The Dirty Diaper

Would someone please take Sid Hartman’s old Hammond typewriter away from him? I mean, seriously, this guy needs to go.

In his May 14 sermon…er…column, Hartman blames a recent Minnesota Poll for not providing good questions that would steer the majority away from negative feelings about the stadium issue. Hartman is so far off base that he’s now outside the dome.

The poll asked, very plainly, for opinions about a new stadium for not only the Twins but also the Vikings and the Gophers. The first question was, “Who needs a new ballpark?” Every single answer, across both genders, and all political parties, finds the majority of people voting to keep the teams in the dome. The next question asked, “Would you favor or oppose using public money for a new team ballpark/stadium?" Once again, all respondents strongly opposed using public money. This wasn’t even close.

Other questions when into detail about specific proposals for each park, with the majority of respondents strongly opposing the plans to use public funding for each team and their respective stadium.

Steve Sviggum, as reported in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, said, “’sometimes in life it takes leadership’ to take action that may counter results in the polls.” Yes, you read that right. Regardless of what the majority of people think, Speaker Sviggum is going to get these proposals passed. A true representative of the people, don’t you think?

Republican House Representative Brad Finstad, the major author of the Twins ballpark bill said results may have been different if respondents had been asked, “Do you want the Twins to leave Minnesota this year and go to Las Vegas?”

Like most of the Twins hitters this year, Representative Finstad has completely missed. No one wants the Twins to leave. That’s not the issue. The issue is that no one wants to pay for a ballpark. If Mr. Finstad asked me that question, I would have no problem telling him I look forward to a long weekend of gambling and rooting for the Las Vegas Double Deuce, nee Twins.

That brings me to Mr. Hartman, who has turned his column into a pulpit for Carl Pohlad and all things taxable for a new ballpark and his new press box seat.

Hartman doesn’t have a problem with the questions asked, but would have added other questions because the results of the poll clearly don't favor his views on a new ballpark for the Twins. He asks:

“If it looked like Major League Baseball and the Twins were going to leave this area unless a new stadium bill was passed, would you be in favor of limited public support from taxpayers?”

The answer is still no, Sid. That’s what the poll shows.

Even if I did vote in favor of the proposals, would the sales tax hike used to pay for the ballpark(s) go back down once the revenue was generated? Hardly. Someone will come along and say, quite easily, “Hey, they’ve been paying this much for four or five years now. They’re all used to it. Let’s find somewhere else to spend that money!”

“If the Twins leave, do you realize there would be a loss of thousands of jobs, a loss of millions of dollars in sales tax and in state income tax paid by the Twins and visiting teams?”

The answer is yes, I do realize that, and I still vote no. I am sympathetic to those who would lose their job. I have been fired before, and it’s just about the worst feeling ever. But for that exact reason, I don’t care about anyone else’s job. I care about my own life, and I care that my own money is being taken from me to fund a ballpark that I don’t want, money that I would spend on the welfare of my family, not the welfare of whiny owner who threatens to take the team away every time he’s denied his personal 500 million dollar sandbox. And if there is so much money being generated in terms of taxes by the Twins and visiting teams, then that money should be used to build the ballpark.

“How would you vote if you realized that if one or all three stadiums would mean thousands of new jobs, multiple millions spent for materials and income taxes from the works? And how would you vote if you knew the addition of a baseball stadium downtown and 81 game dates would create big crowds and help solve the great amount of crime going on now in downtown Minneapolis?”

I would vote no. While all of these are definite benefits, it is not enough incentive to fund this park. In this case I say no because I personally will not benefit from this infrastructure. I will not be working on it, I will not be supplying any of the materials, and I certainly won’t benefit from any taxes generated. If I did, I wouldn’t be paying 7.5% sales tax right now as it is. Also, I’m not sure how large crowds create less crime, unless you have a large enough police force. And where will the money come for that? Don’t say “from the ballpark!” No, it won’t. It will come out of my pocket.

The Minnesota Poll, Mr. Finstad, and Mr. Hartman have it wrong. There are only three questions to ask:

“Would you pay for a ballpark?”

Pretty straightforward, really. If you answer yes, you’re willing to pay for a new ballpark. If you say no, you’re not. And your representatives in the House and the Senate should listen to you.

“If you do not want to pay for a new ballpark, and your elected representative votes to do so anyway, will you vote him or her out of office?”

Absolutely.

My final question would be: “Since Sid Hartman can’t write about anything but a new ballpark, do you hope he moves to Vegas with the ball team?”

Yep. Then, when I open the sports section, I can read about sports, something Hartman hasn’t done in a long time.