Good people can disagree about the merits of public money to assist in the building or refurbishing of sports arenas, as some of us have done here at Sound Politics. Often, such arguments include idealistic positions that professional sports franchises shouldn't receive a public subsidy of any sort. That's a respectable position, even if one disagrees with it.
There is, however, another angle to that debate. Elected officials are most often in a position where decisions have to be made based on anything but ideal circumstances. Notions of issue-based purity are often forced to give way to the necessity of current circumstances and available data.
As such, the Legislature and Olympia had a very clear choice to support Key Arena and the Sonics before the session adjourned. They had an offer that included private investors paying 50% of the cost of refurbishing a public facility (used for many other events than the NBA), and a plan that included not only no new taxes, but no general purpose taxes or funding at all. The Legislature simply had to grant King County the authority to continue to tax itself with a specialty charge on car rentals and restaurants.
Positions of idealism aside, that was by far and away the best deal the Seattle area has seen to keep a professional sports team in town with an appropriately modern facility. From all appearances, the Legislature didn't even give it serious consideration.
Many a Sound Politics reader may not care, reveling in a pro sports team getting the shaft in the wake of the twin towers of Safeco and Qwest Fields dominating the SoDo district. But lots of people do have greater interest, and that itself is an interesting discussion.
Lost in the general news coverage of the Key Arena proposal was the immense irritation of many sports fans with Olympia's indifference to an obviously exceptional opportunity to demonstrate even the slightest hint that the area might be interested in retaining the Sonics. While some Sound Politics commenters cheered, the current Olympia crowd took a bath on sports radio and with sports pundits (see Steve Kelly and Art Thiel).
We in the political junkie class, especially conservatives, have long since figured out the status quo in state government isn't exactly keen on solving problems (let alone at an affordable price). Now the average sports fan who doesn't follow policy and politics with such eagerness just got a quick lesson in Olympia inertia as well.
Don't think that matters? Look at the 2004 exit poll from the Governor's race. Dino Rossi beat Christine Gregoire by eight points among white men. He also beat her in all three income brackets between $30,000 - $100,000 as well as in the "no college degree" demographic.
In 2004 Christine Gregoire showed a clear electoral weakness with working class, white males. Does anyone think a beating on talk radio and on the sports pages helps fix that?
Posted by Eric Earling at March 16, 2008 02:27 PM | Email ThisIn this instance, legislative inaction was exactly the right course to take, and Dino was an idiot to sign off on subsidizing the Sonics... thus slapping his statewide base upside the head and flying directly in the face of the voters who had already spoken on the issue in Seattle.
Conservatives wouldn't support the idea of subsidizing professional sports.
Ergo, Dino is not conservative.
Good luck with that this November.
Posted by: hinton on March 16, 2008 03:14 PMI certainly haven't found anyone that I know to be in favor of keeping the Sonics around.
I was also disappointed to hear Dino Rossi come out in favor of supporting the Sonics.
Posted by: malamute552000 on March 16, 2008 04:39 PMThe politicians always claim some kind of "multiplier effect" on surrounding businesses, but they always neglect to compute the multiplier effect of leaving the money with the taxpayers. This would almost always be greater, because almost all private activity is more efficient than government projects. Most of these projects lose money for decades into the future, and often the taxes get diverted to other projects that are not even popular.
Why are you such a lefty when it comes to professional sports? We all have our sacred cows. But if we are to avoid the race to the bottom of the anthill of socialism, we have to resist accepting taxpayer funding for exactly those areas where we are the special interest that benefits most. If we don't, the horses-a** folks will just come up to us and say "you were fine with subsidies to pro-sports, so why can't we have more money for socialized medicine, or condos for the homeless?"
Government must be limited to acting in the GENERAL welfare, but professional sports teams and fans are a special interest. The idea that everyone gets some kind of special subsidy and that it will all even out in the end is absurd. All that taxation and dead-weight drag on the economy just to get everyone the same deal? The only people that enriches is the politicians and the most powerful special interests who can buy them off. (E.G. Seattle and King County Council members and pro-sports owners.) It is a true race to the bottom.
We have WAY more important things to spend our tax money on. Everything we spend tax money on comes at the (net) expense of employment and economic growth. It should only go to the most important things. Sports does not come NEAR the top of any reasonable priority list.
Fund your own danged bread and circuses because I don't want to pay for your fun, and I don't want you to pay for mine.
Be a REAL conservative.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on March 16, 2008 05:23 PMDemocrats ran the sonics out of town and don't understand the ramifications of it yet. The NBA will not do businees in this cow town again.
Money runs Olympia the way money runs DC. How much money was spent on Olympia legislators by Blamer & Co last year?
Posted by: uwillc on March 16, 2008 07:09 PMIt is my suspicion that this deal was not meant to go anywhere, and was intended only to give cover to Gregoire for the loss of the Sonics in an election year. That would explain why it was brought up only days before the session's end. If so, it blew up in her face big time.
Posted by: russell garrard on March 16, 2008 09:08 PMI would have committed to the deep bore tunnel
To replace the viaduct,and given Seattle the land on top to help Seattle put the civic pieces where they make sense.
We all know what Olympia wants to fund..Blue Pages.Everything else gets tolls or nada.Olympia has 25,000 green collar jbs they want to get into the blue pages.I don't believe the Blue pages are bereft of services we really need.
Besides I wouldn't need any tax dollars to save the Sonics I am sure a couple of blocks of waterfront property would have fetched 75 million.
One Day my grandchildren will be able to use the blue pages to reach the dinner table. One day my kids will live in high rises and take transit everywhere.
Posted by: Buck Owens on March 16, 2008 10:48 PMAnd man, will we be crushed by THAT!
I'm hardly a democrat, but I reiterate: their inaction in this instance was absolutely the correct strategy, both for them... and us.
Posted by: Hinton on March 17, 2008 12:02 AMI would be curious to know how Rossi stood on the M's and Seahawks stadiums. I don't know whether he was in the legislature back then. That would be the real indicator, because those were real deals.
Posted by: russell garrard on March 17, 2008 07:04 AMI know that OKC will only be able to keep their new team for 4-5 years before they won't get players because players want the endorsement contracts. And unless you are LeBron, you have to settle for the local car dealerships and restaurants. Not too many in OKC.
However, if I were an elected, I would be severely tempted to swallow my pride and vote for this latest compromise. It doesn't have the "take it or leave it" attitude of David Sterns, the NBA or the ownership groups we love to hate.
I just don't know, but this one is as good as it gets and it has a second benefit of broadcasting to the other pro teams that their free ride is coming to an end.
Posted by: swatter on March 17, 2008 07:26 AMWhen the Sonics take off for OKC, that gift vaporizes and you're still left with alot of public money that's going to have to go into the Seattle Center. Seattle/KC is going to end up spending that tax money and alot more on Seattle Center anyway. It might as well have included a $150 million gift.
Not to mention, there were no new taxes involved. The $75 million that would have been collected would have come from the taxes that are already going to be collected for the Seahawks/Mariners stadia through 2016. Those debts are going to be paid off by 2012, but you're dreaming if you think they will stop those tax streams early.
So while it's all well and good to scream "more important things!", the taxes are going to continue and they aren't going to go to those things you want.
Posted by: Palouse on March 17, 2008 08:01 AMA tax is a tax is a tax no matter what you call it. Continuing an existing tax because more money needs to be paid back is still tax money and, in my opinion, still a tax.
Posted by: swatter on March 17, 2008 08:53 AMSo you are saying that he does not really support the corporate welfare? If that is the case then he is lying for votes and I can not support a liar.
Or are you suggesting that he really does support corporate welfare but I should not care because he does not have the political power to make it happen? If that is the case then I can not support him because that would give him the political power to enact corporate welfare that I am opposed to.
In otherwords Russell, there ain't no such thing as a free vote, just like there aint no such thing as a free lunch. There is a cost to making socialist campaign pledges and statements and that cost is the libertarian/conservative vote.
Posted by: Lysander on March 17, 2008 06:10 PMHow would a government subsidy of 50% send the message to other pro sports teams that their free ride is over? Wouldn't NOT subsidizing them send that message much stronger?
Posted by: Lysander on March 17, 2008 06:13 PMYou are giving in far too much on the debate. We should be turning down the 'offer' to subsidize the sports team without question and move torwards asking the question of whether the city should continue to own and operate the seattle center that you think we have no option but to keep paying for and improving. We do have another options such as privatizing the center.
Will we get there soon? No probably not, but the first step is changing the debate/tone from inevitable taxes to privatization. It is unfortunate we do not have a leader running for governor that would lead us in such a direction.
Posted by: Lysander on March 17, 2008 06:33 PMfew corporate subsidies take the form of a check written from the government to a corporation. This proposal takes taxpayer money and uses it to reduce a corporations costs big time. that is a subsidy!!!
The arguement has nothing to do with net jobs (although all economists will tell you sports arena subsidies are a net drain on the economy, or at least the free market ones will)the arguement is it is wrong to spend taxpayer money for corporate welfare.
Posted by: Lysander on March 17, 2008 06:48 PMWe don't like to admit it, but deception is part and parcel of politics, as with any competitive endeavor. No matter how great your ideals and ideas, you can't implement them unless you win the election.
A point that hasn't been discussed much is that the 'arts community' has long had its eye on the hotel/restaurant/rental car taxes that have been used for the baseball and football stadiums. Once those are paid off, they want to get their mitts on that dough, and that's another reason why this proposal went nowhere.
Posted by: russell garrard on March 17, 2008 07:47 PMWhat you call deception I call lying. If they lie to gain power they can not be trusted with the power. It is that simple. You can try to pretend that Rossi is different but history has shown politicians that are dishonest and seek power never recover after attaining the power they seek.
Quite frankly I would be more confortable with a politician that honestly thought this was a good idea than one that lied about it being a good idea thinking it would gain him votes/power. I am surprised you would think that is a convincing and good arguement for your prefered candidate!!!
Also, I reiterate that my speculation on Rossi's motives is just that--speculation.
Anyway, I think the Sonics are gone, and I say good riddance, even though pro basketball is the one sport that I still enjoy and follow. But the cycle of subsidies and spiraling salaries is endless. If we had built a new arena, one of our 3 teams would have been again begging in Olympia within 10 yrs. Hopefully the failure of Shultz to get his handout, and the fortuitous sale to the guy from OK, will put an end to the cycle forever.
The bad news is that the money will instead go to the arts community, not back to the taxpayers, especially if Christine Gregoire wins a 2nd term.
Posted by: russell garrard on March 18, 2008 02:37 AMIf you think his lie is equivalent to a soldier wearing camoflage, and that makes you feel better, then by all means keep thinking that. Just be sure and ask yourself after your 5th or 6th excuse you have to make for him, whether maybe the truth is he is not what you want him to be.
Rossi seems to be molded in the classic (and unsuccessful) I can manage big government better republican rather than a I want smaller governmnet republican. His statements on the sonics confirm that.
Posted by: Lysander on March 18, 2008 05:38 AMI am certain that the taxes already approved for Safeco/Qwest through 2016 are going to be collected despite the fact that the debt will be paid off in 2012. KC will find a way to spend that money. The only difference is, because this offer wasn't even voted on, there's no $150 million private gift.
Posted by: Palouse on March 18, 2008 07:44 AMWhile the 150 million is a tax paid by the consumer of hotels and restaurants, it doesn't affect the normal person, except if they go to restaurants.
There are some benefits of deferring a little tax revenue in exchange to supposed full restaurants and hotels. There are studies out there that show the supposed benefits of having a basketball team.
The message to the owners in this megabillion industry is that you may have gotten a little on this one, but the next city will give you even less. Or so my theory goes.
It isn't going to happen overnight as the owners use other cities as leverage. Maybe after the Seattle situation, other cities will be a little tighter with their money.
However, I think having the Sonics is a good thing and I don't want to lose them just because I am bull-headed enough to demand they pay full boat when other cities still subsidize.
Posted by: swatter on March 18, 2008 11:48 AMI have seen that backfire when it turns out that the candidate really believes the wrong position. On the other hand, I would rather have a Rossi than a Gregoire. If I had an ultimate answer to this, I would not be posting, I'd be writing my book.
Swatter, it is wrong to say that the restaurant, hotel, and rental car taxes don't affect the normal person. It's obviously not true for the restaurant tax, which is imposed even at McDonald's. It's also true for the hotel and rental car tax. It's not at all uncommon for a KC resident to have to rent a car or room (I have to rent a pickup truck tommorow, as it happens). And if you do business with any out-of-town visitor, you are indirectly affected, because the cost of doing such business is raised. Sure it's tiny, but it adds up--that's how taxes work.
Posted by: russell garrard on March 18, 2008 04:23 PMThink of it as a game of Sim city which requires proportionate spending in order to win.
I have seen many people lean heavy on their sacred cows and struggle with the game because they would lose proportionate balance.It may look cool and feel rightous to them but it is a losing combination.
One of the first things you have to watch out for in Sim city is developing a fixation on one particular facet,and over developing that facet and not be proportionate with the other facets. .
As I look at our budget we are too far out of proportion on education and criminal justice.
We are too out of proportion on those two budget snowballs.So when someone says we are not funding this or that,and are pitting those things against the sonics,they overlook the diproportionate spending on Education and Criminal justice,which is at the root for not spending on those sacred cows right now.
We are losing "Sim city" right now because we are spending a disproportionate amount on criminal justice,and education,and the public is not up in arms about that disproportionate spending,and what it is costing us...which is all those things they say the sonics would be costing us if we spend that money.
Spending money to keep the sonics is a proportionate move.If this were a game of sim city it would be a required move.Our problem is not spending on the sonics, the problem is we are spending a diproportionate amount on two facets and are neglecting other facets that are now pitted against themselves.
proportionate - exhibiting equivalence or correspondence among constituents of an entity or between different entities
harmonious, symmetrical
balanced - being in a state of proper equilibrium; "the carefully balanced seesaw"; "a properly balanced symphony orchestra"; "a balanced assessment of intellectual and cultural history"; "a balanced blend of whiskeys"; "the educated man shows a balanced development of all his powers"
Think of it as a game of Sim city which requires proportionate spending in order to win.
I have seen many people lean heavy on their sacred cows and struggle with the game because they would lose proportionate balance.It may look cool and feel rightous to them but it is a losing combination.
One of the first things you have to watch out for in Sim city is developing a fixation on one particular facet,and over developing that facet and not be proportionate with the other facets. .
As I look at our budget we are too far out of proportion on education and criminal justice.
We are too far out of proportion on those two budget snowballs.So when someone says we are not funding this or that,and are pitting those things against the sonics,they overlook the diproportionate spending on Education and Criminal justice,which is at the root for not spending on those sacred cows right now.
We are losing "Sim city" right now because we are spending a disproportionate amount on criminal justice,and education,and the public is not up in arms about that disproportionate spending,and what it is costing us...which is all those things they say the sonics would be costing us if we spend that money.
Spending money to keep the sonics is a proportionate move.If this were a game of sim city it would be a required move.Our problem is not spending on the sonics, the problem is we are spending a diproportionate amount on two facets and are neglecting other facets that are now pitted against themselves.
proportionate - exhibiting equivalence or correspondence among constituents of an entity or between different entities
harmonious, symmetrical
balanced - being in a state of proper equilibrium; "the carefully balanced seesaw"; "a properly balanced symphony orchestra"; "a balanced assessment of intellectual and cultural history"; "a balanced blend of whiskeys"; "the educated man shows a balanced development of all his powers"
Of course there is no chance of privatization of the Seattle Center today but that is only because conservatives conceeded that 20-30 years ago and have not pushed the idea for at least that long. Had they been pushing for privatization rather than psuhing for corporate subsidies the tone today might be totally different. We should not conceed the right thing and simply because we do not see it as easily obtainable in the short term. All that will result in is more and more compromise to the socialist position.
Posted by: Lysander on March 18, 2008 10:32 PMYou are also trying to justify it by saying it does not affect the normal person. First off, that is untrue. Normal people are affected by taxes on rental cars, hotels, and restaurants. Second, just because a tax is apportioned to other people disproportionatly does not mean that it is an acceptable tax. That is the arguement that Democrats make when they try and tax the rich to benifit the poor and middle class. Taxing one group to benifit another is wrong no matter which groups are being hurt and helped. In this case you are hurting restaruanteers across the city, hotel owners across the city, and rental car agencies across the city, any business that relies on tourists, any people that like to frequent restaruants, etc... to benifit restaruants near the seattle center, and millionairs that own some pro sports teams. There is nothing that would make this redistibution of wealth right, even a dishonest economic impact study (any honest one will show that government redistribution schemes only hurt the economy).
Posted by: Lysander on March 18, 2008 10:42 PMFine. However, this tax will be collected in the time period from 2012 - 2016. It's already approved, and government is just not in the habit of cutting off revenue streams like that. So what do we lose when the legislature doesn't even vote on letting KC redirect those taxes to the Key? A $150 million gift. That's what doesn't make sense.
Posted by: Palouse on March 19, 2008 08:47 AMWhen you have disproportionate funding like we have now you will eventually lose more than roads and the sonics.
The problem is unions have figured out a soft spot with Kids,and crime.They have learned that they can achieve disproportionate funding in those two area's.Disproportionate funding in one area would not be so bad.I would chose education.
Having disproportionate funding for both criminal justice,education,and The Iraq war is cuasing us to lose most of what was civicly,or socially gained back when we were able to have proportionate funding.
Pointing out the disproportionate funding and what it is costing us is Dino's path to being elected.
Posted by: Publicbulldog on March 19, 2008 11:12 AMYou mention how the government is not in the habit of cutting of revenue streams. You seem to indicate that you wish they did.
What do you think makes it more likely for them to continue collectiing the tax. Saying no to further subsidies and calling for an end to the tax since its original prmary reason has left town, or increasing government costs by subsidizing a multi million dollar corporation requiring them to increase the duration of a tax?
IN other words... do not complain when they continue the tax... you are ASKING FOR IT!
Posted by: Lysander on March 19, 2008 09:08 PMNeither. The real "original primary reason" for the tax were for Safeco and Qwest. Since those debts will be paid off in 2012, but were authorized through 2016, the $75 million wouldn't be collected through an extension of the taxes either. The 4-year revenue stream from '12 - '16 would just be diverted to the Key.
If you think KC is going to cut off that revenue stream because of some people's calls for it, good luck with that. Not gonna happen. They will just find something else to spend it on. Something else that doesn't have a $150 million gift along with it.
So due to the short sightedness and lack of leadership in Olympia, the $150 million private investment will vaporize. The public will still be on the hook for Seattle Center improvements, and the Key will be without a major tenant for many years, making it a further drag on tax dollars.
Posted by: Palouse on March 20, 2008 07:27 AMThe Queens draws her votes from the non-producing class of voters. No surprise their.
Many sports fans are among the the non-producers. And some sports fans are producers. A mixed bag not easily identified. Why should the Queen chance it? Why did Rossi chance it?
Are their more non-producers voting then producers?
Justify it however you want. IN the end you are asking for a tax to stick around rather than asking it for it to be ended. That is fine if that is what you want. Just do not complain about taxes and do not pretend to be a small government advocate.
Posted by: Lysander on March 20, 2008 04:18 PMWrong. My position is making tbe best of a situation, in this case a tax, that is going to be collected anyway. If there was a chance that this tax would be revoked early, which I certainly believe there isn't, then my opinion would likely be different.
Posted by: Palouse on March 20, 2008 08:37 PMThe only reason there is no chance that this tax will go away is because even the people that claim to be against it like you are not fighting against it and instead are calling the democrats bad leaders for not increasing and extending taxes!
If you are truly opposed to a tax you would at a minimum say you were opposed to it and not ask for it to be used for anything other than its original intent and hope that it can be expired early. If you do more you could call for it to be repealed even earlier and suggest alternatives like privatization. But admiting defeat without trying and critizing opposition politicians for not extending a taxes scope and duration is NOT what I call the work of a tax opponent.
So like i said, support the taxation/subsidization scheme if you want, just do not complain about taxes.
Posted by: lysander on March 21, 2008 04:08 PMWrong again. Taxes don't just go away because people don't like them. There's lots of taxes I would rather not pay and screaming for them to go away isn't going to do a damn bit of good.
But admiting defeat without trying and critizing opposition politicians for not extending a taxes scope and duration is NOT what I call the work of a tax opponent.
Recognizing that a tax is going to be collected anyway is not admitting defeat by any means. And those taxes aren't being extended, they are already approved through 2016, and to my knowledge there is no sunset provision.
To not even vote on this proposal is a failure of leadership by state government, and as a result we lose a $150 million gift.
And I never claimed to be a "tax opponent", but I am in favor of sensible government, something which the Chopp/Gregoire administration can never be described as.
Posted by: Palouse on March 21, 2008 04:38 PMThe tax is only aroved to 2016 and is being used to pay for a different stadium. if it is paid off early the tax would go away unless voted on and approved to be extended by either the county council. You are suggesting that Gregoire was wrong in not letting them vote on it. She should be praised for that decision. We should not be extending taxes that are used to subsidize corporations.
Let me ask you a simple question. As an advocate of what you call sensible government, do you feel it is sensible to take from many small businesses and give to large corporations? If you answer no, then everything else you are doing is just justifying your hypocracy.
Posted by: Lysander on March 21, 2008 04:54 PMWrong again. Thousands did scream against that tax when it was first implemented and for years after that, and it didn't change a thing.
if it is paid off early the tax would go away unless voted on and approved to be extended by either the county council.
There is no provision for this (if you know of one, please post the text). The reality is that this is an approved tax through 2016, and it will be collected through then.
She should be praised for that decision. We should not be extending taxes that are used to subsidize corporations.
Again, taxes are not being extended, they are already approved and going to be collected.
And politicians who give up $150 million private gifts should never be praised.
General statements like your small/big corporation question are straw men. Every case is different, and should be evaluated on their own. This one was the best deal that the public was going to get, and the government failed to even vote on it.
Posted by: Palouse on March 21, 2008 05:06 PMMy general question is not a strawman, it is a simple question directly related to the issue at hand. Every case is different but the principle remains the same and that is what my question is getting at. Your attempt to dodge it suggests that you lack any principles.
Posted by: Lysander on March 22, 2008 10:45 AMIs the tax more or less likely to be ended if Gregoire made the deal for the sonics?
Neither.
Based on the public discussion on this issue the last few weeks in King County and in Olympia it is likely that the tax will not be ended as Palouse noted. It is in place regardless of the fact the bonds for whose payment its proceeds go will be paid off early. Absent another use during its authorized time period, King County and/or Olympia are likely to direct it to something else. Currently mentioned uses - at least by the D's - include "the arts" and "affordable housing."
So not only will the tax stay in place, we lose the $150 million private gift to refurbish a public facility that is used for many more events and purposes than just 41 NBA games a year.
Posted by: Eric Earling on March 22, 2008 11:53 AMThis is precisely why the republican party will remain out of power and unimportant in this state. They abandoned any principles they had regarding less government and have given up trying to fight for it.
Instead you and others concede it will never get better so we should instead try to concinvce everyone we will be better managers of everyones money. Where do the people go that do not want others managing their money and lives? Not to Rossi or Eric Earlings GOP, that is for sure!
Posted by: Lysander on March 22, 2008 12:17 PMUnder your thinking, there should be no Republicans, apparently across the country for that matter, who are willing to accept even modest public subsidy of public facilities that happen to be rented at times by private sports franchises.
That's hardly a sound position. Anywhere.
Posted by: Eric Earling on March 22, 2008 03:26 PMI simply cannot argue against allowing King Co. the *option* to consider $75M funding that is simply stapled onto a minor tax stricken only to rental cars and hotel rooms --- Joe, how many cars do you rent in Seattle per year? Have you seen the hotel room tax% in any other metropolis lately? No brainer.
Key Arena and Seattle Center. Silly if you think that 41 games per year is all that key arena is worth. I guess I won't see you when the Dalai Lama and thousands join him in town next month. Wait, I forgot you don't like hanging around that many people (too close!)
$75M for a state of the art facelift and to remake this center of community spry and young again?
Geez... geezers! Cranky, cranky... go get your cup of milk and off to bed.
It's unclear to me which part about the fact that Key Arena is a publicly owned and operated facility that you don't understand. Within the next decade it is going to be upgraded in some way, shape, or form. Because it is a public facility, even more so than Safeco or Qwest Field since it is part of the Seattle Center, that refurbishment will involve public money.
I can virtually guarantee that if the current offer expires, a remodel will involve public funds, will cost more than the current proposal, and will in all liklihood cost more in total public funds. Plus, it likely won't include a private gift to the tune of $150 million to improve that public facility (especially if there is no anchor tenant with private investors having an interest in supporting the arena).
If that's "corporate welfare" then virtually our whole system of government is corporate welfare given how private enterprise benefits from publicly funded facilities and infrastructure.
Posted by: Eric Earling on March 23, 2008 09:17 PM