Less than 50% of the U's funding is provided by taxpayers.
Check it. Page 9 shows clearly that 43.9% of the U's revenue for FY09 was from the state. That is how it typically is in a given year. In addition, less than half of the funding for the stadium was from the state - 48%. Close to 50%, but the U still found funding for over half the stadium cost from private venues, either student services, corporate donations, or private donations. And they have done a hell of a job getting that done as well.
The whole "taxpayers paid for the stadium, they deserve alcohol" argument is so tiring. Don't forget that 3,000+ (6%) fans can be assumed to be from out of state. Why oh why are they reaping the benefits then????
The legislation DID have their say in the matter when they had the choice to approve or disapprove the proposal for the stadium. As borninthebarn's letter stated, the U's plan for premium seating, concessions, alcohol, and everything else was clearly defined with a full budget layout and prediction for revenue based on this plan for many years. They (legislature) approved it.
In addition, as you stated, the legislature already had their say in who runs and operates the U by appointing the Board of Regents themselves. They deemed that this group of 12 was capable of making the decisions like this so that the entire legislative body wouldn't have to. No, the university does not operate independently of the gov. and leg., but they do have autonomy from the state as defined by our state constitution (look it up). The state has the right to affect how the U operates by approving its budget and appointing the board of regents.
Bruinicks and co made the right decision to ban alcohol sales. Period. There is too much liability in selling alcohol to the general public, not even mentioning students and the underage drinking that will go on (guaranteed). Possible law suits and bad publicity are not what they need (from a financial standpoint). As Bruinick's stated many times, selling alcohol in the general seating does not conform to the U's mission, or line up with Williams or Mariucci's policies (which the legislature obviously had no problem with). Selling alcohol in the general seats also doesn't line up with the rest of the college football world.
The fact is that this pandering and meddling pisses a lot of people off. The equal right to have beer everywhere argument is complete and total BS. Just because taxpayers helped pay for something doesn't give them the automatic right to have the opportunity to be served alcohol there. The U has the right to decide how to make the most money with the lease amount of risk, and they decided providing alcohol in the suites and premium areas was in their best interest (from a competitive standpoint of selling suites and the ability to hose events like weddings, etc). As others have posted in other threads, why stop at alcohol? Don't regular folk have the right to a chair-back? Or the same concessions that are available in the premium areas? Pretty sure the state helped fund every other stadium/arena, but they didn't force the variety of food options on every concession stand in every joint.
Furthermore, suite/premium seat holders paid more for their seats, therefore they deserve better amenities and options. Just like everything else in the world. How much has the state poured in to the MSP airport and NWA? Yet people riding in first class still get full meals, free booze, better seats with more room, and their own entrance line at check-in, security, and boarding. Wow... How many more examples of this do you want?
