Postman reports on the Senate proposal for "Extending temporary taxes to pay for Sonics' arena"
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at February 08, 2007 11:02 PM | Email ThisWell, it's over five years later, it has been raining like crazy, but the $11 charge is still on the bills.
Once government gets a revenue source, it is loathe to give it up. This is government's typical behavior.
Posted by: Libertarian on February 9, 2007 08:23 AMWhy aren't they floating bonds for this type of thing? Is the state of WA that tottering?
Posted by: John Bailo on February 9, 2007 08:46 AMA twenty-year nickel gas tax explicitly earmarked for "road maintenance" over those same 20 years, for instance. In other words, they doubled the amount of money needed (through finance charges) to start 6 months earlier.
Posted by: Al on February 9, 2007 08:58 AMOne of the reasons that the pols like bonds is that the funding (taxes) usually raises more money than is needed to service the debt. The pols then take the excess and dole it out to their friends and supporters.
A prime example is former KCE Gary Cipher-Locke. The taxes targeted to retire the bonds sold to fix the Kingdome roof raised more money. Instead of using the extra money to retire the debt faster, Cipher-Locke directed the funds to his friends in the art community.
That's one reason why the local pols screamed that the Safeco bonds were "too restrictive." The state put provisions in the law that any excess funds be used to retire the debt. The pols couldn't then spend the money as they saw fit.
You'd think that type of fiscal irresponsibility would be subject to investigative reporting, but it was greeted with a big yawn from the local media. Why? Probably a combination of the fact that it was too complex for their simple minds, and the fact that they money went to causes they favored.
Posted by: Obi-Wan on February 9, 2007 09:05 AMWhat this argument (and it is effective, BTW) ignores is that it assumes the cost of the rest of public services remain the same despite tax revenues going to pay off the 'big' project or 'big' industry.
And, opening up the stadium clause again (I think it had been sunsetted) allows every podunk community (yes, Eric, yours and the small town to the north) to build convention centers, community centers, arenas in their tiny communities using the same tax loophole.
I was against it then and I am against it now.
Posted by: swatter on February 9, 2007 09:06 AMI think this column explains what a big scam this is. I say good radiance. We already paid for two pro-sports stadiums I don't feel we should be paying for another.
And the other that Republicans are for the corporations before they are for the common people who have to pay the taxes.
Go figure, huh? You learn a lot at Sound Politics.
Posted by: swatter on February 9, 2007 11:53 AMActually, basically all large public projects--Safeco Field, Seahawk Stadium, New Tacoma Narrows Bridge--are financed with municipal bonds. The difference is that there is a preponderance of general obligation bonds--bonds that are repaid using the taxing authority of the government--versus revenue bonds--bonds that are repaid using the revenue from say, Safeco Field (which was actually primarily paid for with revenue bonds, not direct taxes).
Posted by: Devil Dawg on February 9, 2007 01:17 PMThe republicans should (quitely) egg them on to do it.
Then during the next election cycle, the republicans should absolutely throttle the democrats for their support of this.
I can't think of a single issue with less popular support - both inside and outside of Seattle - than using tax dollars to support the NBA. The the super rich pay for their own venues.
Stupidest reason of all:
The Sonics and Storm have many fans, and there simply is no good reason for those fans to lose their teams;
Problem is that they can't support themselves, thus the the pubic tit must be milked for a private organization.
/disgust
Posted by: fox3 on February 9, 2007 03:05 PMWhat about Seattle hosting a Repub or Dem nation convention? No thanks!! That is another loser.
Posted by: swatter on February 9, 2007 03:18 PMThanks for muni bond 101. However my post was to stoke the fire over "why taxes and not bonds" and instigate a rebellion against the nabobs in WA government and their handlers, not teach muni bond basics. In other words: literary license.
The spreadsheet and summary that Postman graciously included in his blog does an excellent job of pointing out just how bonds for a new stadium to house overpaid freaks in their underwear will be financed.
Clay and his wagon full of snake oil salesmen have accomplished their task of stuffing a key state senator into their collective pockets. She may say it's only pennies and visitors will pick up most of the tab. But I doubt we'll see her comments about such funding dreams in any WA, KingCo, or Seattle travel brochures or ads.
Maybe there should be warning signs attached on all "Welcome to King County" road signs. Signs Warning pilgrims that their pocketbooks are targeted.
If we have road signs warning about apple maggots why shouldn't we have warnings about entrepreneurs and their politician toadies too?
And we mustn't forget - supporters say a new stadium will cater to cultural events as well as sports. They better not forget "it's for the kids!" too.
I understand why people are opposed to this but personally, I already pay this tax, I'm absolutely not going to notice if it was or wasn't on my next restaurant tab, and I'd rather we have an NBA team than not, so I support it.
Posted by: drrew on February 9, 2007 05:48 PMActually, I was thinking of Jack Sikma.
But go on with your bad self. And straighten that NY cap.
Posted by: Rey Smith on February 10, 2007 09:03 AMIt is your liberal bretheren that have this proensity for giving public monies to millionaire. Big Gov Liberal Mike Lowry was the one who pioneered the "emergency clause" for millionaire when he used it for SafeCo field.
So Cato, this pretense that somehow you are against such a thing is as phoney as a liberal that says they are against abortion. It just doesn't wash when you actionas directly contradict yoru words.
Posted by: pbj on February 10, 2007 12:11 PMI was under the impression that the new Tacoma Narrows Bridge was not using bonds. Do you have a source for your information? The last I heard was that there was some sort of scheme that involved the contractor and perpetual payments.
