Sonics/NHL/New arena thread

Msfann

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 5, 2007
Messages
2,360
Reaction score
307
If I was Hansen I would give up on Seattle, like the city has done to him. I hope Tukwilla or another local city gets the team and uses their city's name on it and NOT Seattle.
 

Glasgow Seahawk

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 5, 2013
Messages
2,165
Reaction score
721
I think I may have asked before but not sure but why isn't the NHL trying to get into Portland?

From what i've heard Portland is even more difficult to get a stadium built than Seattle hence why the Timbers play in a crappy small old AAA baseball stadium but the Rose Garden/Moda Center is state of the art. I'm surprised no prospective NHL owner has spoke to Paul Allan about becoming junior tenants there. Pay him rent to play there and a cut of the profits for using the stadium and make sure that the NHL team has to change their schedule to suit the Trailblazers. Surely even getting Allan to be a minority owner of a team similar to the Sounders. I'm sure there would be no road blocks from the NHL as it starts a cascadian rivalry with the Canucks and puts more pressure on Seattle.

By all accounts it seems the NHL is more keen to get to Seattle than the NBA, especially with the Canadian economy not doing well. Even the fact they are only allowing 1 expansion team makes me think they are waiting for Seattle to get their act together for a stadium and bid.
 

Smelly McUgly

New member
Joined
Mar 6, 2013
Messages
4,282
Reaction score
0
Location
God's Country AKA Cascadia AKA The Pacific Northwe
Paul Allen doesn't want to pay $500M for a team. He's going to scavenge the bones of a Phoenix Coyotes or Florida Panthers team that has to move instead. I can't see him paying for more than $225M or so for an NHL team.

RE: NBA, what's going on here is a contest between two entities to show whose is bigger. The NBA is not going to make it easy for Seattle to get a team back - see the Kings fiasco - and in response, the SCC is going to give the NBA a hard time getting back here, too.

If the NBA wants into this region, they might as well look at Bellevue or even the Tukwila plan because the SCC is going to make them jump through as many hoops as they can, and let's be honest - there is just not really the pressure here on the SCC to make the arena happen, probably because of residual anti-NBA disgust.
 
OP
OP
Sports Hernia

Sports Hernia

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
44,755
Reaction score
3,378
Location
The pit
Throwdown":2ftcat3k said:
I've completely given up. I no longer have faith that Seattle will ever get its act together.
If Tukwila isn't a serious option in the very near future, I'm done as well.

It's all soon going to be noise in which I will ignore. The Seattle city council should be ashamed of themselves. Reading statements from these morons it's clear that a few of the no votes didn't read the MOU or even pay attention of any of the meetings in which they attended. Just yet another reason to avoid the traffic infested city and not spend dollars inside the city limits.
 

DavidSeven

New member
Joined
Jan 18, 2013
Messages
5,742
Reaction score
0
This takes a lot of the air out of the idea that Seattle was ever screwed out of a team by David Stern, Clay Bennett, Howard Schultz or anyone else. Do we really still believe the city negotiated with them in good faith all those years ago?

The city's elected officials flat out don't want a team. At this point, no one owes the city a damn thing anymore. If you want progress, you'll have to elect people who run on the platform of inviting pro franchises and accepting private investment into the community. Or you can keep voting for more bike lanes.
 

dadof3

New member
Joined
Jan 27, 2015
Messages
183
Reaction score
0
Throwdown":10yikiwi said:
I've completely given up. I no longer have faith that Seattle will ever get its act together.
Also, what billionaire investor would ever want to try and deal with this idiotic city after watching the way they pissed on Chris Hanson?
 

Smelly McUgly

New member
Joined
Mar 6, 2013
Messages
4,282
Reaction score
0
Location
God's Country AKA Cascadia AKA The Pacific Northwe
I want to preface this by saying that I think they should have passed the street vacation 9-0 and that I'm playing devil's advocate to a degree:

Why should the city move along a MOU without more commitment from the NBA? The city remodeled the Key according to the NBA's wishes and then ten years later, the NBA came calling again and left as soon as the city balked after having paid money for all three of its teams to upgrade their homes/build new homes.

From that perspective, why should the SCC have any trust in the NBA, and what incentive is there for them to move forward on anything that ultimately involves city money without the NBA proving their trustworthiness?

I do think that this is all still the fault of the NBA and David Stern, an awful organization and an awful commissioner respectively. They acted in bad faith in the first place multiple times, capped off with the Kings bullcrap. So, if I'm on the city council and Stern pulls that after ripping the Sonics away ten years after he said, "Trust me, this Key remodel is perfect," what incentive do I have outside of the will of a subsection of people who mostly don't even live in the city limits to hand over money for a project that ultimately benefits the NBA?
 

Blitzer88

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
12,820
Reaction score
0
Location
Seattle, WA
Throwdown":1vnjmtcc said:
I've completely given up. I no longer have faith that Seattle will ever get its act together.

Same here............it's over folks. :(
 

Tical21

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 16, 2012
Messages
5,542
Reaction score
89
I posted this in the shack as well, but I did receive an email reply from Lisa Herbold. It is basically a bunch of fluff wrapped around the truth that she pandered to the port, but she is the only one that took the time to write any kind of reply:

Thank you for writing to me about the street vacation proposed for Occidental Avenue South. This was not an easy vote to cast—I have heard from many people that I respect on both sides of the issue. When Monday, from the dais, the direction of the vote became obvious, I felt no joy, nor victory. The disappointment of my colleagues and that of the fans in the room was palpable. I too felt a pang of empathy for the people who have been engaged in a four years long campaign to bring back to Seattle a sport they love.
I absolutely understand the passionate desire to bring NBA basketball back to Seattle. However, I could not support this proposed street vacation, and thus was part of the Council majority in a 5-4 vote against the proposal. I believe the Council majority actually represented the public’s interest. A poll found 75% of registered voters said building a new arena in SODO shouldn’t be a priority for the city, and 77% either opposed the street vacation or wanted action delayed until KeyArena has been fully explored as an alternative.
Last year when asked my position on the arena, I said that though I would not have been likely to vote for the 2012 Arena Co. Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that contained the conditions required for the $200 million in public financing, I would not try and oppose the public financing or the conditions in the MOU. I also said that I would oppose efforts of proponents to renegotiate the MOU. Voting in support of the proposed street vacation was not a condition of the MOU and had I voted in favor of the street vacation I felt I would be undermining my own position to oppose efforts to renegotiate the MOU, because in voting in favor of the street vacation – without a team – we’d very likely be inviting efforts to extend the MOU agreement beyond November 2017.
Either vote, whether for or against the street vacation, contained elements of risk and sacrifice. Perhaps I risked the promise of new, future jobs, but my vote was decide economic times as well as the downturns. Further, the legitimate traffic concerns of commuters and small business owners in West Seattle and South Park played prominently in my decision.
WHY DO THEY CALL IT A STREET VACATION?
A “street vacation,” or sometimes alley vacation, is when the Council votes to allow a street to be removed from the street grid for other purposes, generally development. Streets are public rights of way and because they belong to the public they have a measurable monetary value. The proposed arena required elimination of Occidental Avenue South between Holgate and Massachusetts in SODO, to the south of the stadiums. Consequently, a vote was necessary to vacate and pay for the street. If the arena location hadn’t been dependent upon this street vacation, it could have proceeded directly to the Master Use Permitting (MUP) process under the Department of Constructions and Inspections.
Under city policy, street vacations are judged by whether they:
1. Protect the functions of the street right-of way;
2. Have any adverse land use impacts, and
3. Whether there will be public benefits sufficient to offset the loss of the street.
These policies are set to be reviewed and perhaps amended by the Council. One of the elements of the street vacation policy under review is the issue of sequencing, or in other words, the timing of street vacations in relation to other necessary project components such as the issuance of a MUP or fulfillment of other requirements necessary to a project. The issue of sequencing – whether the application for this street vacation was ripe – was a matter of significant concern for me. I believed that, given the complexity of this project, the street vacation vote should have been scheduled after the issuance of a MUP and after Arena Co had an NBA team.
WHY WAS HAVING AN NBA TEAM NOW IMPORTANT TO THE STREET VACATION?
Again, because streets are public rights of way and therefore belong to the public and have a measurable monetary value, the public must get a measurable benefit in return. The vacation requires ArenaCo to pay for fair market value for the street, in this case estimated at $15-20 million, as well as a robust public art program and public amenity plaza. Still, in evaluating this street vacation, because of the intense traffic and employment impacts of this project, I believed that the thing that was needed to tip the balance in favor of meeting the threshold for allowing a street vacation was Arena Co. acquiring a team. The one true public benefit, and the reason we’ve been discussing this for four years, is an NBA team—and we don’t have that. The hope of a team is not a public benefit. In short, I think it was only possible to meet the necessary public benefit threshold if we’d considered the legislation after attaining an NBA team. In addition, though it wasn’t part of the street vacation decision, the lack of an NBA team also means the provision in the MOU requiring $40 million for a SODO Infrastructure Fund does not apply.
WHAT IMPACTS? WHAT’S THE BIG DEAL ABOUT A BLOCK?
It’s not only the vacating of a block that is at issue; it’s that in vacating a block a project could move forward with significant additional unmitigated impacts – not just because the loss of a single block but because of the project itself. If we had a team, those unmitigated impacts might have been worth enduring. Without a team, they are not. The impacts of this project on jobs and traffic should not to be dismissed. 42,700 people work in SODO at an average wage of $70,400. The future of the maritime and shipping industry is currently in flux, with the planned expansion of the Panama Canal. The Korean shipping company Hanjin has operated out of Pier 46 since 1986. They have expressed concerns about the long-term potential of the site, given the 2012 MOU arena agreement the Council approved. The signals we send to the global maritime and shipping industries matter, especially with increased competition from British Columbia and Southern California, which have been taking market share from Puget Sound ports in recent years. The creation of the Northwest Seaport Alliance, combining the Ports of Tacoma and Seattle, thereby creating the third-largest marine cargo load center in the United States, is designed to address this.
The City’s position was that the proposal was consistent with the Seattle Comprehensive Plan, yet the Container Port Element of the Comprehensive Plan, specifically calls for a. maintaining maritime jobs and revenue that cargo container activities generate, and b. consideration of the value of transition areas at the edges of general industrial zones in a way as to not create conflicts with cargo container activities.
It is true that there was the potential for new jobs as a part of this project, and I don’t want to pit worker against worker. But, the historic labor agreements - like the Labor Peace Agreement - was not part of the Street Vacation, but was part of the MOU and should the project proceed outside of the MOU or under a new MOU as I discuss below, those agreements too could be at risk.
I definitely heard support from some of my constituents in District 1, but the widespread concern from a significantly greater number of West Seattle and South Park residents about access to Downtown was concern that I, as a District 1 Councilmember, could simply not ignore. Many in West Seattle feel they already shoulder the greatest share of our City's burden for professional sports facilities.
District 1 is separated from Downtown by SODO, and the stadiums. If transportation mitigation doesn’t work out, West Seattle and South Park would be the neighborhoods most affected by hindered access to Downtown. The West Seattle Transportation Coalition noted that there’s been a 45% reduction in north/south vehicle lanes over the last 7 years through SODO. Business owners have expressed concern about gentrification, and losing access to goods and services in SODO. One restaurant owner in West Seattle wrote to the Council that 14 unique locations in SODO provide goods and services to his business. The West Seattle Chamber signed a letter stating that concerns about increased traffic congestion were not adequately addressed.
50 state legislators signed a letter to the Council opposing the street vacation, saying “the site of the proposed street vacation represents the crossroads of international trade, manufacturing…that together form a key economic engine for our state” and said that vacating the street would deal a serious blow to our region’s global competitiveness. This is a highly unusual letter, and testament to the importance of trade in Washington State’s economy.
The letter was signed by legislators from all seven districts that include Seattle, including Representative Eileen Cody in the 34th District, a State Legislative District largely contiguous to my District 1 City Council district.
Finally, and significantly, the street vacation, and the Environmental Impact Statement, didn’t address the additional LA-Live style bars and restaurants that form a part of the overall development—so I believe that full parking and transportation were not adequately analyzed to consider those additional impacts.
WHY DON’T I UNDERSTAND THAT WE NEEDED A “SHOVEL-READY” ARENA TO GET A TEAM?
In recent weeks, NBA Commissioner Adam Sliver has said that having a “shovel-ready” arena is “not a factor” in expansion considerations.
BEST AND WORST CASE SCENARIOS AND MY AMENDMENTS TO TRY AND ADDRESS THEM:
Here is what could have happened if we ignored what the NBA commissioner has told us and instead bet on the promise of a shovel-ready arena to get a team and passed the Street Vacation as proposed:
1. Best case scenario: Arena Co. gets team and fulfills terms of MOU agreement and starts projects with public money
2. Unfortunate – but not worst – scenario: Arena Co. builds an arena entirely with private money and we don’t get a team, but have the impacts described above.
3. Worst case scenario: Arena Co. starts projects with private money and comes to Council next year to ask for a new MOU - extending the time, with construction already begun, and using the fact that the street was vacated and the project already started in order to pressure the Council to get rid of the requirement to have a team in order to access public financing. We still don’t get a team, we end up using public financing to build an arena, and we have to endure the impacts described above.
It’s unfortunate that the duration of the street vacation wasn’t linked to the duration of the agreement with Chris Hansen that the Council passed in 2012, which provides for public funding if Hansen obtains an NBA team and additional funding with an NHL team. That agreement lasts until late 2017.The street vacation as proposed would have lasted 5 years, in line with city street vacation policies. Had we been able to amend the street vacation so that it only lasted until the end of the agreement, that might have partially satisfied my concern that approving a street vacation now would open us up next year to renegotiation of the MOU, but our Law Department advised against pursuing an amendment like this.
An amendment I did offer would have required the ArenaCo group to obtain ownership rights to an NBA team before the street vacation was granted; it didn’t pass. This amendment, had it passed, also would have partially helped address my concern that an NBA needed to be part of the public benefits package necessary to meet the threshold required to vacate a public street.
Two other amendments I introduced did pass. Though they would have a. improved pedestrian access and b. made the public plaza available for up to 12 city-approved free of charge events per year, their passage did not significantly address my concerns with the street vacation application. Nevertheless, I appreciate my Council colleague’s support.
IS THE ARENA DEAD?
Arena Co. still has options. The MOU with the City is still good until December, 2017. If an NBA team is secured, a new street vacation application could be made for the current location under the current MOU.
Sincerely,
Lisa Herbold
District 1 Councilmember
 

ryan419_2002

New member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Cant we start a petition to start a recall or special election of city counsel or some type of ballot that would let the voters decide and not the city counsel? I dont live in Seattle so im just curious.
 

Glasgow Seahawk

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 5, 2013
Messages
2,165
Reaction score
721
Just heard the council meeting today on Softy KJR where Sally Bagshaw goes mental at a guy who calmly asked Gonzalez (his representative) why she changed her mind on the vote and asked why Gonzalez hadn't responded to his email. The question wasn't directed at Bagshaw and the guy had some valid questions with some well thought out facts and evidence. One of the SCC members saying 'bull shit' to him while he read.

http://sportsradiokjr.iheart.com/media/play/26978904/ 53:35 minutes in

Bagshaw just came across as someone in their ivory tower, getting defensive to someone who dared to question their authority and belittling the guy who was already nervous. At one point she said something like 'what gives you the right to put the spot on Gonzalez, 5 of us voted'... Uh she's the guys elected representative and he wanted clarity on her decision making.

She came across as someone who is trying to sweep the issue away before election time but her other statement really did tar the morons who were being sexist, racist as being all Sonic/sports fans which will have done her no favors.
 

Glasgow Seahawk

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 5, 2013
Messages
2,165
Reaction score
721
Also if SODO is dead, Key arena revamp unlikely plus the Mercer st traffic and Bellevue difficult to due the clustereff that is 405, could rebuilding at the Tacoma Dome site ever be a possibility?

It's beside I-5 giving access to North and South.

I'm sure I read that a large part of the basketball fan demographic is in South Seattle/Tacoma unlike soccer which is downtown Seattle.

The Thunderbirds seem to get a good support in Kent, maybe NHL attendances being in Tacoma wouldn't be that affected further south, especially if people just love the sport.

I imagine Tacoma/ Pierce would put up less roadblocks for any sort of arena there given that the Tacoma Dome is a bit of a dump and it's extra business to the area? If anything welcoming it?

Could it over work or would there ever be a revolt if a future team went further south than Seattle? Just getting teams in the area would be huge at this point, even if they only stayed in Tacoma for a decade or so until Seattle ever got its act together.
 

Throwdown

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
24,042
Reaction score
1,327
Location
Tacoma, WA
It'd have to be a completely new building in Tacoma, I don't know where but I know they wouldn't knock down the Tacoma dome even for a little while. The venue still gets a lot of events, it's no where near world class either. I know Tacoma wouldn't put up a road block though, they'd welcome anything to help it compete with other bigger cities in the Northwest. That being said, I don't think simple economics would allow it, not without a huge infusion of money from the private sector.
 

Throwdown

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
24,042
Reaction score
1,327
Location
Tacoma, WA
but where the dome is, is probably the perfect place. There's tons of places to eat, hella hotels, and like you mentioned easy freeway access, plus the whole view of the city from its vantage point. I just don't expect that to ever happen.
 

Sgt. Largent

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2012
Messages
25,560
Reaction score
7,617
I live in Puyallup, and know the T-Dome well having grown up in Tacoma. The city and region would LOVE Hansen and his money to come down and either renovate or implode the thing and build a new arena.

The dome is old and showing it's age, so I imagine any person wanting to help the city and county build a state of the art facility would be welcomed with open arms.

The question is would Hansen and his partners want to risk building in Tacoma when that might not be an optimal area to try and talk the NBA and/or the NHL into going? idk, IMO THAT part of the equation would have to be vetted out first with both leagues before any arena discussions.
 

Tical21

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 16, 2012
Messages
5,542
Reaction score
89
Hansen isn't going to Tacoma. I personally think making money is far more important to him than the Sonics. Most owners are happy to make hundreds of millions in profit from appreciation of the franchise. Not Hansen. He also wants the relative nickels and dimes from the restaurants, shops and parking lots, which are maximized in the city. He constantly gets asked "why Seattle? Why not go to Bellevue or Tukwila?" He never really answers. Heck, he'd have everything approved by now in either of those places. He's going to keep working on his Seattle project.
 

Throwdown

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
24,042
Reaction score
1,327
Location
Tacoma, WA
I mean I don't think Tacoma will ever happen, I expect people to keep trying to Seattle and failing because Seattle just sucks
 

Tical21

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 16, 2012
Messages
5,542
Reaction score
89
Throwdown":38x32uzo said:
I mean I don't think Tacoma will ever happen, I expect people to keep trying to Seattle and failing because Seattle just sucks
What ever happened to that group that was talking about Tukwila? How about, where does Hockey make the most sense?
 

Sgt. Largent

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2012
Messages
25,560
Reaction score
7,617
Tical21":2xswjlkv said:
Hansen isn't going to Tacoma. I personally think making money is far more important to him than the Sonics. Most owners are happy to make hundreds of millions in profit from appreciation of the franchise. Not Hansen. He also wants the relative nickels and dimes from the restaurants, shops and parking lots, which are maximized in the city. He constantly gets asked "why Seattle? Why not go to Bellevue or Tukwila?" He never really answers. Heck, he'd have everything approved by now in either of those places. He's going to keep working on his Seattle project.

I honestly think the Seattle dream is over, the city council relationship has soured and even turned contentious and nasty. If they can't even vote yes on a simple vacating of a side street how are they going to vote yes on the other more complicated issues moving forward.

That doesn't mean Hansen's done, but I do think he's done in Seattle.
 

Latest posts

Top