The Sonics owner is threatening to leave town
Seattle SuperSonics principal owner Howard Schultz said Wednesday he will look at all options - including moving or selling the team - if the state Legislature fails to earmark $200 million for the Sonics to refurbish KeyArena or build a new home.Um, neither can the taxpayers. The legislature should tell Schultz to take his ball and go play elsewhere. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at February 02, 2006 10:13 AM | Email This
...
"We can't continue to lose $10 million a year," he said.
but
... remember the doorknob warning...
Goodbye and good luck.
Posted by: Cheryl on February 2, 2006 10:20 AMThe key to the state's economic health is not to play favorites based on the strength of one's lobbyists but instead to universally lower the tax and regulatory burden for all Washingtonians.
Every time the legislature agrees to a discriminatory tax incentive (a.k.a. targeted) the momentum for lowering the tax rates for everyone else is reduced. If one employer is having a problem with the tax and regulatory burden, safe to say the rest of the state's employers are as well. Why should government choose who is worthy of relief?
No to taxpayer subsidies, Yes to uniform tax relief for all Washingtonians!
More thoughts at these links:
Exclusive report
identifies corporate strategy for fleecing state government
Government
Foul: 15 yards for unnecessary taxpayer subsidies
State tax
exemptions survived this session
However, I do not approve of sports teams extorting stadiums from the public. Boeing brings far more revenue to the state, yet we don't fund their place of business. Yes, they get tax breaks, but so do the sports teams.
Before we build another "plant" for pro sports, why don't we pass an accountability law that requires annual reports of how much net revenue the stadium has actually brought into the state?
They may bring lots of revenue in, I would just be more comfortable if I could see it officially quantified.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on February 2, 2006 10:35 AMIf the Sonics can't make money with the current arrangement, their business model needs to be turned upside down. Player salaries and whether the Storm should continue to exist if they don't make a marginal financial contribution to the organization may be in play.
The Sonics and professional basketball have other real problems, a thugish image that continues to give the game black eyes and too many high schoolers and early outers from college that can't be bothered to learn basketball basics. This is turning off fans across the country and if fans are turned off, television money will soon be paired back.
The majority revenue base is still television contract money. That, and the fixed division between the players and the owners make the operating decisions very simple. Prepare for the departure of the Storm. If Howard can't or won't subsidize the ladies and the taxpayers can't be convinced to open their wallets, it's time to say goodbye.
Will it be the women or both is the bigger question.
Posted by: Gary Bezowsky on February 2, 2006 10:42 AMTO: Howard Shultz
FROM: The Taxpayer
RE: Sonics
If you can't afford your toys, it's time to sell.
Posted by: JCM on February 2, 2006 10:44 AMYou will be presented arguments that the sales tax, ad nauseum, that the sports event brings to the City far outweighs the cost of the stadium.
And you need a major league team if you want to be a major league city.
If you aren't a major league city, businesses won't want to relocate to your city, or so the argument goes.
And then, there is John Carlson who has never seen a handout that he doesn't like, except if it interferes with his audience size. Wasn't he a sorry excuse for a governor candidate? Threw us back 10 years.
Posted by: swatter on February 2, 2006 10:49 AMOh... our legislature just CAN'T have that! Move the team from Liberal Seattle to a more conservative part of the state! NEVER! Quick... get the checkbook and lets bill the folks in Spokane to pay for it!
Posted by: Right Wing Wacko on February 2, 2006 10:55 AMNeed help loading the truck?
Posted by: swassociates on February 2, 2006 10:57 AMI've never understood why there is not more resentment over the fact that our taxes ultimately subsidize multi-million dollar incomes of pro sport players. The argument that the taxes used do not take from us is bogus; money is fungible and using a tax for one thing takes away the option to use it for another thing.
There is no pride in a pro sports team winning a championship. It's all marketing.
Let the Sonics go. Who needs 'em?
Posted by: BananaLand (aka Iguana) on February 2, 2006 10:58 AMNeed help loading the trucks?
Posted by: swassociates on February 2, 2006 11:01 AMDarn...if the teams had to self fund their stadiums....gee, 21 year olds wouldn't get millions...
What if every guy needing a warehouse, or a coffee shop gave the city such an ultimatum?
I got it; in those cases their is competition; by virtue of only 1 NBA team allowed (aka monopoly) Howie can play these games
Posted by: righton on February 2, 2006 11:06 AM"Bellevue Sonics" just doesn't have the same ring to it.
I used to be an NBA fan in the days of Bird, Magic, Jordan...but I don't follow it anymore.
College hoops is much better. Bring on March Madness....
Posted by: Palouse on February 2, 2006 11:07 AMGood bye and good riddance.
Could we have football season extended instead?
Posted by: A Watchdog on February 2, 2006 11:13 AMNow we have three arenas, one being among the most expensive in North America.
The Sonics find it necessary to negotiate by threats. I for one say let them go and find prosperity in a city that can afford them.
And take the Seahawks and Mariners with you. Boondoggles are boondoggles regardless of the uniform the players wear.
Posted by: Snuffy on February 2, 2006 11:22 AMThe Sonics signed the lease. They had a new facility. Now they want taxpayers to bail them out of poor business decisions they made, a mere 10 years later. Nope. Enough is enough.
Posted by: jimg on February 2, 2006 11:30 AMBesides, do as other industries like United Airline did such as cutting back on salaries, pension, etc. Better start cutting the payroll just like everybody else. How about cutting Ray Allen who makes $16 mil a year, and viola, you are $6 mil on the black. How about that!!!!
Posted by: C. Oh on February 2, 2006 11:35 AMWhere's mine???? I am only looking for .05% of their earmark. Plus, I am a poor graduate student. Where is my 100 grand?
Posted by: Jason Woodruff on February 2, 2006 11:38 AMand I know this belongs in the 'who cares' department, but: Would the Storm be leaving with them?
Posted by: Just wondered on February 2, 2006 11:39 AMSo everything that benefits the area is eligible for taxpayer support? Aren't the Sonics just a another corporation with overpaid executives/employees?
My approach is free market, no public support for any private entity.
My only caveat would be Technology critical to national defense, a constitutionally mandated function of government. If a company that supplies equipment that our defense depends upon, e.g. fighters, subs, ships, etc... then the overwhelming national interest is to maintain the ability to produce those items. If it's not a basic function of government, the public coffers should not support that business.
If a company is failing it is due to either mismanagement or lack of market. The economy in the long term benefits by these companies dying. They are replace by someone who can provide the product in a receptive market and at a profit.
No one benefits from maintaining unprofitable ventures artificially.
Posted by: JCM on February 2, 2006 11:40 AMHow about diversity goals? Will they hire an appropriate number of Asians, Whites, lesbians, and seniors so that they reflect the demographics of the area and look like Seattle?
Posted by: Huey on February 2, 2006 11:46 AMIf the Sonics were to move to Bellevue, they would probably build an arena on or around where the old Safeway and Coca Cola distribution facilities are. The city is planning to rezone that whole corridor.
If the Sonics were to move to Bellevue, my guess is that they would still keep the Seattle name. Better alliteration and there's a 40 year history with it. Plus there's prior precedent. The Dallas Cowboys are actually located in Irvine. The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. The New York Giants play in New Jersey, etc.
Posted by: Reporterward on February 2, 2006 11:56 AM
Remember what happened? Ken Behring tried this in 1996 and succeeded in getting the kingdome blown up.
Now the Seahawks are poised to win the Superbowl, I hope. Whether they win or lose though people will use them as a prime example of why paying the blackmail will deliver a winner.
Seattle always blinks in these stare offs, I see no reason why they will not blink this time.
Posted by: karl on February 2, 2006 11:59 AMA sports team's ownership group makes its money on the capital appreciation of the team's value at the time of the sale. They normally--as is the case with the Sonics--lose money during operations.
I'd encourage Nickels, Licata, et al to consider the refurb on the Coliseum (it'll never be Key Arena to me) IF in return the City acquires an equity stake in the team. Schultz is a businessman, and he'll get it instantly. The rate of return will easily surpass the City's cost of borrowing, so let's look at it.
Posted by: Ingraham on February 2, 2006 12:08 PMA week ago or so, the Sonics (and Storm) announced that they were ending their radio agreement with Seattle-based KJR 950 AM in order to have their games broadcast on 770 KTTH. Moving from a sports station to a conservative talk radio station sounded like an odd move to me. The Sonics' reasoning was that 770 AM appealed to the Eastside demographic who made up most of the ticket holders that attended the games.
There are a few more dots I have to connect but I'm sure folks see the picture I'm drawing. And I highly doubt that Schultz will move a team from a market as large as ours to some backwaters in Norfolk, VA, Oklahoma City, Kansas City, San Jose or Sin City Las Vegas.
Posted by: Reporterward on February 2, 2006 12:08 PMIf Seattle wants to keep the Sonics, then Seattle should vote to tax themselves to keep them.
Posted by: Palouse on February 2, 2006 12:14 PMBasically, they started the trend.
By the way, does anyone know when we will be done paying for the Kingdome?
Posted by: SouthernRoots on February 2, 2006 12:19 PM(this guy has the pocket change to pay for all his own toys just like Paul Allen, so let him pick up the tab. i doubt he wants to fly cross country to watch his team play anyway...)
Posted by: dano on February 2, 2006 12:24 PMExactly 10 years after the Arena had opened (and still not paid for), it was no longer good enough. The owner did put up alot of money to build another one on the waterfront, but they got some public money as well, most of it through sweetheart land acquisition deals.
Now there's two arenas in Miami within just a couple of miles of each other. I think one of those stadium church groups uses the old Miami arena now.
South Florida learned its lesson. The Florida Marlins were recently trying to get a new publicly financed stadium and got rebuffed. Expect to the see the Las Vegas Marlins in the near future.
Posted by: Palouse on February 2, 2006 12:28 PMIf there are any out there, they're few and far between, so I'm not sure how wise it is too just say "no"...unless we don't want the team.
Besides, I recall especially the Seahawks stadium had a big private financing component coupled with taxes that are not generally paid by the local populace. If that kind of package is used, what's the problem?
Posted by: Eric Earling on February 2, 2006 12:40 PMPoor professional athletes. How do they ever cope? Oh the pain!
Nah. Our elite Legislature will pass an "emergency" tax. Then we can vote it down. Then they will come back, shove it down our throats and make us be happy about it.
We just have no clue. It's really for the best.
Posted by: Paul on February 2, 2006 12:54 PMCouldn't have said it better...
Posted by: colt on February 2, 2006 01:03 PMThese grand subsidized sports playgrounds are an albatross around the neck of the city unfortunate enough to get stuck with them. The Pontiac Silverdome was going to revive a bad area--it never did. The stadium for the Detroit Tigers was going to turn things around for another economically troubled area, by providing "needed jobs" and bringing in tourist dollars--reality is far short of the lofty predictions. The Mariners insisted a new stadium is all that it would take to make them a world class team--instead we get a team that can only make the playoffs based on mathematical assumptions that all other teams are going to get abducted by aliens, allowing the Mariners to win. Enough already!!
If an area is economically depressed, a new sports arena is not going to turn it around because it doesn't address the underlying issues. Gilding a manure pile is only going to fool the politicians.
Posted by: Burdabee on February 2, 2006 01:06 PMJust because we've always done the same old stupid thing, we should continue?
When is enough, enough?
I said no to Safeco at the ballot box twice.
I disagreed with Qwest.
I said no to Key Arena Round 1.
I say no now.
Sports franchise are corporation and should be treated as such.
Posted by: JCM on February 2, 2006 01:16 PMAs I recall, Paul Allen put himself on the hook for overruns (unlike the M's), and yes, like all other teams, the teams make money off of stadium operation of their events to help finance the team's operations. But that money doesn't come from general taxpayers, it comes from people that go to the games, buy concessions, etc.
If your arguement about "really matters to a community" had merit you wouldn't see so many stadiums and arenas around the country built with at least some public financing. The concept is nice in the ideal, but doesn't hold up in reality.
Moreover, put aside your obvious beef against new stadiums as a whole, and consider the fact general taxpayers in Seattle don't pay for Safeco or Qwest. It's all special use taxes (hotels, rental cars, restaurants, and lottery tickets). So what's the problem? How is John Q. taxpayer harmed by that? The alternative right now would be Tampa Bay Mariners and the Anaheim Seahawks. No thanks.
Posted by: Eric Earling on February 2, 2006 01:28 PMBut needless to say, these threats are not new in this town.
Bering and Allen used them to get a massive tax hike and stadium built, the mariners used them to get a massive tax hike and staduim built, and I suspect with the queen and her Court in Allheiltolympia Shultz will get a massive tax hike and stadium built.
Posted by: GS on February 2, 2006 01:31 PM
I would also argue that airlines are corporations too yet the infrastructure they use (airports) is public. Granted, I think those corporations have received too many bailouts from the federal government, but the principle of them utilizing public infrastructure, that is usually funded by speciality taxes as opposed to levied against the general taxpayer, still holds. Yet, I don't see a hue and cry against the airline industry.
Posted by: Eric Earling on February 2, 2006 01:35 PMThe Eastside demographic numbers I saw were attributed to the Sonics from local press accounts. I haven't personally called up Wally Walker to look at the ticket sales reports but I think the numbers are probably pretty straight. People on the Eastside generally have more disposable income than, say, people in the C.D., White Center or the U-District. And Sonics tickets are mighty expensive.
As for why Bellevue? From what I've seen, the people in Bellevue generally have a more can-do approach when it comes to getting stuff accomplished. And I'm sure there's some local developers here who would love to have their major hotels, shopping centers and such who would love to have their property located near a major sports arena.
(D.W.C.T. warning for above paragraph)
As for 770 AM, the Sonics can pre-empt Bill O'Reilly all they want but I'll be mighty aggreived if they cut into the Savage Nation at all for WNBA games.
The voters twice voted against Safeco. Olympia pushed it through with an emergency clause.
A majority of the people? Come again?
I am a Mariners fan and think Safeco is a outstanding ballpark.
However Sports franchises are PRIVATE corporations. Some like the Packers are publicly held but are still private corporations.
Would you give tax breaks to Exxon if they said well move headquarters to Seattle if the taxpayers build the building?
The benefit would be lots of jobs, tax revenue etc...
The left would be besides themselves in outrage if the government even entertained that idea.
From a policy standpoint there is no difference between Exxon and the Sonics. (Expect Exxon's product is essential to the economy). Both are private corporations producing a product.
Posted by: JCM on February 2, 2006 01:49 PMRelated to that, you, and others here, continue to leave untouched the idea that the taxes that do contribute to these stadiums are not taxes levied on the general public at large. Simply freaking out about a "tax increase" really does nothing to tell us who is actually paying for the stadium. In these cases, the typical Seattle area resident pays very little, if anything, to fund these stadiums. That is an important distinction as I recall between the first Mariner stadium proposal that was popularly defeated and the final package that was approved.
You can argue all you want about the corporation issue, but the comparative community interest in Exxon's HQ v. a sports stadium for a team with history in the community is terribly uncompelling. It's not a realistic argument. That's nice you feel that way, but as I pointed out to Burdabee, if your notion had any real-world merit there wouldn't be so many stadiums and arenas built around the country with at least some measure of public financing.
No. They didn't.
Again ..... a proposed stadium package was put before KING COUNTY VOTERS in early 1995. Once. It narrowly went down. End of story, until the Mariners went on their run.
A different plan - which would ultimately create a new baseball stadium - was put into place by the GOP House, the D Senate and Gov. Mike Lowry. This was in response to much wailing and gnashing of public teeth that we would all "lose the Mariners and life would end as we know it!!!!"
The Legislature passed the bill in October, 1995. It did NOT induce a "massive tax hike". It was a combination of lottery scratch tickets, optional license plates, rental car tax and local bar and restaurant taxes (which were supported by those local bars and restaurants). It was as close to a user-fee package as could be created. General taxes were not raised to finance the stadium.
Please. I'm beggin' ya. The voters of the state never, ever, ever voted on a package for Large Insurance Company Field. Ever. Whether that's right or wrong is another discussion.
Posted by: jimg on February 2, 2006 02:09 PMI'm no fan of how our government currently decides to spend alot of OUR money, but there are many more worthwhile things they can do with it than plowing it back into Key Arena.
Posted by: Palouse on February 2, 2006 02:16 PMIf salaries and profits were smaller I might agree with your premise, but in my reality, sports is big business. If they can screw the taxpayer in the process, they will by using extortion to get their stadiums built. No more. Bring it back to the blue collar.
Enough is enough!!
But hey, don't you think it kind of stupid on the Sonics part to go abeggin' for a handout at the same time NASCAR is and getting a cold shoulder?
Posted by: swatter on February 2, 2006 02:34 PMI'll go back to disagreeing with all of you on the next thread, though (unless it's about eminent domain!)
That said, I think red state types are the ones who push hardest for sports subsidies (but corporate Dems usually go along).
Posted by: Mr. X on February 2, 2006 02:36 PMThanks for the quality discussion.
I have voted against the incumbent in the last election just because of those types of issues. Unfortunately the "throw the bastards out" sentiments seem to stop at "my bastard." Especially when they bring home the bacon.
To me a it's a case of "death of a thousand cuts." Lot's of things, each in and of itself maybe a "good" thing. After all while they add up. I really don't care how little I pay, I am supporting a principle of limited government.
Yes, a stadium is a civic asset. No question about it. But if the stadium is built by the public and owned by the public and then it should be leased or rented to a tenant, if the tenant doesn't like it negotiate a new contract or move.
A more fundamental question is it government's place to support essentially an entertainment business. We then are in the place of picking and choosing which entertainments are worthy of public support. We end up with more and more government supported venues.
It is my belief that, supporting sports or the arts should be a market driven decision.
The current real world is that the public supports sports venues across the country. True enough.
But does that make it right?
Talk about taxing the poor to pay the rich.
Had a brain freeze and put Eric in the name box.
My apologies.
Posted by: JCM on February 2, 2006 02:47 PMRe: Privately financed stadiums:
Pacific Bell Park
Fleet Center
Carolinas Center
United Center
The Palace of Auburn Hills
Bradley Center
Fleet Center
Carolinas Center
United Center
The Palace of Auburn Hills
Bradley Center
Target Center
Molson Center
Madison Square Garden
CoreStates Center
America West Arena
Rose Garden Arena
Arco Arena
Kiel Center
Delta Center
GM Place
Pepsi Center
Gillette Stadium
Busch Stadium
New stadiums for both the Mets and Yankees
http://www.privatization.org/database/policyissues/facility_privatefin_stadium.html
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/sports/11905673.htm
It doesn't help that the stadium hotshots don't have to open their books thanks to RCW 36.102.200. Having sports is fine, but there are only so many tax dollars to go around and priorities have to be made. Case in point, for all the money blown on the stadiums and ridiculous transportation projects the state could have provided health insurance for all of those who are currently without for several years.
Posted by: Burdabee on February 2, 2006 03:09 PMCan you imagine... 20,000 Sonics fans leave Kemper Freeman Arena at 10 PM on a Tuesday in January in Bellevue... all the old geezers that live in the new tower in Lincoln Square are long in bed... all the chain restaurants are long closed, and the few bars have rung their closing bell... what does everyone do, drive to Belltown?
LOL - better to move the team to Portland and let them have two teams.
Posted by: Disgruntled on February 2, 2006 03:17 PMThese are not George Bush tax cuts that actually bring more money into the coffers than they take away.
These are sales tax money that the government fritters away to pay for these white elephants.
The old Kingdome was just fine by me, BTW.
Posted by: swatter on February 2, 2006 03:33 PMThe Sonics are threatening to move to Bellevue. --That's not a threat, that's insanity.
There is no way Bellevue would be able to support that kind of revenue, let alone the traffic that late at night.
There would have to be a major expansion and renevation of Bellevue in its entirety, and that isnt happening anytime soon. I think Seattle should call Shultz' bluff. He has no hand.
Posted by: Eddie Gersh on February 2, 2006 04:12 PMGet a clue... you can't ask for money when your team is 19-26.
Posted by: Eric on February 2, 2006 04:40 PMI would rather see the M's leave town, personally. It's going to take decades for that franchise to turn it around, if ever. The only thing keeping them in the black is Japanese fan interest (and dollars).
770 reduces their power at night from 50,000 to 5000 watts. 770 transmitts from Vashon with a directional signal which at night aims all of their power toward Sequim. FCC rules, no way they can ever change the situation.
The very eastside listeners they are hoping to gell with the conservative format will not be listening to sonics games because you cant hear 770 very well on the east side after dark.
Certainly nowhere near as well as KJR, KIRO, or KOMO.
The potential now exists that the Sonics move to Bellevue or some other eastside burb and build a new stadium in a location where they can't even hear their own flagship station during the time most games are played!!
With this kind of business genius, Howard should stick to lattes.
Posted by: dave on February 2, 2006 05:43 PMSwatter -
The linchpin here is the Sonics lose $10 million a year guaranteed, even if the Key sells out the whole season. We're mostly free-market folks here, so why would we expect a business owner to operate something at a loss...with owners having an annual "cash call" to cover losses. You say the old Kingdome was good with you, but if it was still here the M's and the Seahawks would be losing money hand over fist playing in it...which means they wouldn't be playing here for long.
And I don't think the NASCAR analogy applies. Things broke down in Snohomish County because ISC low-balled their contribution to the track and wouldn't budge. It's breaking down in Kitsap because their econ. development numbers are inflated (thus making the bond sales to finance the project risky), and there are serious logistical/transportation issues with the proposed site. Plus, NASCAR isn't an established local entity that engenders the same sort of intrinsic community support as a local sports franchise.
Private Stadiums -
Putting aside the anonymous post that doesn't fully document your list, the links you did provide show a couple interesting things. The stadiums that are built with private money are by highly profitable teams (not the Sonics right now), looking to upgrade an already good situation with prudent investment. Your links also note that there are only a few "notable exceptions to the public-finance trend" and that in baseball for example, only one privately financed stadium as been built since 1962. That information supports my point about the dominance of stadiums that include public financing.
JCM -
I understand you're point about an ideal world, but reality is reality. If you want a given sports team in your town, that's what it takes to have them. I'd say for both the Mariners and the Seahawks the community has benefited from both building projects.
Burdabee - as much as I'd like to go digging through RCW's, could you provide a link to what you're talking about at the Dept. of Revenue? Thanks.
Posted by: Eric Earling on February 2, 2006 07:59 PMI might actually appreciate Sonics more in Bellevue. Why? Because I trust the government there to be wise in their use of our money more than other places. They are more business friendly. And they have kept taxes low, not raising it many years while I've lived in the city.
As for roads -- have you been to Seattle lately? Our roads are actually fairly good. Wider than what you have in Seattle, and they go both ways! We aren't as penned in.
And things ARE open past 10p around here.
Posted by: My Boaz's Ruth on February 2, 2006 09:05 PMSchultz says he pays out 10 million per year in a loss, he wants us to pony up for 20 million a year to fix his court. Yep, just cut him a check for 10 mil a year. That way he can't whine on TV... I'm losing 10 mil a year.
Just give him the 10 mil. After 10 years, the public will have saved 100 million.
You're absolutely right on that point. If you want a major sport team, the community had better pony up. And yes having big league sports does enhance the community.
And yes I do like having world class venues, and top teams in town.
Doesn't mean I have to like the way it's done.
I don't like the way government does a lot of things.
Or support politicians who continue the status quo.
If I weren't watching closely, I would think that the genius (in this case billionaire Howard Shultz) is operating at $10 million deficit (if you believe those numbers, which I don't and the players don't) and will continue to do so.
You seem to be saying he can continue to run his business like a government and have the legislature bail him out. Yes, very Republican.
You are saying that his bad personnel decisions (i.e. high salaries), a zillion coaches and other operating costs are unchangeable, even though he is a successful businessman.
What you have not said is that as a successful businessman he can extort millions from the government, so why not?
I can go on with the last remodel fiasco and higher ticket prices leading to small crowds (read revenue). I can also go on that sports today is sick and not like the sports 20-30 years ago. Steroids and bad attitudes are rampant; ESPN has been bad for the fan; free agency destroying the sense of community; high ticket prices; etc.. And I could go on here.
Posted by: swatter on February 3, 2006 07:22 AMI just read your links. The way I read them, and as other material I recall on the financing packages indicates, the taxes you're talking about are a specific sales and use tax, which is applied to purchases at the stadia. People paying for goods and services at the stadia pay regular sales tax, but the percentages you cite are deducted from the tax that would otherwise be sent to local and state governments. This is essentially a user fee where the relevant stadium authorities get a cut from revenue derived directly from sales and use (tickets) at the stadiums. That's not money from say Joe Q. taxpayer buying a computer at Staples in Seattle and paying sales tax. So again, since it's a user fee, not a general tax, what's the problem?
Swatter -
Thanks for the compliment. But no, I don't think the Sonics should be "bailed out." I understand where you're coming from on some of the modern issues in sports, and I think it would be fair for a locality to be very hesitant in offering concessions to a franchise that is not running its own operations well.
However, while sports franchises are corporations it's not like they are in a pure free market. Because of the nature of their business there is usually some relationship with local government. In this case, the Sonics play at the Key which is City-run. I'm not stunned the City has an operation that isn't working out well for the users of that operation. And it is certainly the Sonics' right to say the conditions they need if they're going to keep their business at that location. Seattle, and the Legislature, have the right to say no. And then the Sonics have the right to move their business. That's not extortion, it's negotions, which just happen to be very public because of the high profile of the entity negotiating with the City.
Posted by: Eric Earling on February 3, 2006 09:30 AMIf something is wrong, fix it; that is a motto I go by.
If the sports organization can extort money from cities nationwide, someone has to put their foot down.
Same with terrorists. If you let them go on their business because it is easier and safer to take them on, then you lose and they win. In the short term, when you do take them on, it is tough and sometimes you wonder why. But, I have found if you stick up for your principles, through thick and thin, whether you win or lose, you can hold your head high. That feeling is worth all the compromising and kowtowing that is sometimes done.
Posted by: swatter on February 3, 2006 09:46 AMI am a committed, passionate Sonics fan. This is my fourth year as a Sonics season ticket holder. Am I the only one here who regularly attends Sonics games?
Posted by: Gary on February 3, 2006 02:09 PMOk, I read you're stuff. I like the stadium package for the Seahwks less now, though with several mitigating factors. 1) the portion of the sales tax as part of the overall budget of construction is not high, 2) the sales tax is only in King County (which derives the most econ. development gains from the stadium and team), 3) the tax expires when the bonds that financed construction are payed off, and 4) the tax is reallocation of existing taxes - not a new tax.
That last point in particular remains a core port of my argument. There is no new tax burden to John Q. taxpayer because of the stadia. Though it would be nice to know, as you note, if the deferred taxes were payed back as they should have been after construction was completed.
The one thing I wouldn't like is if those taxes were extended to pay for a deal for the Sonics. I'd prefer to find a way to keep them in town - if reasonable - without general taxes at all, even if it's just a reallocation.
Posted by: Eric Earling on February 3, 2006 02:26 PMWith that money I will build a bigger building, move in WalMart and voila, loads of dough for the State, county and local.
Posted by: swatter on February 3, 2006 03:32 PM"The top 1 percent keep getting richer".
I'm pretty sure if this were true, Howard Shultz and his partners should be racking in the dough.
Posted by: Steve on February 3, 2006 07:32 PMScrew him. I'm going home!
Posted by: Cartman on February 5, 2006 08:56 PM