It is little secret that many conservatives - including a vocal portion of the Sound Politics readership - loathe public subsidies for sports facilities benefiting private enterprise. Moreover, it's difficult not to argue with detractors who criticize the current product and economic model of the NBA. This blogger - even as he was sorry to see the Sonics go - no longer watches the NBA and hasn't been to a Sonics game in a decade. Yet, the politics of the issue deserve to be viewed through an entirely different lens.
Already the tepid state activity to support the City of Seattle's efforts to retain the Sonics has resulted in contrasts in the Governor's race. Dino Rossi likens the Sonics' flight from town as another failure in leadership from Olympia. Christine Gregoire offers lots of reasons to explain why state government couldn't get the job done. This is a familiar theme.
Remember, however, just how Dino Rossi made the 2004 race for Governor close: by outperforming the rest of the Republican ticket in key demographic groups. See for example, the Washington State exit polls for President and Governor that year:
- George Bush lost white men to John Kerry by one point; Dino Rossi beat Christine Gregoire by eight.
- Bush beat Kerry by 10 points in the $50,000 - $75,000 income bracket; Rossi beat Gregoire by 17.
- Similarly, Bush lost the $75,000 - $100,000 bracket by 12 to Kerry; Rossi won it by three (and let's stipulate, both income brackets are the heart of the middle class in the Puget Sound metropolitan region).
- Bush lost union members by 17 points; Rossi lost them by only eight.
- Bush and Kerry tied in the suburbs (a huge 46% of the electorate). Rossi won them by six.
- Lastly, a big one. Bush lost the urban Puget Sound area (outside King County) by five points. Rossi won it by six.
Thus, it should be little surprise Rossi won the closest thing this state has to a pure swing county - Snohomish - by over 2% while Kerry was beating Bush by 7.5%.
With all that in mind, recall from where the true public outcry is coming regarding the departure of the Sonics: the sports pages of Seattle area newspapers and local sports talk radio.
Dino Rossi succeed in 2004 in significant part by doing better than other Republicans among white working/middle class men in the Seattle suburbs. Who listens to sports radio and regularly partakes of the Seattle area sports pages? People in the same demographic.
That's why Change our Gov's latest "Sonics" ad on KJR-AM is a smart play. Campaigns often turn on expected twists. The current status quo in Olympia getting flayed on sports radio definitely fits that bill.
Conservatives don't like public dollars supporting stadiums and arenas for professional sports. Many a sports fan isn't all that enamored with the modern NBA. All fair points. But at the same time, the modern era likewise rarely sees an opportunity for half the cost of remodeling a public, multi-use facility in a downtown urban area to be paid for by private funds.
All the state had to do to make that even possible was grant the King County Council the authority to extend an existing, special-use tax. The state didn't have to spend a dime to show it cared. Yet the Legislature and the Governor couldn't even find a way to bring it to a vote.
Agree with keeping the Sonics or not, this whole affair does fall right in the wheelhouse of a failure of leadership. The sports pundits are already all over this - creating an overt political tone to normally apolitical discourse. Now Change our Gov is piling on, with good cause.
All of which is creating a political dialogue that is decidedly unfavorable to the sitting incumbent, right in the heart of a swing demographic from 2004. Wherever one stands on the Sonics - and public dollars for pro sports facilities in general - that's a dynamic worth watching.
UPDATE: headline fixed.
Posted by Eric Earling at July 08, 2008 09:25 PM | Email ThisBut I fall exactly in to the demographic that Eric mentions. I love sports. I love competition. Competitive professional sports offers a microcosmic opportunity to see a competitive and productive battle play out. And this appeals to capitalists who see the same thing on the business playing field, but played out over a longer and less interesting time frame.
In that sense, Greogire is totally disconnected from sports both as a female who does not seem to be that interested, and as a Progressive who views sport as an unnecessary display of raw competition. Whether not Gregoire believes these things is immaterial. She exudes sporting apathy in her dry and tepid personality.
Rossi can capitalize on the Sonics, and if that's a small part of bringing down a Progressive, then that's a sound offense.
Progressives hate competition, they want everything "fair and equal".
Jeff B is spot on about Progressives simply not understanding the lure of competitive sports.
They don't have to compete, they just have to steal elections and they get their way.
Posted by: zDawg on July 8, 2008 11:51 PMI also think that all county offices should be moved to Kent to alleviate congestion.
Kn other words, a rossi win does not equal a conservative win.
Posted by: Lysander on July 9, 2008 03:37 AMWhat did Kent ever do to deserve the county offices being dumped on it? :-)
Posted by: pyotr on July 9, 2008 03:41 AMIt's a double-edged sword, since conservatives should oppose subsidies to private business. However, if it puts Rossi in the Gov. mansion, I can't be too unhappy about it. Does anyone want to see a repeat of the last four years in Olympia?
Posted by: russell garrard on July 9, 2008 05:06 AMDo we really win if we get Rossi in office if in the process we find he has no principles?
I have a sneaking suspicion he will instead turn into a big spending republican in the likes of George Bush.
Posted by: Lysander on July 9, 2008 05:36 AMhowz those WA ferries? effieicnt? updated equipment? more secure from attacks? and the gas tax of a few years ago--results there? schools improving?
meanwhile, SEA micro-manages your life with more redundant and asinine plastic bag rules; easy things for the Council to pass; like banning fires at Alki; their version of "doing something" and "results" again stifles freedom and imposes more micro-focused, useless nanny state thinking;
and these bag-banners will lead us in a local or national natural, civil or terrorist emergency? my gosh--scary;
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on July 9, 2008 06:22 AMIf Gregoire had kept the sonics, that would be something to crow about.
Instead all she to show for four years is higher taxes and appointing Norm Dick's son to a cushy environmental suck fund position.
It's not tough to see why she is leading with negative recycled attack ads on Rossi. She has nothing to say that the voters will hear w/out coming at her with torches and pitch forks.
PS... Send her some bucks too!
LOL
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on July 9, 2008 07:51 AMsince conservatives should oppose subsidies to private business
I disagree completely, it is LIBERALS, SOCIALISTS, and LEFTWING NUTS, who should oppose subsidies to PRIVATE businesses.
It is liberals, socialists and leftwing nuts who support taxing and regulating private businesses to a point where they can barely make any profit.
It should be the goal of conservatives to do everything possible to help private businesses to stimulate the economy and provide private sector jobs.
It should be the goal of conservatives to see to it that the government is run more like a business and less like a bureaucracy. If the benefits outweigh the costs for a significant ROI, then the govt. should subsidize the private businesses. Whether it's something as commonplace as targeted tax breaks, subsidizing railroads, highways, docks, airports, whether it's something as common as contracting work done by a private contractor for city construction - those are all subsidizing private businesses. If the benefits are significant enough, make the right business decision and just do it, don't listen to the liberals on this 'conservative' blog.
Welcome back. (-:
Now put on your learning cap.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on July 9, 2008 09:05 AMBecause if it is... I'm ashamed to call myself one.
Posted by: hinton on July 9, 2008 09:06 AMIt, of course, means many things (or at least, it's supposed to) but among them is that it's not SUPPOSED to mean the "eminent domain" of our dollars for a private purpose.
This pathetic spin job by Eric (Who appears to be looking for a job in a Rossi Administration) is just that: pathetic spin.
There is no excuse nor justification for supporting tax dollars to go to professional sports. None. If Dino will chuck conservative principles for political opportunism for this, where else will he sell us out?
No, this time around, Gregoire and Chopp were directly on target. And these efforts to justify Dino's stupidity and political tone deafness simply won't wash.
His last-second effort to parachute in with a "solution" that continues to screw us instead of actively engaging in the process and representing the will of the people in this matter is what screwed the pooch for me.
He has no chance anyway, so I wish him luck in whatever it is he's doing when this election is over.
But I'm calling bullshit on this, and I will continue to do so with EVERY effort to spin his betrayal into something it isn't.
Posted by: hinton on July 9, 2008 09:09 AMIn the past, the Mariners, Seahawks, etc. couldn't have started up without support of diehard conservative businessmen. The keyword is "businessmen".
There is an argument to be made that the City of Seattle has an asset that soon will become a liability- the Seattle Center and environs. The City needs to protect that investment. They did well not kowtowing to the 'half billion or else' good faith bargaining effort (cough, cough) of the Bennett group.
Even I was pleasantly surprised with the Ballmer group counter offer. I thought I could live with it.
The Sonics do provide jobs and incomes in the community and Seattle and Rossi were right in supporting the Ballmer proposal. Too bad the governor didn't toot this proposal before the end of the last legislative session.
Posted by: swatter on July 9, 2008 09:57 AMThat's disingenous, Eric. You are upset that the Legislature didn't authorize King County to raise taxes on its citizens. And make no mistake, it is a tax increase. That half a cent restaurant tax is not small potatoes, especially for the working Joe, and the rental car tax in King County is extraordinarily high.
And it is not that that Governor and Legislature "couldn't find a way to bring it to a vote." They didn't choose to bring it to a vote, just as they didn't choose to bring a lot of unpopular proposals to a vote in the last two sessions. That's disingenuous, too.
"With all that in mind, recall from where the true public outcry is coming regarding the departure of the Sonics: the sports pages of Seattle area newspapers and local sports talk radio."
Well, duh. Is there anybody with a more vested interest in professional sports franchises (other than their owners) than the sportswriters at local newspapers and local sports talk radio? This is their jobs, for gosh sakes.
Give it up. You're on the losing end of this debate. Not buying your attempt to show this is good politics, either. It's sure not supported by the polling.
Posted by: friar on July 9, 2008 11:10 AMBut -- really, making completely unsupportable statements like "progressives don't like competitive sports" is ridiculous. I'm not a progressive, but I have plenty of very liberal and progressive friends who are huge sports fans. Seattle may be a city of fair weather fans, but its pretty clear that not everyone attending Mariners, Seahawks and Sonics games are conservative. And I'm pretty sure that there are a good many liberals that attend the UW sporting events.
And -- TacomaPhlash -- that post was completely inappropriate. And it wasn't even close to funny.
Posted by: Zeeb on July 9, 2008 11:28 AM"And -- TacomaPhlash -- that post was completely inappropriate. And it wasn't even close to funny."
ROFL. Yeah, it was! Your objection is even funnier.
Let the people who go to them pay for them. That seems reasonable. Surely if money can be made off it, private investors can be found? If not, the government has no business getting involved in it. (Not that it does anyway.)
It is liberals, socialists and leftwing nuts who support taxing and regulating private businesses to a point where they can barely make any profit.
It should be the goal of conservatives to do everything possible to help private businesses to stimulate the economy and provide private sector jobs...If the benefits outweigh the costs for a significant ROI, then the govt. should subsidize the private businesses....
Posted by: Doug "
Doug according to your apparent definitions of 'liberal' and 'conservative,' I can't see much difference between the two. In both cases they want gov't heavily involved in managing business. It appears that the only difference in your world is that conservatives do it effectively, while liberals screw it up.
My definition of conservatism entails limited gov't. The gov't should not be involved in the entertainment biz.
Posted by: russell garrard on July 9, 2008 01:38 PMYou bring up a good point. The since the City of Seattle owns Key Arena, Governor Rossi should be pushing for them to sell the assett to private industry not throw more money at a money pit that the government never should have owned to begin with. What legitimate governmnet function does a city have owning a sports arena?
Posted by: Lysander on July 9, 2008 04:48 PMThere are some services that won't be provided for effectively without the government and it's tax dollars paying the huge capital costs. It's just important that the govt. entities ensure that the benefit is greater than those costs.
The libertarian mantra works for most things (and I would agree with most), however, it doesn't work when there are huge capital costs that don't have a guaranteed and relatively short ROI that is profitable for the business. Hence, initially sports stadiums have been publically financed back to the Roman days. Now, whether or not they should be sold to private enterprise after being built is another matter. If they ever did get sold back, no doubt it would be for pennies on the dollar as there wouldn't be multiple buyers.
So, like a ferry boat or a light rail system - once it's built if the govt. sells it, the government will lose money on it, and lose control on whether it's used or not.
Posted by: Doug on July 9, 2008 09:50 PMI guess we fundamentally have a difference in what we think governments role is. You seem to beleive that government should fund things too risky for private business and also projects where the benifits do not outwiegh the costs.
I think risky projects should only be funded by epople willing to risk their own money, not by forcing taxpayers. I also think that if the benifits do not outwiegh the costs then the project is not worth being done.
Unfortunately Rossi and Gregoire both believe as you do it appears. They just differ on which risky and losing propositions they want to spend our money on.
Posted by: Lysander on July 10, 2008 08:51 PM