Wednesday, May 9, 2012

Is the Vikings Holy Grail within reach?

It's taken, what, about three weeks to accomplish what couldn't be accomplished for a decade in Minnesota.

The state's House and Senate have fashioned a stadium bill that looks like it is ready to be sent to Governor Mark Dayton for his signature – one that requires the Minnesota Vikings to pay an extra $50 million to build the $975 million stadium. I'm not ready to call this one yet, but it sure seems like fans of the franchise are very close to seeing the threat of their favorite team leaving Minnesota disappear. If that happens, we can go back to obsessing about one thing instead of two – the fact the Vikings haven't won a Super Bowl in 51 years of existence.

Here are a few other thoughts on an issue that I really hate writing about:

1. For me, the most annoying part of this process the past few years has been that politicians, whose job description includes making tough decisions on things, went out of their way to not make a decision about the Vikings stadium. About a year ago I stopped caring if the Vikings got their stadium and just wanted this thing resolved. Now it looks like it's been resolved.

2. I don't know what your thoughts are on Roger Goodell, but the guy has got some serious juice. He suspends assholes like Sean Payton for a year for their dirty deeds and, apparently, he can rouse state politicians into action with a simple visit. If you're the Republican Party, shouldn't you have been asking this man if he was interested in running for president in 2012? (And should a guy named "Mitt" be allowed to be in the position to run a country anyway?)

3. One thing that will be extremely satisfying if this bill gets done is it takes some verbal ammunition away condescending Packer fans (I don't think they are the majority, by the way) who liked taunting Viking fans that their team would be moving to L.A. soon, and maintained that this was somehow our fault because we didn't truly support the team. It wasn't a lack of fan support that caused this to drag on as long as it did.

4.  I don't live in Minnesota, but I wonder if the next time I want to build a house if I can get the government to pay for more than half of it? My new house would be a job creator – putting some carpenters, electricians, etc. to work. And if my family decides to build a house and put down roots in a community, that certainly has an economic impact because we'll buying groceries, gas, clothes, going to movies and on and on it goes.


  1. "Mitt"

    Republicans got goofy names.

    Goodell's visit, however, reminds me of when I ask my 6 year old to clean his room. He whines and makes excuses and when he finally starts, there's no progress. I check after a significant amount of time - hardly any visible progress. I tell him I'm going to get ice cream in 15 minutes and he can come with if he's done, and he's got it done in 5. Remarkable.

    Thanks for dragging your butts for 10 years, dummies!

    Minnesota may not pay for half your house - but with the interest being tax deductable, I'll bet they pay for a significant percentage over the course of a 30 year mortgage.

  2. Are you going to let people use your house 355 days a year?

    1. Ethan:

      I was comparing apples to oranges in my final point last night (I wrote that sucker a bit too late), so you're right to call me out on that one. However, if the province of Alberta (where I live) were to pay half the cost of a new house, I guess I'd have to let them use the basement.