Stadiums & ANWAR – One Solution

The Minnesota Vikings unveiled plans for a stately pleasure dome to replace our aging and admittedly ugly Metrodome, apparently in preparation for an effort to extract $603 Million from our state legislature next session. Proponents argue that it is a necessary cost of keeping the Vikings in town. Opponents find it a horrific waste of public funds desperately needed in other areas.

ANWAR is reputed to hold beneath it a treasure trove of natural oil wealth. A long- standing debate has raged over whether the oil reserves ought to be explored and extracted. Everyone is familiar with the divide in the debate. According to proponents, increased energy independence would improve our national security, increased supplies of oil would lead to lower prices at the pump, while opponents voice concerns about critical habitats and see exploration as a symbol of our national failure to adopt conservationism.

Two years ago, after a decade of lobbying efforts, the state legislature approved hundreds of millions in public funds to build a new baseball stadium in Hennepin County. Supposedly, it was a necessary expense to keep “our” Twins in Minnesota, the same argument now being made by proponents of the Vikings stadium. The stadium was financed through a countywide regressive sales tax. The legislature took the extraordinary step of exempting this particular tax from a long-standing tradition of allowing referendums on sales tax increases that effect only part of the state. The worst part of the deal is that the team is only bound to stay in Minnesota for a medium term – meaning that in 20 or 30 years, we’ll be having the debate all over. The election after this stadium was approved, a historic number of incumbents lost their seats in the House.

These issues may seem unrelated, but they do have things in common. They are basically enormous gift-baskets for extremely well heeled lobbyists and supporters. Oil extraction and sporting spectacle are both for-profit activities. They both consume public resources, either in the form of current and future tax revenues or access to resources you and I own as a result of our government’s past land acquisitions. In both cases, the government is asked to bear the economic costs on vague promises of a future return to the citizenry.

Congress is right to say “no” to the oil lobby, just as the state legislature is right to say “no” to Carl and Zigi and other multi-million or multi-billionaires who ask to drink from the public teat. But if the arguments for more oil or a better stadium are basically valid, there is a way that the public could benefit from investing in them. Instead of giving away mineral rights to oil barons, or improving sports infrastructure, the state and federal governments should demand an ownership stake.

In the case of sports subsidies, public ownership of the team and the stadium makes a great deal more sense than just building a stadium. It permanently settles the question of the team moving to another location, and it produces badly needed revenue without taxes.

Giving away public resources to big oil makes even less sense. Unlike football, where it would be a novel exercise for a state to operate the team, in the oil business, state ownership is the norm. Nationalized companies produce most of the world’s oil – witness Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Iraq (previously), Iran, and especially Russia.

These nations are gaining geopolitical power every day as the price of oil increases. Contrariwise, our nation becomes more indebted, consumer confidence drops, and the cost of living increases for our citizens every time the price of a barrel goes up.

My personal opinion is that we should hold off on developing our remaining oil reserves for as long as it is possible. High gas prices are a fact of life, and have been, for most of the world. Conservationism is necessary sooner or later, and as oil becomes scarcer, our dwindling reserves become more valuable. Commuting 120 miles a day is nice for some people, I guess, but eventually the use oil is going to be reserved for military purposes and other issues of national importance. Once it’s used, it’s gone.

But if conservationism is not going to win the day (and judging from the polls, it is not), than at least the public coffers (instead of Exxon’s) can be filled with petro-dollars. Considering that ANWAR’s oil has quadrupled in value over just the past 6 years, we might have the solution to Medicare’s insolvency just beneath our feet.

And as for Zigi’s Vikings, the same is true. Our state is not meeting its constitutional responsibilities in education. We have a systematic, structural deficit in transportation spending that was only reduced, not eliminated, by the $660 Million in annual additional revenue granted by our legislature this session. The cost of healthcare continues to increase, and so there is continued pressure to trim the roles of public healthcare insurance. Republicans are right, we do have a spending problem – we’re not spending enough. If we are going to spend $600 Million on a stadium for the Vikings, we had better realize not only the $600 Million plus interest, but we should get a percentage of all future profits and control enough votes on the board to keep the Vikings here.

The central question in both these issues is “what’s really in it for us”. And if these enterprises want our scarce public dollars or precious public lands, the answer had better be “a whole lot”.