I haven't yet had a chance to delve into the details of proposals to use the same tax revenue that helped build pro-sports stadiums for Husky stadium too. Nonetheless, reading fabled sports columnist Art Thiel taking a hammer to Frank Chopp on the issue was interesting.
Posted by Eric Earling at January 21, 2008 12:00 PM | Email This"The primary answers to facilities issues for the Sonics, Huskies and Cougars lies in the private sector. Government has higher priorities, fewer brains and a lot less money to provide anything other than secondary help." - Art Thiel
Posted by: AP on January 21, 2008 12:28 PMIf this subsidy is passed, that justification dies. The million dollar salaries, now financed at least partially by taxpayers, must die too.
Take your choice Huskies, you can have the million dollar coach, or the subsidy, but not both.
Posted by: russell garrard on January 21, 2008 12:41 PMI mean it was only a few years ago.
I have the same issue with the newly renovated Sonic Palace.
What has changed to make this venues so unsafe so fast?
Posted by: swatter on January 21, 2008 01:21 PMAnd if you like it as little as I do, don't you further admit that it exposes the fraudulence of a guy like Chopp?
Posted by: russell garrard on January 21, 2008 01:37 PMThe left should like this, since they decry subsidies to for-profit corps. The right should like this since they want taxes and spending to be lower.
We need a separation of sport and state.
But I guess it is "bread and circuses" and buys votes from the average Joe to give him a "free lunch." It is blatant vote-pandering, or vote buying, and it is totally wrong.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on January 21, 2008 01:53 PMThe left should like this, since they decry subsidies to for-profit corps. The right should like this since they want taxes and spending to be lower.
We need a separation of sport and state.
But I guess it is "bread and circuses" and buys votes from the average Joe to give him a "free lunch." It is blatant vote-pandering, or vote buying, and it is totally wrong.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on January 21, 2008 01:53 PMTaxpayers should not be paying for Husky Stadium. Ticket buyers or alumni should.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on January 21, 2008 02:10 PMWelcome back to Puget Sound, and a real issue.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on January 21, 2008 02:12 PMThe answer is the public receives the profits:
1) The state of Washington gains tax dollars from revenue derived from football games and fans attending.
2) Seattle's businesses gain from the game time traffic and incoming tourists
3) UW as a public institution gains reputation
4) UW as a public institution gains invaluable advertising in the form of 13 three and half hour segments on television (half of which are nation wide).
5) 70,000 fans get to gather and watch a game, many of them will gather for tailgating beforehand, and many of those are involved in businesses together
6) X,XXX,XXXX fans get to watch from home on their TVs or listen via the radio
The million dollars to the coach is far surpassed by these benefits and is paid by incoming revenue, not tax dollars. A few million dollars a year in taxes that were previously going to professional teams, will certainly yield a higher ROI to the public versus ROI to private sector ratio than before (by a factor of 100% outside the salary to Ty).
Please stop with the silliness that UW is like the pro sports clubs. That is objectively wrong on so many levels that to argue otherwise is laughable.
I am all for cutting taxes and shrinking government, however, the return on investment here is so high, it's a ridiculous to turn it down.
VOTE DINO 2008!
http://www.dinorossi.com/
Gov money and schools, what a bad idea!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on January 21, 2008 02:47 PM1) The state of Washington gains tax dollars from revenue derived from football games and fans attending.
And this has exactly what to do with stadium renovations? Are they going to stop playing football games if these renovations don't receive public money?
2) Seattle's businesses gain from the game time traffic and incoming tourists
See #1.
3) UW as a public institution gains reputation
University reputation has nothing to do with stadium renovations.
4) UW as a public institution gains invaluable advertising in the form of 13 three and half hour segments on television (half of which are nation wide).
Television exposure is directly related to wins and losses, not stadium renovations.
5) 70,000 fans get to gather and watch a game, many of them will gather for tailgating beforehand, and many of those are involved in businesses together
That's fantastic. It's not the public's responsibility to enhance that tailgaiting experience. Nor will stadium renovations affect tailgaiting. It might have a marginal affect on attendance, but not enough to justify a public contribution.
6) X,XXX,XXXX fans get to watch from home on their TVs or listen via the radio
See #4.
Posted by: Palouse on January 21, 2008 03:13 PMThis isn't left or right. THis is right/wrong.
Pay the athletes their market value.
Posted by: Bill Anderson on January 21, 2008 03:17 PMhttp://martinstadium.org/faq.html
(One of the questions in the middle)
Regarding points 3, 4, and 6, Stadium renovations have an effect on recruiting as a result of a modern stadium and crowd involvement, which has a direct impact on wins and losses. But your point is well taken, you could just win in a normal stadium and still be fine.
Regarding point 5, my point there is that generally the community benefits from these kinds of activities. If you do not maintain the experience, it dies. Still, this would not be the sole reason to support stadium renovation, I am not a complete dolt.
To post 24, everything regarding UW athletics has been paid for by donors and the revenue from football (see below). WSU receives an annual operating subsidy from the state just to function as a pac 10 school. All UW is asking for here is parity.
To Post 21, are you kidding me? Usually I respect your posts, but your analysis here is way off the mark for too many reasons to list. Chief among them, socialists make decisions like that, not free-market economies like ours which take into account other interests beyond the bottom line ( culture and demand for example).
To Post 25, read President Mark Emmerts article in the Times from a few weeks back http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2004116048_emmert10.html.
"At the University of Washington, for example, about 700 of our 40,000 students (or less than 2 percent) participate in intercollegiate sports. We spend about $60 million a year on 23 sports for men and women. This $60 million, while certainly a great deal of money, is only about 2 percent of the university's overall annual budget of $3 billion. All $60 million is self-generated by the athletic department. No state general-fund dollars or student fees go to support the UW's athletic program."
The athletic department at UW pays for itself so it is really not your money paying for the coaching staff. This seems to be a very common misconception for whatever reason. I agree, however, that millions of dollars for coaching or playing a sport is hard to deal with conceptually given the average salary for the rest of us.
Posted by: Pete on January 21, 2008 06:46 PMIf they want a new stadium, they should pay for it out of these revenue sources. If, as has been mentioned above, this deal will make more money for the U, then they should do it. But they should not get taxpayer money for it, just as pro sports teams should get no taxpayer money for their stadiums.
I was using a few arguments designed to appeal to the left, to explain why I thought there was a good possibility of getting my policy enacted.
I don't care whether I sound like a lefty or a righty. I am a libertarian, which is sort of neither, and sort of both. I tend to be "on the right" on economic issues, and "on the left" on personal liberty issues. I am a fiscal conservative.
Sorry if that confuses you, but my position is logically consistent. I defend individual rights whether they are economic or personal. Righties tend to defend economic rights, but want to try to tell us how to live our personal or moral lives. Lefties tend to defend our personal liberties, but want to tax away our economic rights. Both of these positions are logically inconsistent. Why defend one and not the other? Our rights are all of a piece. Libertarians defend both kinds of rights.
I hope this helps you understand why sometimes I sound like a lefty, and other times sound like a righty. The left-right paradigm does not fit me. Instead of left and right, as Reagan suggested, I want to move America UP to liberty!
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on January 21, 2008 07:24 PMBut just so you know... huskies do not have a wrestling program. It died with Title IX as far as I know.
Posted by: Lysander on January 21, 2008 08:44 PMAs high schools get bigger and college sports continue to generate billions in revenue, I think the relevance to the student bodies (i.e. reason for the funding to be by the taxpayer) has become less and less. No longer do sports provide a good way to participate for the general student- simply, because there are so few slots on the team for so many students.
Husky pride anymore is about tailgaters and Ed Hansen alumni types. Let them pay the freight. I no longer have use for supposed amateurishness of college sports.
Posted by: swatter on January 22, 2008 06:39 AMThe recruiting angle is a valid point - better facilities equals better recruits equals more wins (perhaps). But why should the general public subsidize UW's athletic recruiting? Why is it that WSU can charge their fans and students for stadium upgrades, and UW cannot?
I see the Queen today supported the Husky Handout, citing it as a "safety issue". So that seems to be modus operandi for publicly funding all government handouts these days - "it's a public safety issue", and whether it really is matters not.
Posted by: Palouse on January 22, 2008 08:03 AMMy issue with the stadium is admittedly inconsistent with that view. Likely that is because I know with so many fiscally liberal types in our state, the money will get used for something I care less about (like pro sports or hand outs). Let's be honest, they are not going to turn that tax on out of staters off. Christine and whomever else, will find a way to spend it as always.
So if the option is turn it off, or give it to UW, then of course, I will agree with you, turn it off. Alternatively, if the option is give it to UW or give it to some other sports team, or wasteful government entity/handout operation, then I would opt to give it to UW (because as I mentioned, there will be a proven ROI on it).
I guess looking back on my posts, I should have just made that assessment earlier. Thanks for bringing me around.
Posted by: Pete on January 22, 2008 08:52 AMAs for the coaches salary, whether it comes from the club, state, or U is utterly irrelevant because money is fungible. If taxpayers are asked to fund the enterprise, they are in effect helping pay the coaches salary. Designating the salary as coming from one box or another makes no difference.
Posted by: russell garrard on January 22, 2008 09:38 AMPalouse---maybe the 'safety' pronouncement means this is slated to be delayed & argued over for 10 yrs.(hehe)
Posted by: russell garrard on January 22, 2008 10:04 AMI don't mind if the coach makes millions. I just don't want my tax dollars going towards it, when there are so many more pressing needs. If you want a million dollar coach, do it in a private, non-subsidized league.
Posted by: russell garrard on January 22, 2008 12:02 PM