This coverage is made possible by a grant from The Saint Paul Foundation.

Taxpayers League unscientific survey says Minneapolis residents oppose stadium deal

The Taxpayers League of Minnesota doesn’t like the Vikings stadium deal, thinks it’s a raw deal for taxpayers, and released an unscientific survey of 1,000 Minneapolis residents, showing they oppose the deal, too, by a 2-1 margin.

The survey comes on the eve of votes by the Minneapolis City Council later this week that could affect the deal. The council earlier voted 7-6 in favor of the deal, and unless Council Member Kevin Reich — the only yes vote considered a possibility to change to no —  does change, it likely will pass again.

The Taxpayers League admited its poll wasn’t scientific, and said its callers said:

“Hi, my name is ___ with Taxpayers League of Minnesota and we are calling residents asking if they support the plan to spend $675 million city tax dollars for a new Vikings stadium?”

If respondents said they oppose the deal, they were asked if they’d like to be redirected to their council member.

The results: 

  •  55 percent don’t support the plan
  • 27 percent do support the plan
  • 18 percent are undecided.

Two Cities blog, which covers Minneapolis and St. Paul City Halls, is made possible in part by grants from The Saint Paul Foundation and the Carolyn Foundation.

Comments (4)

  1. Submitted by Paul Brandon on 05/23/2012 - 03:00 pm.

    Push polls

    That’s the technical name for this sort of leading question.
    You can always find some pollster who will give you the results that you pay them for.

  2. Submitted by Brian Simon on 05/23/2012 - 04:33 pm.

    pushed? or jumped?

    I took that survey. For the undecided it might nudge some towards opposition, but I required no such trickery. Most people I talk to are in agreement; there are higher priority needs for spending.

  3. Submitted by chuck holtman on 05/23/2012 - 05:01 pm.

    Not a push poll

    Paul, I’m not a polling expert, but I think a push poll is one that is a slander of a candidate dressed in the flimsy raiment of a polling question, e.g., “Would you be more or less likely to support candidate X if you knew that he had been convicted of Y?” – where Y is just conjured. This poll question appears to be factually correct (though perhaps understated – I think $875M is the actual Mpls cost). And the outcome is certainly consistent with all other past polls and anecdotal evidence. The only reason there has been no more authoritative poll is that those who had the means and motive to arrange for it (Mr Wilf et al) knew what the result would have been.

  4. Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 05/23/2012 - 10:42 pm.

    Tell us something we don’t know…

    We already know that the majority of people anywhere don’t support the stadiums deals, that’s why there was no referendum. The no-taxpayers league seems have become quite irrelevant as of late haven’t they?

Leave a Reply