1. Stefan,

Couldn't disagree with you more on this. Neither are "boondoggles". These sports facilities are called infrastructure, just like parks, libraries, theaters and museums; only more popular.

Yes there needs to be debate about the exact funding mechanisms, scope and price of the track and arena. But the ultimate goal needs to be how to keep the Sonics in area and how to attract NASCAR to the Northwest.

The only problem with the NASCAR proposal was it's placement on the Kitsap Peninsula. Only two roads and one ferry line going in. When ISC comes back with a better track location (Lewis County) you'll see better traction. We won't even go down the road of misinformation about NASCAR causing global warming.

As for the Sonics, you shouldn't be so quick to join with these liberal Seattle Democrats who want to chase a 40-year institution out of the state just because of their racist views about the NBA and because they can't stand the thought of people enjoying themselves.

I'll respond to the See-n-Say misinformation about the funding behind Safeco and Qwest and "Don't-want-to-see-my-tax-dollars-wasted-on-millionaires" myth in a bit while expounding on my ever so popular views with one of my own posts.

Posted by: Reporterward on April 5, 2007 11:03 AM

2. My question is when taxpayer funds are used to build these stadiums does the government then rent out the facility to the team?

Posted by: TrueSoldier on April 5, 2007 11:14 AM

3. Public funding of entertainment worked really well in Rome...

Do we want to repeat that? Not I.

Posted by: Jeremy on April 5, 2007 11:17 AM

4. Jeremy,
Your analogy is irrelevent to today becaue this isn't the Roman Republic or Empire.
It's also historically inaccurate. The vast majority of Rome's public entertainment spectacles were paid for by Roman Senators and politicians out of their own pockets in order to gain favor during elections.
Bread and circuses was an election slogan.

Posted by: Reporterward on April 5, 2007 11:33 AM

5. One note before someone brings it up. I was referring to politicians in the Roman Republic. During the Empire, the public spectacles were paid for (usually) with tribute from conquered nations. The Roman Coliseum, for instance, was paid for from loot captured after the sack of Jerusalem.
But I've gotten Stefan's post WAY off topic regarding how to fund (or not fund) sports facilities.

(Insert jokes about conquering France or British Columbia to pay for a new basketball arena here)

Posted by: Reporterward on April 5, 2007 11:46 AM

6. Reporterward @1

The problem with your comparison is that the infrastructure that you mentioned are not trying to make a profit. If the Sonics and Nascar want the citizens of this state to pay for the stadiums that they will use, then I say any citizen of this state is entitled to free admission to ANY event held in said stadium.

You get Nascar and the Sonics to agree to that, and I'll agree to help pay for the "infrastructure".

Posted by: David on April 5, 2007 11:54 AM

7. With the new stadium (which we pay for) comes an increase in traffic. As everyone stated earlier this week no one wants to pay for new roads. So basically you have a big financial boondoggle that we paid to get ourselves into.

What do the taxpayers get out of it? A sports team with big claims about increasing tax base (completely unproven), no money from the team/naming rights, another stadium that will be abandoned in 20 years because it's "out of style" / "not brining enough revenue for the team". They'll threaten to leave (again) and play the heartstrings card to get yet another new facility.

This is a no-win situation for your average taxpayer. I'm hope the stadium funding dies a quick death and they move the team to Oklahoma where they will loose even more money because of the smaller metropolitan consumer base.

Posted by: Cato on April 5, 2007 12:42 PM

8. Nonsense. Sports stadia are not infrastructure. They are frills. If sports teams want to play in stadia, let them build them and charge higher prices. Why should I who never wants to see a Sonics game be forced to pay for these overpaid athletes?

Nice try. Bzzt.

Just say no to taxpayer-funded sports dreameries.

Posted by: steve miller on April 5, 2007 01:32 PM

9. Go, Sonics, go...and take the Seahawks, Mariners, and NASCAR with you.

Posted by: NW Denizen on April 5, 2007 01:38 PM

10. reporter, why does the latest Sonic infrastructure improvement have to be tore down after 8 years? Why did the infrastructure of the Kingdome have to be demolished after a short shelf life?

Good try, but bad analogy.

Posted by: swatter on April 5, 2007 01:55 PM

11. I suspect ReporterWard doesn't live in Kitsap County. Yes, the track was a boondoggle. I am personally glad the hillbillies in their travel trailers won't be trapsing through Kitsap County.

Posted by: pbj on April 5, 2007 03:59 PM

12. "TrueSoldier" at #2: You ask if the tenants of these public stadiums pay rent. Yes, a little bit of rent is paid. For the ISC speedway proposal, it would have been "reasonable rent" as stated in Section 601 of the bill -- which would be only enough to pay the expenses of the "public speedway authority," or roughly $1 million a year. You can find the same sort of provision regarding Qwest Field, where the tenant pays what the statute calls "fair rent" -- which again is limited to only enough to pay the expenses of the "public stadium authority," or about $1 million a year.

These "PSAs" exist for two purposes, both of which serve the lessees' interests. They make it possible to use tax revenue to pay for at least part of the construction costs, which lets the lessee avoid paying the entire cost of building its place of business. And, they make it possible to exempt the facility from the property tax that would be paid by a privately owned and operated facility.

Since the "fair" or "reasonable" rent only pays the costs of a government entity which is created solely to grant public funding and tax exemptions to the tenants, the receipt of this small rent from the tenants is a "wash." That is to say, the government and taxpayers gain absolutely nothing from the payment of this rent.

Posted by: Micajah on April 5, 2007 05:55 PM

13. It is dead, because when the taxpayers see this along with 25 Billion in new transportation bills, a new 2% Income tax (which will rise daily) to fund leaves, on and on, the no no no no no will be the penning of the day.

Of course than they will all be remarked yes yes yes yes yes by attendent Union workers in the King County elections dept....

But they will all still die.

What a deal the stadium would have been however, we pay for it all plus all cost overruns, and they keep all the proceeds from it. This is a deal which should and will fail on it's own, but will be helped along by the massive tax increases they want...

Sorry Charlie!

Posted by: GS on April 5, 2007 07:53 PM

14. Didn't Sonics want $200 mil from Seattle? Man, wouldn't that have more value than the $240 mil slated for the bicycle commute thing?

Now that they are in Renton, maybe Seattle can divert the $240 mil to help out Renton and still be able to come ahead.

Posted by: DopioLover on April 5, 2007 09:09 PM

15. I am by no means an NBA fan, but I have been to a game at the Key and it is a great place to watch basketball. It's a fine facility, and the fact is that if the Sonics can't make money there, that is a function of a broken NBA economic system, not a need for a new facility.

Somehow, some way they were able to build the Pepsi Center in Denver with private money. How is it possible? Well they already had an NBA and NHL franchise to support it. So if Mr. Bennett thinks that is the key to getting a new arena, then get on the horn with Gary Bettman and get him to commit to a hockey team here, and then you can build the arena yourself.

Posted by: Palouse on April 6, 2007 07:59 AM

16. Sorry, Reporterward, but sports stadiums are not infrastructure, because they do not provide necessary services. Rather, they are massive transfers of wealth from taxpayers to team owners. The increase in the value of the Mariners corresponds roughly with the amount of public moneys spent on Safeco Field.

It seems to me that if conservatives are going to complain about wealth redistribution from taxpayers to the poor (rightly so, in my opinion), then they should also complain about wealth redistribution from taxpayers to the wealthy.

Posted by: Allen McPheeters on April 6, 2007 11:16 AM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:

Remember info?