I attended the hearing and like the title of this entry implies, the crowd was overwhelming pro-arena/pro-Sonics. That said, I don't think it moved the needle that much.

Very little opposition based on finances, most of the people opposed were Port people. In fact I only counted one person that objected on finance deal terms alone. The port people brought up many things including "giving Millions to a hedge fund manager".

Judging the public hearing alone, I would say the port concerns are the biggest issue that would prevent this being approved...I am sure Van Dyke is working in the background or maybe the threat to sue was enough.

I did enjoy the pro arena comments asking the council to state their reasons if they vote to reject the proposal. Seems like a reasonable request.

I attended the hearing and like the title of this entry implies, the crowd was overwhelming pro-arena/pro-Sonics. That said, I don't think it moved the needle that much.

Very little opposition based on finances, most of the people opposed were Port people. In fact I only counted one person that objected on finance deal terms alone. The port people brought up many things including "giving Millions to a hedge fund manager".

Judging the public hearing alone, I would say the port concerns are the biggest issue that would prevent this being approved...I am sure Van Dyke is working in the background or maybe the threat to sue was enough.

I did enjoy the pro arena comments asking the council to state their reasons if they vote to reject the proposal. Seems like a reasonable request.

With speakers getting all of one minute you'd be hard-pressed to fit in a financial explanation . It's ok JB, the council members still read e-mails with financial explanations.

Unfortunately, it looks like I-91 wasn't written very well. I think I know what they were trying to do; they were trying to make a profit for the City when the City put up the cash for large projects. But they didn't word it well enough to legally capture what they had intended.

In this case, it looks like the public understands that Hansen and others want to use the City's ability to borrow, and intend to repay all those costs from money raised at the new facility -- including interest. There's no real profit for the City, but they'll get their costs repaid. The deal is designed to be a wash.

My biggest fear in all these deals is assumption of liability. I mean, look, Hansen and Ballmer aren't going bankrupt -- okay? But if they did, taxpayers would be on the hook -- the liability has been transferred to them.

I offer kudos to Hansen, et al, for keeping the estimates realistic. The results they're describing are far more likely to happen than the results they were describing in Sac. Move this entire proposal about 800 miles south, and I'd have favored it. This proposal is in very stark contrast to Think Big's proposal (and the SoDo location is way better than our railyard location, too).

I hope this gets done. As for waiting 5 years for a better deal, as one Times poster keeps saying they should: A bird in the hand, sir.

Good luck, Seattle. I think even the opposition isn't really that opposed to this.

The real problems are in the macroeconomic effects on jobs, regional transportation, leakage, substitution, debt capacity (city), future liabilities with lenders with liens on ArenaCo, freight transport (and effectively state exports), legal precedents (e.g. entering into a deal w/out proper environmental/economic review), and as one anti-speaker put it: the chorus of opposition from groups who otherwise wouldn't even want to be in the same room, let along agree on something.

All of these are huge alarm bells. If we simply focus on the MOU itself, in a vacuum, then we miss the forest for the trees. These nuances are not widely reported and when they are, the arena proponents bury the discussion in ad hominem rhetoric. Sad but true.

Godwin: What is this leakage problem I keep hearing about? Can you describe it in simple terms?

No one has yet shown me the actual numbers of why they think this could be a risk to Seattle's debt capacity. I think it's a non-issue for that reason; something that sounds nice but doesn't really exist once you get into the numbers.

I find it interesting that arena detractors are constantly complaining about traffic, but have yet to provide an independent study on the matter to counter the one that City of Seattle had done (paid for with Hansen's money).

Similarly, there really is no data to suggest that even one job would be lost through the creation and use of this arena.

The MOU states very clearly that the deal can be stopped if it doesn't pass SEPA. So this whole paranoid discussion around "legal precedent" and SEPA is just baseless.

"Money spent at a basketball arena rather than at local restaurants results in more 'leakage' out of the economy, since a higher percentage of money exits the local area (because a huge percentage of it goes to players who don't live locally year-round) rather than being respent there."

www.fieldofschemes.com/news/archives/2012/07/5018_post_37.html

Thanks Neil.

I posted this but realized it was on an article from mid-June. Given that I think this is still totally salient to our current discussion, I will post this again here. Sorry for the repeat, but I would like to hear what folks think about this.

This whole substitution effect argument really doesn't sit right with me. I don't do much entertainment here in Seattle where I live. I go out for drinks once and a while, but that activity won't change when the Sonics return, even including the extra costs of going to games and spending $10 per drink at the arena (argh). I rarely go to Ms games, no Sounders games, and only go to seahawks if I get a free ticket or something. I actually like watching football on TV better than being in the arena.

I rarely go to the theater, maybe once a year. I do attend a few events like Folklife or streetfairs, block parties, and the like. But this was exactly the same behavior as when the Sonics were in town and I was attending Sonics games.

I guess I have been saving money since the Sonics left in 2008. So the opportunity cost to me is possibly some miniscule interest payment on my savings account. The opportunity cost to Seattle is the tax revenues they are not making off my Sonics game excursions. From my point of view, there is zero substitution effect related to my Sonics game expenditures.

Funny I attended the joint City County public meeting on the arena proposal yesterday. I was blown away by the number of fans who came all the way from Yakima, BC, Olympia, Bellingham, Spanaway, Federal Way, Everett, Lynnwood, etc etc. who all were just pleading "please let me spend my money in Seattle." More than one guy said they live in Seattle but actually travel elsewhere (Denver, Phoenix, Portland, BC, etc) to see NBA and hockey. So there's currently a reverse substitution effect, outbound from City of Seattle.

Neil, overall I think you have a penchant for inflating the alleged substitution effect, without any real data showing that it could be as big as you routinely describe it to be. I don't mean to be confrontational or anything, just trying to be as accurate as we can be with these numbers and effects. I'm not sure how to measure it accurately, as we discussed before; I think you were arguing for a true economic analysis (by an approp independent economist), and I would agree that might make me feel more comfortable. As long as the analysis really goes deep and captures all of the inputs and outputs without making logical errors or assumptions not founded in hard data.

And I just answered you there, so I'll double-post it here:

The best data we have on the substitution effect comes from studies of what happens to local economic activity (or sales tax receipts) when a team moves to or from a town. (Robert Baade has done several of these, as have a few other economists.) The answer is invariably: Not a whole lot of anything. At one point Baade looked at 30 cities that had gained teams, and found that in 27 cases there was no measurable effect on local economic activity - and in the other three cases activity appeared to go *down*. (See Chapter 2 of Field of Schemes for more on these.)

Could these studies be missing some small effect that was swamped by bigger economic trends? Sure. Can attracting a team shift spending from one neighborhood to another, or one town to another? Definitely. But ask just about any economist and they'll say that on the scale of a large city, or certainly a county or state, the vast majority of fans aren't saving their ticket money when a team leaves like you are - they're spending it on something else in town.

I'm actually a pretty good example of this: In recent years I've been going to more MLS and WNBA games, which has cut into the number of MLB games that I go to. (As have rising MLB ticket prices - when I was in college I'd go sit in the Yankee Stadium bleachers 30-40 times a year for $1.50 a pop, but now I go to 5-6 games a year for $20 each.) And I've completely stopped going to Knicks games, because I don't have the time or money to follow them.

Anyway, the best way of trying to estimate this would be to do a study of Seattle tax receipts in the years the Sonics were there vs the years since they left, and try to control for outside economic factors (maybe by comparing with a similar city that didn't lose a team?). If somebody has access to the sales tax data, this would be an excellent time to take a look at it...

"Anyway, the best way of trying to estimate this would be to do a study of Seattle tax receipts in the years the Sonics were there vs the years since they left, and try to control for outside economic factors (maybe by comparing with a similar city that didn't lose a team?). If somebody has access to the sales tax data, this would be an excellent time to take a look at it..."

I agree. But many of the arena proponents, including speedcat, do not want any study before the fact that includes all data, all stakeholders, and that isn't dominated by arena interests. They want the city & county to sign now and ask questions later, and point to a phoney escape clause in the deal that in all reality isn't realistic. Another sad point.

I think the substitution effect as described by most economists is too general and doesn't fit the Seattle market.

The Seattle market is the nearest to places like Spokane, Idaho, and Alaska among others. I live in Willow AK for 5 years and all of the Seattle sports teams were televised and broadcast by local stations. This didn't mean just the games mind you. It also includes pre and post game broadcasts.

The point here is that the Seattle market is regional and not focused to the Seattle metropolitan area. Check out the parking lots at Seattle arenas on a weekend and you will see many RVs in the lot. Many of these are people who come in from out of town each weekend with season tickets. Seattle is not a typical media market for sports franchises based on it's location with respect to other franchises.

And in regards to substitution for myself.... I have season tickets to the Seahawks. I do not live in Seattle or King County. Nor would I give up my hawks tickets to attend Sonics games. Hopefully I will be able to once again attend Sonics games....

Certainly not perfect, but here's retail sales tax collections. The 2008 yearly summary compares to 2007.

dor.wa.gov/Content/AboutUs/StatisticsAndReports/stats_taxretail.aspx

Seattle 2007 to 2008 change +0.39%

Bellevue 2007 to 2008 change -6.01%

If you wanted to be sure not to include the Sonics games into April, Q3 data 2007 to 2008 changes

Seattle 2007 to 2008 Q3 +1.21%

Bellevue 2007 to 2008 Q3 -4.75%

speedcat:
here is the city's presentation from Feb talking about their recommended LTGO bond capacity . In subsequent meetings they've discussed the 2012 impacts to the budget as worse than anticipated and the unknown costs to implement DOJ reforms.

clerk.seattle.gov/~public/meetingrecords/2012/budget20120430_1a.pdf - latest budget update

clerk.seattle.gov/~public/meetingrecords/2012/gpnf20120229_2a.pdf - last "full" status meeting - discussed bond capacity

The City has a very large "legal" capacity for voter-approved (UTGO) debt. Its "legal" capacity for councilmanic (LTGO) debt is much more limited.

If the City wants to maintain its past conservative financing practices, it has the capacity to issue about $50-$70 m of new LTGO (councilmanic) debt per year.

"I agree. But many of the arena proponents, including speedcat, do not want any study before the fact that includes all data, all stakeholders, and that isn't dominated by arena interests. They want the city & county to sign now and ask questions later, and point to a phoney escape clause in the deal that in all reality isn't realistic. Another sad point.

Posted by Godwin on July 21, 2012 11:36 AM"

What is really unfair about what Godwin is saying here is that we have been asking for studies, and facts, for months now. The Port, in opposition, has provided nothing. The City, County and Hansen's group at sonicsarena.com have provided a great deal of in depth study, facts and data around this proposal.

My comments at the town hall meeting were asking for data showing how any job would be lost through this proposal. No answer. I asked a KC council staffer last week, still no answer. I think this is because the port has provided no data to the councils, mayor or exec. Now that is a sad story.

I think you may be mistaking our eagerness to get the MOU signed so Hansen can take advantage of the Sacramento NBA team situation, or others that are out there in very limited supply, with some kind of assumption that we don't want a SEPA study or other advanced studies. It's fair to say that opportunities to get an NBA team go away very quickly, and that is our motivation here. It's also true that the MOU specfically states that the deal can be shut down entirely if it doesn't pass a SEPA review. I'm all for reviews. This deal is set up to run in stages. The stage we are at now is getting the MOU approved, so we can get an NBA team. SEPA can run concurrently with that effort.

You see... we're not blinded sports fans with no sense of civic responsibility. Please stop making false statements about us. Thank you.

ChefJoe, thanks for sharing that. I had read it before, but it's a good piece as part of this current discussion.

"If the City wants to maintain its past conservative financing practices, it has the
capacity to issue about $50-$70 m of new LTGO (councilmanic) debt per year.
� The City could undertake a more aggressive financing approach, but this would
require it to either:
� Accept a more leveraged debt financing profile (which could negatively
affect the City�s credit rating) and/or
� Seek new revenue from which to support the debt (e.g. voter-approved
levy)"

I would argue that this arena proposal does create "new revenue from which to support the debt". The debt service guarantees in the MOU are pretty strong, unprecedented in deals like these. Anyone rating Seattle's debt capacity and/or credit rating would have to take these guarantees into account. Every financial person who has studied this deal comes away saying that it's a real benefit to the City. So I'm still unconvinced there is an issue with Seattle's debt capacity here.

Neil,, I respect your opinion based on the Baade studies, but the Baade and Dye studies have shown to be outdated and focus on stadiums placed outside of urban areas. Charles Santos from Portland State University effectively breaks down the algorithms used by Baade and Dye to find holes in their data.

Santos goes on to show that stadiums built in urban areas Do have, for the most part (cities are never 1:1) have a positive impact in the area. To corroborate Speedcat's claim, Seattle had the largest positive net impact from Santos study.

In my own analysis, this could be due to Seattle's relatively small footprint. Seattle city limits are a relatively small swatch of land running north-south on the east side of Lake Washington, only consisting of 600,000 residents in a metropolitan area of 3.5-4 million residents. In many ways, it is easier to make it to the stadium district from outside of the county (Everett and Tacoma) than it is from the east side of King County.

These nuances are not widely reported and when they are, the arena proponents bury the discussion in ad hominem rhetoric. Sad but true.

The ad hominem attacks have gone both ways. There have been a lot of completely unwarranted personal attacks on Hansen (including by the Seattle Times editorialists). Thankfully at the meeting the other night, anyone who made such attacks was shut down pretty quickly by the councilman running the event.

It�s one thing to have issues with the proposal, but given how much time, effort, and money Hansen has and still is putting into this, I find it hard to believe he�s out to swindle people (Mr. deMause�s analysis seems to agree with this as well).

I have seen 20 NHL games since moving to Seattle. I often pick my vacations based on the city having a hockey team and/or based on their home schedule. I went to Minneapolis in April and plan to hit Nashville next year. I would not go to either of those cities if they didn't have a hockey team. I am sure there are similar people in the area as well as people outside the state that might choose Seattle for vacation in the same ways I pick Minn & Nash. Several of my friends have season tickets to the Vancouver Canucks who would gladly stay in town 30+ nights a year.

The Mariners are down 20,000 fans a game...should the city of Seattle hope they never win again in fear of impacts to the other businesses?

ChefJoe: Thanks! Will take a look at the data on that page.

Glen: Just grabbed the Santo paper, reading it now. For those who want to play along at home:

bit.ly/MOYRCx

Okay, the upshot of the paper, which expands Baade's studies with more recent data, seems to be: Economic impact of sports facilities is all over the map (in some cities stadiums and arenas seem to have a positive effect, in others negative), but if you look at the *share* of regional economic activity, then stadiums and arenas do shift it to the city where the team plays. Which is no surprise, really - even Baade will tell you that stadiums can be very effective and moving around where money is spent in a region.

And Glen, you may be right that Seattle is a special case because of its size and special transportation issues. (The same argument went for Washington, D.C., building a stadium for the Nationals, though of course they put out like 10x as much public money there.) So you can definitely make the case that a new arena can help Seattle steal entertainment spending from the suburbs, but that's not the same as saying there's no substitution effect.

This is an interesting addition to the literature, though, and one I'm sorry I missed until now. I have an email out to Baade to see if he's responded to its findings.

Neil,

I think no one is arguing there is truly "no" substitution effect. What I've been arguing is that a 50% substitution effect (or larger in some of your numbers) is really high. I mean my main point was that just because the 2005 study of Key Arena showed that 50% of the money spent at the arena was from outside the County does not automatically mean that 50% of the money was substituted in King County. Substitution is far more complex than that. You have to look at income levels, spending levels and preferences, disposable income, rates of saving, fan preferences to other teams, to the arts, to eating out vs bringing their own food, etc etc etc. This conundrum is really, really complex to analyze properly.

To your point above, I think Seattle should do what is good for Seattle, and not worry so much about what other jurisdictions might lose in the process. Everyone is saying that Seattle is the winner in this thing. So be it.

Thanks again for your thoughtful analysis and for letting us be a part of this important discussion.

Sure, which is why I used a really broad range for the substitution effect. Though to be honest, the numbers are so small here that even a swing from 75% to 25% substitution isn't going to make that big a difference.

I don't know if I'd say that Seattle is the clear winner in this thing - that'd be Hansen, since he'll be getting a $500 million arena to play in for probably less than $400 million, after you account for both the tax kickbacks and the reduced interest rate thanks to city bonds. But Seattle looks like it probably wouldn't be a loser, and if that's good enough for Seattle residents and elected officials, then by all means go for it.

Well, it looks like Chris Hansen's supporters are bird dogging these comments, now that FoS put out *one* possible favorable piece.

These are people who apparently think the Port of Seattle is a private entity when they complain they get "subsidies" from the taxpayers when it is a public one with democratically elected commissioners. Imagine a public entity concerned that a private hedge fund investor might be a problem. The horrors.

Makes as much sense as saying that city government gets "subsidies". If they would just get off this "port sucks" tape-loop there might actually be civil discourse.

I keep arguing that Seattle gets the lion's share of the services and pass-through revenues from the state that rely on state sales taxes. I think my post on this is still in moderation, and to be honest I don't even remember what story I posted on. I included a link to the state budget for 2012/2013, including pie charts of where the $$ are going. Now this was not split out by revenue source, but we know that sales taxes is a major contributor to the overall state revenue situation.

Of all the transportation construction, mass transit spending, welfare spending, unemployment payments, hospital construction, highways, airports, education spending, etc etc etc, I just assume that Seattle gets the lion�s share as the largest center of population in WA State. I also assume that sales tax revenues are similarly re-distributed. I could be wrong.

Found your comment, speedcat, and took it out of moderation - you'd included a link with "http," which automatically gets tossed in the junk folder. (This is explained on the comment page, but I guess no one ever reads that.)

Godwin, what hyperbole is unfair and uncalled for in this debate. Not a single arena supporter I know has called the port an unneeded part of the Seattle economy. What I have heard though, is the Port of Seattle to back up its claims of job losses due to arena traffic in contrast to the DOT traffic study Hansen paid for six months ago.

The ad homenium attack on Hansen specifically because of his profession is uncalled for as well. Hansen grew up as a very poor kid in the Rainer Valley, his mom worked as a non-profit social worker while he cleaned dishes in the back of a restaurant. Is it a stretch to think now that he has some money, he would like to give back to his community?

It's funny that you bring up the Port as a private company. It is not a private company, but is the epitome of a public-private partnership, and works in much in the same way as the arena (a public resource) works with ArenaCo and TeamCo (private entities). The Port of Seattle (a public resource) supports shipping companies (private entities). The main difference though, is that the Port of Seattle has its own taxing authority.

Finally, you bring up civil discourse, yet your post in the entire thread of replies is the only post that is not civil, nor does it contribute anything to the debate.

@Glen:

art thiel, former newspaper sports writer and current sportswriter for sportspressnw put it aptly -

The jab was landed again Thursday by longtime Sonics advocate Brian Robinson. "Bring statistics and facts to match the rhetoric," he demanded.

The port's answer? A shrug. Port CEO Tay Yoshitani said it again Thursday as the evening's first public speaker: "Right now," he said, "we just don't know."

But if the port were more precise, what should say is: It can't know. Because the port is being asked to prove a negative. The potential job losses associated with traffic and gentrification are a supposition that can't be sorted from the threats to jobs from market competition and other non-arena factors that existed before anyone in Seattle heard of Chris Hansen. But his project's arrival is an opportunity for the port to use the arena attention to leverage long-standing grievances.

sportspressnw.com/2012/07/thiel-sports-fans-loud-port-not-going-away/

OK ChefJoe,

We agree that it is very difficult to predict what will happen with the "gentrification" (hate that word) of SODO and the related impacts to Port and freight mobility. It's hard to measure. But really, it's the PORT that has been routinely saying that 100K jobs will be lost if we build the arena. I mean, we didn't come up with those numbers. All we are asking them to do is to back up their numbers with ANY DATA AT ALL. I mean something besides just pure rhetoric. Please.

The other really important argument is that why can't we have all of the above? Why does it need to be a case of either/or? Visionary leaders should be able to accommodate both industrial uses and entertainment uses in the same zone. It's not rocket surgery. This thing has been blown so far out of proportion.. we need to focus on facts and not hyperbole. Thank you.

SpeedCat,

As you've said before, the shippers have a relatively easy option to move their traffic south to Tacoma. The more shippers that find it taking longer and longer to unload and the additional transit time adds to the cost. How could that not cause problems with Port of Seattle jobs ?

Yes, it's difficult to prove it as it's not about just a study on traffic so much as the upper-level decisions of the shipping companies and how traffic changes their bottom line.

Lastly, can you point out where the Port of Seattle said this would cost 100k jobs ? It gets repeated but the only place I know that contained that sort of number was suggesting that future growth could bring 100k jobs to the area from both their employees and downstream jobs impacted by the goods shipped/services that depend on them. The Port CEO is very Japanese and measured in his statements to other elected officials and certainly doesn't throw such bombastic numbers around. He says it will impact their operations and they need time to really study what those impacts would be.... but it will also cost them money to fund a study so they're not just starting it on speculation.

blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2012/07/19/port-chief-no-fast-break-on-nba-arena/

Hey ChefJoe,

OK, while we look up the various comments from port-related folks talking about 100K jobs lost through the arena proposal, let's discuss the rest of your arguments.

Let's see. If indeed the jobs and port traffic gets shifted south to Tacoma, is that really such a big deal? So you work in Tacoma, not in Seattle. You have a longer commute, perhaps. End of the f*cking world? Probably not.

Possibly some of the Seattle port workers who live in Tacoma now are rejoicing because they don't have to commute any more.

To be fair, the theories espoused by the Port are just that. We really have no evidence that the port would lose jobs through a new arena. This is pure speculation.

Thank you for a decent discussion that honors facts and not hyperbole.

Jeesus, speedcat:

"port-related folks talking about 100K jobs lost through the arena proposal"

NO ONE is saying this. You made this up. Why don't you address the ten other entities that have criticized the deal?

I love this guy's "letter to Ms. Lonely Hearts".

www.seattlechannel.org/videos/video.asp?ID=2361225&start=92:50

I'm sure there are a number of Port of Seattle workers who have gone to Tacoma, but two ports = more jobs than one port.

By the way, Martinez probably not "white". I'd address you there but you guys never approve my comments.
sonicscentral.com/blog/?p=2237#comment-1340039

www.seattlechannel.org/videos/video.asp?ID=2361225&start=173:10

@Glen: I realize that "show me the facts, Port" is the only talking point the arena proponents have. But the fact is that you can't prove a negative. So, the circular reasoning: Port says arena is a job killer, arena people say it isn't and they are creating jobs, Port says "fine, lets study it before signing a deal", arena proponents say "no, we don't need to study, it' a great deal", wash rinse repeat.
The blog's writer is getting a good education right now on the manipulation going on by Chris Hansen and his PR people just by reading this thread. If it is such a good deal, why is there all of the subterfuge, astroturf organizing, and repeating of debunked talking points? Answer: it isn't a good deal for people outside of the sports bubble, and the arena proponents do not wish to expand the debate. Instead, they wish to demonize the messenger vis the Port, and steamroller the deal through. If this is so different, why is it no different in this respect?

Hansen found a model to sell that hasn't been examined in depth by people who have been studying sports economics for a long time. All people are asking is for a real study, not one paid for by the guy that is trying to make the deal. You don't want to do that before the city signs on the dotted line. That should be enough to deep six the deal in any rational mind.

Speedcat, Going to the sonicscentral blog to ask others at the blog to do your research for you is lame.

Oh, and incidentally:

www.seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2018240446_portarena19m.html

The Port includes the fishing terminal, cruise ships, Sea Tac International Airport (huge), and container / bulk cargo operations. People have been putting the figure for lost jobs based on current figures for *just* the container operations, about a third of 12,000 direct jobs. The port wants to increase cargo throughput by about 75% and we'd have to run a model to come up with an exact number as it relates to cargo operations. This operation is the one the Port is concerned about. The argument is that not only would it make existing jobs go away in cargo operations, but that it would also hinder growth in that sector.

The Port wants to expand on all of its diverse operations over the next 25 years, and has pegged that huge number in those terms, including multipliers such as indirect and induced jobs. The arena proponents for whatever reason has taken that figure and then falsely claimed that this is the "job killer" number. Total manipulation for PR purposes on their part.

That has been a problem with the Seattle proposal, the PR payed for by Hansen. The proposal would be voted on by the Seattle City Council. There should be a sober, above board assessment of this proposal. The Hansen payed for PR does not assist in a sober, above board assessment.

Also, The Seattle Times has not been running articles, or columns that contain "ad hominem" attacks on Hansen. Stating Hansen's occupation is not an attack. Stating things that conflict with what the Hansen payed for PR says, is not an attack.

The ad hominem attacks have been from Hansen, through his payed PR, and Hansen's fans. Here in Seattle, any entity or individual that does not endorse the Hansen PR 100% is subject to trashtalk, and character assassination from the Hansen supporters. Some examples: the Port, the Municipal League, the Manufacturers, Councilman Conlin, the Mariners, the list goes on.

Godwin, why the vitriol, man?

The reason for the arena supporters asking for the Port to back up their statements is because in life it usually isn't good policy to make big threatening statements like, "the port will lose jobs," without any data to back the statement up. Take it when you hear someone asking that question as a willingness to intelligently listen when the facts become available.

The port has now had over six months from when they originally made the statement at the city council hearing to provide or even start a study--they haven't, and instead all of the supporting analysis from the Hansen DOT study and the former head of DOT at the Council meeting has shown that the traffic impact (POS's main complaint) will be minimal.

Glen, the traffic study concluded that traffic would not be above the level (number of cars) of traffic experienced by Seahawks games. What it did add was a great deal more days where traffic events occur. Slide 10 shows weeknights with no events dropping from 137 to 76 and the number of weeknights with events of 0-20k going from 22 to 74.

As I see it the port is only somewhat concerned about the volume of traffic getting worse and more concerned about the frequency of "stadium" traffic.

seattle.gov/arena/docs/120523PR-SDOT-ArenaReport.pdf

Chef, it was Mariners games, not Seahawks games and he concluded it would only add 10-15 minutes to the average rush hour commute.

Yeah, ChefJoe. But let's face it. Name one of the "anti" arena commenters at City Hall on Thursday that was not white. Name one. I'm not trying to turn this into a racial debate, but when 100s of people testify, and none that are brown or black against, you have to look at that a bit.

Speedcat, I don't care how frustrated the other side gets you, let's not go there.

The Hansen payed for "traffic study" was not even a study. There was no data collection involved in this "study". There were no on the ground counts, or timing of travel time through Seattle. This was not a "study". The for-profit company that Hansen payed to do the "study" simply cherry picked through old data. It was nothing other than another piece of Hansen payed for PR.

jhande,

Dude, we did not bring up the 100K jobs number, that came from the port.

So what that it includes jobs from airport and other major port of seattle operations? They surely weren't so eager to disassociate those jobs from the ones that *might* be threatened by the creation of such an arena. Absolutely not. That is their central argument: 100K jobs are at risk. WTF?! It's simply not based in reality.

Get a grip, friend. The port has no data, and 100% hyperbole. It's an easy argument to win when the other guy has no data, but pure speculation. I look forward to any studies or actual data on the claims spouted by the Port. Give us data, we will look at it. Continue with hyperbole, we will call you out.

Sincerely,
-speedcat

The 7:04 post by speedcat shows the unfounded attacks that Hansen supporters make. This is not isolatated. If you do not support Hansen 100%, individuals such as speedcat will trashtalk you. Speedcats post shows how far Hansen fans will go to do this trashtalking. So, speedcat infers that individuals against the Hansen proposal are racists.

That is interesting. Speedcat is white, Hansen is white, Ballmer is white, the Nordstrom kids are white. The individuals involved with the proposal are white, all of them.

Yet, individuals who do not wish to give these white people 120 million dollars of Seattle public funds (plus 168 million dollars in Seattle public funded debt service), are called racists by individuals that are Hansen fans (and also happen to be white). Hansen's proposal is not only terrible in a business sense for Seattle; Hansen's proposal has seemingly twisted the Hansen supporters minds.

Jhande wrote on the previous post:

The Hansen payed for websites, and Hansen payed sportsradio stations promoted the hearing. Hansen's payments bought him a packed hearing.

There is one site Hansen is paying for, www.sonicsarena.com. However, the fan websites and the radio stations have been around long before anyone knew who Hansen was. The anonymously-run anti-arena website, nosonicsarena, was urging arena opponents to go to the meeting as well, so what�s the difference? Arena supporters just seem to be better mobilized.

OK here's the deal. If you don't care about our needs, then you are ignoring the needs of your neighbor. I don't hate on you. You shouldn't hate on me. I am your neighbor. The fact that I dig sports should not prejudice me to you.

I was at the hearing, and no speaker in support of the arena proposal stated any data, or stated any fact. Citizens gave their opinions, which is what the hearing was for.

A true study on the impacts of this proposal would take over a year. A true study needs to be completed, and reviewed, before any vote on this proposal at the Seattle City Council.

Hansen and the Mayor should have worked on getting a true study going, instead of having 9 months of secret meetings. Hansen attempted to rush this through. It did not work. Seattle citizens can read, it is not hard to see that this MOU is welfare for Hansen. Seattle citizens do not wish to pay more welfare to billionaires, or individuals such as Hansen.

The Hansen proposal is not about sports. The Hansen proposal is about a businessman wishing to have Seattle pay 120 million dollars of public money up front, and to have Seattle pay 168 million dollars public money for debt service, for a building that would house the businessman's business. The proposal is about business, not sports. No one involved with professional sports is even involved with Hansen's proposal. The proposal is horrible business for Seattle. There is no direct profit to Seattle from the Hansen business proposal. It is textbook bad business for Seattle.

I like playing sports, and i like professional sports. So, I have no prejudice against individuals that call themselves sportsfans. So, speedcat, there is no need to infer that I hate sports, or sportsfans. That is another of the Hansen PR talking points sane citizens have endured in Seattle.

The Hansen proposal needs to be assessed as a business deal. Sports are secondary to the Hansen proposal. The Hansen proposal does not directly profit Seattle enough to warrant the Seattle payment of several hundred million dollars of public funds to the proposal. That is not trashtalk, that is business.

So my question is where's the line to get the Hanson deal on our homes? I want the county to stop collecting taxes until my mortgage is paid off...

@jhande The Seattle Times, the Port Authority and Boeing all get tax breaks of some kind. Are those good deals for the city?

There certainly is a business angle here and that is getting a lower interest rate spread over 30 years.

Having an NBA and maybe an NHL team in Seattle has value to the city. How much value is probably what is debatable.

I am sorry for mentioning that every anti-arena single commenter at the joint city-county meeting was white. Sorry about that. It's just my nature to state the truth. And the truth is a bit weird. Possibly just a coincidence. But to me, it's weird all the same.

Look, I hope you don't lump me in with some preconceived group of pro-arena freaks who aren't willing to listen to good arguments and real data. That was not my intent here. I actually respect Neil's blog and his thoughts, even though I mostly respectfully disagree with them.

This is a civic debate. I am thoroughly enjoying this. I respect every one of you. I am not suggesting that you are racist, nor that anyone involved in this debate is. I just think it's curious that ... well, what I stated above. It's a bit weird. Perhaps it's just circumstance. But it totally bears mentioning.

@JB "The Seattle Times, the Port Authority and Boeing all get tax breaks of some kind"

Another talking point. "The Port gets a subsidy".

The Port is not a private business. It is a public entity, and is the landlord for the Airport and the seaport operations; you do want the landlord (taxpayers) to keep up the properties so that we will have tenants that generate trade revenue, yes?.

In theory, Hansen could partner with them also. He doesn't want to do that, because he is in bed with private developers to turn part of the container operations into waterfront parks and condos, along with his SoDO version of LA Live entertainment district. That is what this deal is really all about. The Port is the only one standing in the way of the pipe dream of Hansen's allies: Henry Liebman, Greg Smith, Henry Stagen, etc.

This is not about basketball. This is a business deal. The more arena boosters that comment here, the more grist I get to bring out for this blog's author to see. "Keep it Going"

"In theory, Hansen could partner with them also. He doesn't want to do that, because he is in bed with private developers to turn part of the container operations into waterfront parks and condos, along with his SoDO version of LA Live entertainment district. "

Do you have any proof of this, or are you just speculating?

Speedcat, you didn't watch the land zoning presentation on Wednesday ?

clerk.seattle.gov/~public/meetingrecords/2012/gpnf20120718_2a.pdf

Mr. Hansen is also proposing related retail, restaurant, and entertainment uses (called "related retail" in this memo) on most of the half-block to the north of the arena site between First Avenue South and Occidental Avenue South and between South Massachusetts Street and Edgar
Martinez Drive South.

I guess it's good you've changed your mind about this site being "crap" though.

speedcat Says:

sonicscentral.com/blog/?p=2232#comment-1334261

July 15th, 2012 at 1:45 pm

Have you guys seen this crap:

nosonicsarena.com/wp/

speedcat Says:

July 15th, 2012 at 1:53 pm

or this:

fieldofschemes.com/

speedcat Says:

July 15th, 2012 at 2:10 pm

I just laid waste to the comments section on the lead article. His commentary is pretty easy to blow up, mostly because of his not-so-well-hidden bias.

My issues with the port is that they are just using this as leverage to get something they want (and maybe promised). Hansen's arena could hold 18,000 people. The MAriners can hold 40K, so why is the arena the issue here?

They could have funded their own study on traffic impact. Hansen was asked to do a traffic study and he did. Then when the results didn't show what the Port wanted, they could have funded their own study to show whatever they wanted. Tay Yoshitani�s statement said, it could, it may it might but he never said it would costs jobs. Complete leverage play so that they get some concessions when this thing goes through.

tinyurl.com/ccos7jr

"the Port had amassed hundreds of acres of prime real estate but much of that was "underutilized, undevelopable or suffering from deferred maintenance."

"Port of Seattle collects more than four times the annual tax levy revenue"

@JB, "My issues with the port is that they are just using this as leverage to get something they want (and maybe promised)"

Do you have proof, or are you just speculating?

I haven't heard anyone from the port say, "we are just using this as leverage" as if someone would ever publically say that but I do think it is a reasonable conclusion. In the town hall a couple weeks ago, a speaker said the port has said they would go away if they built the lander street overpass. I haven't been able to find that where that was said but is a common topic on who should pay for it. For the record I don't really blame the Port here since the city broke a promise to them 10 years ago. One council member has mentioned that they are talking to the port so it would imply that there are some negotiations going on.

If you just compare Safeco to the Arena, capacity of 47,860 and the proposed arena of 18,000. CenturyLink shouldn't really come in to play since it is rare that they would have games mid-week. Sounders have several mid week games with 40K but the frequency isn't as great.

www.king5.com/sports/blazers/Port-offers-potential-traffic-fixes-if-SODO-arena-happens-159934655.html

seattlebikeblog.com/2012/07/02/port-of-seattle-holds-kirkland-rail-trail-project-hostage-over-arena-dispute/
www.king5.com/news/Is-the-Port-holding-Rails-to-Trails-hostage-in-Seattle-arena-fight-161159755.html

This sums up why the Port is upset: //sportspressnw.com/2012/04/thiel-sodo-arena-the-truth-and-the-mariners/

@JB: "I do think it is a reasonable conclusion"; "a speaker said the port has said they would go away if they built the lander street overpass. I haven't been able to find that where that was said"; "it would imply that there are some negotiations going on. "

So, speculation on your part.

Not just me but if you want to play that game so be it.

I think it should be pointed out that Hansen, Ballmer, both Nordstrom Brothers, the Mayor of Seattle, the King County Executive, the Mayor's sports consultant (Carl Hirsch),David Stern and speedcat are all white. I just think that needed to be pointed out.

I, also, think that it needs to be pointed out that the NBA seems to discriminate against United States citizens, who are black. Out of thirty current NBA franchises, only one has a black Majority Owner. His name is Robert L. Johnson, he is the majority owner of the Charlotte Bobcats. I just think that needed to be pointed out, doesn't it?

Okay, just had to ban a comment (and a commenter) for a blatant personal attack. What does this teach us? Race-baiting (and jokes about race-baiting) never ever ever leads to a more productive conversation. Ever.

Everybody please nip this in the bud, and let's get back to the actual merits and deficiencies of the arena plan.

Sorry to say this, but one of the factors Seattle arena opponents overlook is that traffic around Key Arena is terrible. I haven't spent a lot of time in Seattle, but I have spent enough time to know that parking near the Space Needle is a nightmare.

I think a SoDo arena solves that problem.

It's 41 times a year between the hours of 6 and 11 pm, for the most part. How much does that actually interfere with port operations? I have to think the answer is, "Very little."

I think this funding model is as good as it can get, and the location is vastly superior to that of Key. The key downside is that the taxpayers are liable for $200M, but only under a pretty bizarre set of circumstances. It even seems to satisfy I-91.

Good article here about Key:

seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2018743205_keyarena22m.html

There are two alternatives with Key:

1) If it operates at a profit, then continue to operate it. I bet it's a great place for arena shows.

2) If it operates at a loss and no one wants it any more, then tear it down and transform that area into something better. The Space Needle is still a great draw.

@Mike M: "Sorry to say this, but one of the factors Seattle arena opponents overlook is that traffic around Key Arena is terrible. I haven't spent a lot of time in Seattle, but I have spent enough time to know that parking near the Space Needle is a nightmare. I think a SoDo arena solves that problem."

So, you haven't spent much time in Seattle, and you don't like parking near Seattle center. How do you extrapolate that into: traffic=bad at Seattle Center, and traffic=good in SoDo? Parking is bad all over the city, so the logical jump is rather unclear. It just looks like another talking point to me. Never mind that 180 million dollars was diverted from SoDo traffic fixes to fix I-5 access to and from the Seattle Center.

Again, Godwin, I haven't spent weeks or months of my life in Seattle, but I have spent enough time there to know which end of town seems to have worse congestion. We'll see what the studies end up saying, though. I'm willing to wait for that.

Seattle is just a bad city for traffic, period. It's pretty legendary that way. Complaining about traffic in Seattle seems to be on about the same level as complaining about trees in Central Park. The entire Northwest is stuck on this one... Hit Eugene at just the wrong time, and it can take a very long time to get to Vancouver, BC.

Any SoDo arena will have to pass environmental laws, too. If it cannot pass muster, then by all means, don't build it there. You'll get no argument from me there. But getting as close as possible to the 90/5 intersection seems like a plus to me. Doesn't this accomplish that?

Mike your comments are dead on.

Traffic around Seattle Center is brutal during a normal work week from about 4:30 to 6:30. A normal commute out of the city that direction can take 60 minutes when it normally takes 10 minutes. If there was an event at the Key it would make things worse.

There isn't a good parking infrastructure for Seattle Center either. It is just outdated compared to modern event location parking solutions.

You do realize that the Mercer Street Garage (alone) has 1400 spaces, which is more than half the 2375 spaces required to be under contract.

The 1st N lot is 650 and the 5th Ave N lot is 1000.

www.seattlecenter.com/transportation/parking/mercer.aspx

I am sure there are plenty of spots to accommodate one event but there is rarely one event not to mention the fact that there are lots of tourist attractions down there that draw people in. The Mercer Street Garage is good for McCaw hall but it still fills up for some events at McCaw.

Is the 5th Street the new Gates foundation garage? That one is nice and modern for getting people in and out. Other than everyone must still go out on Mercer.

There couldn't be much better place to get to for buses but I don't know how many people they expect to take the Sounder or Light Rail to SoDo. Football there are a lot of Light Rail and train traffic but there are a lot more people period.

The arena vote in Seattle may come as early as next week, according to news sources.

www.nba.com/2012/news/07/23/seattle-arena.ap/index.html?rss=true

Based on the stories I've read, I honestly do not expect more than a couple votes against it. And when it happens, I think everyone will be very surprised at the speed at which they acquire a team. In fact, I think the deal is already reached, with contingencies.

Seattle, it's coming. And I think it's possible that the targeted team will apply for an immediate move. The NBA has bylaws that support emergency moves.

Thanks MikeM, but other reports are saying this is political gamesmanship from the entity with only the $5M starting position (the county without NHL involvement) trying to put pressure on the Seattle Council.

seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2018755745_arena24m.html
But Councilmember Pete von Reichbauer said if McDermott had the votes to move it out of his committee, he probably would have already. Instead, von Reichbauer believes McDermott wants to put pressure on skeptical Seattle City Council members by moving the proposal through the county.

"That's the only reason," said von Reichbauer, who has called for a public vote on the proposal.

McDermott said that's not the case.

The County Council voted 8-0 to take up the proposal Monday.

Von Reichbauer said he doubted it would be approved next week.

The legislation before the council would approve $5 million in bonds for the project if investors led by Chris Hansen land just an NBA team; if investors bring both NBA and NHL teams to the arena the county obligation would grow to $80 million.

Councilmember Larry Phillips called McDermott's move "really bad form" during the meeting. Phillips did not return to the full council after it recessed to discuss McDermott's pitch.

Later, Phillips said he agrees with von Reichbauer that the move is "totally, absolutely" designed to put pressure on the Seattle City Council.

City Councilmember Tim Burgess said he asked McDermott to let the City Council go first in voting on the deal because the city had more money, $120 million, at stake.
Burgess said he was surprised at McDermott's action.
"It's fine. It doesn't derail us," said Burgess, who is leading the council's review of the arena proposal. "I don't think the level of pressure one way or another could increase."

I imagine some of you have seen this one...

northwestbasketball.net/2012/07/how-your-seattle-city-council-member.html#!/2012/07/how-your-seattle-city-council-member.html

I don't totally agree with some of the leanings and surpised to see the port not mentioned once.

Someone else mentioned it on the Coyotes thread but in case people didn't check those comments out. Gretzky is in town to visit with Eastside officials

//mynorthwest.com/11/712311/Report-Wayne-Gretzky-in-town-talk-NHL-with-Eastsiders

Could be a tactic that Neil describes in the book. Used to send a message to Seattle that Bellevue is a threat? or just celeb rubbing elbows tactic? Regardless, I hate it when neighboring municipalities compete.

JB,

Bellevue has been independently trying to find arena suitors for the last few years. In a February article in the Seattle Times, the Mayor or Bellevue is quoted as saying that the City Council has given him "a license to hunt" each year for investors or property owners who want to bring an NBA and NHL arena to the city.

Seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nba/2017620328_bellevuearena29m.html

According to the Bellevue Reporter article about the Great One's visit, if there were to be a proposal that it won�t include any Bellevue money or bonds.

bellevuereporter.com/news/163792826.html

Thanks for the posts Glen I missed the bellevue reporting article. I do remember the Don Levin report from a year ago. I figured that was off the table since the hansen proposal came up. Early in the hansen disclosures, Levin was quoted as saying that he was not part of the Hansen proposal and had not been in contact with Hansen. That could have changed since then but there could be two different NHL owner groups here, one looking at Bellevue and one with Hansen. Wondering if Gretzky and Levin are in this together.

As a hockey fan that lives in Seattle, it is nice to see the NHL interested in the area, I just hope it is sustainable and reasonable use of public funds. The FoS book and this blog make me never trust a "no use of public funds claim".

Here is the old Levin article #nothing that isn't covered in your two post but sharing is caring#. www.king5.com/sports/Chicago-businessman-speaks-on-Bellevue-and-NHL-125048514.html