Arena Deal thread: UPDATE: DEAL PASSED AND SIGNED OFF!!!

[SeaTown81]

Got another good article for you guys.

The King County Council hired an outside panel of experts to look into a handful of questions they had regarding the arena proposal. Tomorrow the panel is going to brief the council. Here is a summary of what they've found. I would categorize it as rather favorable.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/l ... na12m.html

Economic impact

The tax impact of the arena is likely to be very small. However, public good, urban amenity, economic development and urban growth all are benefits that justify public involvement. The proposal wouldn't significantly influence the level of income or employment in the region.

Market analysis

With a basketball and a hockey team, Seattle would be the third most sports-saturated city in the country, behind Denver and Cleveland. That's based on population, number of sports teams, stadium size and home games. That doesn't mean Seattle isn't big enough to support the new teams, but they might be difficult to market, and they might take dollars, fans and attendance from existing teams.

Public financing

The proposed public-private partnership is one of the most favorable to the public of any recent partnership. The public investment carries little or no risk to the county's financial well-being, its bond rating or its general fund. The ArenaCo business model is probably not sustainable without public investment.

Transportation

Game-day traffic, similar to Mariners games, would add enough cars that the area would be as jammed from 6-7 p.m. as the normal 4-6 p.m. commute. Major improvements are needed to get pedestrians from train and bus stops to the arena. There should be more study about the Port of Seattle's future expansion plans, but for now there would seem to be little effect, as terminal gates close at 4:30 p.m.

Sodo land use

While not a single tipping point, the arena would continue a trend of a changing the Sodo neighborhood, adding retail, restaurants, offices and some residential. The change has been fairly modest and incremental. Additional residential development would speed up this change, but that seems unlikely on a grand scale, in part because of the inconvenience of living next to sports stadiums.

Port of Seattle

The port plans to expand operations in the next 25 years, but it's difficult to calculate how many jobs that would create, and that could be negligible. The Port also could have difficulty meeting its expansion goal because of competition and global issues unrelated to the proposed arena.

Let me highlight the #1 bit of that that really stood out to me. Let's read this again:

Public financing

The proposed public-private partnership is one of the most favorable to the public of any recent partnership. The public investment carries little or no risk to the county's financial well-being, its bond rating or its general fund. The ArenaCo business model is probably not sustainable without public investment.

BOOM!

I really wish this report would be given to the city council as well.

 

[JOz56]

I'm positive that they'll most likely be receiving it, but just in case...

 

[Shaz]

I hate that the few that people in the City Council that oppose this happen to be the loudest and abrasive people in all this

 

[Snohomie]

Thanks for posting the article, Jordan. I recently decided to stop supporting the Seattle Times in any way but that article was well worth the read.

 

[Throwdown]

that sports saturation is going to bother those people, I just know it. But I wish they didn't use the NHL as an absolute, because it's not! Only an NBA franchise is needed for shovels to go into the ground.

 

[JOz56]

that sports saturation is going to bother those people, I just know it. But I wish they didn't use the NHL as an absolute, because it's not! Only an NBA franchise is needed for shovels to go into the ground.

I cringed when I saw that as well. Not all sports fans are alike. I don't know what is so hard to understand about that.

 

[chris98251]

They said Might, Might is a big maybe, maybe if the Mariners would not have strived for attendence based on the teams that Gillick and Lou built and managed and wanted to ride that string out as long as they could without hiring a replacement in both GM and Manager. The fact that Lincoln and his cohorts made things difficult to the point that Gillick and Lou both left is the real issue.

So as far as being able to show a market share they need to work as diligently as teams that want to be competitive every year do.

This whole ability to support teams is coming from the Mariners, it reeks of Howard Lincoln.

 

[SeaTown81]

The sports market saturation topic drives me nuts for multiple reasons.

Like JOz56 said, not all sports fans are alike. Many NBA and NHL fans who would go to lots and lots of games aren't currently all going to lots and lots of baseball, football, or soccer games instead.

Comparing number of teams strictly to population is very misleading. First of all, the Seattle area is on the more affluent side of comparably sized cities. Secondly, professional sports are entering a new age where gate sales makes up a far smaller portion of a team's overall profitability. In the age of DVR's, tv contracts are skyrocketing due to live sports being one of the only things on television that people want to watch live. Therefore being some of the only programming companies want to advertise during. Teams do not have to constantly sell out to stay profitable.

One of the parts of this report that drove me nuts is including the Storm. Really?! I can't stand hearing the Storm listed in the discussion. Just because it's "pro" women's basketball, dosn't make it worthy of including. The Storm don't draw even close to these other sports. They're closer in attendance to the minor league baseball and hockey teams we have in the region. I get that the WNBA is great for women's rights and equality, whatever. But it doesn't belong in this discussion at all. I initially was bothered by listing the Sounders, as the MLS is NOT by any means a major sport in this country. But at some point you can't deny how crazy the fans support the team.

That brings me to my next reason for being annoyed at this discussion. Who here knows people who for the most part aren't that big on sports, yet like going to Sounders games? I personally know a ton. Soccer is one of the most accessible/simple sports for non-sports die hards to enjoy. I have lots of friends who can't get their girlfriend or wife to go to a Seahawks or M's game. But they're all over Sounders games. Add to that a lot of the really hard core soccer fans, many of whom really only love soccer. That's a rather unique fan base that I don't exactly see NBA or NHL teams taking away from. Oh, and you want an even more unique fan base. I give you the Seattle Storm. You guys are well aware that the WNBA is heavily supported by the lesbian community, right? With the rest being families with young girls. The Storm are about as niche as you can get in terms of fan bases. The only sports teams that threaten tho draw from that fan base would be other women's teams.

And the main reason I hate this argument. We all know damn good and well that Seattle supports are winner. Always has. Always will. Heck, it goes beyond that for the most part, given the team having somewhat recent success. The only time teams here struggle attendance wise is when they are terrible for years on end. Like a certain baseball team that is continuing to try and live off 1995 and 2001. The current Seattle sports paradigm allows for a team like the M's to put out a good product once a decade, and suck for years and get away with it. The current lack of competition allows it. And that is why the M's and Howard Lincoln do not want this arena built. They don't want to be held accountable to the level they should be. If we had more teams, it would encourage teams to put a better product on the field. Better product on the whole for our teams would lead to fans attending games. No matter how many teams. If fan support is tied to market saturation like these people want to make us believe. Why are the M's struggling attendance wise so bad right now? Who is taking all of their fans? Yeah, exactly.

Stupid discussion. Needs to go away.

 

[SeaTown81]

Another point that makes the too many teams argument silly. Do you have any idea how many Canadians will come down for hockey? A LOT. And not just for Canucks games. Canada loves hockey just that much. Same would go for any displaced NHL fans in Portland. Also, keep in mind the strong minor league hockey support in the area with Everett and the T-Birds in Kent. That's a strong base to start with that doesn't take away from M's, Hawks, Sounders, etc. Or should we argue and worry over minor league teams outside of Seattle suffering from the addition of a pro team?

 

[JOz56]

Are they just looking at the Seattle area, or are they looking at the surrounding areas as well? Are they taking into consideration people who would travel over there for games? I can't tell you how many people I saw at Hoopfest here in Spokane that were wearing Sonics gear (yours truly included) that are all primed to drive over for several games a year. That isn't just money that goes into the stadium, that is hotels, restaurants, and possible areas to check out from people not around the area.

 

[SeaTown81]

Jon Talton, economic writer for the Seattle Times questioning why the Port is against the arena:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/s ... _port.html

"I continue to believe this is the best deal any city could hope for and Seattle will be foolish to kill it, or cause it to be built on a suburban site (talk about traffic). The goal should be to push the gentrification north toward Pioneer Square while enacting policies and incentives to preserve industrial uses in Sodo, as well as improving truck access to the port. The arena alone won't create many well-paid jobs. The port does. But it's not either/or; a successful city can walk and chew gum at the same time. An arena and NBA team are valuable civic assets in themselves (or 30 NBA cities are fools and somehow we're smarter)."

 

[SeaTown81]

[youtube]cEZTiVdmBf4[/youtube]

 

[chris98251]

Did anyone see the front page of the times today, It had this big artical on the Viduct being completed and the City of Seattle wanting to make a waterfront that seves everyone and are comparing it to the Worlds Fair in 1964 as far as unifieing and bringing the City together.

The only obstacle they see is financing it, guess where the next arguement is going to come from?

They are going to put that Waterfront or the Arena option on the table, the Times ran the story, it's on the Waterfront (Port of Seattle) and you watch the Mariners will offer money to help them out some how.

The City and Council will say that they can't finance both projects and that the Bond Rating will be insuffciant to carry both projects. Since the Waterfront will serve everyone they should put the money towards that instead of the New Arena and the Sports fans.

Just waiting now for someone to say this publicly.

 

[pinksheets]

It's an easy argument to make, Chris. A sports team simply doesn't have the cultural value that

a heated saltwater swimming pool on a barge, a seasonal roller rink on a pier and a mist machine

will bring.

 

[Tech Worlds]

Hey but we have a giant ferris wheel!

I hate Seattle more and more each day.

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2

 

[Throwdown]

Hey but we have a giant ferris wheel!

I hate Seattle more and more each day.

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2

This whole thing is giving Seattle the opportunity to show itself as a bunch of hippies. 'Specially those clowns at the times.

 

[Blitzer88]

Hey but we have a giant ferris wheel!

I hate Seattle more and more each day.

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2

This whole thing is giving Seattle the opportunity to show itself as a bunch of hippies. 'Specially those clowns at the times.

I hate the Seattle Times.........

 

[SeaTown81]

Dudes, Don't freak out over the silly Seattle Times editorial piece asking which people would rather, the waterfront or arena. First of all, it's just their ridiculous way of twisting the facts. Second of all, did you see the poll results? 85% picked either "build both" or "just the arena".

The two proposals have nothing in common. And aren't fighting for the same money. AT ALL. The arena is mostly self-funded and paid only by taxes from patrons and the arena company. Secondly, the arena is only borrowing from the city selling bonds. The bonds are being paid back by the arena generated taxes. The waterfront would have to generate funds to pay back a similar bonding. How you say? By general fund taxes. Huge difference. Anyone with half a brain knows the two are not in competition. Never will be. Only people trying to twist the facts and make the arena look bad (The Seattle Times) would even pretend to raise such a question.

 

[TestMo1337]

What's funny is that the Times has so much to gain if two new sports franchises come to the city in the form of the NBA and the NHL. That's a guaranteed 100+ articles and events that will be written about each franchise on a yearly basis. Sports are a huge business for newspapers and to think that the Times and it's Op Ed board would ignore that is mind-numbingly stupid.

I am leaning more toward "this is a no brainer" for the city and county councils; since the general public does not have any say in this matter I am not afraid of the Times and their mis-information rally-call. I'm glad that they raise these questions, even if they're stupid because all they do is show how put together Chris Hansen's plan is. This man is a political general and chewing up dumb questions and spitting our lightening. If you listen to this guy, you believe in him. He's so mild-mannered but there is something about a man with a beautiful plan.

 

[chris98251]

So he's William Wallace re incarnated, Shoots fireballs out his eyes and thunderbolts out his ass. My kind of leader