Prompts winter weather advisories as cold air moves in Friday night

MPR News helps you turn down the noise and build shared understanding. Turn up your support for this public resource and keep trusted journalism accessible to all. 

Turn Up Your Support

Abou Amara Jr. is a graduate student at the University of Minnesota's Humphrey School of Public Affairs. 


Some of the people arguing against putting a voter identification amendment on the November ballot say that policy preferences do not belong in the state Constitution. Those people are right.


The same sentiment can, and should, apply to any policy issue that Minnesota politicians want to put in our Constitution — such as "right to work" legislation, a balanced budget amendment or a ban on gay marriage. I also think that residents of Minneapolis should apply the same standard when it comes to our city's "constitution" — the Minneapolis Charter — and not allow the 

charter requirement for referendums on stadium funding

 to be a legitimate reason not to build a Vikings stadium. 
 

First, let me be clear: I'm not expressing either support or opposition toward using public funds for a Vikings stadium. I think we who live in Minneapolis will, and should, have a full debate as a city about what is in the best interest of our people. We may decide that we don't want to use public funds for a stadium or we may decide that we want to pony up to keep the Vikings. 


Rather, I am arguing that the Minneapolis Charter requirement for referendums on stadium funding is not a legitimate reason to oppose a stadium. The requirement doesn't belong in our charter in the first place.


We elect people to make decisions on our behalf. We do so knowing that we, as members of society at large, don't get to vote on every single issue, and that our politicians are supposed to do it for us. If they don't justify the decisions they make or we don't like the decisions they make, in the next election we can "throw the bums out." That's the way our system works at its best.


When we put such policy preferences in the Constitution or charter, we end up with a more dysfunctional government. Don't just take my word for it. We've seen it in other parts of the country — for example, in California. Because several referendums, by the people at large, have blocked politicians' decisions, 

legislators now need a two-thirds majority to raise taxes

. That has caused the state serious problems paying its bills. It's the type of dysfunction that can happen when you tie the hands of politicians to make decisions. 


In short, there are legitimate reasons people can be against, or for, publicly funding a new Vikings stadium. However, the Minneapolis Charter requirement for a referendum on public financing of a stadium shouldn't be seen or used as one.

Gallery

Politics and Government News

Sports

Minnesota News

Commentary

It's bad practice to carve policy preferences in stone.

Minneapolis Charter's requirement of a vote shouldn't get in the way of a stadium

Go Deeper.

Like this?