Page 121 of 147
Re: Stadium thread
Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:32 pm
by DavidKarki
yezzir wrote:
7-6? Scary.
What is a "resolution of support"?
Just a sign to the Legislature that they won't go to all this trouble only to have the City Council torpedo it. Provided the bill hasn't changed too substantially, the same 7 will vote for the finished product. That was needed to shore up a few shakier votes.
And as for 7-6 being "scary," this bill will never pass by any larger a margin because as soon as that 50% + 1 is reached and passage is assured (if that happens), every other politician who hasn't yet voted will vote against it just to cover their butt. (Unless that assurance of passage instead causes the bill to instantly morph into a vessel for pork spending, in which case a few more votes might be bought. What was that old saying about legislating being about as aesthetically pleasing to watch as sausage making?
)
And lastly, even if it does pass both chambers and Dayton signs it, there will be a lawsuit and injunction almost immediately. (On the grounds that Mpls' referendum requirement was violated.) So even when it's over, it's not over. We just move from the legislative to the judicial arena of combat. Or, to paraphrase Churchill, it's not the end and not even the beginning of the end, but the end of the beginning....
Stadium thread
Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 9:59 pm
by CalVike
DavidKarki wrote:Lastly, even if it does pass both chambers and Dayton signs it, there will be a lawsuit and injunction almost immediately. (On the grounds that Mpls' referendum requirement was violated.) So even when it's over, it's not over. We just move from the legislative to the judicial arena of combat. Or, to paraphrase Churchill, it's not the end and not even the beginning of the end, but the end of the beginning....
A lawsuit may happen, but remember a MN judge saved the Twins from contraction. Passing the bill is a TD, winning in court the extra point. Because if this happens the NFL stops their doomsday rhetoric immediately when the Gov signs the bill.
Re: Stadium thread
Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 12:25 am
by PurpleHalo
HardcoreVikesFan wrote:
What I am wondering, is this the exact same bill that was killed 9-6 in the house committee, and the only thing that changed is the threat of moving? I don't know what will be different, 4 votes must change or it dies again. If it works Ziggi is laughing his #### off, these people are so easy, all I had to do was park my jet in LA, shoulda done it last year.
Re: Stadium thread
Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 2:28 am
by CalVike
Be aware of one amendment that passed in the Minneapolis City Council resolution on Tuesday night. According to the Pioneer Press, "But one passed, with Reich's support: a motion requesting that the charter commission review the stadium bill to determine whether it complies with the city's charter."
Re: Stadium thread
Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 9:22 am
by dead_poet
What a turnaround on #Vikings stadium front. One longtime critic of public subsidies says approval is "imminent.
http://www.1500espn.com/sportswire/Oppo ... nent042512
"I would say it's imminent," said Democratic Sen. John Marty of Roseville, a longtime critic of stadium subsidies. "I think they have the upper hand and I think they're more likely than not to get their stadium within the week."
Re: Stadium thread
Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 9:44 am
by HardcoreVikesFan
So what process would occur if/when an injunction is filed? Would it be a long, strenuous debate that could over turn a bill passed or would it be just a last ditch effort by the opposing side to get what they want?
Stadium thread
Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 10:08 am
by CalVike
HardcoreVikesFan wrote:So what process would occur if/when an injunction is filed? Would it be a long, strenuous debate that could over turn a bill passed or would it be just a last ditch effort by the opposing side to get what they want?
A judge could order that the Minneapolis City Charter requires a referendum because more than 10 million in Minneapolis funding is going into the stadium, despite the dodge Minneapolis cooked up to make it look otherwise. Polls have consistently suggested a referendum would fail resoundingly. The timing of all this is unclear. Courts move slow. Referendum may have to happen in Nov and requires some lead time.
Re: Stadium thread
Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 4:01 pm
by dead_poet
Uh oh. RT @jgoldbergfox9: Senate finance committee votes to add Racino to Vikings stadium funding bill.
ESPN north blog on Twitter
Re: Stadium thread
Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 4:40 pm
by dead_poet
Senate Finance Cmte approves #vikings stadium bill-- w/ pulltabs and Racino-- on 9-5 vote.
RT by Tom Pelissero
Re: Stadium thread
Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 4:41 pm
by beardedterror
dead_poet wrote:
RT by Tom Pelissero
Re: Stadium thread
Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 4:42 pm
by VikingLord
dead_poet wrote:
RT by Tom Pelissero
Can't a conf committee remove those before the bill goes to a vote by both chambers?
Re: Stadium thread
Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 5:03 pm
by PsyDanny
VikingLord wrote:
Can't a conf committee remove those before the bill goes to a vote by both chambers?
I saw a tweet from a politico on another board that said the racino thing can actually be rejected by the next (Tax) committee. And you are right, that assuming a bill passes each leg branch, the differences will need to be reconciled into a unified bill for each leg branch to approve before sending it to the Governor.
As I said amongst the gloom and despair on the other board, for now "as long as it is still swimming, it isn't drowning".
Re: Stadium thread
Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 5:09 pm
by VikingLord
PsyDanny wrote:
I saw a tweet from a politico on another board that said the racino thing can actually be rejected by the next (Tax) committee. And you are right, that assuming a bill passes each leg branch, the differences will need to be reconciled into a unified bill for each leg branch to approve before sending it to the Governor.
As I said amongst the gloom and despair on the other board, for now "as long as it is still swimming, it isn't drowning".
If I were a pol and I needed to accomplish two things that were irreconcileable - pass a stadium bill while also avoiding alienating my supporters, then my best move is to vote for something that gets the bill through to conference committee that might be palatable to the voters, but that I know will get wiped out of the reconciled bill. Then I can point to the stuff I put in it that made it palatable, while washing my hands of the fact that those things did not make it into the final law.
The only question I'd have is are conference committees on the record when reconciling bills? If so, that means someone's head would still be on the block for the final bill, but if not, it's a pretty safe strategy that gets the thing done without incurring the full wrath of the voters.
Re: Stadium thread
Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 5:31 pm
by S197
Shortly after the Senate Tax Committee, which was hearing the Vikings' stadium bill on Wednesday, broke for a short recess, C John Sullivan and LB Chad Greenway arrived at the state Capitol to show their support for the legislation. The bill is ready for a House floor vote and has two Senate committees to pass through before a Senate floor vote.
Re: Stadium thread
Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 5:59 pm
by PurpleHalo
80 PurplePride 84 wrote:
Only 2 votes have to change and 9-6 becomes 7-8.
Ha ha yeah, I posted that late at night from my phone hehe.
