Here's an interesting editorial in today's Everett Herald. I abstractly like the idea of a new NBA/NHL arena outside of Seattle proper, as the editorial advocates. Such multi-use arenas, especially with two professional teams, are the most fiscally viable in general, though I'm not entirely sold that Seattle can support an NHL franchise; perhaps I'm wrong. Either way, this editorial seems worth discussing.
Related to this topic, a commenter at my previous thread on the Sonics questioned the snarky shot at Seattle City Council President Nick Licata. I would remind readers that not only is Mr. Licata generally a ripe target for such criticism, and his quote in that post deserved questioning, but this is the same fellow that told Sports Illustrated the Sonics provided "close to zero" benefit to the City. That's what I call a stellar example of a public official leading the way in good faith negotiations. And then people wonder why the Sonics, for all their faults, felt unwanted by the City.
Posted by Eric Earling at July 20, 2006 07:53 AM | Email ThisHonest questions.
Posted by: jimg on July 20, 2006 08:21 AMAs the stadium was voted down, the additional sales against the will of the electorate could exaggeratedly be called extortion.
Posted by: Fred on July 20, 2006 08:39 AMAnd specifically, what sales tax are you referring to?
Posted by: jimg on July 20, 2006 08:41 AMIf the Mariners and Seahawls want to leave, that's OK with me and the rest of the Pierce County barbarians.
Posted by: Libertarian on July 20, 2006 09:05 AM"The governor could use Safeco Field and Quest Field, the homes of the Mariners and Seahawks, as strategic blueprints: find funding sources in King County that fall most heavily on those who use the facility and those who profit from it, and have it run by an independent public facilities district."
HOW ABOUT FUNDING THE NEW ARENA ENTIRELY FROM TICKET REVENUES?
But that would defeat the whole purpose ...
Posted by: Richard Pope on July 20, 2006 09:09 AMThe additional taxes are on rental cars, hotels, and restaurants on the silly premise this would be a way to get the sports fans to pay for the stadiums. This is flawed thinking because most of the people using rental cars, staying in hotels, and dining in restaurants are not doing so because they are here to see a game.
And let's not forget how the special scratch tickets and license plates were supposed to bring in the big bucks for Safeco. It was even spelled out in the financing package that if revenue from these two items fell short, the money would come from the general fund and guess what happened. Duh!
So far I have not been able to locate any reports that shows actual revenues/expenses for these playgrounds and the team owners don't want to open their books. If the stadiums were such a boon to the local economy, I think the owners and government officials would be more than happy to provide hard evidence instead of resorting to the "civic pride" argument.
If there are truly enough sports fans who want to keep these jocks around, it should be no problem to band together and raise the money to pay for the arenas. This is one form of welfare that needs to stop.
Posted by: Burdabee on July 20, 2006 09:18 AMAnd then the Mariners went on their infamous run in 1995 and suddenly, everybody became a Mariner fan and if state lawmakers didn't do something to Save. The. Mariners!! then they hated children, killed grandma and were just really, really bad people. How could they sleep at night when The Mariners are going to leave!!!!!
The Legislature was then called into special session and after three days, a new revenue plan was cobbled together - not the one voted down by King Co voters - and it passed with a bi-partisan majority, and many bi-partisan votes against.
The taxes include car rental, new lottery scratch tickets, license plates and (if I recall exactly) a one-half of one percent food and alcohol tax on the bars and restaurants in that area. At the request of those bars and restaurants I think the sales tax was forgiven on construction (which if it's not built, no money's coming in anyway), but it's been more than 10 years. Point is, if you don't rent cars, buy specific Mariner scratch tickets, purchase a Mariners plate or patronize King Co bars and restaurants, you are not paying for Safeco Field.
The Seahawks stadium was approved - state-wide - by the voters.
I disagreed with the decision to fund Safeco Field and I know people - myself included - who will never set foot in the place.
It sure would've been nice to hear from the supposed thousands and thousands of people who supposedly 'voted against Safeco Field' when the decision was being made to fund it. Better late then never, huh.
Admittedly, I enjoy professional sports and understand the business has changed over the years. But enough is enough. Want a new facility? Build it yourself.
Posted by: jimg on July 20, 2006 09:23 AMI agree with you on most things Burdabee, but that is flat-out incorrect.
Posted by: jimg on July 20, 2006 09:27 AMI also rent cars. The car rental excuse is a screw the tourist/business traveller. This is a 'taxation without represntation' thing - but that is a different issue.
Posted by: Fred on July 20, 2006 10:08 AMIt is time to face reality and support two teams well rather than three teams in starvation.
It appears to me that the choice has already been made, adios Sonics! No hard feelings, it is just business.
Posted by: Fed Up on July 20, 2006 10:13 AMI have, therefore, never seen a live pro ball game in my life. Not that I feel I am missing out on much when tickets, parking, and food for a few games will easily pay for airfare to someplace more enjoyable.
Posted by: H Moul on July 20, 2006 10:56 AMThe argument about the entire community benefiting from a sports team is double-speak for "this is not a profitable business." If it were truly profitable, the stadiums would be privately funded. But why do that when you can get the public to pay for all your capital assets and just rake in the dollars without having to share any profits with the public (outside of the taxes that every business pays anyway). If half the arguments that are made by these clowns were true, we should all see a reduction in our taxes (after all, we're bringing in all those tourists to compensate).
http://www.brookings.edu/press/review/summer97/noll.htm
Safeco Field is the perfect example of the community coming together (spearheaded by local Republican leaders by the way) to finance this facility with a combination of user fees and taxes on businesses who have benefited most from keeping the Mariners around.
October 14, 1995 - Special session of the state legislature authorizes a different funding package for a new stadium including a credit against the state sales tax, sale of special stadium license plates, lottery funds, food & beverage tax in King County restaurants and bars and car rental surcharge in King County, and ballpark admissions tax.
Therefore, all of you people grousing about your so-called tax dollars being used on Safeco, dry up. You're not the one paying for it.
Have you purchased a Mariners license plate or scratch ticket? No. Have you bought a ticket at a game? Some of you claim not to. And the majority of local restaurants, hotels and car rental companies wanted the tax on their services because they knew that these stadiums would bring in thousands of tourists which obviously spur their business and provide an influx of out-of-state cash into the local economy. And the opinion of these businesses means a lot more than yours when it comes to this topic.
Qwest Field was paid for by a similar funding mechanism which is being borne primarily by sports goers and local industries which directly benefit from the influx of tourists and fans who attend games. Paul Allen, if you remember, also chipped in 30 percent of the costs for the successful stadium and the equally vibrant convention center next door.
But according to all the anti-sports grinches above and on the Democrat-controlled Seattle City Council, maybe it would be better to have an empty parking lot there now, instead. Afterall, who wants to have a region of 3 million people united behind a Super Bowl contending sports franchise. I'm sure those people are too busy spending their time on "More Important Things"
Posted by: Reporterward on July 20, 2006 12:18 PMBoeing is also at the trough. You can definitely argue that they deserved them because of all the direct and indirect money they bring to the state, but they are at the trough, nevertheless.
Posted by: swatter on July 20, 2006 12:22 PMI'm been a Sonic fan for 40 years, since I was a kid in Eastern Washington listening to them on the radio. They were our first real professional franchise and I was as proud as a new father when they brought us our first national title.
I no longer go to games. It's harder to get around and much harder to afford, but I still love watching them on TV, and the joy they give me far outweighs the few extra pennies I have to pay in taxes.
Extortionate! Good god. You dried up old gasbags ought to get a life.
A lifelong Sonic fan and damned proud of it.
Posted by: MJ on July 20, 2006 12:35 PMWhen is the last time you paid for people movie tickets - or trip to Disneyland, ski trip to Mt. Baker, etc.? Why is your entertainment taxpayer subsidized and others' aren't?
This incrementilism of just 'a few pennies' here is the way to fiscal irresponsibility. They did, so we can have a few nikels, then a few dimes, then everyone has just a few dimes. When does it stop?
Boeing shouldn't get subsidies either.
Posted by: Fred on July 20, 2006 01:05 PMPerhaps you didn't get the memo. What the ultimate financial package looks like for a new/refurbished Sonics arena is still up in the air. After reading the "tea leaves", a new arena on the Eastside will likely be a public/private partnership based on user fees.
To put another fact on the table, the old Seattle Colliseum/Key Arena is a taxpayer owned and (twice) constructed facility.
As for having local government pay for recreational activities, get a clue. That's one of the actual legitimate jobs for city, county and state governments.
How do you think parks, ball fields, zoos and aquariums are paid for? Does your city have Community Center? Swimming pool? Boat launches? Libraries? Theaters?
Do you go hunting or fishing? Those activities are paid for by user fees from "taxpayers".
Your local county and state fairs are paid for by public moneys. And if you take a look at your local summer parades or Seafair events, you'll find that they probably receive public subsidies as well.
Gee, it seems that in reality we invest a lot in local recreational activities. The reason is because it makes the community a better place to live and because it's a legitimate use of public funds.
Professional sports, which are enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of people in this state (I'd wager more than a million at least) are perhaps the biggest recreational activity available to people. Even if they can't afford or find the time to actually attend the game, individuals from elementary schools to nursing homes watch or listen to games.
Call me an idealist but the money is well spent.
Otherwise I could be like you naysayers, sitting at home, alone and miserable, listening to Michael Savage on my AM radio. Of course I won't mention that maintaining the public airwaves is yet another use of taxpayer dollars.
Now will I bring up the fact that taxpayer dollars were invested creating the Internet.
I don't understand why the Sonics fans don't just pool together and collect the $400M themselves for a new arena. You guys want to make a statement about how much the region loves the Sonics, why not put your money where your mouth is?
There's 5.9 million people in Washington State as of the 2000 census. If just one-sixth of the state's population is willing to contribute about $400, everyone will be happy -- the Sonics will get their free arena and all the killjoys won't have had to pay for it. Quit waiting for the government to solve all your problems!
Posted by: john a. on July 20, 2006 01:34 PMI would much rather have tax breaks go to businesses. Boeing and Microsoft provide true living wage jobs and do have a positive economic impact on the community. Most of the jobs at the stadiums are part time and low end on the wage scale.
If there are that many die-hard fans, than it should be no problem to pony up the funds to create a real business plan instead of one based on smoke and mirrors. For example, if there was a total attendance of 136,170 in 2004, $10/month ($120/year) extra from each would provide over $16 million in annual revenue that would be dedicated solely to building an running a stadium. However, the total attendance figures are just as much malarkey as the Sound Transit ridership figures because no distinction is main between repeat users and one time users. Pro sports cannot exist in its current form without huge subsidies from the taxpayers at the federal, state, and local level.
Posted by: Burdabee on July 20, 2006 01:42 PM> And then people wonder why the Sonics,
> for all their faults, felt unwanted
> by the City.
"We didn't get the respect we believe we deserve"
- Howard Schultz
Demanding that I give you hundreds of millions of dollars for a free arena is not the best way to earn my respect.
Posted by: john A. on July 20, 2006 01:44 PMI agree that to some extent the money for recreational activities is well spent. I certainly want to maintain some community buildings, boats ramps, etc. However unlike a community boat ramp, going to a Sonics game costs a lot of money, and the team is also a private business. If we want to be like Green Bay and have public owenership of our sports team, or even worse, city ownership, then I think we could expect the city to subsidize the team. But as a private business, sports teams should be able to make a profit and or at least break even on the revenue generated from ticket sales and concessions or if they are going to ask for subsidy, they should drastically lower the price of tickets.
It's too bad the Sonics are leaving, but I view it more as a symptom of the infestation of left leaning arrogance in Seattle. Folks here are far more concerned with poltiically correct causes, general hedonism and other liberal garbage than they are with witnessing good solid achievement and the concept of winners and losers that sports teams present. Liberals don't like sports because they believe in Utopian fantasies where everyone wins.
Lastly, if the NBA would clean itself up and take a few business and professional lessons from the NFL and other leagues, that would go a long way towards solving the problem, until then, the Sonics are better off in a city where they will probably be more loved than Blue Seattle.
Posted by: Jeff B. on July 20, 2006 01:53 PMHow many of these are owned by private concerns? How much of any revenue of these activities goes into the pocket of an owner, like the destitue Paul Allen? It may be a fine difference to some, but I find it the difference.
Posted by: Fred on July 20, 2006 01:57 PMI'm a third generation Washingtonian. When did you move here?
And don't bring the 520 bridge into this because I support the 4-lanes in each direction proposal. If I had my druthers, I'd gut Sound Transit and use the billions "invested" in it to repair our roads. Transportation tax dollars come from a different kettle than tourism tax dollars so it's irrelevent to the conversation.
As for the myth about the "end run" about the special legislative session. The Republican-led state legislature realized that the predominately Democrat voter-base in King County errored in narrowly defeating the initial stadium proposal. So they came up with a funding proposal based predominately on user oriented fees to pay for it.
It's called leadership, something lacking now in our current political environment.
No offense Burdabee, and I know we agree on other issues, I get paid to do that type of work. Why don't you do the research and make the freedom of information act requests about the issue? Your side is the one making the conspiratorial mutterings about shady book-keeping. So prove it.
What you're saying is that the Safeco Field bonds aren't being paid off ahead of schedule? And the thousands of fans who attend each ballgame provide no economic impact? What about the hundreds of thousands of fans who buy merchandise or go to restaurants, sports bars and taverns to watch the game with their friends?
So you're saying the tens of thousands of Japanese tourists who come over to watch Ichiro play in right field don't stay in local hotel rooms or rent cars? What about the ones from Alaska, Idaho, British Columbia and Portland?
Of the "tens of thousands of Japanese tourists who come over to watch Ichiro play in right field", how many would NOT of come to the PNW for their vacation if the Mariners were not here?
Posted by: Fred on July 20, 2006 02:23 PMJeff, you are completely overlooking the huge role that global warming is playing in the Sonics' demise.
Posted by: john A. on July 20, 2006 02:35 PMIf I run out and start paying my employees 4 or 6 million a year and then run to the city complaining that I'm not making any money, would they bail me out? I doubt it but that is exactly what the Sonics want. They want to make extremely bad business decisions, not charge enough for their product to finance expansion and facilities repair and then have the tax payers pick-up the tab . . . not once but TWICE! That sure seems like appreciation enough to me.
Then to add insult to injury, when the business is sold for many times the original worth, they want to keep it all rather than pay back the very tax payers who bailed them out, allowing them to make all that profit, in the beginning.
If those are the rules of the game than all I can say is: "Don't let the door hit you in the a** on the way out."
36.102.200
Public stadium authority -- Confidentiality of financial information.
The public stadium authority may refuse to disclose financial information on the master tenant, concessioners, the team affiliate, or subleasee under RCW 42.56.270. (Translated: so what if you lowly taxpayers are footing the bill, we don't have to tell you anything. Neener, neener)
I never said there was shady bookkeeping--I believe the real numbers would show that the stadiums are not the revenue generators that were promised. I never said the bonds weren't being paid on time. I just find it very interesting that if these sports franchises are doing so well, then there should be no need for hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars. I believe the team owners (usually very successful businesspeople) should run it like a business with appropriate tax incentives.
Also, where are you getting your attendance numbers? I found that 136,170 was the total attendance for the Mariners' 2004 season, but there was no breakdown on season ticket holders versus the one-time visitor, so unless you can direct me to another source of information, that figure is not the number of unique individuals attending but just the total sum of how many rears were parked in the seats for the season. I am especially interested in the source of the "tens of thousands Japanese tourists" figure. Is this over many years or just this season? If the attendance is as high as implied, the stadium should be sold out for most games and it looked like a lot of empty seats in a recent screen shot.
There are much better uses for our tax dollars. I would rather see better senior centers, maintained parks, and guaranteed scholarships to in-state public universities for starters.
If by "get a life" you mean spending all my time watching some drug addicts play games in a taxpayer funded stadium, then I'm quite happy not having your pathetic excuse for one.
Ergo, not being a brain dead couch potato drooling over thought of playoff games does not mean I don't have a life, it just means that I do something different than you do. Sports are better when played rather than when watched.
Posted by: H Mou on July 20, 2006 03:16 PMBurdabee, your number is a bit low-ball on that attendence number my friend.
Glancing over Baseball Almanac, didn't want to take the time to look in the PI or Times...
In 2000 it was 3.1 million, 2001 3.5 million, 2002 3.5 million, 2003 3.2 million, 2004 2.9 million and 2005 it was 2.7 million.
Still pretty good considering those last two years we lost 90 games.
As a bit of reference, from 1977 to 1994, the attendance figures ranged from 813,000 at their nader in 1983 to 2 million in 1993. Most of those years, it was around 1 million.
How many are season tickets? How many of them are 20-game packages? Not sure yet but probably roughly half (don't feel like calling the Mariners press office on this bit of freelancing:-) for obvious reasons.
Posted by: Reporterward on July 20, 2006 03:20 PMIt is always cheaper to keep what you have than to start over fresh so from a pure numbers standpoint it is smart to keep the team here.
Even more so it is a part of what makes Seattle special. When the Sonics won the NBA title in 1978 and when they took the best team in history to 6 games in the 1996 finals, this town was electric and people who had no idea what a basketball was were talking hoops like old pros.
This happened with the M's in 2001 and the Seahawks this year on their Superbowl run. The value these special runs have on the fabric of a community can not be quanitfied in dollars but it is very real.
Let's all get together and figure out an intelligent way to save this team because if we don't do it now we will be paying more later.
SaveOurSonics.Org
Posted by: Save Our Sonics on July 21, 2006 01:19 AMWHL attendance figures:
Everett 6,155 a game
Seattle 4,136 a game
Tri-City 3,857 a game
If within 100 miles of Seattle, there are 14,000 willing to go to see junior hockey, I think this area could easily support an NHL team with new fans and education campaigns. Not the only factor to take in, but a big one.
http://www.mib.org/~lennier/hockey/leagueatt.cgi
Posted by: Doug Taylor on July 21, 2006 06:32 AMI will remind folk that their was a time that stadiums were built by team owners. For example Yankee Stadium was not built by NYC.
Posted by: Snuffy on July 21, 2006 09:26 AMI lived in Washington for since 1965 and still don't understand why the people continue to rely on State Government to provide services and facilities which are better provided by the private sector. I just don't get it.
Posted by: Snuffy on July 21, 2006 09:35 AMIf you believe the area can support a NHL team or any other sports venue, suggest that you and supporters pool resources and start a Company charged with the task of promoting, and owning a NHL team If it makes business sense then go do it. The same may be said for car tracks and dog shows or volley ball and any other sports venue or entertainment venue. Want to see a movie or bowl you go to a private venue. Why do spectator sports demand government support and influence?
Please explain.
Posted by: Snuffy on July 21, 2006 09:50 AM