The dirt on the new Vikings stadium

Here’s what the excavation looks like outside the Metrodome this morning. (MPR Photo/Tim Nelson)

The Strib’s Paul Levy says Blaine is finally getting a piece of the Vikings stadium action, seven years after the team jilted Anoka County officials trying to lure the team out of Minneapolis.

Levy says the city will be taking 350,000 yards of fill from the Metrodome site, being trucked away by night as construction proceeds on the new Vikings stadium.

Writes Levy: “It’s clean fill,” said Bryan Schafer, the city’s community development director. “The team hasn’t always been very good, but the fill’s good,” he said jokingly.

The site will eventually host a new Allina development.

Blaine isn’t the only place the dirt is going, though.

The Minnesota Sports Facilities Authority said last week that the Vikings owners are going to take a pile of it, too, at least temporarily. The MSFA said it was paying $60,000 to team owners to store fill on a vacant lot across 4th Street from the Metrodome while construction is under way.

“There’s a great deal of work taking the dirt and fill in the back of the lot,” executive director Ted Mondale told the MSFA board. “That dirt, some has to go to a regulated landfill. Some can be stored and brought back onto the project, which is a significant savings to the project. We worked out a lease with the property next door. The lease is for the amount for the amount of half of their parking revenue and that portion of their property taxes. It saves significant dollars.”

Some of the rest is showing up in other projects, which may also be familiar to Minnesotans some day.

Here’s what Mortenson Construction’s John Wood said last Friday: “We have hauled about 70,00 cubic yards, which is about 100,000 tons of soil from the site. Most of that has fortunately been material that has been able to be reused for other projects, and significant amount of that material has been transported to a couple of (Minnesota Department of Transportation) projects and used for fill.”

  • Pearly

    ACA is here to stay

  • Gary F

    Funny how the media and the left are celebrating this as Greece goes in the tank.

    • Yanotha Twangai

      So, are you saying it’s a good thing Obamacare is modeled on the originally Republican idea of market-based reforms and not socialized medicine like they have in Greece?

      • Gary F

        The Republicans didn’t think up the Jonathon Gruber mess. See whitedoggie44’s post. The Republicans didn’t say “we have to vote for this bill so we can see what’s in this bill”!

    • David P.

      Like fish and motorcycles, I’m having trouble seeing the connection. Please explain how Greece making really bad pension fund investment is connected to a market-based health insurance requirement with subsidies for low income folks in the US.

      • Gary F

        The pension problem in Greece is only the tip of the iceberg. They have created a government so big that there are not enough people pulling the wagon. As Thatcher once said ” the problem with socialism is that you eventually run outof someone else’s money”.

        • David P.

          You are correct in stating that Greece has many problems that brought them to this point. A military junta that ruled the country until 1974 left a shambles of nearly everything. The steady churn of instability due to one new government after another since. The extra-ordinary high spending on military (second only to the US among NATO countries, as a % of GDP). The highest rate of tax evasion of any European country. A series of very shady financial packages via Goldman Sachs. 25% unemployment. But the pension problem is the biggest of this mess.
          However, Greece is not the question. The ACA is.
          The ACA is not bigger government. It us not government run health care. It’s not, no matter what the Palin’s, King’s and Trump’s of the world say. It is a mandate to get insurance, with government (tax payer) subsidies for those that need help. Insurance provided by the private sector. Insurance for preventative care, early onset care and emergency care is a lot less expensive than uninsured ER care. Yes, the ACA is expensive, but according to the CBO, it is 20% less expensive than if we had continued down the path we were on.
          I’m a “wagon puller”. I take it you are too. We are better of subsidizing a vaccination or a minute clinic visit via insurance than we are paying for an ER. Better financially, and we will have a healthier society.
          If you really want to address health care costs, consider the model we have compared to Canada or Europe. We literally spend twice as much per capita on health care with poorer results. We are ranked 37th in the world by the WHO, 16th (out of 16) of NATO countries. Of course, those countries have for the most part adopted a single-payer government managed health care delivery model verses our market based, for profit system. Don’t get me wrong, I am a Capitalist and believe that open market competition is a good thing. Except when it is broken and results in poor products or services that are way over priced.

  • MarthaP.

    Roberts chose to leave his role and instead, to interpret the meaning vs. what was written in the act. One only has to see Gruber’s caught on tape admission of the scam he helped set up and that was set in motion and approved by Obama to fool the masses. Not one Republican voted for this. No one had time to read and understand the over 1,000 page bill as Pelosi said. ” we have to pass the bill to see what’s inside it.” That’s like saying “you have to buy the used car before you can lift the hood to see which engine or not is included.” Under this act, my insurance went up 34% and the deductible rose to $6,000.00 Useless!

  • PaulJ

    We finally have a precedent on how to interpret what the meaning of is is.

  • John Dilligaf

    The language in question was clearly written to coerce the states into forming their own exchanges.The penalty for not doing so was no federal subsidies.

    SCOTUS wrote legislation, which is beyond the scope of their constitutional mandate.

  • whitedoggie44

    The democrats passed ACA understanding they could not exceed one trillion in entitlement spending or even democrats would not vote for this health care bill. What was left out was government subsidies for the new high deductables, which would add another 2 trillion to the cost. Hillary wants to cover this cost with increased “revenue Enhancements” or what we call taxes. There are not enough wealthy people to cover this cost so hold on to your wallets middle class, the dems are coming for you and they will lie and lie some more to convince you its a good tax. I can add and subtract and the math is truly scary.

    • David P.

      A penny saved is a dollar earned. Some guy, a lot smarter than you or I said that. Insurance that covers preventative care is pennies on the dollar compared to ER care.
      According the the CBO, the ACA is saving this country, aka the tax payers and the insurance buyers, billions of $.

      • whitedoggie44

        I am not disputing it is reducing cost or even that I disagree with the ACA but anyone with even a passing understanding of risk pools could have easily predicted the outcome that insurance rates will continue to increase as will deductables. I will provide just one fact for you, obama used 10 years of tax increases to pay for 8 years of subsidized coverage.
        The democrats, to pass the bill made a trade off of proposed lower premiums, to reduce subsidies in exchange for higher deductables. Therefore, even if your health care is subsidized, if you have a $5000 deductable, what is your option?
        The democrats, whose main goal is the make big government even bigger, would like to close this loophole, but at what cost to taxpayers.
        Yes, I am educated and very very good at the math and all I see is disaster ahead for those of us who actually pay taxes.

        • David P.

          One fact – 10 years of tax increases to pay for 8 years of subsidies? So? All that means is the taxes tied to subsidies only paid for 80% of the cost. If they dedicated more or less tax dollars the timeline would be different. So what?
          Any one with a passing understanding of risk pools understands that a bigger pool is better. ACA didn’t change the aggregate risk pool – it basically consolidated them. On the whole it is better than leaving the high risk to the ER and letting the low risk take a pass on buying insurance and not contribute to the pool.
          Regarding the high deductable, isn’t that a free market, consumer choice? Certainly it is not a function of the ACA. Better for society to be on the hook for the deductable than the whole tab. The going rate for a broken ankle or leg is north of $20K. If insurance covers most of that, aren’t we all better off? If insurance covers check-ups, preventative care and early intervention before an illness gets worse, aren’t we all better off – financially and societally?
          If the main goal of Democrats is to make government bigger, compared to Republicans, they have (post WW 2) not been very successful.
          I don’t doubt you are educated and good at math. You have posted that you are a very high level executive in Texas. I do sometimes think your ideological commitment clouds you objective analysis of the information.

          • whitedoggie44

            So the fact that insurance rates are increasing in year 2 by an average of 16% does not send alarm bells to you regarding risk pools????? Wait until years 3 and 4.
            Remember thgis does not cover deductables.
            You appear to be only concentrating on the good and never the huge financial issues with this new entitlement.
            What happens when the next recession hits and the ACA dedicated tax revenue drops while the entitlement cost baloon? Yes, I know, just raise taxes again and again and again.
            My issue is an always has been the democrats and obama lied from the beginning about the true cost of this new entitlement. I could list the numbers of lies but appears you are an educated reader so assume you recall “If you have insurance, your can keep your insurance” or ” if you have a doctor, you can keep your doctor”.
            The fact is the federal government has never ever once in the past 50 years even come close to predicting the true cost of a proposed entitlement at its inception.
            As the moocher class continues to gain majority status, I am happy I hold dual citizenship so at least I have a plan B to vacate this mess.

          • David P.

            16% average increase?
            That is simply not true.
            At least not according to the National Council of State Legislatures, the CBO and other non-partisan research.
            They report premium growth is under 4.5% since ACA implementation, with 0 increase overall from 2014 to 2015. In the ten years prior to the ACA, annual premium increases for both employer and single payer, ran from 5.5% to 15%.
            Since you have decided to argue with your own set of “facts”, rather than non-partisan data from accepted sources such as the CBO, I’ll let you argue without me.

        • Yanotha Twangai

          Regarding your side comment, “The democrats, whose main goal is the make big government even bigger,…” That’s not the goal, though you may consider it to be a necessary consequence of what Democrats are trying to do, which is is to use government to help the American people live better. Your slur is just as unfair as if a Democrat were so say, “The Republican’s, whose main goal is to make the rich richer and the poor poorer,…” Likewise, that’s not the Republicans’ goal, though it does appear to be the outcome of Republican policies.

  • Sue de Nim

    Of course, it wouldn’t have been all bad if they had struck it down.
    Then the Republicans in control of congress would have had to deal with
    the mess, and after that chaos, maybe people would have realized that
    what we need is a truly rational health care system, like they have in
    Canada, or France, or the UK, or just about everywhere else in the
    industrialized world, where they get better outcomes, spend less money, and are generally less dissatisfied that Americans are.

    • David P.

      In the back rooms of various Republican offices, there is a collective sigh of relief.
      Not only are the off the hook for an alternative program, they don’t have to go into an election conceding millions of votes to Democrats via those who would have lost their insurance.

  • lindblomeagles

    This was a great ruling! If the Supreme Court struck down the Affordable Care Act, the Court would have established the dangerous precedent that any individual citizen who did not like the President of the United States or a Congressman has the right to stop following the law. Many Republicans don’t like the President; therefore, they’ve been against ACA. The President and Congress has a job to do, and Republicans, just like Democrats, have a chance to change their government during elections. That’s the proper remedy for President Obama. You don’t like him, vote somebody else in in 2016. But you will follow the law, even if Obama takes credit for it.