March 12, 2008
Rossi Supports Unnecessary Key Arena Remodel
Dino Rossi is savvy enough to know the state’s inability to broker a Key Arena remodel is the type of far-fetched, wedge issue just ripe for exploiting come November’s election. Considering the hotly contested runoff between him and Governor Gregoire several years ago, the Sonics impending departure is the perfect issue to highlight as an example of weak-kneed Democrats not taking care of business on Gregoire’s watch.
Of course, there is the fact Key Arena was just remodeled 13 years ago, it’s a fine place to watch a game as is, and the Sonics aren’t for sale or really interested in staying Seattle in the first place. Rossi knows it isn’t so much the details that matter, just the fact that all he has to do is blame the Democrats for not moving heaven and earth to keep the increasingly ridiculous NBA business model in town, and he instantly has a few thousand basketball meatheads in his corner.
This is the stuff of election year politicking and, if you aren’t nauseous, you aren’t paying attention.
| 
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
[ report this ]
Editorialize much?
Way to ostracize the readers/fans (those few remaining) who do actually enjoy the Sonics.
[ report this ]
How about "Gov. Gregoire Reject $150M Donation"?
I can understand the sentiment to not be held hostage by sports owners, but when everyone besides Frank Chopp (a disgrace to the name BTW) and Dick Bennett, seems to be in favor of this thing, how is it so hard to at least get heard.
I mean, the guy that led the Anti-public funding for stadiums initiative is in support of this for crissakes.
[ report this ]
Basketball meatheads? Because, after all, anybody who likes basketball, values having the Sonics here, and supports this proposal clearly must be a meathead.
Actually, I think the meatheads on this issue are the people criticizing the proposal without understanding the details. I'm not talking specifically about this post, but in the last week I've seen the same old debate, with the same knee-jerk criticisms without putting any critical thought into the new proposal.*
It is a different plan, with much different implications for the city, county, and state. I'm for it not just because I think it's the last best chance to keep the Sonics around, and because I think having the Sonics here is important, but because I think the implications for the long-term health of Seattle Center are huge.
But people hear the words "Sonics" and "arena" and the issue becomes radioactive. When people actually take the time to learn about the proposal, they tend to be for it. What frustrates me is that Gregoire and Chopp certainly get it, and they're giving lip service to the fact that it's a great offer, but they're not taking a strong stand of any kind. They're passing the buck to the city, writing a meaningless letter of non-commitment, and rejecting it without being forthright enough to say as much.
If they had taken strong, principled, educated stands against this plan, I would probably disagree but would still respect them.
I don't actually think this has to be a partisan issue. I'm a self-identified liberal Democrat; I used to live in Chopp's district and voted for him and Gregoire last time around. Yet I'm mortified by how they've approached this issue.
I won't necessarily vote for Dino Rossi just because he seems to get it and be willing to take a stand on an issue that's important to me, but I do appreciate it.
But then again, I'm just a basketball meathead, so feel free to just insult me again and dismiss my opinion out of hand.
---
*
For example:
- "Our tax dollars shouldn't line billionaire sports owners' pockets! Our money should go to more important things!"
There's no public subsidy of a sports team; all of the public funds would be going into Seattle Center - a facility taxpayers are on the hook for and that is used by people other than sports fans for purposes other than sports. Seattle Center badly needs help; and spending these public funds would also bring in the $150 million of private money, which would also go towards Key Arena--again, a public facility used for purposes other than sports.
If we don't spend the money now, we'll likely have to pay to upgrade Seattle Center eventually anyway, but without the $150 million of private money to help.
What does it say when Nick Licata and Chris Van Dyk of Citizens for More Important Things, who both opposed the last arena plan tooth and nail, actually think this is a good deal for Seattle taxpayers?
- "My (non-King County) constituents don't want to pay for these improvements in King County!"
Well, good, because there is no tax impact outside of King County.
- "The Sonics aren't for sale anyway, so what's the point?"
The Sonics aren't for sale because the NBA doesn't see a reason to keep the team here. There needs to be a local ownership group and an arena solution to make them think twice. We now have the first; we're being frustrated on the second.
Besides, the program would only go into effect if the local investors bought the team, so if you don't think that's going to happen, what's the downside?
[ report this ]
Hafner- I agree with you for the most part.
Key Arena will eventually need to be remodeled regardless with the rest of the Seattle Center(even though NBA venue wise its fine for real fans like us) but if Ballmer wants to put the Lion's share up front than this is as good as its going to get. Seattle shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth, that being said, the timing is at a point where chances are it may be too late.
So Rossi can say what he wants, (I am a Sonics meathead but not to the extent of majority funding) but his chiming in at this critical hour smells like he's pandering.
I'm not saying it's wrong for voters to resent Gregoire if she ignores the offer, I expect it to hurt her if she does.
-John
[ report this ]
John: "So Rossi can say what he wants, (I am a Sonics meathead but not to the extent of majority funding) but his chiming in at this critical hour smells like he's pandering."
Yep - I agree, it did have a whiff of pandering. It's definitely easier to be on board with the fact that it's easier to support this kind of thing when you're not in a position to do anything about it.
But, even if it is pandering, it feels awfully good when somebody appears to be listening and sympathetic.
:-)
[ report this ]
I thought you were going to finish the sentence with "Dino."
Phew. This post did remind me that I have to go pick up my tickets for Friday game. We actually stand a chance of winning!
And honestly, OPerry, wouldn't you rather have the Hornets up here? All I know is, I'd rather spend 75 MM on part of a train than part of a team that doesn't want to be here any longer.
[ report this ]
why does everyone think that ballmer is giving $150 million out of the goodness of his own heart? he's not; he's investing in the team. meaning he'll be looking for a share of the profits. he's not writing a check to the city as charity.
plus, what's your reasoning for us keeping the sonics here? because they're the hometown team? so are the seahawks and mariners, go cheer them on. because it's important? how, exactly, give me three reasons. because you like them? well fine, you and all the other sonics fans pool your money together and come up with the other $75 million dollars, then you and your friends and ballmer can have your own private basketball team and charge admission when us other folks want to get into the arena.
personally i think our tax dollars could be funneled somewhere else more meaningful. i get the implications and still say, "bye, bye sonics."
[ report this ]
z33bleoop:
Well, he (and the rest of the group) would be spending somewhere around $350 million for the team. And certainly if Ballmer wound up with a team that played at Key Arena, he'd benefit from the Key Arena upgrades - as would every other entity that uses the Key Arena, as would the users of Key Arena no matter what the event, and as would the rest of Seattle Center.
I don't know Ballmer's motivation, but for all the people who decry public money going to private enterprise, I would think the fact that this is private money going into upgrades to a public facility would be a bigger deal. He's basically offering to match funds on upgrades to Key Arena and the Seattle Center infrastructure.
Honestly, I'm as excited about what that means for Seattle Center and my tax burden going forward on that public facility as I am about the potential of the Sonics staying.
The Seahawks and Mariners - you mean the teams that have stadiums that involved more than $650 million in public contributions? You'd prefer I root for them rather than a team that's asking for less than one quarter as much in public contribution - mind you, public contribution that wouldn't go to the benefit of a public, taxpayer-owned facility?
Besides, this is pretty insultin. This is the equivalent of me saying to you:
"What's your reasoning for keeping the opera here? Because it's fine arts that enriches the community? Well, so is ballet and theatre, go to those instead."
[ report this ]
Sigh ...
Of course, that should read "insulting."
[ report this ]
Pro sports are a cancer of sorts but they give people something to cheer for and they certainly boost the local hospitality industry for what its worth.
[ report this ]
We need winning teams during the winter to cheer us up. Could care less if the M's lose because there is sunshine. But during January to March.... it's so gloomy.
[ report this ]
The proposal from the potential new owners gelled in the last couple weeks of a very short session where, for most any interest group, you have to have your stuff ready months in advance. Even though discussions were taking place, it seemed clear that anything doable would not be on the table--and public sentiment was running hard against the Sonics. So it is a bit of a stretch to blame the legislature -- or frankly, anybody -- for a deal not coming together fast enough or timely enough to generate legislative approval. Believe it or not, the legislature is focused on many, many "more important things" during its run, the priority of which is subject to intensive and time consuming debate before the votes are taken. Regardless what you may think of the NBA, tax-dollars for pro-sports or tax dollars for anything else, the cheap shots aren't warranted.