arena.jpg
The Seattle City Council takes another look at the proposed arena deal in SoDo Thursday as it tries to decide if it's the best move for the city. (AP Photo)

Seattle council to consider if arena deal satisfies I-91

BY Chris Sullivan  on July 5, 2012 @ 4:36 am (Updated: 10:26 am - 7/5/12 )

Related:
The Seattle City Council takes another look at the proposed arena deal in SoDo Thursday as it tries to decide if it's the best move for the city.

A council committee will look at whether the deal satisfies voter-approved I-91. That initiative, passed in 2006, requires the city make money on any investment of public funds for arenas.

If Chris Hansen's proposed $490 million arena doesn't meet the I- 91 guidelines, the council would likely oppose it.

Mayor Mike McGinn is confident this deal will make money, and he hopes the council sees that. He believes the city must move on this.

"Or we miss an opportunity for hundreds of millions of dollars of investment, new jobs, and bringing the Sonics back," he said.

The city and King County are being asked to issue $200 million in bonds in this deal.

Chris Sullivan, KIRO Radio Reporter
Chris loves the rush of covering breaking news and works hard to try to make sense of it all while telling stories about real people in extraordinary circumstances.
Related:
More Local News
Top Stories

  • Nature's Reality Check
    We can conquer terrorism, cure cancer, but a tornado can remind us of our insecurity

  • Messiest
    New lane restrictions mean Mercer Street is tough to travel during afternoon commutes

  • Back to Work
    Ten observations from practice that only a backup, middle child, left-handed QB can provide
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 (9)


  • Add A Comment

  • Zagnut wrote...
    If you could borrow $200 million for a $500 million asset, have the $200M paid back entirely through that asset, and be left with the free and clear asset, would you do it?
    July 5, 2012 6:07 am
    Unless you are an idiot you would.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • CH wrote...
    'F' I-91 The people will decide where their "TAX DOLLARDS" will go . . . .
    July 5, 2012 8:24 am
    this council is history. Keep saving your money CH. If you could borrow $200 million for a $500 million asset? Zagnuts: taxpayers are not a bank. You would be an idiot to think so. This deal can't be done with "TAXPAYERS MONEY" front door or back door period.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Hakuzen wrote...
    CH: His Tax DOLLARDS at work
    July 5, 2012 8:50 am
    YEA! GO GET EM CLETUS! WE'LL SHOW THESE QUICK TALKIN CITY SLICKERS HOW US SMART FOLK UP IN THE GREAT NORTHWEST DO THINGS! THEY AINT GETTIN MY TAX DOLLARDS FOR ANYTHING!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Zagnut wrote...
    Hakuzen, I'm going to give you a bit of advice. Advice that I wish someone would have given me a long time ago.
    July 5, 2012 3:57 pm
    Ignore CH. He is the biggest troll this site has ever had, or likely ever will have.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Bucket Dad wrote...
    Nobody seem to want to answer the questions posed
    July 5, 2012 10:13 am
    Hansen won't, Ballmer won't, City of Seattle won't. If you have a bunch of billionaire's on board with a lot of discretionary spending capability, why do you need to borrow $200M. If it is such a good deal for the city, why would these business people not recognize that and invest their own money for that great return? Or for that matter, Bank of America, or any other bank? If JP Morgan is willing to get into a hedge fund that loses $9B, then why would they not fund this project? Seems (based on the information that gets touted) to be a lot lower risk.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Zagnut wrote...
    bucket dad
    July 5, 2012 3:55 pm
    If the public is not part of it then the politicians could smash the deal to smithereens over time. They could cause the investors more grief than you could ever imagine or dream up. Therefore, it is important to have a public/private partnership in arena/stadium deals. That's the way it is everywhere, and it is that way for a reason. OK, I've tried to answer your question. Now I have a question for you. Does the fact that this is a no-lose scenario for the public matter to you? Or do you just have such an incredible hard on for sports and/or rich folks that you will be against the deal no matter what?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • CH wrote...
    Hakuzen - Roads Police Fire Teachers maybe . . . .
    July 5, 2012 11:15 am
    Arena NO. What part of 'NO' do you not understand?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Citizen of Krazy Town wrote...
    Bring it to Bellevue
    July 5, 2012 11:22 am
    All the money is here and NO TOLLS
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Zagnut wrote...
    Krazy Town, sounds good. And I bet right about now Hansen wishes that is where he had gone. He may have misinterpreted the ineptitude and stupidity of the city of Seattle and it's loud, ignorant, flaming liberal citizens.
    July 5, 2012 4:34 pm
    But it will potentially delay landing a team for many years. It may not be kosher to say it, but the Sacramento Kings are going somewhere. If Seattle accepts this incredible gift then the Kings will come to Seattle - soon. If not, the Kings will go somewhere else, and Seattle, errr Bellevue, may not get a team for a long, long time.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }