The Everett Herald chimed in yesterday on the proposal for a new suburban arena to house the Sonics and other major events. The Herald deems the plan acceptable; I can't say I disagree.
Based on the use of existing specialty taxes and a deal structure which necessitates substantial contributions from the Sonics ownership I think it's worth giving the proposal serious consideration. Whether or not the Legislature agrees is another matter.
Posted by Eric Earling at February 12, 2007 06:18 PM | Email ThisWhere are the real the conservatives when we need them?
Posted by: David Sucher on February 12, 2007 06:47 PMThen you should say we shut down all public entertainment that can't make a profit keep a building paid for and open. That includes the Seattle Symphony, Seattle Ballet, the Seattle Museums and all the libraries... and anything else that doesn't make money and is an expense to the people. We don't need this type of subsized entertainment... right?!?!? thats what TV is for! lol...
You might not like pro hoops but think before you decide to ban a sports team that gives many of us a feeling of belonging to a city and a community.
Seattle has obviously lost its way if it can't find the funds to make going to a Sonics game an incredibly exciting, dynamic and fun experience.
I feel sorry for the lower Quenn Anne merchants and the area in general... My guess is that it will be replaced with young homeless drug addicts and boarded up windows similar to the merchant area of Capital Hill.
Go Sonics!
Posted by: Online Poker on February 12, 2007 07:45 PMThe undertone of racism in this issue that wasn't there in the Seahawk and Mariner stadium debates is especially sad.
As far as lower QA, I'd assume you'll see Key Arena knocked down and replaced with a lovely condo development.
Posted by: drrew on February 12, 2007 07:51 PMMeanwhile, Manco's suggestion @ 5 is priceless.
Posted by: Eric Earling on February 12, 2007 08:17 PM1. I think if we place a $1,000,000 tax on every NBA player's illegitimate baby, this arena could be built with no tax payer dollars and offer a great venue for future NBA bastard all stars. It will also be a win-win for Oprah and her sex slave, Rom Sims.
Posted by: Doc-T on February 12, 2007 06:17 PM
The public has shown support for those in your first paragraph by voting FOR them. They are non profits. Libraries are govt entities. I don't recall how the Museums are structured (definitely not for profit). How many Ballet dancers, Symphony musicians, Librarians, ... make even the lowest pro sports player (Mariner, Seahawk or Sonic) salary? Not many would be my quess.
I do have a problem with subsidizing FOR PROFIT businesses to the tune of over 1 Billion dollars (Safeco, Qwest and now the Sonics). Safeco was voted down, Qwest was voted yes and I doubt the public will get to vote on the Sonics proposal because an Emergency Clause will probably be attached to it.
The only problem with The Key is that it doesn't fit the new owner's business model for generating the profit target. Field a good team and the fans will pack the place. I've gone to a number of great games and other events there.
I do hope the new owner is sincere about keeping the Sonics in Seattle.
Posted by: mvray on February 12, 2007 08:37 PM"For the record I'm of the Larry Kudlow/Art Laffer school of economic thought."
You mean the fantasy school of economic thought. Another free lunch republican.
In case you didn't know: Keynes invented deficit spending to stimulate the economy when it was operating below capacity. That's what the Bush tax cuts were, deficit spending to pump more money into the economy. Borrow and spend. But Keynes also understood once you were back at full capacity you had to pay the piper for your budget deficits and raise taxes. There's more to this story, because Clinton raised taxes and still stimulated a strong economy, but I won't go into that now.
Free lunch fantasy economists think you can cut taxes forever without paying the piper and making up the lost tax revenues.
How any of your fantasy economic thought justifies public subsidies to private businesses I have not idea. Don't you believe in free markets and competition? Obviously not. Why corporate welfare for a sports business?
No way are you an economic conservative. More like a corporate farmer who likes to feed at the federal trough.
Posted by: chew2 on February 12, 2007 09:57 PMPay attention to the goal of the arena. It is to be a lifestyle center. They make their numbers pencil out by pulling in people who eat meals, shop, etc. Now how fair is it for existing businesses to pay a tax in order to subsidize new competition?
Also an op-ed in the Seattle PI today raises a key point: taxing auto rentals just increases the costs of doing business in King County.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/303364_keyarena13.html
Quote: "the reality known to those of us involved in managing corporate travel budgets is that raising those taxes to pay for a new arena in the Seattle area will hit local residents and businesses, which will hurt our economy."
One of the other purported uses of this new multipurpose arena is to host hockey. Anyone know a hockey team for sale? Wouldn't it be ironic if the new Kent arena lures the Thunderbirds from Seattle, resulting in potentially three arenas publicly funded in part because of hockey (Key Arena, the Renton Center and Kent). Nothing like some good old capitalistic competition -- oops, it is taxpayers competing against each other.
At $530 MM for about 1000 incremental seats, it could be far cheaper to just use the tax to directly buy the seats.
Posted by: Stuart Jenner on February 12, 2007 10:31 PMYou are an idiot. Have you got your robe and hood from the cleaners yet?
Thank you Bill L. for showing some class and decency.
Posted by: WVH on February 13, 2007 12:06 AMAt one time, when it was 'reasonable' to attend a sports event and the blue collar worker could afford to go to a game, then it was 'reasonable' that part of the stadium could be paid with public money. But, the greed thing is too much. Gone now is the real reason that the public should subsidize the sports arenas. Keep the subsidies with housing and libraries, not multi-billion dollar businesses.
Posted by: swatter on February 13, 2007 07:05 AMChew2 - what does it take for you to realize that more taxes have been taken in becuase of the tax cuts?
And as far as the topic, taxes should not be used to support sports teams. It is absurd that people that can't even afford the parking at these places need to pay taxes for a few people to be able to go to a live game, and the players can have million dollar salaries.
Posted by: Right said Fred on February 13, 2007 07:20 AM"Who is the racists - the people that assume that blacks are the only NBA players that have illegitimate children, or Doc-T?"
Two wrongs never make a right and any person that brings a child into this world without being prepared to assume the responsibilities of being a parent is an idiot. Oh, there is no such thing as a bastard or illegitimate child. There are small minds that label children as such. The true problems are the illegitimate parents.
You are correct on that portion of the idiot's statement.
Then he said:
" It will also be a win-win for Oprah and her sex slave, Rom Sims."
It is reasonable for one to infer what group the idiot was referring to. I stand by my assertion that Doc-t is 1. an idiot 2. Not even a closet bigot. I would love to say that you are attempting to white wash Doc-t's comments, but that would get me in more trouble, wouldn't it?
Posted by: WVH on February 13, 2007 08:38 AMAnd if this means the Sonics leave Washington, so be it. I have never lived/not lived in a city based on the sports franchises. Rather it is sports events that is one of the things that really mess up traffic and make life more frustrating at times around here.
Posted by: My Boaz's Ruth on February 13, 2007 09:24 AMOne other thing. How does the state legislature get off telling the resident's of one county to pay taxes for the stadium in one city, probably over the objection of most of that county's legislators.
No wonder the Everett Herald wrote in favor of these taxes. They won't have to pay them.
Posted by: chew2 on February 13, 2007 10:04 AMIf state taxes from a local jurisdiction are used to pay off the arena, convention center, etc., that is fewer dollars into the State and City coffers, irregardless of whether the arena is paid off or not by these taxes.
Fewer taxes and the jurisdiction, whether city, state or county wants more taxes to offset the offsets. Doesn't make sense, but that is the way it is.
Posted by: swatter on February 13, 2007 11:07 AMIf we come over to visit a student at the UW, we too have pay a tax on the hotel and the rental car (if we fly), plus the usual restaurant fees. In effect, this becomes a KingCo locally enacted tax on the rest of the state, not just out of State folks. Those of us who have students at the UW have to stay in hotels and rent cars, something the locals usually do not have to do. Why should we have to pay an additional tax so our kids can attend the only Univ of Washington campus? Perhaps WSU should start taxing the parents of Western WA students.
It is always easy to vote to increase taxes on other people. Its also a fraud committed by fraudsters.
King County already has two taxpayer funded golden sports palaces to support professional entertainment corporations. (Sports is entertainment, pure and simple.)
I'm looking for a bumper sticker: VOTE YES! SUPPORT SOCIALIZED BASKETBALL!
Posted by: Ed on February 13, 2007 05:22 PMPosted by: Non Profit on February 13, 2007 06:44 PM
get real. most of those taxes will be paid by local residents of King County.
non profit,
I love basketball. But taxpayers shouldn't subsidize a private business to the tune of $300 million. There will be no $10 dollar tickets at the new arena. Get real. Watch them on TV. And Ray Allen is a pretty player, but he is a pussy, that's why the Sonics aren't tough enough to win.
Posted by: chew2 on February 13, 2007 07:05 PMSection Row Type Ticket Price Convenience Charge Description
206 10 Full Price Adult US $10.00 US $2.75
Upper Level - Second of two levels
Seating located on the North side of the building
Full view seating
PRICE LEVEL 24
206 10 Full Price Adult US $10.00 US $2.75
Sorry chewy your argument is that of the tribal nanny Seattlites that is losing a fun night on the town to wine & cheese night at the Bradley's... ta ta
Posted by: Non Profit on February 13, 2007 07:42 PMI have never heard anyone complain about the people who profit when Seattle Art Museum buys a painting from a private investor. We simply see it and enjoy it. There is a reason that cities are lining up to take this asset and that is because it is a huge benefit to any city, state, or region. Over the years cities like Minneapolis, Kansas City, New Orleans, Charlotte, and others have let franchises go only to pay huge bucks to try to lure new ones. We can pay now or pay later.
In addition the library comparison is off base. There are litterally thousands of libraries in this nation and only 30 NBA teams. Seattle did not build a glass pyramid $158 million library to hold books. They built it as a place to gather that was dynamic and representative of our city. We can do that same thing for a Sonics arena.
Posted by: Brian on February 13, 2007 11:34 PMCheck it out with a library which doesn't charge to visit or check out books. It doesn't pay its employees the same as sports.
Oh, I could go on, but I just realized you posted at midnight.
Posted by: swatter on February 14, 2007 07:24 AMUmm. If basketball was so important to the city and the state, why on earth didn't they just buy the team for $350M, keep them in the unimproved Key arena? If you're going to have a sports team, it should be publicly owned. That way the owners never ask for a new stadium unless it really will increase profits.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 14, 2007 07:54 AMI can get those $10 cheap seats for free, but I have a Valentine Dinner to go to. The Sonics are having a real hard time drawing fans now. Can you imagine, the most exciting team in the NBA is in town, and they aren't sold out. Not a good sign for paying off the new arena. You enjoy yourself though.
Just don't pass the $300 million bill to me.though.
Posted by: chew2 on February 14, 2007 09:48 AMWhat race is a bastard NBA child?
you RACISTS!!!
Posted by: kettle on February 14, 2007 10:30 AMThat is wrong. If the demand were there the poor schmuck that can't afford the parking at the event wouldn't need to be paying taxes to support it.
And why should all the people that don't give a rats hindquarters about any of the private businesses that sports are, be paying 1 cent, never mind 50, more for a steak at Daniel's?
Posted by: Right said Fred on February 14, 2007 10:54 AMPutting together the cultural stereotypes that Doc-T was trying to invoke, along with the mention of Oprah, along with reference to Ron Sims in such a derogatory way, there's only one conclusion - racism.
And, I don't see Doc-T trying to defend himself.
Bill
PS. It was hyperbolic of me to have invoked Sound Politics in Doc-T's comments. To be fair, I don't see any sign that Eric or Stefan have sought out or sanctioned the comments of this pig.
Posted by: Bill L on February 14, 2007 01:39 PM1. See, my response to Right said at #22.
2. Are you Doc-T?
3. " Bill L and WVH
What race is a bastard NBA child?" If you call any child a bastard, you are an idiot.
Assuming you are the product of any type of education system, let me explain to you the word "context."
According to the Oxford Dictionary it means "parts that surround or clarify a passage." So, it you take the last phrase regarding Oprah and Sims who happen to be Black, does that clarify the passage for you? You can call me anything you choose to, but Doc-T, I still think you are an idiot.
That aside, I'm okay with tax incentives for things like this, not subsidies. If Bennett wants to build it with his own money, then give him the land for below market value and give him a break on B&O and property taxes, but that's it. There's no reason that the public should pay for his arena.
As for the community gathering arguments, I think $300 million would go a long way towards building new parks and recreation areas, which a much wider group of people of all social classes and interests will enjoy.
Posted by: Palouse on February 15, 2007 07:54 AMGive him the land? GIVE HIM THE LAND? Somebody OWNS that land! What do you propose? To Kelo it?
Posted by: ivan on February 16, 2007 06:16 AM