Opinion editor's note: Strib Voices publishes a mix of guest commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

A cherished bragging right is that our Twin Cities area has so many major league sports teams. Otherwise, as former Gov. Arne Carlson once quipped, we'd just be a "cold Omaha."

Most everyone enjoys taking in a home game. Minnesota Star Tribune columnist Rochelle Olson is right ("Focus on connection, not billions in stadium funding debates," April 1) that, especially for kids, experiencing a game in a major league stadium is "priceless." It's arguably an element of why Minnesota consistently ranks high in quality of life and happiness.

But ye gads, the cost of that pricelessness is pretty pricey, along with the wrench of watching public officials yielding to the shameless greed of very wealthy people under, yes, false pretense.

This is not to say that stadiums should not be supported with public money. Rather, there's a better way to put "partnership" into the high-sounding sell that building sports structures — and even medical centers — are "public-private" partnerships. It's more like one side gets the gold while the other gets stuck with the tab, and overpriced peanuts.

The issue is again being debated at the State Capitol with a request by the city of St. Paul for the state to shell out $395 million, or half the cost of renovating Xcel Energy hockey stadium and the adjoining RiverCentre. Xcel cost $173 million in 2000 (about $325 million in today's time-value of money).

The well-worn claim is that it'll annually bring a million-plus visitors to help rejuvenate St. Paul and provide jobs. Besides, there's precedent in that public money supported Target Center, Target Field and U.S. Bank Stadium (the mangled history here is that taxpayers helped build all three Minneapolis stadiums because of the "precedent" that public money supported Xcel Center 24 years ago). And so it goes.

In the time the Minnesota Wild have played hockey at Xcel, the team's market value has increased by $1.325 billion (Forbes). A fair question is: Why should taxpayers pay millions to support team owners who've become very wealthy in part with glitzy new taxpayer-funded stadiums?

It's not just the Wild among Minnesota teams. The Twins cost $227 million in 2002, and today the team's worth $1.5 billion — and yet Carl Pohlad might have relocated his Twins a few years ago had taxpayers not paid hugely to build Target Field. The Vikings' net worth has skyrocketed by $5.5 billion (its value jumped 22% after taxpayers forked over a half billion to help build the colossal U.S. Bank Stadium).

The Timberwolves nearly moved to New Orleans as a tactic to pressure Minneapolis to bail them out by buying Target Center for $74 million. Then the city imposed a sales tax in 2012 to pay half the $140 million for center renovation. And yet, during their time here, the Wolves' market value has increased nearly $3 billion.

So, why should fabulously wealthy teams not repay public money used to help them become fabulously wealthy?

The most prominent claim is that stadiums generate more than enough economic activity to offset or justify public costs.

Actually, they don't.

"They are just a money pit for taxpayers," says the American Economic Liberties Project. "The typical baseball team has no more impact on the local economy than a mid-sized department store," added Michael Leeds, a sports economist with Temple University. Earlier, Brookings Institution said its major study showed economic benefits of stadiums are vastly overstated.

NFL stadiums are the worst, with very few home games and infrequent big-time events.

The political reality in Minnesota is the state won't help pay for stadiums anytime soon. DFL leader Rep. Melissa Hortman says state government's gloomy fiscal outlook has combined with a growing realization by elected officials that public support of billionaire team owners is as nonsensical as sports economists have long said.

But there are ways to make public/private partnerships true partnerships.

One is for public entities to take a shareholder stake in teams benefiting from public largesse. That way, taxpayers could rightly share in skyrocketing team value, much of it directly due to flashy stadiums the public helped build and improve.

Another is requiring teams to repay public entities that invest in them. With bonding authority giving access to low-interest borrowing, costs are reduced through public financing for structures.

But in either case there must be large financial penalties for teams threatening to move if they don't get their way. It's always reasonable to place boundaries on bald-faced greed.

Ron Way lives in Minneapolis. He's at ron-way@comcast.net.