Very, um, entertaining story on the Vikings saga and NFL stadium building, by City Pages’ Tom Goldstein. Titled “The Case Against ‘The People’s Stadium’: Exposing Six Myths Propagated by the Mainstream Media,” Goldstein says: “What the Vikings don't talk about is why only an extravagant $830 [million] to $895 million facility (excluding infrastructure) will meet their current demands. ... NFL stadiums have skyrocketed in price over the past decade because no one other than club officials exerts control over the size and scope of a project. The team simply gives the prospective host community a price, then sits back and watches the elected officials scramble to find the money. … Twenty Fortune 500 companies are headquartered in Minnesota, and last year they produced revenues in excess of $439 billion. They include United Health Group, Target, Best Buy, 3M, Medtronic, and General Mills ... Given that it is these same corporations that lease the luxury suites, buy the premium seats, and overwhelmingly use sporting events to entertain clients or reward employees, why shouldn't they be expected to provide the cash to pay for the Vikings' new digs?  … Of course, today's business leaders are no dummies. They have no interest in padding the Vikings' bottom line. That's why their efforts, such as those of the reconvened Home Field Advantage group in Minneapolis, are focused on developing a uniform message that will allow the business community to ‘speak with one voice’ to the Legislature. … Building a stadium is also a terrible public investment, given that each full-time equivalent job would cost a staggering $475,000 to create — five times the much-criticized $93,000 per job cost of President Obama's stimulus plan ...  The reality is that there is minimal risk of losing the Vikings ..." Can I say I am just so surprised the Strib, in the interest objectivity and balance, hasn’t offered a similar piece.

After 11 years, it is time for a tax … I mean ... a fee ... increase. Dave Orrick of the PiPress says: “Minnesota adults would have to pay $5 more for a fishing license next year under a plan that cleared a Senate committee Tuesday ... Deer hunters would pay $4 more. The plan, which would affect most of the roughly 1.5 million anglers and 600,000 hunters who ply the state's woods and waters, is widely supported by hunting and fishing groups, as well as state wildlife officials, as a way to shore up an ailing fund that pays for fish stocking, wildlife management and other programs. It would be the first across-the-board increase to fishing and hunting license costs since 2001. The fee hike is needed for no smaller a cause than ‘for us to remain the greatest state in the nation,’ proclaimed former Minnesota Vikings coach Bud Grant.” Just curious — is Bud saying the same thing about a new stadium?

Speaking of “thuds,” the idea of tapping the Legacy Fund for the Capitol building’s $241 million facelift was kind of like 10 pounds of cow flop hitting the ground. Dennis Lien’s PiPress story says: “Minnesota's State Capitol needs a lot of work, and Rep. Mark Buesgens says he knows how to get the job done. Buesgens, R-Jordan, said Tuesday the arts and cultural heritage portion of Legacy Amendment funds should be diverted to paying for the needed restoration. He pitched two bills to the House Legacy Funding Division but didn't make much progress. With several panel members voicing skepticism, the body took no vote but left open the option of including either of the proposals in a larger bill that's being prepared. ‘The Capitol should be restored with traditional forms of funding,’ the panel's chair, Rep. Dean Urdahl, R-Grove City, said. ‘Bonding is my first choice.’ Buesgens cited recent comments from Gov. Mark Dayton calling on legislators to make ‘the most unselfish vote of your careers’ and provide funding for the Capitol restoration. Like Urdahl, however, Dayton said he favors bonding.”

Congressman Keith Ellison gets (deeper) into the Voter ID scrap with a commentary in the Strib: “[A] photo ID amendment in our state would put unnecessary burdens on Minnesotans to exercise their constitutional right to vote. It would also cost our state millions and drive up local property taxes as cities pay for the new restrictions. This is at a time when thousands are still out of work. What would photo ID really mean for Minnesotans? Let me put it into perspective. The number of people affected by this amendment would fill Target Field over 17 times. That includes 215,000 registered voters who don't have a Minnesota driver's license or ID card with a current address on it as well as 500,000 Minnesotans who use same-day voter registration, which would end as we know it.”

Over in Wisconsin, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel editorializes: “Monday's ruling by Dane County Circuit Judge Richard Niess spells out in compelling argument why Wisconsin's voter ID law is unconstitutional. The law, he essentially says, creates a new class of citizen who is barred from voting, those without the right form of state-mandated photo ID. That the Wisconsin Constitution does not allow, he says. That's not the final word — this one was always destined for the state Supreme Court — but Niess makes a good case. He also argues in passing that the law's restriction would fall disproportionately on those with the fewest resources to obtain an ID, a point made by Circuit Judge David Flanagan last week on Wisconsin's law and the U.S. Department of Justice in ordering Texas on Monday from enforcing its voter ID law. We think Niess got it exactly right, although we acknowledge, as does the judge, that voter ID in some form is constitutional. It's just that Wisconsin legislators went too far in constructing this measure.”

The Bloomberg story, by Andrew Harris and Seth Stern, says: “ ‘Voter fraud is no more poisonous to our democracy than voter suppression,’ Dane County, Wisconsin, Circuit Judge Richard Niess said in his ruling [Monday] barring enforcement of that state’s law. ‘Indeed they are two heads on the same monster.’ Signed by Walker in May, Wisconsin’s statute required voters to present government-issued photographic proof of identity such as a driver’s license, U.S. passport or an armed forces or college ID. … ‘We are confident the state will prevail in its plan to implement photo ID,’ Cullen Werwie, a spokesman for [Gov. Scott] Walker, said in an e-mailed statement. Werwie likened the measure to requirements to present a photo ID before obtaining cold medicine, public assistance or a public library card. The League of Women Voters, which filed one of four suits challenging the Wisconsin measure, in its own press statement disagreed. ‘Voting is not like cashing a check or getting on an airplane,’ state President Melanie Ramey said in the statement. ‘Those activities are not protected by the constitution.’ ”

Meanwhile … on a straight party-line vote: “After a short discussion Tuesday evening, the House Ways and Means Committee voted to approve a proposed amendment to the state constitution requiring each voter to show a photo ID at the polling place. The committee voted to approve the bill by an 18-12 margin, with Republicans supporting the bill and DFLers opposing it. The bill, which would submit the issue to state voters in November, now heads to the House Rules Committee. The sponsor, Rep. Mary Kiffmeyer, R-Big Lake, a former Secretary of State who managed the state's election system, dealt with skepticism from DFL members on the committee during a brief question-and-answer period. No public testimony was taken.” The story is Jim Ragsdale’s in the Strib.

Uhhhhh … on second thought. The Strib’s Rochelle Olson reports: “Ramsey County won't use garbage fees to buy polluted sites, despite an earlier push to do so. Commissioner Janice Rettman welcomed the change of plans. "Wiser heads prevailed," said Rettman, who came to Tuesday's County Board meeting with pages of questions. Draft language had been circulated to change the county's Solid Waste Master Plan to allow the county to use solid waste fees for acquisition, cleanup and redevelopment of land. Consumers pay the fees as part of their trash bills. The money now is used for waste disposal, but the fund has a surplus of $15 million. Rettman said polluters, not solid waste customers, should pay for the cleanup.”

Strib real-estate watcher Jim Buchta blogs about “reaching the bottom”: “My story today about improvements in the February housing market in the Twin Cities has a lot of folks wondering if the market has finally hit bottom. That’s a resounding ‘yes,’ according to one of the go-to-sites for real estate junkies and personal finance geeks. In a recent post, Calculated Risk makes a thoughtful argument about why the bottom is here. What’s more interesting than the prediction itself is an discussion of why there are actually two bottoms. ‘The first is for new home sales, housing starts and residential investment. The second bottom is for prices. Sometimes these bottoms can happen years apart.’ ”