Possible TCF Beer Garden that has U support?

[GoAUpher]

Why can't the legislators figure this out.

I've always assumed that they'd prefer to push the boundries to see when/where the U will push back. The U has clearly decided that alcohol in sports facilities is not where they want to fight this battle.

 

[mplsbadger]

Wouldn't mind a beer garden at TCF (as long as they don't call it a "garden").:

Since 'Gopherhole' is taken I'm going to suggest 'Gophertown'.

From Wikipedia,

"The gopher towns ...often contain thousands of gopher residents. The adult gophers tend to situate themselves at the front of the gopher town and whistle to the others when the adult gophers spot potential predators or sense nearing danger."

This suggests that Hawkeyes and Badgers will not be welcome.

 

[beavergopher]

Since 'Gopherhole' is taken I'm going to suggest 'Gophertown'.

From Wikipedia,

"The gopher towns ...often contain thousands of gopher residents. The adult gophers tend to situate themselves at the front of the gopher town and whistle to the others when the adult gophers spot potential predators or sense nearing danger."

This suggests that Hawkeyes and Badgers will not be welcome.

Not bad!

 

[Bayfieldgopher]

I've always assumed that they'd prefer to push the boundries to see when/where the U will push back. The U has clearly decided that alcohol in sports facilities is not where they want to fight this battle.

The UM could file a suit against the state and would probably win. But that is not a fight they would want to pick. The legislative process is the way. I am surprised the UM is pushing for a beer garden.

 

[GoAUpher]

The UM could file a suit against the state and would probably win. But that is not a fight they would want to pick.

Agree. There's a good shot that the Legislature will try to overreach about something more important in the future and the U (wisely, IMO) doesn't want to waste the time, energy, or money on that fight over beer.

I am surprised the UM is pushing for a beer garden.

Like I said in the OP (and a few other times throughout the thread) it is still no clear to me that the U is supportive of this measure. There is only 1 sentence saying so and it is not backed by a quote or summary of a quote from any U official. I've done Google searches every day since this story broke and I have found no media reports besides that first report that even indicate U support, much less quote anyone.

At best, I think it's more likely that the U has decided that this is a reasonable compromise. I doubt they are pushing for it. It is just as likely that the U does not support (or has not said publicly one way or the other) where they stand on this idea.

 

[supadupafly]

Except Geoff Michael sponsored the TCF Bank Stadium bill...

and geoff michel was trying on his own last session to get the legislature to give the U of M regents control of this issue once again. geoff michel has always been on the U of M's side, on this particular issue.

 

[matt]

Agree. There's a good shot that the Legislature will try to overreach about something more important in the future and the U (wisely, IMO) doesn't want to waste the time, energy, or money on that fight over beer.

What cause could possibly be more worthy?!?!

 

[Deleted_User]

The UM could file a suit against the state and would probably win. But that is not a fight they would want to pick. The legislative process is the way. I am surprised the UM is pushing for a beer garden.

What they can win could be taken away from the legislature as well. Why risk it.

 

[GoAUpher]

What they can win could be taken away from the legislature as well. Why risk it.

Um, wha? If they filed suit and won (i.e. had the right to make their own decisions about beer affirmed by the courts) that could then be taken away by the Legislature how exactly?

 

[Go4Broke]

Um, wha? If they filed suit and won (i.e. had the right to make their own decisions about beer affirmed by the courts) that could then be taken away by the Legislature how exactly?

The Legislature can do what they have already threatened to do at least once this year when the U didn't do what they wanted - decrease state taxpayer subsidies to the U. It is called the "Power of the Purse". No court decree can override it, and the Board of Regents will never ignore it, or underestimate it.

 

[GoAUpher]

The Legislature can do what they have already threatened to do at least once this year when the U didn't do what they wanted - decrease state taxpayer subsidies to the U. It is called the "Power of the Purse". No court decree can override it, and the Board of Regents will never ignore it, or underestimate it.

Sure enough. But that doesn't take away the power the U will have had reaffirmed in court. I understand the power of the purse (see: the multiple posts where I reference it). But that's them taking the money. Not good, but not the same as "what they can win could be taken away from the legislature as well" since taking the money is taking away something different.

 

[SDSUAlum08]

I think you can still buy alcohol at the Terrace at the Madison student union, but I haven't been there in a few years. Sure there's no university function happening, but the university is still selling alcohol to students.

This is correct. I was just there a few months ago.

I understand the though of NOT selling alcohol to students, but don't act like Minnesota is the first to do it. It's being done in a lot of other places.

 

[Parski1]

BOTTOM LINE:

Let the University run it's own business. Not you, me or the legislature.

Bingo!!!!!

 

[GoAUpher]

Here's another source that seems to suggest that the U is supportive of this bill. One problem? The source is Sid. So grain of salt and all that.

University of Minnesota Regent Richard Beeson gave President Eric Kaler credit for his great job of lobbying a legislative committee, which voted in favor in favor of allowing the university to sell alcohol in TCF Bank Stadium suites and also allowing for a beer garden to operate inside the stadium.

 

[station19]

Here's a question I haven't seen asked here. What is the policy at Stony Brook University?

 

[Deleted_User]

The University will answer to the state, or they are a state unto themselves. They don't govern speed, utilities, or other state regulated industries on their property. So, why exactly do you all think the legislature can not regulate what it has power to regulate, such as beer, wine and alcohol sales? It the University decided to build a brewery on campus, they would still need to apply to the DoA for permits and to the DoH. But, you self autonomous folks think that the U has the right to self determination. You can't be more wrong in this regard. Since the U does not control itself when it comes to this, the folks at the legislature DO have the right to determine how their permit to sell is applied, in just the same manner that the U can be told how many elevators can be installed in any new building to guarantee access under the Minnesota Disabilities Act, if it existed to enforce higher standards than the feds. The U only has autonomy in no more areas than any other non-profit institution, but does have some extra rights granted by the Federal Government. Beer is not part of that special grant of powers. Anybody who thinks that they do have some special rights is nothing but a fool.

Another example. Minneapolis cops can make arrests on campus. These cops are licensed by the state. They have the right to enter campus without receiving prior permission from this "autonomous" body. Why? Because the laws of this state apply to campus. Plumbing is regulated by the state on campus. Each kitchen on campus must have a Serve Safe license granted by the state and licensed workers (at least one per shift). Again, this is a mandate that the state did not have to write special reference about the U to apply that standard to the U. The U complies with this not out of a sense of duty and voluntarily do so, but because it is the authority of the Legislature that mandates that it occurs. No option.

I don't care who thinks the U is self governing. They can only govern themselves within the parameters of their land grant. Other than that, the states have the right to govern the University in areas where they have powers reserved to the states in the US Constitution. The Morrill Act did not grant to the University universal autonomy from state control. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

The act states: without excluding other scientific and classical studies and including military tactic, to teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and the mechanic arts, in such manner as the legislatures of the States may respectively prescribe, in order to promote the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes in the several pursuits and professions in life.

Note that the act specifically states, "in such manner as the legislatures of the States may respectively prescribe". If the legislature says jump to the University of Minnesota, I fully expect that they comply.

 

[Navin]

It's not the Morill Act that's the issue. It's MN's state constitution. The U predates the state and there is a relevant Article in the state Constitution about what autonomy the U will have. Not going to look it up. I guess I'm nothing but a fool though. (And no one thinks or argues that they have total sovereignty.)

Quoted for posterity:

The U only has autonomy in no more areas than any other non-profit institution, but does have some extra rights granted by the Federal Government. Beer is not part of that special grant of powers. Anybody who thinks that they do have some special rights is nothing but a fool.

 

[Unregistered User]

What cause could possibly be more worthy?!?!

To blave

 

[GoAUpher]

So, why exactly do you all think the legislature can not regulate what it has power to regulate, such as beer, wine and alcohol sales?

It's a very simple concept called Constitutional Autonomy. Here is the Legislature's own summary of it: http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/ss/clssumca.htm. Based on the multitude of examples you cite (none of which apply to the U's autonomy), I'm going to take a wild guess that you've never read the link before.

The U cannot ignore any laws and that's not what people are saying. However, being autonomous means that the Legislature isn't suppose to impose laws that target specific elements of how the U is governed. For instance, telling the U how to handle the serving of beer in a single, specific sports facility.

Your post is filled with examples that aren't in any way analogous to the situation at hand because they are laws that are broadly applied (i.e. directed at every citizen of the state or a wide variety of agencies, businesses, etc). For instance, there are already laws about the serving of alcohol that apply broadly. Laws that apply broadly do not violate the U's Constitutional Autonomy.

The Regents decided that they want to serve beer in a way that obeys those broad laws but that they would do so only in the premium seats. That is an administrative decision, not a wider one governed by any state statue. The Legislature overstepped their boundaries when they passed a law that dictated what that administrative decision should be for a specific facility on campus. The U's autonomy was designed to protect it from that kind of targeted meddling from the Legislature.

It the University decided to build a brewery on campus

Not the same thing. The laws regarding this process are broadly applied and thus don't affect autonomy.

the U can be told how many elevators can be installed in any new building to guarantee access under the
Minnesota Disabilities Act

Again, broadly applied and doesn't affect autonomy. Not even close to the same thing as telling the U how to serve beer in a SINGLE campus facility. It's all about the difference between narrow and broad.

The U only has autonomy in no more areas than any other non-profit institution, but does have some extra rights granted by the Federal Government.

False. You should read the link at the top of this post. The U has a level of autonomy that is pretty unique and well beyond that of a normal non-profit. None of this autonomy is granted by the Federal government. It is part of the Minnesota State Constitution.

Minneapolis cops can make arrests on campus. These cops are licensed by the state. They have the right to enter campus without receiving prior permission from this "autonomous" body. Why? Because the laws of this state apply to campus.

Yup. Another broadly applied law that doesn't violate autonomy.

Each kitchen on campus must have a Serve Safe license granted by the state and licensed workers (at least one per shift).

Another broad law. Are you seeing a trend with your examples?

I don't care who thinks the U is self governing. They can only govern themselves within the parameters of their land grant. Other than that, the states have the right to govern the University in areas where they have powers reserved to the states in the US Constitution. The Morrill Act did not grant to the University universal autonomy from state control. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

You don't care that the State Constitution thinks that the University is self-governing? Because it's kind of an important document. The Morrill Act doesn't come into play here.

 

[Deleted_User]

So, would you argue that this general management of the university covers one of these granted constitutional authorities to manage the concession of beer at TCF: the ability to appoint faculty, set faculty salaries (with legislative approval), grant degrees, determine tuition, and erect buildings.
Other than that, the Minnesota Constitution includes: "All the rights, immunities, franchises and endowments heretofore granted or conferred upon the University of Minnesota are perpetuated unto the university." Which of these magic words gives them the power and authority under the constitution of Minnesota to tell the Legislature to back off when it comes to the legislatures will; and, how exactly does the legislature interfere with "general management" of the University's function in the case of beer requirements for its license? There is no interference with the special authority over the budget with beer, appointing faculty over beer, granting degrees over beer, determining tuition over beer, or erecting a building over beer. So which right, franchise, immunity or endowment does the U have in regard to TCF and beer? The answer is none. Just like the state can dictate to a store that certain products can only be kept out of public reach (tobacco, certain classes of OTC drugs), but available for sale to the public, the State can say where on the premises the U can sell beer in order to get its permit. I am very sure the language of the current bill does not dictate specifically where the U will fulfill its obligation to the statute for TCF. If that beer garden is within TCF or outside the gates of TCF, is up to the U. But, the State does have rights to determine where beer can be sold for any franchisee, a general rule which applies broadly to the public, such demands on the U are in order. I will look up the Territorial Laws of 1851 out of curiousity. I fear that I won't find the magic words there either that grant the U the right to dismiss this as interference with the specific powers listed above. I fear you are cherry picking what is specifically granted and what is a general franchise to the U, not specifically granted under the Territorial Act or the Minnesota Consitution. Beer is a franchise of the state. Where and how it is dispensed is a reserved power of the state, not the U. Under no existing Minnesota Constitutional section, Minnesota Statute, or regulatory authority can the U claim exceptional, original, special, reserved or other management powers to dismiss the Legislatures will concerning the sale of beer at the U. Your claim is reaches beyond the intent of those sections you claim buttress your arguement.

The legislature has not interfered with the constitutional powers listed above. It has stated its will on powers not granted to the U, but reserved for the State (that is the Legislature), and claiming otherwise, is baseless. If the U was told to build a center for the study of Creationism, and the U regents said "No. We ain't doin' it!" that would be in their Constitutional right. TCF has nothing to do with the instruction of agriculture or mechanics. It is outside of the normal managerial responsibilities of the U. It is extra curricular and not central to its mission and its budget is treated separately, in general, from the core budget of the University. So, it could be argued that even the U recognizes that the situation at TCF is outside its normal Constitutional mandate. Even if we consider football a franchise unto itself, beer is not part of that franchise either. It is a separate good. So, again, the State has regulatory power. Your challenge now, Go4 is to really knock down this arguement. I look forward to it.

 

[GoAUpher]

Let's start with your first objection:

The act established a Board of Regents, provided for the legislature to elect the board, and gave the board general authority to govern the university. Specific powers granted to the board in the act include: the ability to appoint faculty, set faculty salaries (with legislative approval), grant degrees, determine tuition, and erect buildings.

This list of specific powers doesn't mean this is all the University has the power to to. And the phrase itself doesn't say so either (thus the use of the word "include" which doesn't preclude other powers from being possessed by the University). What you missed (or ignored) was the bolded portion above. When read in it's full context, it's easy to see that the list you are trying to cite are simply SOME of the powers the BoR have when it comes to governing the University. As for any others, you're then talking about the age old argument of enumerated powers. So the answer to your question of "which part of that list covers beer?" is simple. None of them do. But that doesn't mean where to serve beer isn't part of the Board of Regents' administrative powers/decisions. I would agree that it is unlikely that "serving beer" will be an enumerated power of the U. That said, where to serve beer is not difficult to place as a matter of internal management of the University.

At this point, the rest of your argument is pretty much worthless (since you based it on a poor reading of the info in the link I provided. I will however quote a few more of your logical fallacies:

Just like the state can dictate to a store that certain products can only be kept out of public reach (tobacco, certain classes of OTC drugs), but available for sale to the public, the State can say where on the premises the U can sell beer in order to get its permit.

You still can't distinguish between broad statues and specific ones can you? The state telling stores what to do is broad because it applies to all stores in the state who can sell the product. When it came to the U, the Legislature didn't even bother to try and make the law apply to the whole University. They focused specifically on TCF. It would be like the Legislature singling out a specific grocery store and telling them where to sell something (maybe this will help you see the difference between broad and specific). The difference? The U has constitutional autonomy to protect against this sort of narrow lawmaking. Still unsure what I mean? Here are a few applicable quotes from the summary:

Case law prohibits either the legislative or executive branch from participating in internal management of the university.

The university is subject to the general lawmaking power, to the extent that it does not impede the regents’ ability to manage the university. The Minnesota Supreme Court has indicated some factors it considers in upholding application of regulatory laws to the university: (1) the law promotes the general welfare, (2) it applies to all state and local government agencies, and (3) it does not affect internal management of the university.

Where to provide a legal product on campus is clearly an "internal management" matter. So what you have is the Legislature passing a law that doesn't affect the entire University (considered a state agency) much less all state agencies and that affects the internal management of the U. At best, that leaves a "general welfare" argument for the passage of the bill. But trying to prove that the folks in GA are harmed by a lack of beer seems unlikely to pass muster.

I am very sure the language of the current bill does not dictate specifically where the U will fulfill its obligation to the statute for TCF. If that beer garden is within TCF or outside the gates of TCF, is up to the U.

I'm not really talking about the current revision of the law (which may have the U's support). I'd argue that this still violates the U's autonomy, but it the U is on board with the bill then I don't care. My opposition has always been to the original law, which clearly affected the U's ability to govern it's own decisions and thus came into conflict with the U's autonomy.

I fear that I won't find the magic words there either that grant the U the right to dismiss this as interference with the specific powers listed above.

As already noted, the powers listed above is not a complete list of the powers the U has.

 

[Navin]

So, would you argue that this general management of the university covers one of these granted constitutional authorities to manage the concession of beer at TCF: the ability to appoint faculty, set faculty salaries (with legislative approval), grant degrees, determine tuition, and erect buildings.
Other than that, the Minnesota Constitution includes: "All the rights, immunities, franchises and endowments heretofore granted or conferred upon the University of Minnesota are perpetuated unto the university."

(1) Are you ready to admit that you didn't know what you were talking about when you said the U has only the same autonomy as every other non-profit in MN?
And then (2) could you possibly be wrong about your interpretation of the terms in the constitution, terms you only just today learned about?

 

[CrocShots]

I'm not gonna quote everything GoAUpher said, but that was some solid work.

 

[harrys ghost]

I'm not gonna quote everything GoAUpher said, but that was some solid work.

He's been down that road before.

 

[Go4Broke]

He's been down that road before.

And I didn't see a discussion about how all 12 members of the Board of Regents are elected by the State Legislature and one-third of them are replaced every two years. The Regents owe their position to the members of the Legislature who elected them, and presumably, their loyalty.

 

[GoAUpher]

And I didn't see a discussion about how all 12 members of the Board of Regents are elected by the State Legislature and one-third of them are replaced every two years. The Regents owe their position to the members of the Legislature who elected them, and presumably, their loyalty.

None of this has anything to do with the existence or merits of the U's autonomy. This would all fall on the political side of things and serves as yet another reason why it has never seemed likely that the U would try to get the courts to back them on the issue of alcohol sales. It's not worth expending the political capitol or PO'ing the legislature.

EDIT: And if the BoR really owed the Legislature their loyalty then why didn't the U cave when the Legislature passed the first bill? Seems like if they wanted to curry favor OK'ing a plan to serve beer in GA would have been better then going with no beer sales at all.

 

[Replacement Gopher]

Boooorrrrrrrring

 

[GoAUpher]

New article from the Daily with a little bit more info and much more in the way of quotes. It would appear from this article that the U is clearly supportive of this bill.

Here are key quotes:

Bill sponsor Rep. Joe Atkins, DFL-Inver Grove Heights, said that area, which he called a “beer garden,” would be in the plaza beneath the west scoreboard on the open side of the stadium. The permitted alcohol location will not be determined by the bill, however.

If the bill goes through the Legislature, it will be up to the Board of Regents to approve alcohol sales and determine where the beer garden would go.

Some contradictory info here, with Atkins claiming the beer garden would go on the open end but with the actual bill saying it's up to the Regents. Probably just him speaking informally based on conversations with the U though.

Regents Chair Linda Cohen said she thought the amendment is a “very good idea.”

Last year, the University didn’t sell all of its suites, she said. The University’s interest isn’t in selling alcohol, but selling its seats. She said she believes that corporations will be more likely to lease suites if alcohol sales are allowed.

Alcohol sales in a beer garden would be more controlled than if beer were sold in the student section, she said.

Looks like this compromise made the U happy because they can "control" the sale more easily. Also some refreshing frankness that their #1 goal is to sell suites and premium seats.

University Chief Financial Officer Richard Pfutzenreuter emphasized that any increase in revenue for the University would come from increased lease prices for suites.

“It’s really not in the actual sale of the product that you make money,” Pfutzenreuter said. “It’s in the clubs and the suites section of the stadium.”

Atkins said the beer garden is a compromise between the University’s desire to contain alcohol sales and the Legislature’s insistence on making alcohol available for the general public.

More frank quotes about premium seat sales.

Alcohol was not sold at the stadium when the Vikings played one game there in December 2010. The bill’s language includes any Vikings game that would be played at TCF.

Looks like this bill also addresses questions about selling beer at Vikings games. What will be interesting is if the solution (1 beer garden) is still the same or if the U would be willing to expand it for the Vikings. Lord knows they'd need to.

Originally, the University intended to limit sales to serve beer only to fans in premium seats like stadium suites.

The University wanted to keep alcohol sales in “controlled areas,” said Garry Bowman, director of athletics communications.

I don't recall if the controlled areas language is new or not. I feel like it is, but I'm not sure. Either way, it offers the U a clear "out" for taking the compromise.

 

[dpodoll68]

Awesome. I'm glad that the U is willing to put a price on its principles.

 

[Deleted_User]

Yeah, my argument is not solid, and a bit off the cuff, and not fully researched. All of that is true. Yet, I want to know more and Go4 has been fair enough to poke holes in my THEORY, which I am just fine with anyone doing. So, boring or not, I have one other wrinkle that I want shot down, for aguments sake. So, hang with me one more time. Since the TCF stadium is not like a grocery store, or convenience store, or a liquor store along traditional models, and that its has an inhouse capacity of 50,000 people at a time, none of the general law really applies that well to the physical form of the building. Wouldn't it be necessary to craft a special statute that applied to this situation. Would not that conform to a special purpose bill, like funding the stadium, would require? Just wondering why the stadium had to be funded by special funding mechanisms and why the U couldn't just put up with a general funding measure for the stadium and why there was a separate bill for that occassion. My hunch is that it needed special treatment.

I fully agree, and have always, that the U can and should maintain general management of where beer is served and sold at the stadium. My question really centers on how broad the special provisions of the 1851 territorial law that you referred me to as grounds to have special constitutional powers extends to this general management problem. Go4 even states that this is a matter of general management authority (which before this he argued that it was a constitutional authority that was provided by the MN Constitution. But, I would argue that the 1851 territorial law, which the MN Constitution put into perpetuity, does not "enumerate" more than the 5 categories of power as expressed in that law. None of which are general in nature. Even you concede that the U must supply proper plumming, which you find must be categorically followed by the U. So, when there is special legislation for paying for the stadium, and the U accepted those funds, they then agreed that the Legislature had authority to control how those funds would be spent. And, by agreeing to these funds, they extended authority over the stadium to the Legislature because this place is not part of the special constitutional authority of the U as "enumerated" by the constitution. I don't buy the argument that the U has other powers outside of these enumerated powers, or they could tell the Legislature to shove it when it came to how buildings are designed (part of the enumerated power of the MN Constitution for the U), but, apparently, those enumerated powers are limited to specific types of decisions. They are not all encompassing. Their are natural barriers to their general management of even those provisions expressed.

So, I am still having a hard time buying into the legal argument that the legistature has no authority to pipe up and address a general management power of the U. If the Legislature said you may sell beer at TCF in the suite level and in a beer tent at the stadium, the U could not move the tent to the West Bank. That would fall outside of the intent of the bill.

I also, don't think you fully established the foundation of how the U, with its constitutional authority, gets to dodge the Legislative powers of the State, in general or in specific power. The Establishment of the U was at the Territorial governments authority, born conjointly under the Morrill act, which did not grant special powers to the U either. The real intent of the MN Constitutional provision was intended to keep the Legislature from interfering with the educational management of the institution. It really does not have anything to do with anything outside of that mission. Beer falls outside of the mission of the U, and is therefore not covered by the MN Constitution from my point of view. Make the case. But, I think you have to prove your side. You can nitpick about my language and prove that your definition applies to certain magic words, but, you fall short of proving how the Minnesota Constitution goes beyond "enumerated" power in order to ignore the Legislatures will in regard to beer.

It is often the case where the Legislature will address an individual with language that is impossible to interpret as being general in nature in private bills. It remains the perogative of the legislature to make a private bill in regard to the U and its 50,000 football patrons because it is apparent that people have called their legislator in regard to where they can get a beer at the Bank, or the Legislators themselves patronize the Bank for football and won't pony up to get a suite.

Go4, consider me the skeptical juror. I could care less about all the nuances of your law school training, if you are a lawyer. My intent is to give it a common mans manner to weigh the facts against the intent of the territorial legislature. I would venture a guess that they were not intending for the U to put the middle finger up to the Legislature on an issue like this. It was there intent to limit the legislature on interfering with hiring and terminating instructors, construction, granting degrees, around issues of substantive educational importance, like determining tenure and the like. Certainly, the MN Constitution extends beyond the 5 enumerated powers to powers no stated, like deciding tenure. But, beer, uh ehh. It doesn't have a connection to the language in the Constitution.

Go4, you pointed out the MN Constitution. You pointed me to the website. Show me how you are constucting your argument that the Legislature has no business in the affairs of beer on campus. At face value, the MN Constitution points to nothing but thin air and language that doesn't encompass why the general management practice of the U Regents and President can ignore a statute that pigtails to previous legislation and the U's previous compliance to its provisions in total, plus other acts that affect the U and they have complied in total.

The uniqueness of TCF can be demonstrated in that it is part of an institution that takes substantial subsidy from the state; is a direct interest of annual funding by the state; is a unique stadium in that it is the only Division 1 stadium in the state, the stadium has the alumni association on its title, has special funding authority provided by the state, has a majority of the public ticket holders who are not members of the staff or student body to the U, and has other commercial vendors who have separate interest from the U. It gets muddier, but apparently you think these are all internal circumstances that do not make the stadium unique, and making the special purpose statute something of a joke. Apparently, all the U of M grads at the Legislature don't think that the law is a joke, and I dare say that they would have a different opinion on the validity of the law and the apparent treatment you give to the constitution.

I won't plug away on this as it has been discussed and discussed.