Anti-arena proposal e-mail may have backfired on Seattle councilmember

BY MyNorthwest.com  on June 26, 2012 @ 4:24 pm (Updated: 10:43 am - 6/27/12 )

IMG_0775.JPG
Arena investor Chris Hansen has committed $300 million in private funds to the arena project. In the proposal before King County and Seattle City councils, he has asked for an additional $200 million in public funds. (710 ESPN Photo/File) | Zoom
One Seattle City councilmember's dissent of the arena project has instead inspired kind letters of support for the stadium project that could bring back the Seattle SuperSonics.

Seattle City Councilmember Richard Conlin listed in an e-mail the considerations the council would undertake as they read and analyze the arena proposal. He then followed the outline by stating that he thought it was unlikely the arena proposal would pass.

"I think it is unlikely that this proposal will be approved," said Conlin in the e-mail. "I encourage proponents of a new basketball team to lobby Mr. Hanson [sic] to pursue this as a private enterprise with public cooperation but without the complex financial arrangements and public investment that the current proposal appears to rely on."

Arena investor Chris Hansen has committed $300 million in private funds to the arena project. In the proposal before King County and Seattle City councils, he has asked for an additional $200 million in public funds.

Other council members said, following Conlin's remarks, that the opinion of Conlin is not their own and they are continuing to review the proposal.

Last week, an optimistic Mayor Mike McGinn joined 710 ESPN's Brock & Salk and told them the proposal before the councils is unlike any other they've seen before.

"Normally, what happens is somebody comes to town and says 'Come up with a new tax. Start taxing hotels, restaurants or car rentals, or something and give that new money to us,'" McGinn said.

The proposed $500 million facility would sit just south of Safeco and CenturyLink fields.

Instead of following Conlin's suggestion of writing to Hansen to encourage him to foot the bill for the arena without public investment, the guys behind SonicsGate have encouraged basketball fans to respond to Conlin.

"Write a polite but firm e-mail to Seattle Councilmember Richard Conlin letting him know his reasons for opposing the plan are misinformed. The Chris Hansen arena deal is too good to pass up," wrote SonicsGate on their Facebook page.

One letter posted in the comments below the SonicsGate call-to-action garnered attention from fellow arena supporters:

"Thank you for conscientiously seeking to represent the citizens of Seattle," wrote James T. Wood. "I know you want what's best for the city and for your constituents. You've done an admirable job of looking at the figures involved with the new arena plan and the data surrounding the Sonics departure in 2008. There's more to this, however, than just numbers.

"If weight loss were only about numbers, no one would be obese. If debt management were only about numbers, no one would go bankrupt.

"It's about people, not just numbers."

While councilmembers have yet to vote on the arena proposal, Chris Hansen asked fans for patience in addition to support, to bring the SuperSonics back to Seattle.

MyNorthwest.com, Staff report
The team that brings you MyNorthwest.com
More Local News
Top Stories
MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (72)


  • Add A Comment

  • CH wrote...
    Chris Hansen asked fans for patience in addition to support, to bring the SuperSonics back to Seattle . . . .
    June 26, 2012 6:08 pm
    I wish I could bring back my dead dog. Let me ask the taxpayers to help me buy another dog. The dog cost $500. I have $300.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • jeffshana wrote...
    good idea!
    June 26, 2012 6:40 pm
    If we had a deal where I could borrow the $300 at insanely low interest rates and I was guaranteed to be paid back before anybody else if something went wrong, I'd think about it. Oh, and if I was to own the dog and reap financial benefits even after my $300 was paid back, that would be awesome. And lastly, if we didn't go to taxpayers for money, but just charged the people who pet your dog or played with it, then I we'd have something inherently fair for everyone. And the best part is that the community probably would love your dog and we'd both be able to contribute to something that brings the community together! Imagine.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Snout wrote...
    Put up your wallets.
    June 26, 2012 6:34 pm
    For boondoggle trains and other transit schemes that always fail and cost other people too much. Put up your own wallets for fancy new government buildings, schools, libraries and public art. Put up your own wallets for social engineering projects that involve low income housing in areas that actual working people can't afford to live in. Yeah, pull out your own wallets instead of digging in ours for your pet projects.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • HPD 5-0 wrote...
    Yes...taxes are only for what the elitist progressive libs desginate.
    June 26, 2012 6:39 pm
    Learn your place, taxpayers. You are there only the shut up and pay the bill, not make decisions on where the money should go or what is worthy.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Snout wrote...
    Oh, I'm not an NBA fan.
    June 26, 2012 6:43 pm
    So I'm not a special pleader for Hansen.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • C"mon Man wrote...
    Sonis fan with cashflow?
    June 26, 2012 6:46 pm
    Where was he when the team was up for sale?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Frogsplash wrote...
    He's actually talked about that
    June 26, 2012 7:07 pm
    At the time, he wasn't in the same position he is in now financially.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • C"mon Man wrote...
    Sonics
    June 26, 2012 6:48 pm
    Sorry.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Zagnut wrote...
    You should be sorry about your inability to make a meaningful comment. Your typo was no big deal.
    June 26, 2012 7:35 pm
    .
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • nwskiergirl wrote...
    This isn't Field of Dreams
    June 26, 2012 7:36 pm
    Why don't these guys use the facilities we have and spend their money to build winning teams? If we have a winning team, then they can earn the money to build one later.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Zagnut wrote...
    nwskiergirl, congrats!
    June 26, 2012 7:39 pm
    You have arguably made the most inane comment in a very competitive field of inane comments from the anti-arena crowd.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • JustTheFacts wrote...
    Read my lips, no new taxes..
    June 26, 2012 7:36 pm
    Actually, for those of you that actually researched the facts behind this issue, you already would know this arena will cost you $0.00. There's a reason our King County Executive, Seattle Mayor, and Seattle City Council President all support the arena proposal: this is an incredible business opportunity for the city of Seattle. The bonds used would be paid back with interest (in accordance with I-91 (for those of you that voted yes on the issue) by the tax revenue generated by ticket sales and concession sales at the arena. That's right folks, NO NEW TAXES WILL BE USED. NO MONEY FROM THE GENERAL FUND WILL BE USED.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Mike in Pioneer Square wrote...
    Just The Facts
    June 26, 2012 7:41 pm
    is correct. It's amazing how much nonsense people are spewing about this proposal. Conlin is in my district. I won't vote for him again if he votes against this (very generous) arena offering.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    Mike in Pioneer Square
    June 27, 2012 9:55 am
    A ONE issue candidate and that issue is a New Arena. how incredibly shallow you must be.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Zagnut wrote...
    JustTheFacts, STOP! You are hurting the non-logical liberal brains of the anti-arena crowd.
    June 26, 2012 7:42 pm
    Don't you have any compassion for their plight in life?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    Just the Facts
    June 26, 2012 7:44 pm
    Listen to the interview that Seattle Times writer Ron Judd did ,it was on here earlier.But he presented an excellent case why public funds should not be used.You MUST be one of perhaps 100 people in Seattle that actually buy the story that this new Arena won't cost the taxpayer a Penny.While I have your attention I have a machine that will make GOLD out of Baloney.Your welcome to invest and you can make 10 times your investment in 30 days.I guarantee it 100% You can't lose HONEST
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Frogsplash wrote...
    You are using Ron Judd for you example?
    June 26, 2012 9:26 pm
    Ron Judd is using the argument of we shouldn't build it because I don't like David Stern, Ron Judd? I will give you credit though Messiah, you at least didn't try to pull some phoney numbers out of the air and present them as fact.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    Froggie
    June 27, 2012 10:03 am
    Actually Ron Judds main point was the fact that the NBA has a failed business plan salaries continue to sky rocket and at some point the owners can't continue to raise ticket prices and TV ratings slip as the quality of the play drops due to Foreign leagues attracting more and more top level talent.So Judd rightfully feels that owners will approach cities to bail them out and that means sweetening the deals that are already in place.After all if teams fail rents don't get paid and it reflects on the politicians in power at that time. By the way the only phony numbers are from the pro arena side.They have been discredited so many times that it should be a dead issue.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Frogsplash wrote...
    Messiah, show me the phony numbers
    June 27, 2012 1:38 pm
    What phony numbers are coming from the pro-arena side and where I can find these?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    Froggie
    June 27, 2012 3:34 pm
    We have run the numbers many times what will be accomplished by you denying them again?But you could answer a question that Judd brought up,if the city is paying 40% of the total cost why doesn't the city get 40% of the naming rights and why does the city get stuck with the cost of tearing down an outdated Arena after the 30 yr agreement ends?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Frogsplash wrote...
    Messiah.. naming rights?
    June 27, 2012 5:54 pm
    Show me where the arena group is lying about naming right numbers? Lying about naming rights number....... if I remember correctly, it was you claiming the arena group was going to make 450 million on naming rights..... Again, you didn't answer my question, show me the phony numbers. You answer of not answer, tells me you can't.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • soo purletiv wrote...
    Enough already!
    June 26, 2012 8:10 pm
    I rarely comment on the proposed deal itself. I have though, acknowledged that it is probably the best Seattle will get. But is it? It seems many have settled on the first one proposed by this group.

    However, my gripe, if you will, is more towards the NBA in general and David Stern.

    That aside.....

    The argument that there will be NO PUBLIC MONEY is so spurious and blatantly false! And the defense is worse than the argument. To say that no tax money goes to the Arena except for the tax on the tickets is accurate in part. But here is the reality.

    If Starbucks wanted to expand its headquarters here in Seattle, would we be alright with giving them an exception and allow them to essentially collect and KEEP the taxes they acquired on the drinks they sold in the Seattle area? No tax money would go to the project except for the taxes generated by their business and collected from their customers. No taxes from the general fund or any other channel from the general public what so ever. Only those that come from the drinks and other products sold in their stores will go to their expansion. And, keep in mind that none of these taxes will go towards any other public needs or projects. All will be used for their (Starbucks) personal use. If we refuse, they are threatening to leave the region.

    Everyone OK with that?

    What a sweet deal, no doubt! What prevents the next group or business from demanding the same deal? Are we willing to extend it to them also? Where does the slippery slope end?

    That, concisely, is what this "no public funds used" is all about! Sure, outside of the Arena, no taxes will be used to pay for it. But, if there is a tax when we buy the ticket, that is still public funds being used to pay for it. How hard is that to understand? Oh, and BTW: The tax collected on the ticket actually goes to pay back the bonds (that were used to help pay for the Arena) that were bought with tax payer money.

    Again, I am not completely opposed to the Arena. I despise the NBA and David Hamburglar Stern for the way they treated the Seattle fans and the city in general. The same people are at the helm of the NBA whom were there when they stole the Sonics from Seattle, so now we want to reward them with a new venue and top 20 market? He**'s no!

    All I am looking for is transparency. If you support the deal, at least be honest. There will be public money used to build the new Arena. No matter how you sugar coat it, give it a different name, wrap it in superlatives or make some fancy end around, it is still using public money to build it!

    Now, then! Wasn't this a catharsis moment for all? Feels good to be open doesn't it?

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • seafan7 wrote...
    Sounds like a good deal
    June 26, 2012 8:27 pm
    You fail to mention that the city will own the stadium and the land at the end of the deal. So the same deal for Starbucks would have the city eventually owning the company.... not such a bad deal. You know.... as long as we're being open about it.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    seafan7
    June 27, 2012 10:12 am
    Yes the city will own the arena and that is unfortunate as it will no longer be functional as a Sports Arena at that time.Stadiums and Arenas have about a 15 year life span in todays marketplace. The land will have little or no value because of the expense of the demolition of the arena. THats why any deal should include a clause that Hansens group is responsible for demolition.If the city requests it
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • smb282 wrote...
    You should be embarrassed...
    June 26, 2012 8:35 pm
    If a specific use tax is applied to ticket sales only to pay back, with interest, a debt incurred to build an arena to facilitate that use, then calling it public money is disingenuous and obtuse. But nice projection...the scenario where we get a team because some rich guy becomes the laughingstock of all wealthy people worldwide by paying for the land and the building 100% out of pocket, and then Seattle applies a use tax to ticket sales and that money goes into the public coffers, is fantasy. You sound like Conlin. All I'm looking for is for anti-arena people to admit that they are anti-arena, and that they either don't like or care about basketball, or are still so butthurt toward Stern and the NBA that they'll never support the product again except in some theoretical fantasy scenario where the city doesn't have to contribute a lick to get a state of the art arena and two professional athletic teams. Wouldn't that feel better, soo purletiy? Like, almost cathartic? Would feel good for you to be open, wouldn't it?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • maplefish wrote...
    I HATE the NBA
    June 27, 2012 7:39 am
    Will Never Forgive Howard Shultz and believe that David Stern could actually be Satan himself. SO that would make me Anti- NBA & Anti-Arena! College Hoops ROCK!!! Pro Ball SUCKS!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    smb282
    June 27, 2012 10:18 am
    Why would disliking the NBA or Stern have anything to do with a BAD deal for the city?I enjoyed the Sonics and I enjoyed attending many games with my wife but I would never use my love for a sport as a reason that other non basketball fans should be on the hook for a shiny new arena so I can enjoy the NBA once again.THat would be plain selfish on my part
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • maplefish wrote...
    Love the SONICS
    June 27, 2012 11:09 am
    Have lost interest in NBA. It would be great to have the team back, but not if the taxpayers have to bankroll the deal. I really don't care ether way. Seattle will push it through....next we 'll need a gay- pride softball arena that will be a good deal for the taxpayers
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Frogsplash wrote...
    Bad analogy with Starbucks
    June 26, 2012 9:28 pm
    The difference is the city in this deal will own the arena and the land it sits on. The taxes aren't going back to the owners, they are going back to the city to pay for the arena they own. The only thing the investors will own is the NBA team they purchase.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Newton wrote...
    Lugnut everyone knows your an empty shell of a human.
    June 26, 2012 8:51 pm
    Lugnut why can't these billionaire's pay for it themselfs?. Why do they need a bailout. You won't answer that because your an idiot. First the county will be paying triple for a property in a declining economy. Thats a Scam right There!. Looting the till, racketeering, Collusion,. These are Parasite's feeding off the middle class public for thier own gain. This is the very reason this world is in trouble with debt. These Bonds are paid for by the public for the loan on this triple over inflated property. Public get's nothing but debt and payments and the bills for the up keep on the building. Once the middle class is wiped out. These parasite's will try to feed on each other they are sick with greed. Just Call the Seattle City Council let them know NO Bailouts for Billionaire's. The Constitution is here and inplace to protect you from business's like this from looting the tax payers. For thier own personal Gain.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Frogsplash wrote...
    Newton....
    June 26, 2012 9:39 pm
    The city will own the arena and the land, not the investors. Why are you still commenting on this if you don't understand that basic part? THE CITY OWNS THE ARENA AND THE LAND. The arena is so that the investors can actually attract and buy an NBA franchise. Not only does the city own the arena and the land, Hansen and his group give the city $290 million, and as well they pay for all maintenence costs and improvements to keep the arena up to date, plopping $2 million a year into a specific fund just for that, and the amount they put in goes up over time. Again, by your comments, you didn't know that. Oh, and another misspelling for you since you are calling folks idiots again. It should be themselves, not themselfs. I will give you credit this time for not adding an ' at least. But you screwed up businesses, it's not business's... oye. Don't call people idiots please.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }