apples and oranges, josh. i don't think we should give the subparsonics one thin dime of our money to, particularly to subsidize a billionaire's hobby. but do you really think the Key would be able to fill 41 profitable concert dates per season -- the number of sonics home games? i mean, hell, are there even 41 bands out there that have a big enough draw to play in that arena? certainly those simpy pop-tarts, Harvey Danger, can't...

Josh, did the Coach ever let you play?

Not a bad point Dogday.
But considering that the Sonics argument is: We are a financial boon for the city, I think the concert comparison shows that the Sonics may not be the best use of Key Arena.

Check this out, the net gain to the city on the Ice Capades (nine times a year) is $15K. That's $10K more than the Sonics.

Sportsnut,

He started me!? And lovingly wrapped my ankle before each game.

still, i'm thinking nine times a year is nearing the profitability breaking point for ice-capades, or any other specialty "touring troupe" for that matter. even brian boytano will tell you he'd have a hard time putting asses in seats if he had to visit sea-town a dozen times or more a year. my one fear would be, should the sonics up and bolt, the city would be filling those lost dates not with music, but with promise-keeper events and monster truck rallies....
(and hey -- boytano? hard? asses? i think there's a joke "in there" somewhere...)

It would be hard to put up 41 concerts in the key arena, but given the average, it would only take 4 concerts to surpass the money the sonics bring it.

personally, i'd like basketball to stay. it would stink if they left, but from a morale perspective and we'd live -- and live just as well as we ever have.

i think josh is trying to speak to scare tactics and ways that the interests here try to threaten the fiscal stability of the city in order to get their way. the point then becomes not whether or not we want the sonics, but in negotiating does the city fall prey to idea that it can not survive without pro basketball and then fail to protect the interests of the city as a whole.

The Key could be profitable if a little money was invested into it. Over 80% of concerts in the US are under 8,000 people. Make the Key a scalable venue that can fill the hole in the Seattle market of venues 3,000-8,000 seats. Might even be able to do the 3,000-12,000 seats.

Here's a specific idea. This is an option that should be studied. Very little study has been done on alternatives to the Sonics. It would be irresponsible to take a position in favor of the $260 million investment into the Key before serious alternatives are considered.

Anyhow....Convert the Seattle Coliseum to a mixed-use music/film and technology center. Use a mix of public funding and private investment.

The Music side could include:

- A 3000-7500 performance venue
- Recording studios and post-production facilities
- Radio station
- Destination restaurant/club/cabaret (example: House of Blues style Club)
- Music and film retail
- Office space for a plethora of music related businesses that would love to be located near each other

The Film side could include:

- Film Center with SIFF and Film School offices, space for conferences and educational programs
- 400-seat state of the art theater
- Sound stage for film, television, advertising, music videos and video game score recordings (see Austin).
- Post production facilities
- Office space (examples: Washington State Film Office, Mayor’s Office of Film and Music)

This helps transforms Seattle Center into a truly modern 21st century urban park in touch with Seattle’s demographic, economic and social realities, and makes Key Arena a thriving facility day and night, not just an insular capsule people drive into, eat, drink, watch sports and leave.

The music industry is already one of the largest industries in Seattle driving over $1.3 billion in economic activity per year. That number could be multiplied. The same with film, and obviously the tech side of the equation could be massive.

This type of project would better fit Seattle Center's mission. It would cost much less money, drive private investment, create jobs, and increase use of the Center year round. It would benefit lower Queen Anne much more than the Sonic's plans for the Key. Beyond that it could be a legacy project for The Mayor and Council. Seattle's Millennium Park so to speak. Something historic and unique to Seattle.

Or we could spend many times the mone keepy to a shitty team with a bleak future that can't sell tickets.

now that, sir, is a incredibly reasonable argument. which is why our fearless city and state leaders WILL NEVER DO IT. if the past means anything (i.e. Safeco and QWEST field subsidies), emotion will trump reason. and what's more emotional than a 360 pound "SUPER FAN" blubbering into TV cameras about how Sonics are cultural treasure that needs to be preserved?!

PS - Keep in mind, if Seattle stood up to the Sonics bluff, we would lose the Sonics, not pro basketball. The Hornets left Charlotte but soon after the Bobcats arrived. Seattle is the 12th largest media market in the US. The NBA wants to be here. If we lose the Sonics, we will soon enough get another team in the region.

But also, the implication by the Sonics seems to be that losing them would hurt Seattle. So the question is can Seattle be a great city without the Sonics? Montreal has done fine without ad NBA team and lost a MLB team and has thrived regardless. Vancouver BC lost an NBA team and is still a great city. LA lost the NFL and is, well LA. Portland has no NHL, no MLB and no NFL. Portland is a good city.

Seattle has two other thriving pro sports franchises as well as minor league soccer and hockey. It has multiple sports at the UW. We will not be lacking for any sports if we lose the Sonics.

PS - Keep in mind, if Seattle stood up to the Sonics bluff, we would lose the Sonics, not pro basketball. The Hornets left Charlotte but soon after the Bobcats arrived. Seattle is the 12th largest media market in the US. The NBA wants to be here. If we lose the Sonics, we will soon enough get another team in the region.

But also, the implication by the Sonics seems to be that losing them would hurt Seattle. So the question is can Seattle be a great city without the Sonics? Montreal has done fine without ad NBA team and lost a MLB team and has thrived regardless. Vancouver BC lost an NBA team and is still a great city. LA lost the NFL and is, well LA. Portland has no NHL, no MLB and no NFL. Portland is a good city.

Seattle has two other thriving pro sports franchises as well as minor league soccer and hockey. It has multiple sports at the UW. We will not be lacking for any sports if we lose the Sonics.

one last point. The public opposes the Sonic's plan. According to a recent King 5 poll only 31% of Seattle residents support tax dollars going to the Key as the Sonics want it to. Local politicians should take note. The public does not want to subsidize pro sports!

good points, meinert, though your post-script reasoning is a little thin. the very fact that LA -- the second biggest media market in the US -- has yet to get back an NFL team after the Raiders left more than a decade ago tends to undermine your argument that Seattle would get another NBA team....

The way I understand it, part of the problem with having pro-sports teams in the Northwest is that other teams hate traveling so hellishly far on a regular basis. NBA owners also get to vote on and approve league expansions -- which don't happen all that often -- and get to vote on which cities get a franchise. That all means if the Sonics leave, the NBA may be gone for good...

Which is fine by me, if every five to 10 years or so the Sonics, Seahawks, Mariners intend to strongarm the taxpayers into subsidizing billionaire owners' profits.

Dogday said it all in the 1st comment. There aren't many bands who could put 16,000 asses in the seats, especially with the price of tickets for the average KeyArena concert.

As much of a drain as the Sonics have been, they somehow get 15,000 people to show up and pay face value to see them suck.

But I still agree that we should let them bugger off and find someone willing to enable them, while putting in a wholesale effort to revive Seattle Center as a viable arts and events center.

Started you?
I don't think so. Short, slow and ugly doesn't do it. They might have sent you in to bite an ankle.

Sportsnut: Ugly guys can play basketball. You ever get a good look at Dennis Rodman? Or how about Sonics legend Jack Sikma?

Why is it bad if they play on the eastside? It seems like a great solution: Seattle doesn't have to pay the bill; those who wish to watch them easily can; and if it's true that a pro basketball team helps the region they'll still be in the region. Everybody wins. One could argue that they'll help the eastside a bunch more than they pesently help Seattle.

Fyi: I posted Meinert's stadium idea in the Forums because I think people there should take a look at it.
Milly

Count Joel Connelly as one of those supporting The Sonics (or is it simply the Sonics?). In his column in the February 15, 2005 Seattle P-I, he opined that Nick Licata is way off base and that we might be the lesser without The Sonics at Key Arena.
I e-mailed him and told him that I had to disagree with him. Furthermore, I told him that the problem with this city are so-called "progressives" who worry more about stadiums, than the plethora of other, more important things, things important to we proles.
He shot back an short, terse and dismissive e-mail that said, "I am going to keep writing about what I want to, whether you support it or not. The fact that Seattle may suffer from the loss of The Sonics at Key Arena is important to Seattle." (words close to that, this done by memory.)
So folks, it looks as if Joel Connelly is now basically an unpaid (??) flack for Howard Schultz. Of course, since Mr. Connelly gets to live up on Whidby Island and won't pay for any of that nonsense, why should he really care?
And "Sportsnut" it doesn't matter one damn bit if Josh Feit was on any sports team whatsoever, eh? He's a writer and he does that pretty damn well. All writers have to do, is write well and true (to themselves). The rest is all bullshit.

Josh,
You might want to withdraw that application to the P-I.

Oh how I wish that the readers and writers of The Sranger Blog would decide all matters on the our sports teams. What a fu**ed that would be.

Should we trader Vlade? Meinert will decide! Should we double team Garnett? Feit definitely knows that answer! Should Dogday hump Parkhurst in the rump? Let's ask Mike Holmgrim!

1) The Sonics are not likely to move to Bellevue because it's not likely that Bellevue will have them. The city managers might entertain the idea, but the traffic problems and the logistics are such that Bellevue residents aren't likely to let it fly.

2)Even if the Bellevue deal was sealed, Seattle residents will still end up floating the bill in large part. The taxes have to come from somewhere. Bellevue is the state's fifth largest city, but they won't pay for such expansion by themselves. Expect a county wide tax along with special state taxes. Seattle residents will end up paying for a team that doesn't even reside in their city.

That doesn't mean I support that use of Key Arena. Quite the contrary. I'd let the Sonics go and follow Meinert's proposal (or some other sensible approach). While I recognize that pro sports can be significant to a community's identity, are the Sonics really crucial for this community's identity? We have the Mariners and the Seagulls, do we need the Sonics? Near as I can tell we need the Storm more than the Sonics. And that is something else to consider - we're not just talking about losing the Sonics, but also the Storm. I'd still let them go, but I think that the Storm is more important.

Just so Josh and others understand: Seattlites still pay the (countwide)tax if its extended and the Supes move to Bellevue - and where a new arena would mostly sap the remaining KeyArena concerts, etc. Even if the team left the area, no one's sure the Key can really turn a profit - and we'd have to spend at least $20 million (money from where?) to make it a viable venue, plus still pay of the $58 million debt. How it's going to work out is this: The Sonics will agree to pay the remaining debt - or an equal amount - and the legislature and then the council will support the expansion.

I hear what you're saying, TP, but I don't know if I'd go so far as to call Connelly a "flak" for Starbucks. A sychophant, yes, but a flak?

I mean, hell, it's an opinion column, TP. That's the guy's opinion, like it or not. I personally don't, but on the other hand, I've actually agreed with a few of his columns -- at least I did after slogging through his bloviated prose -- on issues like drilling in ANWR... Sure, he's an elitist old Seattle liberal hag and blow-hard with blinders to progressive ideas, but that just about describes all of the Seattle power structure, doesn't it??

I think Connelly actually owns a home in Seattle, too, btw...

Playbook is right.
The legislation doesn't dedicate the money to Key Arena. It dedicates the money—money generated from the restaurant, car rental, and hotel/motel tax—to King County. King County can do whatever it wants—including building a Sonics arena in Bellevue and leaving Seattle Center to rot.

I'm against any public funding for pro-sports. According to my friends back home (San Francisco), the Giants' new stadium was built using no public money. Here's an article about it.

Let's force the Sonics to finance it on their own.

This is completely beside the point-
Dogday: How in the world did your mind make the leap from the Key Arena to Harvey Danger?

Also, Meinert's idea is brilliant. I hope my great-great-great-grandchildren enjoy the facility.

From my understanging, the band has members who work at the Stranger. That was the connection.

Holla and Happy Thanksgiving. valium ativan order online irritative rhinitis caused by alprazolam ambien link pagerealm.com online sport betting win baccarat

Very interesting & professional site. You done great work. mortgage loan leigh keno what is alprazolam bad credit loans casinos what is diazepam slot cars ultram side effects

Hi there! Your site is cool!

Hello! Very interesting and professional site.

Thanks for the special work and information!

Hello! Very interesting and professional site.

Thanks for the special work and information!