James Vesely's column today correctly delineates the clash of culture occurring between the world of sports/entrepreneurship and the state capital. Essentially, no matter how compelling a case (full details here) supporters of keeping the Sonics in town make, the odds are still stacked against them.
Witness the latest rhetoric from Olympia, including:
"But there are a lot of other priorities and calls on these dollars. We need to be careful how we step into this. We also need to recognize that we are trying to tighten our budget right now. To be cutting the budget and building something for a professional sports team sends the wrong message."
Talk like that would be a lot more logical if we were talking about any money out of the state's coffers. But we're not. The deal to refurbish Key Arena is $150 million from private sources, $75 million from the City of Seattle, and $75 obtained by the state allowing the use of existing specialty taxes currently being used to pay off the bonds for Safeco Field. There's not a dime involved that would otherwise be spent on any priority on Olympia's plate - assuming they could actually put together a plan to do so.
Bluntly, this deal is as good as it is going to get. Passing this plan increases the odds of Seattle winning its court case in the summer to hold the Sonics to their lease, thus increasing the chance the NBA and Clay Bennet eventually broker a deal to secure Oklahoma City another team and allow him to cut his losses by bailing out of the Sonics.
If that doesn't happen, the lawsuit fails, and the Sonics walk then Seattle might get another team sometime in the foreseeable future (though that's not highly probable). That team might retain the Sonics name and logo. More importantly, there are a lot of scenarios where Seattle gets stiffed and left with no NBA team at all, even with a ridiculously good offer on the table right now.
All the Legislature has to do is say yes. It's simple. So, they probably won't. And they're excuses for not doing so will be transparently lame since this deal is about as close to "something for nothing" as you can get with a professional sports franchise in the modern era.
UPDATE: The spittle filled "hell no!" and "you're not a conservative" tone of many of the commenters is amusing and slightly charming, but really misses the point.
Like it or not, public subsidies for the building of sports stadia and arenas are a normal part of having a professional sports franchise across the country. In that context, the deal discussed above is by far and away the best deal for taxpayers on a comparative basis. The only taxes involved are ones already being paid (in King County only) and the proposal doesn't even involve extending them since their current use - paying off the bonds for Safeco Field - is scheduled to be completed early.
Good luck attracting a new franchise, either NHL or NBA, to town for less. "We don't care about the sports teams! Let them walk!" is of course a frequent answer from some commenters. Noble sentiment I suppose, but note that articles involving our current professional sports teams, even more mundane items like the "Seahawks Notebook," frequently pepper the "most read" list on the Seattle Times and Seattle P-I web pages. These teams have a constituency.
The Sonics may end up leaving town. A replacement franchise may or may not be found if that occurs. And Seattle without an NBA team won't be the end of the world by any means. But the current deal is the cheapest way possible, at least to the taxpayers, to keep such a franchise in town.
Plus, its worth remembering, even if you don't care about professional sports or the Seattle Sonics, other people do. And there's more than a few of them.
UPDATE II: Some commenters, especially Hinton, will be thrilled to know they have a kindred soul in Geov over at Horse's Ass. He too is highly disgruntled, but generally joins me in assessing the proposed deal as:
about as good a proposal (and therefore about as reasonable a compromise) as one could hope for, given that the economics of modern pro sports now rely on the public to build teams' playpens, and there's always another sucker...
3/16 UPDATE: Comments closed due to spam.
Posted by Eric Earling at March 09, 2008 08:29 PM | Email ThisNot. A. God. Damned. Dime. Of. Tax. Dollars. For. The. Sonics!
Supporting tax-subsidy of a professional sports team (we aren't talking national defense here!) is completely off the rails.
It's bad enough that we have tax-funded debt for the other two billionaire boys' clubs in town - but to consider extending the payback period for that debt by redirecting those funds to yet another team looking for a handout is positively through the looking glass. This is just as bad as plundering the city for $75 million that could be putting sorely needed cops on the street.
No. No more.
Eric, this post reads like an endorsement of tax subsidy for the Sonics. Could you clarify this point? Because I don't want to insult you if I'm misreading you - but if you do support this, I strongly feel you have zero claim to calling yourself a conservative.
Posted by: W. T. F. ? ! on March 9, 2008 08:35 PMGot it. Then no one that supported Safeco Field or Qwest Field can call themselves a conservative either. I'll keep that in mind.
And on a serious note, that $75 million your talking about isn't going to go to cops on the street or any other such expenditure. As noted in the post, the hotel & restaurant taxes in question are dedicated to the Safeco Field bonds right now. They're not currently available to the general fund of the state or any local government.
Posted by: Eric Earling on March 9, 2008 08:48 PMThe Sonic owners refused to submit to an election when given the opportunity. I don't care how "logical" this new proposal is. The taxpayers of King County deserve a chance to finally vote on this tax.
Posted by: Dave Orvis on March 9, 2008 09:13 PMRetire the existing bonds, and stop compounding the waste with more handouts for overpaid professional teams.
Posted by: W. T. F. ? ! on March 9, 2008 09:36 PMThat's a nice idea in theory. But in practice it means having no professional sports teams in the city given what other cities are invariably willing to do. I just don't find such a turn of events terribly realistic.
Posted by: Eric Earling on March 9, 2008 10:02 PMSports arenas - especially single-purpose boondoggles - are not critical infrastructure to be used by everyone. They are places of business built, furnished, and operated for the profit private businesses. If the business owners can't make the numbers work without raiding the public kitty, too bad.
No more handouts. If the Key's losing money, sell it. If nobody wants to buy the arena, knock it down. The land it's on is certainly worth a pretty penny.
When the heck did handouts become OK? How the hell do you reconcile taking tax dollars with the threat of force and using them to build a flippin' stadium for the benefit someone who could afford to build their own? These aren't critical infrastructure. Our roads and bridges are falling apart and stadiums are a priority?
Posted by: W. T. F. ? ! on March 9, 2008 11:31 PMIf in the long run all cities woke up to the fact that public handouts ultimately mean squandered tax dollars, maybe that would help pro sports turn to a more conventional model where they operate without all of the corporate glitz and need for high priced renovations. It works in Green Bay for now. And maybe that would help leagues like the NBA improve their product. I don't go to Sonics games anymore unless the tickets are free. I'm not paying good money to see overpriced second rate basketball that' more focused on ridiculous circus sidewhows and the variety of foods at the concession stands. The only way I'd even consider a public handout is if it was only used initially to attract the team, and then it was payed back in full using tax revenue from the ticket.
But really even that's dirty because then the teams just become another vehicle for the cities to get rich, and then squander that money on fancy buildings and affirmative action programs. In any proper world, Seattle City government would be run as lean as possible out of a few double-wide mobile trailers located deep in the Duwamish Industrial Area, and not in fancy temples downtown. Then businesses would keep more profits and provide their good and services at a lower price to the consumer.
BTW, If anyone here wants to see real basketball, your chance is coming up in just over a week. The NCAA March Madness is the premier event for real basketball played much more in accordance with the original Naismith vision as a team sport, with players actually PASSING the ball.
Goodbye Sonics. It's just entertainment.
Posted by: Jeff B. on March 9, 2008 11:49 PMProfessional sports should not receive any subsidy anywhere in this country.
Posted by: Matty on March 10, 2008 12:14 AMSeattle will survive quite nicely without a professional basketball team. There are a wide variety of other teams to support, from the UW to any local community college.
There is absolutely no justification for tax dollars of any kind going to any pro sports team.
And frankly, it seems to be increasingly clear that Eric might be more comfortable posting over with his own political kind.... at HA.
Posted by: Hinton on March 10, 2008 12:45 AMI say we get the pro sports people off of the dole.
They should be funded by ad deals and ticket prices, not by taxpayers. If they can get some other City to pay them, I say let them leave. Who needs the blood-suckers?
The government has no business funding sports. There should be a separation between sport and state.
It is just part of the "bread and circuses" that keep the people from noticing how bad the government is.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on March 10, 2008 01:39 AMThis is socialism, and I am really surprised that Eric could support it and still attempt to call himself a conservative.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on March 10, 2008 01:44 AMAnd you don'te even get what you pay for. Can anyone here show me a team that has a ring yet for all the money you shelled out?
Posted by: ERNurse on March 10, 2008 02:25 AMAnd you don'te even get what you pay for. Can anyone here show me a team that has a ring yet for all the money you shelled out?
Posted by: ERNurse on March 10, 2008 02:26 AMNO conservative worthy of the name voted for Safeco OR Quest. You ought to know better than that.
And the decision of keeping a bunch of worthless, losing bums like the Sonics here when Oklahoma could be paying for their fatass, worthless lifestyles is a no-brainer. Let OK have the losers. What the hell is wrong with you!? Do you LIKE more money thrown away on worthless causes?
...Oh, wait. You are a SEATTLE Republican. Never mind. You and the Sonics were made for each other.
Posted by: ERNurse on March 10, 2008 02:35 AMMake the teams support themselves, if they can't, well then BY-BY!
I see Everett is thinking about a trolly, more wasted money!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 10, 2008 06:13 AM(get so worked up about)
But you pseudo-conservatives really need to be more friendly to the Sonics ownership. The owner's bidness pardner gave a quarter mil to the Swift Boat Liars.
Posted by: Jim on March 10, 2008 06:16 AMThose Swift Boaters are heros. The only liar amongst them was a traitorous, self-aggrandizing, leftist gigolo named Kerry. And in the end his own lies did him in.
Posted by: Saltherring on March 10, 2008 06:45 AMAnd remember, I-91 mandates that the "investment" has to MAKE MONEY. Even according to (former) critics, the plan presented by Ballmer et al EARNS A GOOD RETURN for the invested public money.
Don't you believe in Trickle-Down Economics?
Posted by: The Real Mark on March 10, 2008 07:17 AMregarding your comments on #2.
You are correct. Supporting the government funding of the two new stadiums is most certainly no conservative. Especially when Republican grassroots and voters previously expressed opposition to the stadiums.
If you don't get it. Too bad. There is no excuse for government to support the sporting entertainment business. May I remind you there are many stadiums privately owned. Yankee Stadium comes to mind. And there are many successful cities lacking a pro team.
I went as a guest a few years ago and sat courtside and - it was OK, I guess. I don't particularly remember anything about it other than Gary Payton taunting some guy relentlessly.
I went to a Sonics game this year, I was an invited guest in the "XO Communications "Board Room." The food was pretty good and free beer too!
I don't follow basketball so my opinion of the quality of play isn't really worth much, it seemed OK.
What I will say is that I have been at funerals that the people who were in attendance were more animated - I mean to tell ya' the place was a morgue.
So that is the sum total of my experience with the Sonics - except when I was in college I contacted Gary Payton and got him to sign basketballs and they would be raffeled to support the Campus Ministry. He was a real sport and we raked in a lot of money raffeling them. One of the guys I went to school with father in law won one and he cherishes it to this day. That is the sum and total of my experience with the Sonics.
They are OK, but their owners should not expect the taxpayers to fund their barn.
Posted by: JDH on March 10, 2008 07:44 AMFurthermore, I don't know how anyone could support using taxpayer dollars on this - especially considering our financial situation - and then call themselves a conservative, or say anything about our current state budget.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on March 10, 2008 08:15 AMOf course Nickles and the rest of the Hydra want tax payers to keep paying money into it. Not only does it suck down tax revenue, it assures that traffic on I-5 through Seattle will be forever impassible, giving them ammunition to ask for even more money for "mass transit".
The whole system in Seattle is rigged -- rigged to extort maximum money from the people by taking easily solvable problems and turning them into impasses.
It seems like self-destruction by design. If it was, say, Monorailian Joel Horn behind the proposal, we could chalk it up to incompetence. Not so w/ Ballmer & co.
I have zero evidence, but I wonder if this could just be a stunt to gain a few PR points for Microsoft, and to provide Gregoire with cover against the loss of the Sonics in an election year.
Posted by: russell garrard on March 10, 2008 09:24 AMSports are a _luxury_. Streets and cops are a _necessity_.
'nuff said.
Posted by: steve miller on March 10, 2008 09:26 AMI agree. No taxpayer subsidies for sports, symphony, theatre, opera, art museums, etc. Taxpayer should not be forced to pay for recreational facilities they do not choose to patronize. Let the price of the ticket cover the cost of the facilities and salaried performers. The attendee can then choose whether to subsidize....or not.
Posted by: Saltherring on March 10, 2008 09:57 AMBut I completely disagree with the government funding anything that's not a necessity. Public art - fine, as long as the public *does not pay for it*. Sports - fine, as lon as *the public does not pay for it*, including stadiums that are funded using an *emergency* clause of the state constitution.
Posted by: steve miller on March 10, 2008 10:09 AMHow about University's and Colleges? Promoters of quality higher education or useless institutions brainwashing todays youth with teachings of Marxist theory using taxpayer money?
How about Universities and Colleges? Promoters of quality higher education or useless institutions brainwashing todays youth with teachings of Marxist theory using taxpayer money? Yep, that petty much sums it up. As I have often said, if you think education is expensive - try indoctrination.
Posted by: JDH on March 10, 2008 10:31 AMAsserting "sports teams have a constituency" is sounds like a backhanded way of saying "let's buy votes with government handouts" - pretty much the definition of a lib dem position.
And what the heck kind of argument is "oh, but someone at HA supports welfare for sports teams?" Good for whoever that is if they support at least one conservative principle. If I define "conservative" as "the opposite of what person X says," then I've just given person X the power to define me and my views. No wonder our party is in such sorry shape with fuzzy-headed thinking like this.
Posted by: W. T. F. ? ! on March 10, 2008 11:15 AMAnd what the heck kind of argument is "oh, but someone at HA opposes welfare for sports teams?" Good for whoever that is if they support at least one conservative principle. If I define "conservative" as "the opposite of what person X says," then I've just given person X the power to define me and my views. No wonder our party is in such sorry shape with fuzzy-headed thinking like this.
Posted by: W. T. F. ? ! on March 10, 2008 11:22 AMLibrary's (sic) and University's (sic) were established to assist in educating the public, therefore having the potential to benefit all. It is sad that universities, as noted by JDH in post 32, have become more about indoctrinating than educating.
Posted by: Saltherring on March 10, 2008 11:49 AMThe NBA business model, and other pro sports models, seem to be based on increasing the squeeze on taxpayers on an ongoing basis. So, let's assume the tax does pass, construction is done by 2014, then in 2016 are we going to start hearing "the Key is antique, time to get something bigger/newer/with built in wifi in all the seats which need to be torn out at a cost of $200 million?"
Subsidizing pro sports seems like a bottomless pit. And assessing this in just a week is really hard to do. The timing of the announcement is indeed very odd. Maybe there were waiting until after the OKC sales tax vote, hoping it would fail but when it didn't they felt it was now or never.
Posted by: Stuart Jenner on March 10, 2008 12:34 PMGOP party members get charged with hitting on young men, I not sure which is worse. Though I must say getting caught with a member of the same sex seems to generate far more press.
It's not like the proposed renovations to the Key Arena were for the average basketball fan that wants to take his/her kids to the occasional game. It's all about increasing the number of luxury/corporate suites because that's where the money is. Why are taxpayers being asked to subsidize suites that are targetted at private corporations?
Maybe we should ask Dubya, he ran a pro-baseball team and managed to get the city of Arlington to build him a new stadium using eminent domain.
Rumor has it they generate profits for surrounding businesses, people go to bar's and watch the games, gives people something to do on a Wednesday night.
Personally I agree Steve @ 28, which is why I signed the initiative put forth by Citizens for More Important Things. Maybe we can pester little Timmy Eyman to bring this idea to the state level.
Then why is it that places like the Fleet Center in Boston, Pepsi Center in Denver, Target Center in Minneapolis, Bradley Center in Milwaukeee, and many other stadia in other sports like Joe Robbie Stadium (Miami Dolphins) have been built with private funding? It can be done.
I've been to several games and a few concerts over the past few years at the Key, and it's a great place for events. Even if there were more restaurants and shopping at the Key, I wouldn't use them. There's plenty of options near the stadium.
I suppose in other cities where they build an arena in an isolated area, the "other amenities" might be useful, but why should the public pay for those at Key Arena? And any renovation to the seating are only going to make the seats I buy have a worse view. What's to like about that?
Posted by: Palouse on March 10, 2008 03:19 PM
Cato, did you sleep through the day they taught the difference between 'plural' and 'possessive'? Oh yeah, I forgot.....public schools.
Posted by: Saltherring on March 10, 2008 07:11 PMToo bad about the Sonics going, but I'd rather them leave than pay one more cent for them to stay.
Posted by: KS on March 10, 2008 09:16 PMYeah, well, expecially if you've been the Attorney General of the state and have prosecuted for prostitution before, along with being one nasty S.O.B. The Wall Street Journal has had a lot to say about Spitzer in the past, and he was not a decent guy.
This is very fun to read about - too bad Stefan is not allowing comments on his posts.
Oh, also, Cato, maybe the interest is in what "Client # 9" wanted to do with this "young lady", seeing as she was kind of worried about it. Sex sells. More sex on the site, Eric, this stadium s__t is getting old, especially since you are about as wrong as you can be on this one.
Conservative, Eric? hah, pfffft. Your killin me, here.