfall in April on average)
Cleveland (3.37 inches of precipitation in April on average)
I know the sources are wikipedia, but it gives you an idea of the comparison of the two cities.
Posted by: The Rational Actor at April 10, 2007 1:20 PM
Anyone hear anything yet?...The meeting was supposed to be this morning.
It was this afternoon. Watched it on Channel 6. They just approved it.
Posted by: pragmatic_cynic at April 10, 2007 2:24 PM
It was this afternoon. Watched it on Channel 6. They just approved it.
Is there a link?
Posted by: Erik at April 10, 2007 2:47 PM
Pragmatic says "They just approved it.".
You left off the CONDITIONS of the "approval".
This "vote" was just another SNOW JOB by Hennepin County, et al.
Posted by: mark at April 10, 2007 2:47 PM
What conditions are these?
Posted by: Erik at April 10, 2007 2:48 PM
Posted by: MOJO at April 10, 2007 3:16 PM
That article doesn't say anything about conditions?
Posted by: Kaz at April 10, 2007 3:21 PM
It looks somewhat conditional:
Opat said a so-called â€śquick takeâ€? legal maneuver should occur by April 30, enabling the county to gain access to the property in about 30 days. He said those proceedings would occur as soon as the Twins and Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway, whose tracks run along the ballpark site, reach a separate agreement related to the stadium.
So, it is the Twins who need to make the agreement with the railroad companies? Whatever the case, it looks like that is the next hurdle, but it doesn't appear anyone is too worried about it.
Posted by: Shane at April 10, 2007 3:44 PM
Remember my wise words from a few months ago... this is all part and parcel of a complicated and expensive land deal/public works project. These projects run up against similar difficulties all the time, it's just that we don't pay attention to those projects and they don't play out on blogs and websites. I am sure the RR deal will get done in time.
Also Shane, you should have a feature where comments are sorted by commenter so one can go back and find out what was said by whom in the past.
See you guys Thursday! Is Jiminstpaul going to sponsor a party at some bar near the Government Center that serves Summit?
Posted by: Freealonzo at April 10, 2007 4:31 PM
The railroad thing is a CYA technicality... it'll be fine.
Posted by: CJ at April 10, 2007 4:51 PM
I took this week off from work to catch up on projects around the house, but I think I'm actually going to have to take a break on Thursday to go see the unveiling! Whoo-hoo!
Now I'm off to see if Boooooof can get the guys back on track after last night's debacle.
Posted by: Snyder at April 10, 2007 6:07 PM
FWIW, I heard that they wanted to tunnel the railroad track below the stadium. And that Burlington Northern (or whomever the RR company is) said, "uh, no way".
I think I may be able to get my hands on the copies of the soils reports for the ballpark site. The rumor is that there are TWO reports, conflicting with each other.
I've possibly got some more subtle info available, I'll see if I can get my grubby hands on it.
Posted by: Drake33 at April 10, 2007 7:03 PM
I am just logging on for the first time today, and as I read through the posts, I want to say that Rational Actor is right on the money today. Every time I would read a post that excluded some key facts, R.A. would take the words right out of my mouth. Nice job brother!!!
Detroit is an example of a city that is very close climate-wise to the Twin Cities...and their baseball-season weather is almost identical to ours. They didn't put a roof on their park either... I was there for a WS game last year (some dude GAVE me a ticket) and despite rain and 39 degrees, it was a great experience. No roof makes me happy.
Losing to the Yankees sure doesn't though!
Posted by: Derek at April 10, 2007 9:15 PM
Rational Actor and Derek echo my sentiments as well. Minnesotans have changed into whining babies when it comes to watching sports in the elements. For years we prided ourselves on the fact that the Vikings playing outdoors in November and December gave them a HUGE advantage. And I'm not quite sure what substance Sid Hartman is snorting, but for years I had season tickets and I don't remember ANY playoff games at the Met with empty seats, even the lousy seats in the lower main grandstand were occupied.
When it came to baseball, sure there were some cold games in April. But I also remember going to a Twins opener in either 72 or 73 and it was over 80 degrees. Get over it people of today's wimpy generation. Grab a coat, a cap, an umbrella and the sunscreen. Minnesota is going back outdoors where they never should have left. And yes, you will survive and you will like it. Now shut up and play ball.
Posted by: kevin in az at April 10, 2007 10:36 PM
I remember walking to school, 2 miles uphill, both ways, in 30 below zero temps also.
Outdoor baseball in a remnant of a by gone era that was changed for a reason! Climate controlled facilities are progress. This pining for the "good old days" is a bunch of crap.
Posted by: STM at April 11, 2007 7:32 AM
Carl Pohlad has made more $$$ in just the most recent 7 months of the Bush Bull Stock Market than he will contribute towards building his stadium.
But I know sports player wannabes don't care about that when they most likely cannot fathom an extra $1,000 in their own checking account!
Posted by: mark at April 11, 2007 7:52 AM
From the Twins:
Ballpark design unveiling set for Thursday
The Minnesota Twins will officially present the final design of the ballpark to the County Board at 11 a.m. Thursday, April 12, in the County Board Room on the 24th Floor of the Hennepin County Government Center.
Members of the new Minnesota Ballpark Authority, which ultimately will own the ballpark, and the Minneapolis City Council also have been invited.
The briefing will be followed by a 12 p.m. news conference, featuring officials from the county, Twins, Ballpark Authority and project architects, on the skyway level (Public Service Level) of the Government Center.
The public is invited to view the ballpark design at an open house on the Government Center skyway level from 12:30 p.m. to 6 p.m. Thursday.
Posted by: freealonzo at April 11, 2007 8:08 AM
STM, pining for the good ole days is what baseball fans do! Where have you been?
Climate-controlled facilities are only "progress" if they make sense. And, in this situation, to spend an additional $125M doesn't make sense. To turn a beautiful outdoor ballpark into a eyesore doesn't make sense.
I have yet to hear a legitimate argument FOR adding a roof. If some one has one, please let me know!
- We have already debunked the notion that the weather here during baseball season is any worse than numerous other ballparks built without a top. And, even if it is a little bit worse, we need to show a little toughness around here.
- It doesn't add any bottom-line profits to the facility. Non-sports events in large facilities are typically lucky to break even. And, there is no way it will justify the added expense.
Posted by: Derek at April 11, 2007 11:06 AM
Concur- the time value and opportunity cost of $125 Million probably pays for several decades of cancelled/postponed games...
Posted by: tato at April 11, 2007 12:07 PM
$125 million buys a roof, not climate control gang... let's be clear here. This would pay for a retractable hood, not outfield panels like Milwaukee to allow for climate control. That would cost gobs of money more.
Lastly, the legislature had their chance to add the roof... they decided not to. IMO - that was a good choice.
Posted by: CJ at April 11, 2007 12:22 PM
The only constant is that; we, as a society, always want what we don't have.
The arguments that you're all using against a dome are the very same reasons used for building the dome in the first place and will be the same recycled arguments for building the dome that replaces this stadium some 25 years from now.
Posted by: STM at April 11, 2007 1:23 PM
TAX-HIKE PROPOSALS: NOT JUST FOR â€śRICH PEOPLEâ€? ANY MORE! [THEY NEVER WERE JUST FOR â€śRICH PEOPLEâ€?]
With six weeks left until the legislative session ends, no one can predict what tax increases will be passed. So any of the 50 tax proposals on this list introduced entirely by House Democrats could be sent to the Governor.
Next week, there will be an analysis of proposals to increase taxes, fees, surcharges, and other â€śfree will offeringsâ€? and â€śinvestmentsâ€? which are included in major finance bills in the House and Senate.
1. GAS, LICENSE PLATES, CARS: Democrats in both the House and Senate have passed different versions of $900 million of tax increases on gas, license tabs, and cars, and would allow counties to charge you for â€śwheelage feesâ€? for owning a car. With about 2 million drivers, that would work out to about $450 per year per driver, if House Republicans were not ready to back up Governor Tim Pawlentyâ€™s promised veto of these plans.
2. BEER: Rep. Michael Paymar (D-St. Paul) wants to pile enormous tax increases on beverages containing alcohol. He would raise taxes on metric sales beverages by the following percentages: distilled spirits (up 228%); wine (up 450%); hard cider (up 800%); regular beer (up 790%); and 3.2% beer (up 457%). (House File 1050) It would collect over $110 million in new â€śfeesâ€?.
3. BEER: Rep. Karen Clark (D-Minneapolis) is seeking similar increases in taxes on alcohol, but for other purposes. (House File 1446)
4. DEER LICENSES: Rep. Rick Hansen (D-South Saint Paul) wants to raise fees on deer hunters. (House File 278)
5. TAX ON CLOTHING: ARE YOU â€śRICHâ€? IF YOU EARN $36,000?: If you earn $36,000, then some House Democrats think you are rich enough to start losing an exemption they would provide for the proposed new DFL sales tax on clothes. Rep. Melissa Hortman (D-Brooklyn Park) offered House File 2163.
6. BOATS: Rep. Bev Scalze (D-Little Canada) wants to raise the fees on all watercraft. On boats over 19-feet long, she would add a $25 surcharge to a $27 fee. (House File 2216)
7. ELECTRICAL BILLS: Rep. Frank Hornstein (D-Minneapolis) wants to raise the surcharge on your retail electricity bills to pay for a rebate program for the installation or use of solar technologies. (House File 2384)
8. CELL PHONES, INSTANT MESSAGES, AND TELEPHONES: Rep. Debra Hilstrom (D-Brooklyn Center) wants to raise a tax on cell phones, land-line phones, and other telecommunications devices by 46%. (House File 1464)
9. PAINT: Sen. Linda Higgins (D-Minneapolis) wants to impose a new tax on paint. (Senate File 836)
10. LIGHT BULBS: Rep. Jean Wagenius (D-Minneapolis) wants to impose a 25-cent tax on every incandescent light bulb in the state. (House File 2156)
11. SNUFF: Rep. Jim Davnie (D-Minneapolis) wants to put a tax of 91-cents-per-ounce on moist snuff. (House File 2311)
12. DEAD PEOPLE: Rep. Tom Anzelc (D-International Falls) wants to authorize a new tax on dead people in his area to pay for the Lakeview Cemetery Association. (House File 213).
13. AND THE HEARSES THAT CARRY DEAD PEOPLE: Rep. Bernie Lieder (D-Crookston) wants to triple a tax on hearses. (House File 946)
14. FEES ON YOUR MEDICINES: Rep. Erin Murphy (D-St. Paul) wants to raise pharmacy fees automatically on an annual basis. (House File 1722)
15. CARS: Rep. Bernie Lieder (D-Crookston) wants to raise your gas taxes by 50 percent, and allow counties to charge you a wheelage tax, and triple the tax on cars, and allow counties to raise the sales tax, and put a transportation-impact tax on every building permit, and raise the cost to register vehicles. (House File 946)
16. COMPUTERS AND VIDEO EQUIPMENT: Rep. Brita Sailer (D-Park Rapids) wants to raise fees on video and electronic equipment sales. (House File 854)
17. CIGARETTES: Rep. Joe Atkins (D-Inver Grove Heights) wants to impose an extra $250 fee on cigarette manufacturers. (House File 1737)
18. YOUR FRIDAY NIGHT IN THE COUNTY JAIL: Rep. Larry Haws (D-St. Cloud) would raise fees for county and regional jails. (House File 161)
19. BILLBOARDS: Rep. Michael Paymar introduced three bills to: 1) declare a state-wide moratorium on new billboards; 2) change rules to shorten the survival of existing billboards; and 3) put a new $500 surcharge on billboards, with the revenue to be used to buy and destroy existing billboards. (House Files 2189, 2202, and 2203).
20. TAX THE OWNERSHIP OF YOUR HOUSE TO GET HOUSES FOR OTHERS: Homeowners would face a 50 percent increase when filing any papers related to the purchase, transfer, mortgaging, sale, or other transfer of property. Money from those taxes on homeowners would be given to non-homeowners seeking to rent property or buy their own homes. Rep. Scott Kranz (D-Blaine) wrote House File 939.
21. RAISE YOUR SALES TAX TO PAY FOR ARTS & PARKS: Rep. Tony Sertich (D-Chisholm) wants to raise the sales tax by at least $17 million to pay more for the arts and for natural resources projects. (House File 2285)
22. RAISE YOUR SALES TAX TO PAY FOR TRANSIT: Rep. Melissa Hortman (D-Brooklyn Park) wants to impose an extra sales tax to pay for transit and other purposes. In the Metro area, there would be one tax increase. In the rest of the state, the new tax could be proposed by any two or more county boards. (House File 1463)
23. RAISE YOUR SALES TAX TO PAY FOR TRAILS: Rep. Rick Hansen (D-South St. Paul) would impose an extra sales tax to raise at least $500 million a year pay for new parks, trails, and habitat projects. (House File 1449)
24. RAISE YOUR SALES TAX TO PAY FOR TROLLEYS: Rep. Shelley Madore (D-Apple Valley) wants to impose an extra sales tax on the three million people in the metro area to pay for more buses and trolleys. (House File 1112).
25. EXPANDING THE SALES TAX TO SERVICES: Rep. Phyllis Kahn (D-Minneapolis) wants to tax cosmetic surgery. This would be a bad precedent on the sales tax, which generally has applied only to goods (except for food, clothing, and a few other exceptions). (House File 1027)
26. GIFTS FROM GRANNY: Rep. Joe Mullery (D-Minneapolis) wants to create a new 10% tax on people who give gifts. If the donor does not pay the tax, then the tax liability shifts to the person who received the gift. In such cases, the donor would still be liable for a $100 penalty for not paying the gift tax. Under the bill, you could be required to show the gift to the Commissioner of Revenue to determine its true worth. (House File 1212)
27. GAS: Rep. Lyle Koenen (D-Clara City) wants to raise your gas taxes, your special fuel taxes, and to create a new motor vehicle sales tax. (House File 2219)
28. GAS: Rep. Ken Tschumper (D-La Crescent) wants to raise fuel taxes by 50 percent on gasoline, E85, M85, liquefied petroleum and natural gas, propane and compressed natural gas. (House File 1469)
29. CARS: Rep. Frank Hornstein (D-Minneapolis) wants to let any three-county panel impose sales and use taxes on motor vehicles. (House File 1920)
30. THE COST OF GETTING A MORTGAGE: Rep. Bill Hilty (D- Finlayson) wants to raise the fees on mortgage firmâ€™s employees by 588 percent (up from $850 to $5,000) for new licenses and by 555 percent (up from $450 to $2,500) for license renewals. (House File 2305)
Posted by: mark at April 11, 2007 2:18 PM
Your posts are SOOOO last week. We're back to baseball and stsdium news here...
Posted by: tato at April 11, 2007 2:24 PM
Is anyone going to check out the ballpark drawings at the Government Center tomorrow afternoon? I'm thinking of taking a couple hours vacation and checking them out.
Posted by: Jeff T. at April 11, 2007 7:56 PM
If you're watching the game right now, they're talking to Jerry Bell. Just showed some pictures of the stadium but not too detailed. Looks like 10-15 rows of seats in left field from LF line to the LF gap and green trees in CF. Gates to be named after retired numbers.
Posted by: Mylometer at April 11, 2007 8:10 PM
Hey Jeff, Shane and I will be there over the lunch hour. Shane's the tall guy. I'm the short guy wearing a cap with the Twins in scroll on the front.
Hope to see you there!
Posted by: freealonzo at April 11, 2007 8:52 PM
Crap - I wouldn't be able to make it until around 3 or 4. Meetings, you know (solving the world's [problems).
Posted by: Jeff T. at April 11, 2007 9:22 PM
Are STM and mark the same person? Twice on this thread they post within a half hour of each other. Both pretty much to antagonize.
Or are they using some sneaky IP masking software?
Posted by: Drake33 at April 12, 2007 9:28 AM