Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Warning: Bad Apples | I Simply Don't Understand How ... »

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

Seattle Times: Technical Foul

posted by on October 18 at 14:59 PM

The Seattle Times comes out against Initiative 91 today. (I-91 is the angry angry initiative that would prevent the city from subsidizing pro sports teams by mandating a profitable return on the loan.)

Despite I-91’s nasty tenor, The Stranger Election Control Board came out in favor of the initiative (our endorsements hit the street today). I actually wrote a column against the initiative back in June. But we had the proponents (Chris Van Dyk) and opponents (the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce) come in last week—and our board (myself included) ended up siding with Van Dyk.

It was a tough call—the presence of the NBA and WNBA has an intangible, yet satisfying effect on a city, including Seattle. And personally, I’m a big NBA fan. Go! Gilbert Arenas!

But ultimately, we just couldn’t stomach the idea of subsidizing the NBA’s self-important business model: Outrageous salaries; prohibitive ticket prices; and one that revisions stadiums as yuppie entertainment palaces that selfishly and consciously suck business away from the surrounding neighborhood.

And that brings me to my gripe with the Seattle Times’ NO endorsement. They conclude by stating: “The SuperSonics might not be delivering like a 30-year bond, but the team still has a positive impact on businesses.”

Says who? Even chamber of commerce folks who spoke to our edit board didn’t peddle that whopper. (They did talk quite eloquently about the intangible benefits, and again, that made it a tough call for us.)

The Seattle Times needs to cite a source on their suspect claim. Otherwise, it reads like, well, a lie.

I’ve been reporting on this damn issue for several years now. And several recent studies, one by the University of Minnesota, one by the Lincoln Insititute, one by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City and another by the CATO Institute found that, if anything, professional sports teams may actually hurt local economies. The CATO study, for example, debunks industry claims that sports teams generate new consumer spending (they actually just suck up existing discretionary spending), and concludes, “the net economic impact [is] a reduction in real per-capita income over the entire metropolitan area.”

As for the Sonics’ recent claim that they pump about $234 million annually into the city, UW Professor Bill Beyers, hired by Seattle Center to do an economic analysis, said the Sonics’ impact study was “not a good study” and that the researcher who did it “did not know what they were doing…”

The economic impact argument would be a convincing and compelling one…if it were true. It’s irresponsible of the Seattle Times to haul it out without proving it…or at least citing the source.

RSS icon Comments

1

I have thought for a while now that the economic for or against sports teams and arenas is the wrong argument. Sports are a cultural resource for the city, just like music, theater, art, night clubs, etc. To suggest that the litmus test for a sports team is economic return could also (and perhaps some may say, should) be applied to every other city funded cultural resource.

The question should be: do the citizens of the city feel this particular cultural resource is worth the money it will take to invest. The problem with this initiative is that it deprives the city of the ability to ask or act on this question or more pointedly it is designed to counter the Sonics situation but will be applied universally.

Obviously this is a utopian idea since the city has lost all credibility with regards to acting upon the populations wish by building Quest Field. Still I think this I-91 is a bad policy whose precedent can be used to bite people in the ass.

I actually agree with motivation behind I-91, it sucks but if city can’t afford the NBA it can’t afford the NBA, period. I just don’t think it is necessarily a good idea to handcuff any decisions in the future.

Posted by GDC | October 18, 2006 3:57 PM
2

Let me be cynical; The Times opposes I-91 because if it passes, then the Sonics would probably leave Seattle, and The Times would lose those readers and advertisers interested in its coverage of Sonics basketball.

Posted by Luigi Giovanni | October 18, 2006 3:58 PM
3

I have to agre Luigi is exactly right. It's also damn easy to spin this into: Pro I-91 = anti sports, which isn't really the case of course.

I'm not sure the initiative is written all that well either, but having shared in the public's confusion over the Safeco Field/Monorail fiascos, maybe some hard, absolute rules is what Seattle needs to play by?

Posted by Dougsf | October 18, 2006 5:01 PM
4

This is a neighborhood thing. The Seattle Times is invested in having as much shit happen at Seattle Center as possible, covering over the viaduct to South Lake Union, and watching its property values skyrocket as Allentown takes off. The Times is ok with state subsidies, so long as it thinks it can get in on the take in at least an indirect way.

Posted by wf | October 18, 2006 5:25 PM
5

Gonna be fun times next month!

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 18, 2006 5:38 PM
6

Well, I want to be eloquent but being blunt seems better: the economic argument the Seattle Times makes is pure bullshit, complete and utter bullshit. The only people who might benefit are some restaurant owners. Mike McHugh desperately wanted Qwest Field and SAFECO Field. (He owns FX McRory's.) He got it and it keeps that place going and helps some food-servers and bartenders. I don't think China is spending too much time these days planning how they're going to get sports stadiums. They're into manufacturing - big time - and they will own this country in a few years because dumbshits, such as the editorial idiots at the Seattle Times think - well, they don't think. That's not what idiots do, is it? I was here in 1995 when I heard how we needed a new baseball stadium to be a "world class city." London, Paris and Rome are all world class cities without basketball stadiums, baseball or football stadiums. (They call it soccer over there.) They also have social systems that take care of people when they're sick. Families who go broke taking care of a sick family member is not the number one reason for bankruptcy over there. And when it comes to sports, they have Formula 1 auto racing, in several countries; we have a silly F1 race at the tired old Indy track in Indiana. In summation, screw the Sonics. Let the Okies have 'em and let's just get on with our lives. Van Dyk is correct and he always was, about both of the other stadiums where we also pissed our money away.

Posted by Terry Parkhurst | October 19, 2006 12:52 AM
7

Well, I want to be eloquent but being blunt seems better: the economic argument the Seattle Times makes is pure bullshit, complete and utter bullshit. The only people who might benefit are some restaurant owners. Mike McHugh desperately wanted Qwest Field and SAFECO Field. (He owns FX McRory's.) He got it and it keeps that place going and helps some food-servers and bartenders. I don't think China is spending too much time these days planning how they're going to get sports stadiums. They're into manufacturing - big time - and they will own this country in a few years because dumbshits, such as the editorial idiots at the Seattle Times think - well, they don't think. That's not what idiots do, is it? I was here in 1995 when I heard how we needed a new baseball stadium to be a "world class city." London, Paris and Rome are all world class cities without basketball stadiums, baseball or football stadiums. (They call it soccer over there.) They also have social systems that take care of people when they're sick. Families who go broke taking care of a sick family member is not the number one reason for bankruptcy over there. And when it comes to sports, they have Formula 1 auto racing, in several countries; we have a silly F1 race at the tired old Indy track in Indiana. In summation, screw the Sonics. Let the Okies have 'em and let's just get on with our lives. Van Dyk is correct and he always was, about both of the other stadiums where we also pissed our money away.

Posted by Terry Parkhurst | October 19, 2006 12:53 AM
8

Well, I want to be eloquent but being blunt seems better: the economic argument the Seattle Times makes is pure bullshit, complete and utter bullshit. The only people who might benefit are some restaurant owners. Mike McHugh desperately wanted Qwest Field and SAFECO Field. (He owns FX McRory's.) He got it and it keeps that place going and helps some food-servers and bartenders. I don't think China is spending too much time these days planning how they're going to get sports stadiums. They're into manufacturing - big time - and they will own this country in a few years because dumbshits, such as the editorial idiots at the Seattle Times think - well, they don't think. That's not what idiots do, is it? I was here in 1995 when I heard how we needed a new baseball stadium to be a "world class city." London, Paris and Rome are all world class cities without basketball stadiums, baseball or football stadiums. (They call it soccer over there.) They also have social systems that take care of people when they're sick. Families who go broke taking care of a sick family member is not the number one reason for bankruptcy over there. And when it comes to sports, they have Formula 1 auto racing, in several countries; we have a silly F1 race at the tired old Indy track in Indiana. In summation, screw the Sonics. Let the Okies have 'em and let's just get on with our lives. Van Dyk is correct and he always was, about both of the other stadiums where we also pissed our money away.

Posted by Terry Parkhurst | October 19, 2006 12:53 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).