I was going to do something on this, but it looks like VikesFaninNM already has it covered. I don't think we have too much to worry about, but hey. . .if we had a nickel for every time we thought that, am I right? -Chris
Yeah, I'm kinda confused here myself, and according to this article that popped up on me, it is very little talked about but true.
Now I know how Biggs Darklighter felt seconds before Vader iced him during the first Death Star trench run......
More after the jump
So the issue in question is the bonds being used. Which are Appropriation Bonds. Which the Supreme Court could deem as unconstitutional in the use of building the new stadium. Though Rep. Lanning (R-Moorhead) is quoted in the article as saying "We're not going to be ready to sell the bonds any time soon, anyway. So we're not worried about this delaying the whole thing, but it's a hoop that we have to jump through". Now personally, hoop or not, it is a little worrisome as the Minneapolis City Council vote coming up on Friday. What if someone on the Council decides to change their mind, though according to Sid Hartman, the bill still has support to pass. Does that include support in the Supreme Court? Has there even been any rumblings about that, or is this coming out of left field like it did for me when I saw the article?
In the article, former Gov. Tim "Do nothing for the Vikings" Pawlenty tried something similar but to pay the states deficit back in 1998. It involved the borrowing of future money from the Tobacco settlements. Former Senate Majority Leader Pogemiller went to the AG about if it would fly. The AG basically replied it depended on whether or not it in itself would have been allowed to under the constitution and more then likely would not have received an OK form the Court. Hence, Pawlenty did not move forward with the idea. However, this was revisited during the government shut down. There was apparently a breif filed with the Supreme Court but at this time, no ruling and no timetable for this ruling.
What does that mean? Well, if the Supreme Court rules in favor for the future pay/borrow idea, then that would make the stadium deal ok.
If not, then that means the state has to come up with an alternative funding source.
If that scenario does happen, one way to fund the stadium, according to the article, would be similar to TCF Bank Stadium. In that instance, the Metropolitian Council would be authorized to issue the bonds and the state would appropriate the money to cover the debt to the Council. I am sure there is alot more to it then that, but it's the jist of it.
But according to the reactions in the article, this was a known fact. I hate to say this, this is the first time I have heard of it. Not sure if it was covered in one of the many articles during the whole stadium affair in April and earlier this month. Did anyone else see or hear of this or was it in fact touched upon? Just makes me a little worried again that even if all goes well with the City Council, there could still be a major hang up down the road.