For the host city, is a national political convention worth the trouble?

Minneapolis is one of four possible sites for the 2012 Democratic National Convention. Today’s Question: For the host city, is a national political convention worth the trouble?

  • Gary F

    Living in St Paul, and a volunteer for the convention, I never did see any official report on the final costs and benefits. I would say it probably wasn’t worth it. Sure it was nice to have the publicity and such, but spending a lot of money to feel good isn’t smart.

    Seeing the Democrats would be coming, you’d have less time and money trying to stop the “pee and poop collecting welcoming committee” that would be trying to disrupt the event. Yes, the Tea Party folks would be there, but they wouldn’t be dropping stuff off the overpasses or breaking storefront windows, or collecting body wastes for bombs. But, seeing that Obama promised that Gitmo would be shut down and that we’d be out of Afghanistan(neither will happen) you might have some angry, destructive dreadlocked, stinky, malcontents.

    But, costs never stopped a Democrat from proposing something.

  • Khatti

    Hmmm. This is an ‘alternating days’ question for me (on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays I think it’s a great idea; on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays I think it’s a terrible idea; I try not to think about it on Sunday).

    Seriously, I have no idea if the benefits outweigh the disadvantages. Minneapolis is sure to have a problem with protestors, and the St Paul experience told me that there is no really good solution to problems with protestors. As I remember, there is some woman out there who has literally made a career out of complaining about how she and her compatriots were treated by the St. Paul Polizei. If the Minneapolis cops behave more leniently, they are bound to have to deal with complaints from property owners when the inevitable vandalism occurs.

    As I said, my feelings of ambivelance are very strong and well-defined on this matter.

  • Erika

    It wasn’t last time, it was incredibly disruptive and they all brought their own people and services instead of using local. My husband looked into catering for several parties and events surrounding the republican convention and found out that each brought their own catering and entertainment. That by itself shows that it is not worth it.

  • Carrie

    Costs never stopped Republicans either.

  • Chris

    I think it would be great! I thought the Republican conference went well and Minneapolis would do a great job too.

    Protests are usually side stories that don’t mean that much to the overall event.

    I would recommend that they figure out the economic cost/benefit. Aside from that, I think it would be great to see a bunch of people enjoy our state during our warm season.

  • Gary F

    Democrats run St. Paul, they asked the Republicans to come.

    We still don’t know whether it made or lost money. Why not? Shouldn’t we know before jumping off the high dive again?

  • James

    The RNC was in Denver,,, they had no problems. The DNC was in the TC… attempted terroist activity (home grown) and wack jobs roamed freely.

    I think they should hold both in the same place at the same time.. maybe in some farm field in South Dakota.

    DTOM

  • Keith

    No. Public money should not finance the high living of party delegates as they patronize private establishments. If the convention will benefit business so much, raise the money for it by a municipal tax on businesses… I reckon there will be very few owners willing to put their money where their mouth is.

  • Matt McGeachy

    No. Take one look at the CDN$1 billion spent for the G20 in Toronto, and the violence that came with it, and the fact that it shuts down life for the average citizen, and it just doesn’t add up, in my opinion.