On the debate over pro football in the Twin Cities, we would like to make some points:

• The Metrodome site is the best location for any new stadium. Period. It is on the light rail line already. It has access to streets and freeways. There is plenty of parking. Better commercial surroundings will develop if the stadium is designed less like a fortress and more like other new stadiums — with tremendous ingress and egress. Many neighborhoods have had commercial success because of stadium design alone. Even the Vikings owners have come around to admit the Metrodome is a possibility. The governor was right to say that location is the most politically viable. Let’s end the hunt for a location finally and move on to the next step. Besides, who isn’t weary of the location debate already?

• One problem with the Twin Cities is that there are so many fingers in the pies of getting anything done. With all pro sports stadiums, there are varied funding mechanisms, but quite often metro governments come together for a metro-based funding solution. Denver is an example. In the Twin Cities, there are two major cities, two populous counties, the state and oodles of suburbs and about five suburban counties. And they never seem to agree, so the can gets kicked down the road.

Too many chiefs!

• That said, let’s make sure the funding for a stadium comes from a metro source and not a state source. Folks in places such as Roseau or Wells shouldn’t have to pitch in for the kind of economic boost a stadium would be to a city hundreds of miles away.

• The metro leaders, state legislators and even the team owners ought to avoid funding the project through the expansion of gambling. Firstly, it’s not the right publicity for the Twin Cities. Secondly, Minnesota historically has avoided using gambling as a revenue source, a point about which this state still can be proud. Let’s leave the gambling on the Indian reservations or in neighboring states.

• Minneapolis councilors need to be flexible. The city’s charter, set in the 1990s, says the city must have a vote of the people if the city going to spend more than $10 million on a sports facility, but the state Legislature can trump a city rule. This rule seems biased against sports teams anyway. What if it were another industry offering jobs? It would be a shame if after parties from the mayor to the governor to state legislators (all people voted in by the people anyway) come to an agreement but the council is stuck on its rule.