|
Mall of America parking debate ramps up at Capitol
The Mall of America's $2 billion expansion plan still hinges on a public parking ramp, and the road to making that reality runs right through the Capitol. Those who packed the House Tax Committee hearing Tuesday in Saint Paul, wearing hardhats and the signature red shirts of the electricians union, want legislators to think of it as a jobs bill. "The ball's not rolling right now and we need to get the ball rolling," remarked Carl Madsen of Minneapolis, an unemployed member of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers or IBEW. Because of the way jobs rotate among IBEW members, Madsen says he's facing 18 months without work unless he's willing to travel to other states. He told KARE 11 Tuesday that he's beginning to question his self-worth, as he waits for his next chance to get on a job site. "Did you pick the right field? Did you pick the right career? And are you doing a good job? Are you really a good person?" explained Madsen, "I feel I'm a good electrician. Why am I sitting at home, why aren't I working?" Who ought to pay? The $200 million parking ramp would be financed with bonds, which would be repaid over time with some of the future tax money generated by the megamall's expansion. But the idea of any subsidy for the MOA ramp faces resistance among those lawmakers who believe the government shouldn't help a private business, especially a retail center with competitors not getting the same breaks. "I mean the Bonding Bill and the Transportation Bill are public money for public core government services," Representative Ann Lenczewski remarked Tuesday, "This proposal is public money for a private company. So you can see the difference there." The Democrat's at the center of this particular storm, because she heads tax panel and she represents the mall's home city of Bloomington at the Capitol. Backers of the idea have long argued the MOA, as a tourist destination, is a unique asset that repays any government aid many times over in new tax revenues generated directly and through economic spin-offs. It's an argument Lenczewski says never flies with her. "We often hear in this room, and not just on this proposal but any proposal, that it should get a subsidy because they will pay taxes," Lenczewski said before twirling her index finger in the air, "Well whoop-dee-do! Every business in Minnesota pays taxes; we don't give out blue ribbons for paying taxes." The IBEW's Steve Claypatch argued that the 7,000 people expected to work on the Mall's Phase Two won't pay any taxes if they're sitting idle. "When our people go to work they pay taxes and they're part of society," Claypatch told KARE, "If they're out of work they're a detriment to the state of Minnesota as far as being a draw on unemployment and a draw on health care." The bill would allow Bloomington to divert some of the tax dollars the city would otherwise send to the "Fiscal Disparities" fund, money shared with cities that don't have the same amount of commercial growth. That's the simplest way to describe a set of complex financing tools being employed to build the ramp without a direct cost to Bloomington property taxpayers, or income taxpayers statewide. Bloomington would also be granted the option to impose a special sales tax at the MOA, and a citywide lodging tax. Jobs and taxes With so many major construction projects underway in the Twin Cities, including two sports stadiums and the 35-W bridge project, some ask if there's actually enough heavy construction work to go around. But the IBEW's Claypatch says his union's unemployment rate is at 25 percent, in part because construction jobs are never permanent. "They don't have that job forever because they work themselves out of a job," Claypatch explained, "Construction projects build on a day-to-day basis; every day a task is completed is one more day closer to being laid off." David Ybarra of the Building and Construction Trades Council of Minneapolis, said huge commercial projects such as Phase Two have become even more rare than stadiums. "A three to four year project like this one doesn't come along very often," Ybarra told KARE 11, "A project that's going to create 7,000 jobs, that's gonna put people back to work relatively quickly." Vikings keeping tabs The Minnesota Vikings are reportedly watching the mall ramp debate closely. The team, which long ago played on the land now occupied by the MOA, is seeking innovative solutions to pay for the new stadium complex in downtown Minneapolis. But, some of those on hand at Tuesday's hearing told KARE 11 the Vikings stadium and the MOA are like apples and oranges when it comes to the public subsidy issue. They point out the mall project would be financed mostly with private money, with only 20 percent coming from a public source. The Vikings stadium, on the other hand, most likely will rely on a public funding source for at least 60 percent of its $1 billion estimated cost. The question of which project would have the most lasting impact, and generate the most tax revenue for the state of Minnesota, is best left to the economists. Even then you won't find agreement on the net impact to the state's economy in the long run. Some policy makers, including Lenczewski, say it's difficult to accurately measure how well projects perform when it comes to job creation and stimulating the economy. After seven hours of testimony on the Mall's financing package, Lenczewski's tax committee laid the bill aside rather than voting up it up or down. That leaves open the possibility that the MOA's ramp will be added later to a larger, all encompassing tax measure.
|
 MORE HEADLINES
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
