Slog - The Stranger's Blog

Line Out

The Music Blog

« Yet Another Cost Overrun From ... | Happy 420! »

Thursday, April 20, 2006

Save the Sonics!

Posted by on April 20 at 10:01 AM

The owners of the Sonics—lead by Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz—are threatening to sell or move the team unless Seattle spends $220 million to tart up Key Arena. The motley collection billionaires who own the Sonics have, graciously enough, agreed to kick in $18 million. Oh, and here’s the fine print: The Sonics would pay $1 million a year in rent, manage Key Arena, and keep all the income generated by other events. But the city would continue to “own” Key Arena—and pay for any big maintenance projects. Well, Goldy’s got a great idea. How can we raise the money to keep the Sonics in a gold-plated Key Arena?

Gee, how about a latte tax?

Yes, what better way to finance a new arena whose primary purpose is to make a very rich man even richer, than to tax the business that made him so awfully damn rich in the first place? And what could be more delicious than a Marble Mocha Macchiato, than the spectacle of Schultz’s Sonics spending millions of Schultz’s dollars to convince voters to levy a tax on Schultz’s ubiquitous Starbucks?

Now I know what you’re thinking… voters already rejected Initiative 77’s Latte Tax back in 2003. But this Latte Tax would keep a professional basketball franchise in Seattle, whereas I-77’s Latte Tax only funded desperately needed preschool for low-income families, and really… who the fuck cares about them? It’s all about priorities.

What would it cost? Well, back in 2003 I-77’s sponsors estimated a 10-cent per shot tax would raise $7 million a year. The Sonics had previously backed a 20-year revenue package that would have provided $176 million for new construction plus $75 million to guarantee the bonds, so I figure a 20-cent per shot tax should more than cover the costs over 20 years.

Sounds good to me. And, hey, if the owner of Starbucks is going to screw Seattle, can’t Seattle screw Starbucks? Perhaps the rabid sports fans who scream and yell at local elected officials whenever a pro-sports team threatens to move away should direct some of their anger at Starbucks. Basketball fans picketing in front of Starbucks would make news.


CommentsRSS icon

The sonics Rock. Sonic Boom is one of the all time greatest records ever. Punk Rock long before the term ever surfaced. I dont know what all the fuss is about though. They have been gone for years. Decades even.

The tax is a hilarious and great idea, but it should only apply to predominantly MILK drinks, like lattes and the rest of Starbucks' bilge, and not COFFEE drinks, like coffee.

get your hands out of my barista's tip jar! no cash for the Bellevue Sonics.

Lets be honest a latte tax isn't going to hurt starbucks, who can absorb the cost of the tax without raising the cost to the customer if they want. Who it will really hurt are the smaller coffee shops, vivace, ladro, vita, etc. who will be forced to pass the cost on to their customers.

Hmm, I need $5 million dollars from Seattle's taxpayers or I will move to Vancouver BC.

Oh, and you can give me some of the money in scrip for Tully's organic fair-trade coffee at the UW.

Small bills, please.

oh, and to the guy who said a latte tax won't hurt Starbucks - actually, if you follow classic economics theory, it depends upon where in the supply/demand curve we are, and the shape of the curve.

If it's a tax on all coffee chains employing more than 10 employees state-wide, then independent coffee shops and mobile espresso carts would have a competitive advantage.

If it were a tax on non-organic non-fair-trade coffee drinks vended, and people can substitute with organic fair-trade coffee drinks from the same vendor, then it would tend not to be passed along, as people can easily subsitute an equal good (FT organic) for standard starbucks coffee (non-FT and/or non-organic).

The myth that taxes are entirely passed to consumers has been proven to be a myth - someone won a nobel prize for that one.

Wouldn't the latte tax screw other, smaller coffeehouses, since you cannot tax certain businesses in an industry, as that's discrimination?

Oops, Dave already said it. On the money, man.

The other myth is that Starbucks is primarily in the coffee business. 90% of what they serve, by weight, and a solid majority by value, is milk, sugar, or flavorings.

Most other coffeehouses sell a ton of milk, too, but nothing on the scale of Starbucks.

Latte drinkers are babies; they should put baby-bottle nipples on the cups.

I love it when sports teams that have become an embarassment to the community threaten to pull up stakes and go embarass and dissapoint some other town. Good riddence. If only we could find some wya to keep Colabro

I know, let's put a tax on any coffee mug, cup, latte cup, etc with a Sonics logo on it, to pay for the Sonics new stadium.

Then only the people who buy those will pay for it.

We could also post "Missing: Political Guts To Say No To Sonics" on milk trucks.

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).