One other point worth emphasizing in assessing the fall-out of recent events related to the Sonics and Key Arena: the duplicitous arguments of some in Olympia explaining away the deal.
Take this Frank Chopp quote from the P-I article (itself a tale of arena-deal supporters detailing their disingenuous treatment from Olympia) mentioned in this morning's post:
The public is solidly against a state taxpayer subsidy of KeyArena.
That's nice. Except the proposed deal to refurbish Key Arena was $150 million in private funds, $75 million in city funds (re-directed lease and ticket revenue, not general funds), and a proposed $75 million in continued King County specialty taxes, which the state simply needed to re-authorize.
There was no proposed "state taxpayer subsidy of KeyArena."
Which means the Speaker of the Washington State House is being deceitful either willfully or out of ignorance. It remains unclear which of those evils is lesser.
This blogger hasn't been thrilled with events surrounding the Sonics and Key Arena, but thought the deal Olympia so cavalierly dismissed was clearly the best hope, now or in the future, to solve the Key Arena problem with minimal taxpayer cost (including no new and/or general taxes) and by utilizing a $150 million gift to renovate a publicly owned and operated facility.
With that in mind, the continued, ongoing, factually incorrect statements from Olympia on this issue - like Chopp's - have been jarring.
More importantly, I'm not the only one thus perturbed. The "undernews" of this whole story remains the thrashing state government "leaders" are now receiving and a near regular basis on Seattle sports radio. Every local host, from early morning to late evening, has been critical of Olympia's handling of the issue and the inability of key state officials to demonstrate they actually understand the proposal in question. Most hosts have been rather vigorous about such statements.
The best such example might be from afternoon/evening drive-time anchor, Mike Gastineau ("the Gas Man"). You can listen to what is now being called "the Rant" at this page, or by just clicking here for the mp3 version [the tale of Frank Chopp errantly accusing Richard Petty of getting a DUI that Gastineau refers to can be found here]. His disgust with the lack of honesty and leadership emanating from the state capital on this issue is palpable. Saying "no" is one thing. Failing to be forthright about the matter - other than admitting that fear is a motivating electoral concern - is not inspiring.
As a thematic indictment of Olympia, regardless of the issue at hand, it doesn't get any better. Moreover, it comes from a "lifetime Democrat" in an otherwise non-political environment.
One of Christine Gregoire's biggest electoral weaknesses in 2004 was among working class, white males without strong partisan affiliations. Who listens to "Seattle's ONLY All Sports Station" on a regular basis? Think that's helping much?
Posted by Eric Earling at April 02, 2008 10:32 PM | Email ThisI have had it with all the flat out screw yous from the legislature. They are reduced to being children playing with fire and then screaming it was not me!
The funny side note.... the tons of cash given to these kids by those savvy businessmen...everyone has a bad day I guess.
Posted by: Col. Hogan on April 2, 2008 10:49 PMFirst, The Sonics are not a "public purpose." You with me so far? Good... good.
Second, no matter how badly you insist on spinning this, $75 million to subsidize a basketball team is just that; and those dollars ARE tax dollars. I get that as you're spinning like a top, you're trying to scam us into redefining the issue since the money would go to modify a PUBLIC BUILDING, but anyone with the common sense of a rock ape knows that the beneficiaries of that money will be the Sonics... so laundering it thru fanciful titles like "public building" is, well, "willfully deceitful."
Now, I no longer live in Seattle (Neither, come to think of it, do you... so why is this any of your business?) but as I write this, my wife and 2 of my kids are sleeping on the 32nd floor of the Westin downtown, because they went to the one baseball game a year they're allowed to go to based on the ungodly taxes we have to pay for that dubious privilege: for the room, where taxes added almost 1/3rd to the total bill, and for food in the area.
Now, it's easy for you to climb up on a stump and whine and snivel like a punk over the issue of semantics: it's highly unlikely you require a hotel room to go watch any professional sport in Seattle. But believe it or not, Eric, you AIN'T the center of the political universe.
The people of Seattle have spoken. If this money was so damned well spent, then Balmer, et. al, would do what they could so very easily do if the model worked: sit down and write out a check for the WHOLE thing.
I'm not a big Chopp fan. But this time, he nailed it. And if you don't like it... if you happen to think this is just some sort of COUNTY issue as opposed to a STATE issue, then feel free to move on down to King County and set up a county-wide initiative on the subject.
And then get your head handed to you in a basket, as a result.
In this instance, it's clear that Gregoire made the correct decision and will substantially benefit from it, while many of us in SW Washington believe Rossi to be a gold-platted moron for supporting tax subsidies for professional basketball.
Even you'll be able to figure that out by the campaign run up to this November.
Do you think Rossi will attack Gregoire over the Sonics issue? In a pig's ass. She won on that one, and he got stuck on stupid over that issue... just like someone else I know.
Posted by: hinton on April 3, 2008 01:27 AMYou can spin it any way you want - the end result is you're using taxpayer dollars, against the majority's will, to fund some kind of thing that you call the public good.
You should be demanding that the Sonics sell stock to build their own stadium, not demanding that we pay taxes to support your pastime, Comrade.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on April 3, 2008 06:44 AMI have a hard time listening to that station anymore and yearn for the old, polite days of Wayne Cody.
You have to realize that their access to players and management is based upon the spin they put on sports events. If they are not sports friendly, they don't get the interviews. Simple as that and why you don't get a whole lot of perspective from a sports station.
And the way they treat callers most of the time makes my skin crawl. About the only one treating the callers with respect is John Clayton and he is only on Saturdays from 9 to 12.
However, Eric, you may be right. That may be the best deal that will ever come down the pike and as an elected, I may have voted for it, irregardless of my libertarian side of me. As you say, the world ain't perfect.
I did like and agreed with Hinton's post, also.
Posted by: swatter on April 3, 2008 07:01 AMIf you're trying to get me to be sympathetic to your family's supposed plight that taxes are infringing on their ability to travel from SW Washington to go to an M's game - while staying in the Westin! - then you are the "gold-plated moron."
A stay at one of the best hotels in downtown Seattle, plus eating out in any major urban area in America, would be pricey no matter what the taxes.
In the meantime, I trust you are working on a bill to have your local legislator introduce next session forcing the sale of every public arena and stadium in the state, no matter what the size, utilized by private entities. Good luck with that.
Of course, my other point is that Democrats in Olympia are taking a bath on sports radio, which few people in the political community seem to have noticed is an interesting turn of affairs. I know you don't care, but then again, I'm pretty sure that I don't care that you don't care. Which I'm sure you don't care about either.
But as usual, thank you for bringing your restrained and thoughtful comments to the site.
Posted by: Eric Earling on April 3, 2008 07:58 AM"If you can afford the Westin, then you have no right to complain about taxes" (paraphrased)
You should probably turn in your conservative card right away, Eric.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on April 3, 2008 08:02 AMThis was a flat out misrepresentation put forth by the Democratic leadership to make themselves look better. They knew about the proposal since December, and knew about the funding weeks before it was made public. The P-I has an article about it.
As stated on the other thread, this was the best deal the public was going to get on this and the legislature blew it. Now Seattle is going to be stuck paying for Key Arena anyway with no anchor tenant and it's going to be a drag on tax dollars.
There's plenty of things that my tax dollars go towards that I don't want or don't use. And many of these things are not "legitimate government functions". Arts exhibits, theaters, symphonies, museums, zoos, aquariums, farmers markets, etc. Professional sports is something in this category that I'd like to have around. And for the record, I am glad Safeco and Qwest were built. Seattle is a better place with the Mariners and Seahawks still around.
For those people who want the government completely out of this, I hope at least you are consistent with your opposition to all of those other public entertainment options. And while you might posit on a blog that you are, I highly doubt you'd want to live in a place that's missing all of those things.
Posted by: Palouse on April 3, 2008 08:09 AM
But this ignores the larger, long-term problem of sports salary escalation, from which comes the need for mountains of subsidies. That is a long term spiral that the Ballmer deal just puts off for another day. KeyArena also was praised as a great deal when it was made, and in less than 10 yrs. it turned sour.
Accepting the Ballmer offer means we fix a short-term, small-scale problem while keeping a long-term, large scale one. Letting the NBA leave means the reverse. The latter is obviously the better choice.
Posted by: russell garrard on April 3, 2008 08:41 AMSound pretty fair to me. Why make all state taxpayers pay to subsidize the Sonics, when this can be limited to the Republicans who support them?
Posted by: Richard Pope on April 3, 2008 09:07 AMThen the public is subsidizing your leisure activities. If not, then perhaps you are as miserable as your previous post comes off.
Posted by: Palouse on April 3, 2008 09:37 AMBoo, hoo, hoo, I feel your pain. Public subsidy of anyone's leisure activities is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG when there are other, more important issues that need addressing. We should not be handing over any more money to the government than is necessary for basic services unless to services are addressed FIRST. Everything else is frills. Quimby was complaining not too long ago that the city didn't have enough money for police. Many downtown streets are shot through with potholes and buckling in places. Do you enjoy police services, safe transportation infrastructure, and education for your child? If not, then perhaps you are as IRRESPONSIBLE and your previous post comes off.
Posted by: NW Denizen on April 3, 2008 09:56 AMI don't lack for police and fire protection, and the education system in my district is not perfect, but it's very good. So, I'm just fine with these basic services.
However, you didn't answer my previous question. Do you ever visit any of those things that make our region better, or do you never leave the house?
Posted by: Palouse on April 3, 2008 10:06 AMI'm willing to pay taxes for schools, roads, libraries, and other essential public services.
I'm not willing to subsidize professional sports teams and voted no on the Mariners, Sea Hawks, and Sonics.
The Sonics got a renovated arena in the 90s, and I'm not willing to pay for another arena
If the Sonics can survive by covering their costs with their tickets prices, they are welcome to stay and pay for Key Arena.
I don't remember any postings by you decrying the pullout/collapse of Computer City, Egghead Software, and CompUSA
If Hinton wants to stay in the Westin or Motel 6, that's his decision, not yours.
I do agree w/ Hinton's point that the room taxes, rental car taxes, etc are absurd
Libraries are an 'essential public service'? How so?
Do you also never use any publicly subsidized leisure spots?
Posted by: Palouse on April 3, 2008 10:15 AMThen you can pay for it yourself and stop trying to override the will of the 75% majority that passed I-91.
This is a bailout no mater what way you look at it, as the team is already gone (the Okies agreed to tax themselves to bring a money loosing private entity to town). We already have two Pro-Sports teams whom used the "build us a new stadium or we're moving" strategy, why should we follow this ridiculous path once again? Oh yeah, cause you want to take your kids and pay $61 a ticket to see a bunch millionaires run up and down a court for 90min. That's fantastic reasoning.
This is NOT what I-91 stated. Plus, I-91 was a Seattle only measure, and ALL of KC is paying those taxes. So I'm not overriding anything.
Do you also never use any publicly subsidized leisure spots Cato? Doubt that.
Posted by: Palouse on April 3, 2008 10:24 AMIt allows me to screw the man (publishers/chain bookstores) out of much needed profits. In fact I got a call the other day saying a copy of "The Communist Manifesto" is on hold for me at my local branch. =P
I do actually, there's a very nice publicly owned HS near my self-owned private property. I go there to run on the publicly subsidized track.
In fact I even got married in one of those publicly subsidized leisure spots. It was quite nice, we received a lot of compliments from our out-of-town guests at the natural beauty of this publicly subsidized leisure spot.
Maybe you should go to Greenlake tonight, I think you would find a lot of people (well over 300) actively using that publicly subsidized leisure spot for running, walking, biking, rollerblading, not to mention soccer, baseball, and occasionally adult kickball.
- Key Arena and Seattle Center are public
- Whether or not the Sonics are here, we have to do something with Key Arena.
- We have the opportunity to get a $500,000,000 gift for a mere $75,000,000 or 7.5 times the subsidy we handed to Nebraska based Cabelas
- What will it cost to fix/replace/revert Key Arena? If the number is anywhere close to or above $75,000,000, you are a complete idiot for not supporting this package.
I am not a fan of the tax that will get that last $75,000,000, but I am sure we could have come up with a lottery scratch game, vanity license plate, and other revenues sources from those that directly enjoy or profit from Key Arena. Pissing away a half billion dollar gift and pissing away 40 years of tradition and great PR is petty and stupid.
Posted by: AP on April 3, 2008 10:46 AMSo you are just fine with receiving public subsidies for your leisure activities, but have problems with others that you don't use. Hypocritical much?
Posted by: Palouse on April 3, 2008 10:54 AM“re-directed lease and ticket revenue”
“including no new and/or general taxes”
“Ticket revenue” is a tax, plain and simple – just as the proposed Seattle 20 cent bag fee is a tax. No new tax is still a tax. The proposed matching funds are the funds of the people of Seattle. "Lease...revenue" is a part of the people's funds.
Calling others hypocrites and accusing them of hollering from the sidelines as in:
“But, if you want to keep sitting on the sidelines hollering about ideas not even getting the time of day in Seattle then be my guest.”
is itself a hypocritical comment from someone who has no voting power nor the current ability to run for local or state office representing Seattle.
“I trust you are working on a bill” is another hypocritical argument from one who has no voting/elective power in Seattle.
The majority of the responses to this and its related blog reflect an impressive collective assessment of the issue and its impact. Hinton nailed it and in turn nailed Earling. Earling has chosen to take this to an ad hominem level of debate.
As has Palouse.
Posted by: NW Denizen on April 3, 2008 11:00 AMTear it down, sell it off, find some team that can afford to rebuild it themselves. Fix the acoustics to make it competitive with the Tacoma Dome.
We have the opportunity to get a $500,000,000 gift for a mere $75,000,000 or 7.5 times the subsidy we handed to Nebraska based Cabelas
That doesn't make it worth it. Your still violating the spirit of I-91 which said that we wanted to get positive revenue. Even with this private bailout there is no guarantee this will happen.
The Sonics won't stay, no one is going to fill the arena. If Balmer really wanted to save the Arena he could pay for the improvements himself and rename it the Microsoft Arena.
Pissing away a half billion dollar gift and pissing away 40 years of tradition and great PR is petty and stupid.
More like 40 years of taxpayer funded extortion by a private entity is finally coming to an end. All the "great PR" doesn't make an Area profitable.
If you're referring to how I referred to the tone of your post as miserable, well, it was. Shrug.
Posted by: Palouse on April 3, 2008 11:05 AMThose folks in SW Washington are gold-plated morons I guess. They pay $ to Nebraska based Cabelas yet wouldn't pay a dime (as long as they stay out of King County) towards the Key Arena proposal. Gregoire has it wrong and so does Chopp. We shouldn't be subsidizing Cabelas, strip malls, or ethanol projects, but investing $75,000,000 to get a $500,000,000 gift makes a lot of sense. If the issue was the way the last $75,000,00 is collected, they could have come up with a creative way to get those revenues. Chopp and Gregoire are clueless on this and it will help cost of the two their job. Listen to 950 AM, Gregoire has lost a few thousand votes.
Posted by: AP on April 3, 2008 11:05 AM
Cato, you like I-91 so much, how about you come up with I-92 which bans public funding of art? When are we going to stop subsidizing private artists?
I'm not paying $61/seat to sit and watch a bunch of overpaid individuals run up and down a court for 90 minutes and watch then keep all the profits.
If a private corporation that has fairly exclusive rights to a publicly financed sports field (say Greenlake) demanded improvements so they could make more money, I'd also tell them to shove off or pay for it themselves.
"No, I just asked some simple questions about public subsidies of leisure actvities. Is that not acceptable debate?"
Sure. Maybe you would like to stop by Jillian's next Saturday night and pick up my table time. How about paying my bowling fees at the Lucky Strike on Sunday. Billiard rooms and bowling alleys make the region so much better. That way, nobody is a hypocrite. I support your leisure activities, you support mine. Fair enough? : ) LOL
Posted by: NW Denizen on April 3, 2008 11:20 AMI'm saying it's a fine venue, it's not my fault the Sonics can't cut their overhead and make the improvements themselves. The Mariners are investing their profits into Safeco improvements, they want to stay profitable.
Again, if Gregoire and Chopp had a clue, they could find $75,000,000 from a new lottery scratch game, vanity license plates, etc., and that doesn't violate I-91.
That's true, but it violates the spirit of the law since the taxpayers DO NOT receive a portion profits.
When are we going to stop subsidizing private artists?
When the voters stop complaining about poor ascetics at the publicly financed ventures.
LOL, Palouse and AP should have no problem with that. =P
Most of our activities in society are both taxed and subsidized. How much is a matter of definition, perspective, and political clout.
When everyone is beating up on each other trying to apply their own sense of purity of thought.
My personal view is that we're not badly served by taking a "liberal" idea, and executing it from a "conservative" perspective...
Posted by: BA on April 3, 2008 12:16 PMI already do if you ever visit any of the publicly subsidized places I've previously mentioned. Now, I don't pay for your admission fees to those places (if any), and nor do you pay for my tickets to a Sonics game.
And Cato, you miss the point about Greenlake. The very existence of Greenlake is a public subsidy. The public (me) pays the maintenance and other expenses on it so you can enjoy it. I'll take your argument for the Key (privatize it), and apply it to Greenlake.
Sell it. Let a developer build houses on it, and the public can get well over a million dollars in property tax revenue a year on that prime real estate. That can pay for those other things you want and the 'basic services' that NW Denizen wants.
Posted by: Palouse on April 3, 2008 12:29 PMI feel it is the same way with the Sonics. I believe the Mariners and Seahawks proposals did have more benefit in the long term than the costs. The problem with the Sonics case is they are still paying for the last renovation. Why did they go through with it, if it wasn't going to be sufficient. Key Arena is a fine facility that will get a lot of other use. So what, if it doesn't have the luxury boxes to bring in extra revenue for the team (or whatever they are claiming it is missing). It would bring in plenty of revenue if they provided a good product. The NBA has priced itself out of the market. Their problem is they are no longer the only game in town. College basketball is a lot more enjoyable to watch, and alot more unpredictable. All you have to do for a NBA game is watch the last couple of minutes. The rest of it is a waste of time.
Posted by: tc on April 3, 2008 12:35 PMUmm so by what version of the English language are "King County specialty taxes" not a tax? So really, that is in fact a state taxpayer subsidy of KeyArena.
Thanks for playing.
Posted by: pbj on April 3, 2008 12:57 PMThe fields are paid for by the individual sports teams who use them on a regular basis (usually soccer/baseball teams). The loop is paid for by the taxes of the people, given by it's popularity I'd say a lot of those same taxpayers use it.
It's fine with me if you don't want to pay, I'm not stopping you from living in an area outside the Seattle city limits.
Sell it. Let a developer build houses on it, and the public can get well over a million dollars in property tax revenue a year on that prime real estate.
Based on the current zoning laws I have serious doubts that a developer could fit more than 1 or 2 houses at Greenlake. It would likely be a bad deal financially to buffer zones for environmentally sensitive wetlands.
Maybe you should tell me why I should subsidize a sports team that's demanding more taxpayer funding to play in a perfectly adequate venue?
The Sonics claim they're leaving because they can't make money in the Key...I say file for bankruptcy, cut some salaries, reorganize your business model, and make the changes to the venue yourself. That's what privately held free market companies usually do. I fail to see why the a pro-sports team should be treated any differently.
Well, it's not fine with the government, who collects the tax revenue to pay for it regardless of whether I want to pay for it.
The fields are paid for by the individual sports teams
They pay for that land? Uh, no. That's public property, and their use of it is being subsidized because of the opportunity cost of private development. Sell that property in addition to all the property around Greenlake and you can build more than 2 houses.
Maybe you should tell me why I should subsidize a sports team
Why should anyone else subsidize your leisure activities? You and everyone else here seem more than happy to enjoy your publicly subsidized leisure activities while railing against the same thing for an activity you happen not to use. That's hypocrisy.
I'll pay a helluva lot more in taxes for parks and libraries and other public leisure spots this year that I'm not going to use than I will in taxes that will go to the sports stadia. The only tax I'll pay for those stadia this year is the restaurant taxes, which if I spend around $2,000 eating out, I'll pay a grand total of $10. Wow. My library and parks taxes were at least 15 times that.
Posted by: Palouse on April 3, 2008 01:15 PMWhich the state "simply needed to re-authorize"? If only it were so simple, Eric. Understand -- a legislative action to extend taxes that were scheduled to expire under law is a tax increase. No if, ands or buts about it. It is not a matter of interpretation; it is a matter of law. So who's being duplicitous here? I'm afraid that you and other proponents of public financing of a new Sonics arena are. Either that or just plain willful. You also glide over the tax increases involved by the glib reference to "specialty taxes." Let's be clear what we're talking about. We're talking about an additional, 0.5% sales tax on every purchase at a restaurant, tavern or bar in King County, on top of a sales tax that is already very high, and an additional 2% car rental tax on top of a car rental tax that is already very high. For those who have had to pay them to subsidize the Seattle Mariners since 1995, they're not simply "specialty taxes" -- they're real money. And they have every right to expect that the state will do what the law says, which is to let them expire when the stadium bonds are paid off, and not reimpose them to pay for yet another professional sports boondoggle. I appreciate your enthusiasm for the Sonics. I'm an NBA fan, too. But I fear you're not being honest with the readers of this web site. From the comments I've seen posted, I'm far from the only one of that opinion.
Posted by: stu on April 3, 2008 01:40 PMNot if you live outside the County limits. Greenlake is a publicly funded recreation facility subsidized through a tax the people voted for (King County Prop 1 & 2). Are you looking to overturn the will of the voters? How Dino Rossi of you.
They pay for that land?
They pay money to use the land, much like I had to pay to rent the publicly subsidized leisure spot to hold my private event on. =)
You and everyone else here seem more than happy to enjoy your publicly subsidized leisure activities while railing against the same thing for an activity you happen not to use. That's hypocrisy.
Nope, we're arguing against a small private company who is demanding that the taxpayers use their money to improve their event facility so they can make a greater profit.
In return this small privately owned company will stay in town, and in return for the taxpayers overwhelming generosity the company will NOT be sharing and of their increased profitability with the taxpayers who financed it.
A better description is "How Democrat Party of you."
I don't. So me and everyone else is subsidizing your leisure activities.
They pay money to use the land
So do the Sonics.
Nope, we're arguing against a small private company...
None of this refutes the fact that your leisure activities are being publicly subsidized while you are arguing against the subsidy of another leisure activity. So your public leisure subsidies are okay, just not everyone elses, eh?
Posted by: Palouse on April 3, 2008 01:56 PMI can't say for sure, since you likely didn't vote of King County Prop 1 & 2 and you live outside the county it would seem unlikely. If you are, thank you I quite enjoy them.
So do the Sonics.
Yes, but the Sonics are asking for taxpayer money to generate added revenue. The sports leagues that use public facilities at Greenlake seem quite happy with their situation. If they want to add private luxury boxes to these facilities I would suggest that they pay for it themselves.
None of this refutes the fact that your leisure activities are being publicly subsidized while you are arguing against the subsidy of another leisure activity.
Taxpayers approved these facilities for everyones use. Private companies pay fees to use them and possibly make a profit from others. Yet there is a vast market and multiple uses for these public fields unlike the publicly financed stadiums which are suitable for only a few activities.
You are more than welcome to join me in my leisure activity on the publicly financed land. That way you might feel like you're getting your money's worth.
The Ballmer proposal paid for the amenities that would provide this opportunity. The rest of the money helped improve a public facility. That public facility, with all events in it, have an economic impact on the area far, far greater than Greenlake.
The sports leagues that use public facilities at Greenlake seem quite happy with their situation.
Of course, the public's subsidizing their activities, and yours. What's not to like? Same is true with every other publicly subsidized leisure spot in the county. We don't have to restrict this only to Greenlake. Every single public leisure spot in the county could be sold to private development and it would generate more tax revenue. So they all have a cost.
Yet there is a vast market and multiple uses for these public fields unlike the publicly financed stadiums which are suitable for only a few activities.
How much total revenue is generated, directly and indirectly from all activities at the Key (not just the Sonics)? Compare that to sports fields and get back to me. Regardless, both are publicly subsidized. You are just choosing the subsidy to support that benefits you over the one that doesn't.
Posted by: Palouse on April 3, 2008 02:47 PM
And you could join me at the Key for a Sonics game so you could feel like you're getting your money's worth. Subsidies are subsidies are subsidies.
Posted by: Palouse on April 3, 2008 03:03 PMIt's still a bailout and by doing so violates the spirit of I-91 since the taxpayers will likely still be subsidizing a pro-sports team.
That public facility, with all events in it, have an economic impact on the area far, far greater than Greenlake.
The facility as a whole, sure. Still that's not a good reason to force the taxpayers into paying for upgrades. The Seattle Storm are not complaining, nor was the Obama campaign when it used the venue. Sounds like the teams problem, not the taxpayers.
Every single public leisure spot in the county could be sold to private development and it would generate more tax revenue.
If you want to run for office and get elected on those principles, more power to ya.
You are just choosing the subsidy to support that benefits you over the one that doesn't.
No, I'm saying that the fields at Greenlake and the Key Arena venue are perfectly reasonable facilities for what they are designed for. If private sports teams feel they need private luxury boxes at either location to generate more revenue for themselves they can pay for them in their entirety with their own profits or with private raised money.
And you could join me at the Key for a Sonics game so you could feel like you're getting your money's worth.
Thanks, I'll stick with Roller Derby, this sport at least has a worthy for-profit business model and are a lot more fun to watch. In fact rink side seats are actually $5 cheaper than bleacher seats. =)
Subsidies are subsidies are subsidies.
No, you seem to be saying some private-public subsidies are more worthy than others.
You do not know it actually violates I-91 however. And yes, it's a subsidy. So are the other leisure activities mentioned.
The facility as a whole, sure. Still that's not a good reason to force the taxpayers into paying for upgrades.
Why not? Taxpayers (me) are forced to pay for a whole lot of other public leisure places and libraries.
I'm saying that the fields at Greenlake and the Key Arena venue are perfectly reasonable facilities for what they are designed for.
Reasonable, perhaps. Adequate? Obviously not, or the team would be staying put.
you seem to be saying some private-public subsidies are more worthy than others.
Not at all. My point is that we have alot of publicly subsidized leisure activities, and improvements to the Key to keep the Sonics around is just another one of them. You'd like to keep Greenlake, the zoo, whatever around, I'd like to keep the Sonics with Key improvements.
Posted by: Palouse on April 3, 2008 03:59 PM"I already do if you ever visit any of the publicly subsidized places I've previously mentioned."
I've never asked you or anyone else to do such a thing. I would never dream of it.
"Now, I don't pay for your admission fees to those places (if any), and nor do you pay for my tickets to a Sonics game."
Great! Then trot on down to those places I mentioned and offer to pay part of their leasing and development expenses. It's only fair.
"Sell it. Let a developer build houses on it, and the public can get well over a million dollars in property tax revenue a year on that prime real estate."
Excellent idea! Sell Key Arena and Seattle Center to developers to build houses. Guess what, that's what was there before the city grabbed the property for the Worlds Fair, and turned it into a continuing series of problems. Let the capitalist developers decide what to do with it. If they can make a go of Key Arena, the let them have at it.
Can you read: GOVERNMENT CONFISCATORY REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH...my money taken from me and used to provide infrastructure to insure that other private citizens turn a profit...WRONG.
Maybe you think it would also be okay for the government to snatch your home for pennies on the dollar and turn it over to some big box outfit so the government can realize more taxes. This is insanity.
If yes I need to find a new place to waste time and get state political news.
Posted by: Lysander on April 3, 2008 04:26 PMTalk to your neighbors then, these sorts of things are voted on.
Obviously not, or the team would be staying put.
They could act like any other private business...file for bankruptcy, cut some salaries, reorganize their business model, and make the changes to the venue themselves.
To me it seems like an incredibly stupid business decision to move a money loosing team from a high income area with a large population to a lower income area with a smaller population. Especially if your whole business model is based on attracting large numbers of people with lots of disposable income.
You'd like to keep Greenlake, the zoo
Greenlake & the Zoo are not demanding that the taxpayers pay for private luxury boxes and if they don't get them they'll throw a temper tantrum and skip town.
Really? I never voted to use taxes to fund the vast majority of parks in the area, or the zoo, or the opera house, or....
They could act like any other private business
Does the zoo make a profit from its operations using only entry fees? I doubt it. It's subsidized, just like Key Arena. It does not matter that the Sonics are a private business in this case - the improvements are to a public facility. The Sonics are merely the "leisure activity" that uses it, and the improvements are part of keeping them here.
Greenlake & the Zoo are not demanding that the taxpayers pay for private luxury boxes
Taxpayers are not paying for private luxury boxes. None of the public money in the Ballmer proposal goes toward this. Please stop repeating this lie.
Greenlake and the Zoo also don't have the economic impact to the region that 41 home games of the Sonics do. What are they going to fill those 41 dates with, lacrosse? Roller derby? There's no consistent event that's going to fill that place without the Sonics. And guess what? You'll be paying for the upkeep of that arena with Seattle general fund taxes instead. Mayor McCheese ain't selling it to private developers.
I've never asked you or anyone else to do such a thing
Fine, but that doesn't change the fact that it's still subsidized. It's all well and good to write on a blog that you don't want any publicly subsidized leisure, but in reality, you do. So does Cato. You both want the publicly subsidized leisure activities that you like to enjoy, just not this one.
my money taken from me and used to provide infrastructure to insure that other private citizens turn a profit
Welcome to reality. It happens all over the place whenever tax breaks and incentives are given to businesses to locate something here - Boeing, Microsoft, Cabela's, whatever. I'm not saying this subsidy is the same, it's not. But they are an entertainment option that is subsidized, just like everything else.
Posted by: Palouse on April 4, 2008 08:07 AMMaybe it's because you don't live in King County. You're more than welcome to use them on my behalf.
I doubt it. It's subsidized, just like Key Arena.
It's facilities are open to the public on regular hours. They also make a s**t load of money off animal poop.
It does not matter that the Sonics are a private business in this case
Makes all the difference in the world. Might as well be handing them a big wad of cash and saying "have fun".
Taxpayers are not paying for private luxury boxes.
Luxury boxes get built, the tax money keeps flowing, Sonics still leave. Remember NOBODY else has a problem with the Arena but a small private company with a clearly flawed business model.
That are they going to fill those 41 dates with, lacrosse? Roller derby? There's no consistent event that's going to fill that place without the Sonics.
I'm sure something will fill it up. Rock bands, home shows, dinosaur exhibitions, motocross, monster trucks, maybe even roller derby (they sell out every game) if it gets big enough. All these events need a venue. I'm sure they'd have no problem using the Key. No one else seems to have a problem making money in the Arena.
It happens all over the place whenever tax breaks and incentives are given to businesses to locate something here - Boeing, Microsoft, Cabela's, whatever
You're not seriously comparing a company that hires maybe 100 people with a Fortune 500 companies that actually draw thousands of highly skilled workers to the region are you? When was the last time you met someone who was moving to Seattle because they liked their sports team?
I do live in KC, and do subsidize your other leisure activities. How much do you think you pay for stadium taxes right now? Unless you eat out every day and for some reason stay alot in hotels and rent cars in KC, it's probably not very much. Compare that to your property tax bill that goes to parks and libraries.
By the way, the $75 million the state could have authorized was going to come from the KC restaurant taxes, which will not expire when the Safeco bonds are paid off around 2012. It's authorized until 2016, and you can bet, it will be collected. So guess what, you'll be paying those taxes anyway.
It's facilities are open to the public on regular hours. They also make a s**t load of money off animal poop.
So what. That doesn't change the fact that they are subsidized. Zoo poop and admission fees doesn't pay all the bills.
Makes all the difference in the world. Might as well be handing them a big wad of cash and saying "have fun".
Wrong. The public improvements to the Key doesn't hand them any cash, and those improvements will also enhance whatever other events are there.
Luxury boxes get built, the tax money keeps flowing, Sonics still leave.
They get built with private dollars, and the tax money was contingent on them purchasing a team, either the existing Sonics or another team.
I'm sure something will fill it up.
You're dreaming. The Key competes with every other venue in the region for events, and there's simply not enough of them to fill it for that many dates. The Key is certainly going to generate far less revenue when they're gone, and it's Seattle general fund revenue that it is going to be using, instead of these specialty taxes.
No one else seems to have a problem making money in the Arena.
Yes, the Sonics are unique. They also have a much larger following in this region than any other leisure activity in that building.
You're not seriously comparing a company...
Did you stop reading before I stated they weren't the same? That was in response to Denizen's comment about public money being used to enhance a private business's profit. It happens all the time, with billions of tax dollars.
Posted by: Palouse on April 4, 2008 10:14 AMLooks like your neighbors voted Yes to King county Prop 1 & 2 which fund such leisure activities. You looking to overturn the will of the voters?
How much do you think you pay for stadium taxes right now?
Not nearly as much as you pay for the public schools. That was nearly half my tax bill this year.
So guess what, you'll be paying those taxes anyway.
At least I will know I'm not subsidizing pro-sports teams in violation of I-95.
That doesn't change the fact that they are subsidized. Zoo poop and admission fees doesn't pay all the bills.
True, though I don't think the Sonics are keeping large numbers of wild animals in falsified natural habitats.
The public improvements to the Key doesn't hand them any cash, and those improvements will also enhance whatever other events are there.
No, they specifically seemed designed to appeal to a select group of people who are throwing a temper tantrum because they don't want to bother fixing their flawed business model. Like I said before NOBODY else has a problem with the Area except those individuals who could cut salaries across the board by 10% would be able to fund the fixes themselves.
They get built with private dollars
Good, then they can build it themselves. They're likely the only people who will be using the new unneeded luxury boxes.
They also have a much larger following in this region than any other leisure activity in that building.
Good, since they have such a large draw they can fix their flawed business model. make a profit, and make the improvements themselves without having to get a bailout from the taxpayers or local billionaires.
It happens all the time, with billions of tax dollars.
According to the EU those are "Subsidies"..around here we call them "Tax Breaks". =)
I bet every single one of those companies that receives those "tax breaks" hires more people and contributes more to the regional economy than the Sonics do.
Remember Palouse:
Just say NO to bailouts for companies with flawed business models.
Nope. I'm not trying to overturn park funding at all.
Not nearly as much as you pay for the public schools
Or as much for parks and libraries. Subsidized leisure.
At least I will know I'm not subsidizing pro-sports teams in violation of I-95.
I assume you meant I-91, but again, you don't know the proposal violates I-91. Even the guy who wrote I-91 supported the Ballmer proposal.
I don't think the Sonics are keeping large numbers of wild animals in falsified natural habitats.
And? Does that channge the fact that the animals are subsidized with tax dollars? No.
they specifically seemed designed to appeal to a select group of people who are throwing a temper tantrum because they don't want to bother fixing their flawed business model.
I'm not defending the NBA business model. I wish they would fix it too. I actually don't like that things like this have to happen to keep professional sports, but I'd still like them to stay.
They're likely the only people who will be using the new unneeded luxury boxes.
This could not be further from the truth. There's alot of big name concerts and other events that the city could get some revenue from selling tickets in these boxes.
make the improvements themselves without having to get a bailout from the taxpayers
Again, we taxpayers are subsidizing your leisure activities. This is no different.
I bet every single one of those companies that receives those "tax breaks" hires more people and contributes more to the regional economy than the Sonics do.
Most of them, probably. I don't know what the Sonics' contribution to the regional economy is, but I'm sure it's more than Greenlake. =)
The city of Seattle is making that very argument in court right now that the Sonics are worth more than just the cost of their lease.
Posted by: Palouse on April 4, 2008 11:08 AMHere is a reality for you...500% increase in property taxes in 27 years. I don't know what you pay now, but if the trend continues, you will likely be paying five times what you pay now. I hope you do well in life because you are going to need it. I want a livable city for everyone, not just street bums and the wealthy. I don't want New York City tax rates in Seattle. Apparenly, a lot of other people see it the same way or Tim Eyman would not be in business. I am not going to roll over and play dead just because some other leisure activities are publicly funded. Clay Bennett demanded another Safeco Field for the Sonics. A half billion dollars. He figures since we did it for Paul Allen, we can do it for him. So then what happens? Suppose croquette becomes popular in Seattle. Do we then build a half billion dollar dedicated croquette park? Where does it all end? One of our state senators put forth a bill to bilk taxpayers on a carbon tax scheme to the tune of 26 billion dollars over the next 10 years. The money would have been handed over to other private citizens to start green businesses!!! You got idiots on the city council that have no problem spending a million dollars on a skate board park that hasn't kept the skate punks off the street anyway. Voluntarily handing more money over to the government is pure foolishness.
Posted by: NW Denizen on April 4, 2008 11:47 AMThat's why I didn't support the Bennett proposal, and wouldn't support the croquet proposal either. The Ballmer proposal is quite different, and only required a $75 million investment from the restaurant taxes, that you and everyone else is going to pay anyway. So congratulations, it looks like you successfully cut off your nose to spite your face.
Posted by: Palouse on April 4, 2008 11:53 AMI usually go to the library to lean, I don't think the librarians would consider their job as "leisure". In fact my local GOP caucus was held in one of my library's meeting rooms. Seems to me the items you mention provide a public service. Do you really want to tell me the Sonics ( a private for-profit company) is providing the citizens of Seattle with a public service accessible to all?
Even the guy who wrote I-91 supported the Ballmer proposal.
Do share, I have not heard this. I still feel any bailout would be violating the spirit of the law.
I'm not defending the NBA business model. I wish they would fix it too.
Good, then why should we bail them out?
I'd still like them to stay.
I'd like them to go, maybe then they will realize they will loose money wherever they go. Doubt it, pro-sports teams are not a kind friends to the Average Joe Taxpayer.
There's alot of big name concerts and other events that the city could get some revenue from selling tickets in these boxes.
Uh huh...you keep telling yourself that. How many luxury boxes were filled when Metalica played Qwest Field? (Answer: None)
Again, we taxpayers are subsidizing your leisure activities. This is no different.
Those leisure activities are not pro-sports teams making a profit off the public dime. Again, they provide a public service to the community...library's provide books/knowledge/meeting rooms, Greenlake provides a public place for the community to exercise/meet, the Zoo gives people a chance to see/interact with wild animals in an enclosed safe setting. The Sonics give you a place for an individual to drop $100 bucks while see a bunch of overpaid millionaires run up and down a basketball court for 2 hours.
I could go to any of the local HS/Colleges and see the same thing at a more exciting level of play for far less money...heck I don't even have to pay for parking when I see those games. I bet the profits from those games goes right back to subsidizing the students education. That seems a far worthier cause than helping LeBron James get his 3rd Ferrari.
I don't know what the Sonics' contribution to the regional economy is, but I'm sure it's more than Greenlake. =)
True, but Greenlake is a public funded community asset thats open to the public, the Sonics are a for-profit corporation. Apples and Oranges.
Nope. It's entertainment, just like the zoo is.
Do share, I have not heard this.
Those leisure activities are not pro-sports teams making a profit off the public dime.
So what. This is irrelevant. The public improvements to the Key are for things like improved loading docks and safety improvements, not luxury boxes.
And the Key provides a place for the public to meet/interact/enjoy just like Greenlake does. It also happens to generate alot more income than Greenlake does, or the zoo for that matter.
That seems a far worthier cause than helping LeBron James get his 3rd Ferrari.
I suppose the $9 million that former Sonic player Detlef Schremf's foundation has poured back into local charities counts for nothing. Other players have also raised alot for charity, moreso than any roller derby or lacrosse player ever will.
Greenlake is a public funded community asset thats open to the public, the Sonics are a for-profit corporation.
The Key is also a publicly funded community asset that's open to the public, just like Zoo. The Sonics are only leasing it 41 dates per year.
Posted by: Palouse on April 4, 2008 12:24 PMNot necessarily. If the Key becomes a drag on the city, it is likely that voters will demand the city divest the property.
I probably will not live another 27 years, but it is possible. Based on past taxing trends, I would then be paying in the neighborhood of $22,500 per year in property taxes alone. I would literally be forced out of my home long before this point. You say I am cutting off my nose to spite my face when in fact, I am just being practical. I guess in your world you don't care that I would have to move from the city where I was born and lived for 80 years as long as you get to keep your sports teams. It sucks to be me, right? Are you part of the instant gratification at any cost generation? Let me repeat my wish for you that I hope you do well in life because you are going to need it.
You know Palouse, this is probably all moot anyway. I am sure that someone is going to crawl out of the woodwork figure out a way to screw the taxpayers, so in the end, you will get what you want.
Have a nice weekend. : )
I doubt it. Without an anchor tenant, they won't find a buyer who can make money on it, and they won't sell it for development.
I guess in your world you don't care that I would have to move from the city where I was born and lived for 80 years as long as you get to keep your sports teams.
Well, considering that none of the taxes that are going to current sports stadia or the proposed taxes for the Key are property taxes, I have no idea what you mean.
You have nice weekend too.
Posted by: Palouse on April 4, 2008 01:00 PMSure if your willing to shell out $100 for 2 hours. Greenlake is free to the public 24 hours a day. If you want to reserve it for a private function you pay some money.
I suppose the $9 million that former Sonic player Detlef Schremf's foundation has poured back into local charities counts for nothing.
That's very worthy of him...I still fail to see why we should reward a small business with flawed business model. That seems very un-Republican of you...(me)Free market economics vs. (you) taxpayer bailout, hmmm.
The Sonics are only leasing it 41 dates per year.
Like I said, no one else has a problem with the Arena...just the Sonics all of whom will be leaving in a year or two anyway...off to extort the fine taxpayers of Oklahoma City.
I paid around $20 a ticket last time I went. Had a great time. And there's plenty of publicly subsidized places around (Zoo, Benaroya, Aquarium, etc) where you also have to pay admission.
That seems very un-Republican of you...(me)Free market economics vs. (you) taxpayer bailout, hmmm.
I make up my own mind on issues, and if that doesn't fit with whoever's definition of "Republican" or "conservative", I could really care less. If the Democrats had come out and supported the Ballmer proposal, I would have backed them on it. That's why I'm not getting into yours and pbj's dungfest over on the other thread. I don't care which party supports it.
no one else has a problem with the Arena...
I'm not interested in any other Arena tenant. My guess is that none of those other tenants pay as much to lease the Key as the Sonics do either. Why? Because none of them draw anywhere close to the number of people the Sonics do.
Posted by: Palouse on April 4, 2008 01:20 PMYeah, but but it's not giving money to a for-profit company that will skip town if they feel some other taxpayers are willing to shell out more money.
Those other publicly financed places are non-profits, if you give money to any of those places you mention it's tax deductible.
Apples and Oranges.
I guess is that none of those other tenants pay as much to lease the Key as the Sonics do either.
Does it mater? Sonics are already gone...the other tenants (minus the T-birds) are staying. The T-Birds are leaving for the same reason, the taxpayers in Kent are apparently willing to waste $78 million on building them a new stadium.
The taxes go to the Key Arena improvements, not directly to the Sonics. The improvements help keep them here, yes. The Key is a public venue, not for profit, just like those other places. And the deal would also bring with it a new lease, which would explicitly state (this time) that they have to play games there for the duration.
the other tenants (minus the T-birds) are staying.
Oh yes, you must mean the Storm. I'm sure the revenue they generate for the Key and the region will more than make up for the Sonics leaving. /sarcasm
I'll probably go to some Thunderbird games in Kent. I'm glad that was built too.
Posted by: Palouse on April 4, 2008 02:13 PMNo one has a problem with the Key, make the pro-sports extortionists pay for their own improvements since "none of those other tenants pay as much to lease the Key as the Sonics do" or "draw anywhere close to the number of people the Sonics do". Seems like those private industries with the most to gain from the renovations should chip in the most. Pro-Sports needs to learn to stop asking for public/corporate bailouts and function as a profitable entity.
I'm sure the revenue they generate for the Key and the region will more than make up for the Sonics leaving.
Sure, they can spend more on PR. =P
I'm glad that was built too.
I'm glad that I'm not subsidizing their stadium extortion like you and the Sonics are asking me to do.
I imagine the Key Arena sitting vacant. We should at least force Clay Bennett into honoring the last two years of his lease. Not just buying out the last two years, but actually forcing the Sonics to play there. They bring in revenue to the area, and why let that revenue just walk away?
Posted by: Agent99 on April 4, 2008 07:13 PM