The NASCAR promoters who want to build a race track near Bremerton are asking for a massive public subsidy on the $330 million project -- "NASCAR firm wants to split track cost 50-50 with taxpayers".
While the race track promoters are acting like a bunch of spoiled children presenting their over-the-top wish list to a department store Santa Claus, ironically it's the race track's lobbyist who is named Santa:
"To say that it's going to be exactly 50-50 right now ... that would be presumptuous of us to say exactly what it's going to be," Santa said.'Tis the season for giving. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at November 17, 2005 11:22 AM | Email This
What's wrong with private financing for private projects? Since when did the government get into the race track business? I say let the developes pick up the tab and compete in the marketplace just like everyone else!
Posted by: Libertarian on November 17, 2005 12:05 PMConsidering the politics and track record of Washington, NASCAR would be stupid to enter into any type of arrangement in this state. They will be taxed out of all profits, and then noise-ordinanced out of business.
Besides, who wants to race fast cars in the rain? Or will this be an indoor track? This sounds like a disaster from every angle. Unfortunately, it is sure to cost taxpayers plenty of dineros, somehow.
Posted by: dl on November 17, 2005 12:08 PMNow If this had something to do with Whales or toy trains…..
Washington State Constitution
PREAMBLE
We, the people of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this constitution.
ARTICLE I
DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SECTION 1 POLITICAL POWER. All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.
ARTICLE VIII
SECTION 5 CREDIT NOT TO BE LOANED. The credit of the state shall not, in any manner be given or loaned to, or in aid of, any individual, association, company or corporation.
SECTION 7 CREDIT NOT TO BE LOANED. No county, city, town or other municipal corporation shall hereafter give any money, or property, or loan its money, or credit to or in aid of any individual, association, company or corporation, except for the necessary support of the poor and infirm, or become directly or indirectly the owner of any stock in or bonds of any association, company or corporation.
ARTICLE XII
SECTION 9 STATE NOT TO LOAN ITS CREDIT OR SUBSCRIBE FOR STOCK. The state shall not in any manner loan its credit, nor shall it subscribe to, or be interested in the stock of any company, association or corporation.
So, think they give a hoot?
Nice one. I guess that's a reason, but not one I'm willing to pay taxes for. Besides, politicians should "buy" campaign contributions from special interests on their own dime, not with our tax dollars.
Posted by: jason on November 17, 2005 01:30 PMGiven, of course, that 50% of all ticket sales and beer sales and other concessions go back to the state for as long as the raceway is operating.
Of course, this is never the situation. Why does Paul Allen get all the profits from Qwest Field when we ponied up all the dough? Whoever makes the investment should receive the proceeds, right?
Posted by: Larry on November 17, 2005 01:44 PMAt least a NASCAR track benefits lots of people instead of a couple of billionares.
Posted by: Vince on November 17, 2005 01:49 PMAnd then the same legislators complain that something happened to the money train. Go figure!!
Posted by: swatter on November 17, 2005 02:12 PMIf Kitsap county wants to partner with the NASCAR track builders and tax themselves to pay for this, have at it. But the rest of this state should not be paying for this venue. They can jack up the price of tickets to $200 a pop to pay for this thing if they want, and then those who enjoy the venue will be the ones paying for it.
Posted by: SPD on November 17, 2005 02:14 PMLynch said: "It might be 52 one way and 48 the other ... but balanced, meaning fairly equal partnerships."
The public as "partner" pays half the bills, but gets none of the earnings. ISC pays half the bills, and gets all the earnings.
There wouldn't even be increased tax revenue for state and local uses.
The track would be owned by the gov't and leased to ISC or its subsidiary, thus no property tax liability for ISC. The "leasehold tax" that would ordinarily take the place of the property tax is something ISC wants the legislature to waive.
The extra $140 million mentioned in the article isn't tax revenue. It's the extra yearly spending by out-of-staters that is projected to occur. But then the taxes on that extra spending wouldn't go for gov't uses. Instead, they would be used to pay for the public "partner's" share of the cost of construction.
If it's possible to pay off the county's share with a tax on tickets and the state's share with the estimated new sales tax revenue, why isn't it possible for ISC to pay the entire cost with the earnings from operating the track?
It probably isn't possible to pay the cost with private funds and still make a profit in the first few years of operations.
Thus, ISC/NASCAR wants the public to pay a big part of the cost, so ISC/NASCAR can make a hefty profit as soon as they start using the track.
Oh, and if there isn't a big enough profit in the first few years, guess who gets to walk away and leave their public "partner" with a big part of the "sunk cost" and no big events to earn anything with which to pay that share?
It's said that a sucker is born every minute. Let's hope there aren't too many of them in the legislature right now.
Posted by: Micajah on November 17, 2005 03:15 PMPlease note that NASCAR doesn't even guarantee one "big boy" race per year.
Posted by: swatter on November 17, 2005 04:37 PM
If it's such a great deal... if it's such an economic bananza... then NASCAR should finance it the same way as any other business. Find VC investors. Sell bonds. Sell stock. Make the business case.
The reason they don't is because they can't. The economic impact isn't what it's advertised to be. No way. Further, a track will not "generate" any new money. Instead, it will simply redistribute existing money that people already spent on recreation.
Since racin' is mostly a guy thing, I have no doubt that the girlz who run Warshington State will shoot this down. They'll do the right thing, but fer the wrong reason.
Posted by: Bubba on November 17, 2005 07:24 PMEvery argument the promoter had was effectively countered by Ross. "New Money" was the term one promoter used, so it would be okay to use sales tax money.
Convention centers were being planned and built in Lynnwood, TriCities, Yakima, Everett, Bellingham to name a couple on the top of my head. All to be built with sales tax revenues.
No wonder the tax and spend folks in Olympia need more sales tax (and gas tax money to be diverted to the general fund).
Posted by: swatter on November 18, 2005 07:43 AMIf this is such a profitable business, then the business people proposing it should pony up the money. Otherwise it is just another boondoggle.
Posted by: pbj on November 18, 2005 10:54 AMI'm afraid there's little left of Article VIII anymore but words on paper. Our Supreme Court has seen to that. Read the Safeco Field case, CLEAN v. Washington. And weep.
Posted by: jsa on November 18, 2005 11:23 AM