I will only support getting a hockey team for Seattle if we can call it the Seattle Freeze. But Jesus Christ, Goldy, enough with the arenas already.

Goldy, so after 38 years of playing the Seahawks finally win the NFL's championship game. That's great. Remember the other 37 years where the end of the season was no big deal and divide it out.

Or do you have one pleasant conversation with your ex and then decide it's time to get married again ?

Or maybe spend the money on more important things that make more of us consistently happy for a longer period of time, without having to do something really rare like win a championship.

@2

and why not comply with our law we passed by 74% that says this is a subsidy providing tax breaks and other financial benefits of a cash nature to Hansen. So -- no subsidies.

Wasn't the law (and that's surely what drove David Stern to punish us) that any subsidy had to be 100% repaid and the city turn a profit on it?

@2, you forgot that the bonds issued to build the arena (if they're repaid through guaranteed tax revenues) also get federal tax exempt status... meaning these projects starve the government from doing nice things.

1) No public funding

2) OK!

If Seattle gets a new basketball/hockey arena soon, in 38 years they'll likely be playing in the second successor to that arena. Owners and leagues have a way of demanding pricey upgrades, every 15 years or so, that somehow can't be accommodated in the old venues.

http://www.npr.org/2011/08/05/139018592/…

Yeah, some two-bit NBA team that no other city wants is *totally* going to bring home a championship.

The rule is, every five championships, a team can petition for a new stadium.

Maybe Seattle voters recognize that we paid a lot of money to build the Clink and here we are a decade and a half later without the idea of hosting a Superbowl here ever being fulfilled. Thanks professional sports!

Goldy, Seattle also has a MLS team that is likely to pick up a championship in the near future. Clearly soccer is not a sport you follow, which is your choice, but I am willing to wager that the Sounders FC will match or beat the attendance and viewing numbers of a NHL franchise, should Seattle get one. So your advocacy may have a bit more weight behind it if you at least acknowledge the existence of similar scale franchises.

Golly, I felt so good about Paul Allen's team winning the Sports Thing that I want to take a falf-billion dollars and light it on fire! But I'll do it in public, so we can come together as a community and watch it!

Sorry, Goldy: you'll never convince me that we need to spend massive amounts of public funds so that someone else can park their franchise here for a while. At the very least, it's a no-go without public ownership.

How many arenas does a city of less than 2m actually need? We don't even have a decent light rail system in place yet.

I'd like to maintain hope that the Mariners, if they get their Ownership/Front Office issues sorted out, can win a world series, resulting in similar front runnerism and celebrations like we've seen with the Seahawks.

@14, if we get an NHL franchise that becomes a Stanley Cup contender or wins the Stanley Cup, I'll be as good in attendance as the Sounders--proportionally.

Every time the public does anything, they should look at social equality. Only 49% of Americans care about football whatsoever, and we all know it's mostly a certain kind of American. It might make these Americans a little happier, at the expense of the majority. It also clearly is an abomination to economic equality - looking at the ridiculous salary disparities for workers, blatant gender and racial discrimination, and the inequalities for tickets and access.

Absolutely not, this should be a nonstarter. We should be talking about getting rid of the pro sports teams we have once whatever contracts are over. Especially while they're still hosting hate groups like the Redskins and red face Indians.

Bread and Circuses.

"Sure, there is also an economic impact..."

Seriously? Because I seem to recall reading a bunch of studies that say taxpayer funded stadiums are a rip off:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-06…

http://www.minnpost.com/community-voices…

http://www.cato.org/publications/comment…

http://www.ntu.org/ntuf/stadium-subsidie…

https://www.mackinac.org/18040

http://www.npr.org/2011/08/05/139018592/…

Almost as good as Seahawks winning Sunday was Stern retiring Saturday.

Go Hawks. Suck it Stern.

And yes, bring on the Sonics.

I'll agree to a new stadium if the players agree to pay for it out of pocket. My tax dollars have gone to multiple brand-new stadiums for these teams since I moved here less than a decade ago. I'd much rather it went into schools, thanks.

Since the specific type of people in power will do whatever they want, and they want everyone else to pay for their sports teams, one bare minimum concession should be banning all blatantly racist teams from playing in any public facilities. This includes football, baseball, and hockey atrocities like this. (tw racism/genocide) http://nativeappropriations.com/category…

Building more sport arenas isn't a priority when so much infrastructure needs immediate attention. Also, the level of violence in the NHL is inconsistent with the notion of civic spectacle. That is a very unfortunate state of affair for sports fans.

@23, I tried to encourage the state to create a "jock tax" a few years ago.
The Seahawk players each made more than $90k winning the Super Bowl yesterday, and each will pay New Jersey income tax.
http://www.nj.com/super-bowl/index.ssf/2…

Whenever our professional sports folks travel to most other states they pay a tax.
In California that tax is used for stadiums and arenas, and a lot of other things.

Plenty of places do not limit it to sports. Mega concerts that tour often have some tax.

The tax should be a facility use - excise tax (use a public facility).
There should be a minimum threshold of 10x the base pay of a public school teacher of when the tax is collected (Storm players don't make much money, same with some Sounders).
The tax should be on a sliding scale.

Personally, I think it should go to public schools to fund all arts, music, and physical education for K12.

We should spend municipal funds on a new basketball arena if and only if the municipality can own the team, and not some money grubbing white guy from out of town who just wants to show off a basketball team to his friends before moving it to Boise, Idaho for an extra five bucks.

Stadiums are just another example of socializing expenses and privatizing profit.

Hey look... while authorized to collect up to 10%, the Seahawks fans are only paying a ticket tax of 3.1% . Quite a deal considering Dow wants to raise the sales tax to 9.6% and Seahawks tickets only pay 3.1%.
http://www.leg.wa.gov/JointCommittees/LF…

@27, so is the Opra House. So is "McCaw" Hall.

@28, one of many things the state could have given the county exec to use for mass transit.

At least the hotel tax will revert to the county when the stadium bonds are paid, in 2021 or sooner. That's how 4Culture was able to continue existing, thanks to Ed Murray.
4Culture was allowed to use its endowment until the tax becomes available to sustain its funding.

There is, by my rough guesstimate 7 to 10 million dollars not yet dedicated to anything, yet.
Some goes to help homeless youth, some to 4Culture.
But that's a few years out.

Another tax, parking at Safeco Field could also be higher, to fund public transportation. That, too, is controlled by the state.

@14, @18, I don't think you'll see per game attendance at any NHL game approach the 60,000 volume of the Sounders v Timbers match last season. IIRC, the proposed NBA/NHL arena is about 25-35,000 seats max? NBA plays a lot more often than MLS so on total there'd be more tickets sold, but it's not the same number of fans in attendance on game day.
Aaaaaanyway… yeah, Sounders are more likely to win a championship before the Mariners or Sonics. Even so, I like the way that this new stadium would be built if we got an NBA team. It's not the city on the hook for it and that's a better deal than anyone else is getting these days.

@29,

Are you under the impression that we have an "opera house" that is distinct from McCaw Hall?

I love that Goldy not only ignores the Sounders, but the Storm as well. I guess women's sports aren't real sports for Goldy.

And I would argue that the quality of life for Mariners fans has been shitty for a very long time.

@34 - That's been the reaction every time I've had this conversation.

"...blah blah blah Seattle finally wins a national title."
"What about the WNBA?"
"Well, you know... in the major sports."

Same thing when people complain that Seattle doesn't have a basketball team.

@32: But the Sounders play fewer than 20 games a year at home. A hockey team would play more than 40, not including the playoffs, which are not hard to reach in the NHL.

@34, 35: It's not that the WNBA is a women's sport, it's just a league that relatively few people give a rat's ass about. Sorry, but it's true.

@33, one is a public facility that used tax dollars, the other is a corporate naming convention that leveraged those tax dollars ("McCaw" Hall). Same facility, two separate entities

Hopefully people remember the public tax participation in other entertainment in this city and do not fool themselves into thinking funding or financing public facilities is isolated to professional sports.

www.ballpark.org , Safeco Field

www.stadium.org , Seahawks Stadium, Qwest Field, CenturyLink Field

@34 and 35, hopefully there will still be a WNBA in the future.
The LA Sparks suspended operations.
The Storm is a money loser for the city. The MOU with Chris Hansen would transfer that obligation off the city's books and onto the new arena.

The Strorm experience for the fans in a modern facility wouldn't only be marginally better, but the franchise would make more money and be more economically viable.

Major usually refers to popular support. I would include the Storm in a Seattle discussion of major sports, but maybe not the WNBA as a league.
They are no-less a major sports champion in this town than the Metropolitans winning the 1st Stanley Cup.

@32, true, and you'll not likely see Sounders ticket prices and event revenue come close to a comparable NHL event, not in the US.

@36: Good point, as well as 40 games per year if we get an NBA team. 80 games a year, even with half the capacity, is a lot of business.

@38,
Of course, the public actually voted specifically on both the Mariners and Seahawks (and McCaw Hall, for that matter) projects.

Then put it on the ballot. If this really is a quality of life issue that people agree with you'll get your votes. I mean, that's also assuming you're begging for public dollars to go to billionaire sport team owners. If you just want a new stadium and you're not asking for me to pay for it, I say why not build 2.

Please just don't put it on me.

@43, then passed a specific law that provided criteria to the city council for all future proposals, and avoid the cost of mounting an opposition vote every time a proposal came by.

The stadiums used an increased sales tax at the county level, as well as an increase in restaurant taxes, and use of hotel taxes. The proposed arena uses none of that.

I am actually hoping to compare the successful proposal for the arena to whatever the Mariners propose when their lease runs out at Safeco Field. Those people are gonna pay.

@34 et al,

It is telling that more commenters complain about me dissing the Sounders and the Storm by omission than dissing the Mariners explicitly.

In my defense, generally, MLB, NFL, NBA, and NHL are considered the four major sports leagues, and some might argue if the NHL even belongs with the other three. I think the Storm have already proven that Seattle doesn't go crazy over a WNBA championship.

@44, we already had something on the ballot, there was a vote, congrats, you won. Now, somebody actually met the criteria set in law.
The point of that vote, and law, was to avoid repeatedly going to the ballot by giving the city council explicit criteria to go by.
They have used that, and then some.

The SEPA review and EIS will be done pretty soon and the public can argue about it again then.

It is unfortunate that non-profits are exempt from I-91.

@47
Points taken. But still, why no Sounders? People go crazy over them, they have tons of fans, they sell TONS of gear, hotels choose to fly their flag over the mariners, etc...
The Sounders are by any measure a "Major League" team. Even the Seattle Times covers them all the time, even in their offseason. I think its time you made room for them in your "big four".

@50: The Sounders and a few other MLS teams have "major-league" followings, but the rest of the league does not -- yet.

@46, a lobbyist like Van Dyk should not be entrusted to write good financial criteria. He sort of failed to anticipate a deal structured in such a way that the city didn't own the building to start with. Hansen isn't dumb when it comes to financial deal structures and how to work them.... and so we end up with people like Ben Noble (Murray's now appointed budget director) writing this:

http://clerk.seattle.gov/~public/meeting…

Council Policy Options

1. Council could exempt arena from I-91; or
2. Council could find that the arena proposal’s “fair value” cannot be calculated; or
3. Council could find that “fair value” is still required and evaluate the arena proposal using an alternate approach (i.e., replace “cash on cash return” with another concept)

Alternate approach required to evaluate proposal’s return relative to 30-year treasury bond

Executive’s Proposed Alternate

Council could accept the Executive’s proposed alternate I-91 “fair value” test and accept the conclusion that the Arena meets the test

City expects to borrow at a rate well above the U.S. Treasuries Bill rate, so this may not be the right benchmark for the proposed Arena

Council might then evaluate whether the Arena provides a “fair value” using a different lens

Some factors including annual capital contributions and various “guarantees” do mitigate the risk to City; but basic deal structure is that ArenaCo pays no more than City/County debt service costs

Alternative “Fair Value” Test

Council use commercial real estate or risk premium approach as an alternate “fair value” test (instead of CBO’s proposed approach)

Arena lease payments do not provide a return comparable to what a commercial investor would earn assuming a 1% risk premium

Council could therefore conclude that the Arena does not meet the Fair Value test

Conclusions

I-91 is clear about requiring Fair Value

Fair Value calculation prescribed in I-91 is not directly applicable to this proposal

Council has several policy options.

Exempt Arena from I-91
Determine that I-91 does not apply
Apply alternate “tests” to determine whether Arena is
consistent with Fair Value requirement

@Goldy et al

Yah, you won't find me arguing that the MLS (or the NHL) has anywhere near the market (or the mind-space) penetration as the "Big Three" in USA. I think it will inevitably, but I don't think we'll see it happen within a decade--we'll have to wait for the current generation to shuffle off and for demographic trends to follow their vectors. So on that matter the worst I can call you is a conservative square.

But as you note, NHL is in another tier, and the MLS is already rivaling (or beating, depending on how you measure) the NHL with respect to attendance and viewing. So if you are going to allude to the NHL in a "championships are good" argument for an arena, you probably ought to acknowledge the MLS.

Full disclosure: I will go to several NHL games a year should we get an arena and team. But I have no interest in NBA at all.

@8, every 15 years or so? HA!

Here in the other Washington, we gave the local baseball franchise a loan and lots of land (that we evicted people and businesses from) to build a stadium. I don't dislike the stadium. I *LOVE* baseball and currently participate in a season ticket share for the team. I love that the stadium is right on top of numerous public transit options and in the heart of the city, so I can go to games whenever I feel like it instead of arranging rides, parking, and other nonsense. And they've been more successful than we could have hoped for in the first few years. As such...

Because they were more successful than predicted, drawing larger crowds and larger revenues than imagined, and therefore paying back their city loan faster than anticipated, just 5 short years after that stadium opened for business, the owners went back to the city and demanded we build them a roof. They don't *need* a roof (we're not Seattle, it doesn't drizzle much here during the season), but, hey, they're making the city money, so they should have their every whim catered to, RIGHT? Despite the fact that making money for the city ALSO means making metric fucktons of money for the owners.

Meanwhile, unlike every other franchise and venue in the metro area, they refuse to keep the Metro (subway) open late for late weekday games. Chances are, putting the bond up to keep the trains running for an extra hour wouldn't cost them anything (the franchise/venue puts up the bond and only *pays* the difference between the bond and the actual fares collected, which means an actual $0 outlay for most events), but they still balk.

Don't do it. Sports are fun and winning teams are awesome. But not billions of dollars awesome or fun. Our experience indicates that even if you come to an agreement where everyone comes out a winner, the team will turn that into another opportunity to mooch without giving even a little back. Fortunately, our leaders told the team to bug off on their roof request, but that doesn't stop them from coming back again and again to ask for goodies far beyond the revenue boost, always under the threat of moving to a suburb that will cater to their whims.

C'mon, Goldy, don't you understand? We only spend tax dollars on WHITE people. Baseball stadium, football stadium, golf courses, art museums, opera house, symphony hall, sculpture garden, play houses (oops! they went broke and didn't pay their bill! no problem). A basketball team is what THOSE PEOPLE want. Cut 'em off. Because, you know, schools.

Only if they build the fucking arena in south lake union with Paul Allen's money or by using imminent domain with his land. Fuck this bull shit tax public subsidization of private sports business. And fuck cannabalising the rail and port infrastructure that has built and sustained this entire region to do so. Allen already stole the funding earmarked to mitigate the last incursion (planned lander overpass after 2 current taxpayer financed stadiums) to do what (certainly not improve) mercer and his neighborhood. And I guess, fuck you too goldy. Now that you've revealed your true colors

@55,
you left out parklets and playgrounds at the Seattle Center (or at least the money for an exploratory committee to consider such playgrounds for several years).

No. Fuck you, Goldy.

There's no law against people using their own money to buy land and put an arena on it. There. That's freedom and opportunity. Seattle has done everything it needs to for sportsball fans. Now go talk to the billionaires.

Makes me sick how one day you want to talk about the governemnt failing to pay for its basic obligation to provide education, and then the next day you're here talking about welfare for rich assholes.

No. Welfare. For. Rich. Assholes. Build whatever the fuck you like with your own fucking money.