arena.jpg
Some of the opposition to a proposed basketball arena in Seattle is coming from industrial and labor interests at the Port of Seattle who worry it would cause too much interference with waterfront traffic. (AP Photo/file)

Seattle, King County to sign arena deal

October 16, 2012 @ 5:12 am

Related:

SEATTLE (AP) - Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn, King County Executive Dow Constantine and the man promising to bring an NBA basketball team back to the city planned a signing ceremony Tuesday for a deal on a new arena.

The city and county councils gave final approval Monday to Chris Hansen's plan for a $490 million arena with $200 million in public financing.

The project still needs to go through an environmental review, and the Longshore Union is threatening a lawsuit, saying Hansen's preferred site near the Mariners and Seahawks stadiums would hurt jobs at nearby Port of Seattle terminals.

Hansen still has to land an NBA franchise and an NHL franchise that also would use the arena.


(Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)
Related:
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 (51)


  • Add A Comment

  • rational wrote...
    The Port of Seattle, a business association and the longshoremen union are characterizing a proposed new sports arena in Seattle's industrial district as a "land grab" that threatens jobs because it could increase traffic and land value.
    June 7, 2012 4:58 pm
    Then under imminent domain the city should make sure the land is used for the stadium since it will increase the value of the land, and by extension the level of taxes and tell the unions to bugger off.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • darthclown wrote...
    Just what we need
    June 7, 2012 5:49 pm
    the taxpayers buying another stadium for another bushwa Seattle team. Maybe if we actually HAD a basketball or hockey team, but this is a bunch of people who say Field of Dreams to many times. "If you build it, they will come" Fine, just don't spend my money on it. And in the process, the new traffic flow is going to disrupt Port of Seattle operations, thereby making it more difficult to move freight off the docks. Placing in jeopardy the good, well paying jobs on the docks in favor of a bunch of overpaid Prima Donna athletes. You want to talk wasteful government spending? Lets talk about sports stadiums.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • rational wrote...
    darthclown
    June 7, 2012 6:10 pm
    Why are you dissenting? I detest basketball...but I'm voicing a liberal viewpoint that the "state" should take property from individuals for the betterment of the "state"...in this case, if the unions say property values will go up with a stadium then the city obtains more taxes, which triggers the leftist's own love, emminent domain.

    Or are you torn between the leftist ceasing of property vs the unions...must suck to be you.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Zagnut wrote...
    Yet another ignorant commentator who doesn't know the arena WON'T BE BUILT UNTIL A TEAM IS ACQUIRED!
    June 7, 2012 7:29 pm
    But ignorance doesn't stop the arrogant from commenting.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Oly80 wrote...
    yes...
    June 8, 2012 6:27 am
    but teams WON'T come until the promise of new stadium is made.

    which is bascially the same thing.

    nice try, though.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    Zagnut
    June 8, 2012 7:19 am
    where were you yesterday when this deal was exposed as a complete fraud?Yes taxes will go up and Mr Hansen gets in the vicinity of $100,000,000 from the city up front for land he acquired for much less.Mr Hansen also gets probably $450,000,000 for naming rights and the city does not get a penny of that even though the city is contributing about 40% of the project cost. Oh and did I mention that the city will lose almost $800,000 a year (on today's appraisal rate) in tax revenue that will need to be made up by the taxpayers.You need to get up to speed on this,your too hung up on the notion that the Arena won't be built until a team is acquired. Why not look at the DEAL assuming a team is moved here
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Frogsplash wrote...
    Just another example of the facts you spout
    June 19, 2012 6:14 am
    Being completely wrong. $450million in naming rights... holy crap, He will get that much if he owns the team for about 200 years. Actually read what you post Messiah.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    Froggie
    June 19, 2012 2:57 pm
    $15 million a year times 30 years=$450,000,000. The amount is not as important as the FACT that the city (who is throwing $200,000,000)into the mix which is 40% does not see a penny of the naming rights.Start thinking Froggie
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    Froggie FYI
    June 19, 2012 3:15 pm
    Some time ago Phillips paid the Atlanta Hawks $168,000,000 for 20 (twenty) years the arena was built in 1999
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Lessmith50 wrote...
    Darthclown
    June 19, 2012 9:25 am
    Your name says it all your a FOOL. Why dont you try reading and doing some research on the issue. No one wants your welfare money anyway. Sound like your a clown and you spend your money on the circus not major league sports franchises. They dont want your kind loitering around their new stadium anyway. Go back to living in a tent on public land.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • murr wrote...
    Ooh just a second
    June 7, 2012 6:07 pm
    If a union said so, Yes, know I there is some credibility. I would vote just the opposite, almost 100% of the time. Does not matter what.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Snout wrote...
    How does this threaten any job?
    June 7, 2012 6:42 pm
    It could create jobs that are not union-controlled. Is that the problem you pee-wee-weanie longshoremen?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • longwayhome wrote...
    Traffic problem
    June 7, 2012 7:31 pm
    The port relies on Alaska Way as their main corridor for moving containers to and from their respective locations. It's hard enough to get around as it is, much less when the big bore tunnel starts up and there will be a million dump trucks going in and out of the area 24-7 for two years. The new stadium needs to be put on hold so we can check this new guy out and also to relieve traffic problems during construction on the Alaska Way Viaduct. Just Say No!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Hersey33 wrote...
    If Longshoremen...
    June 7, 2012 7:36 pm
    Are so worried about jobs why don't they offer to bring down the ridiculous amount they make so that more people can be employed. All they are trying to do is bully the city into getting their way. It's like the brother that doesn't want to play with the toy until you start to.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    Hersey33
    June 8, 2012 9:45 am
    What a poorly thought out post. It makes no sense to anybody. How is voicing an opinion that seems valid and should be investigated be considered bullying? The traffic study after all was funded by Hansen. THe time to bring up potential problems is now not after the ball gets rolling
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Rick W7PSK wrote...
    Just Remeber only the Port and the Unions
    June 7, 2012 8:03 pm
    Can Fleece Seattle Dry.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • C"mon Man wrote...
    Can someone please enlighten me
    June 7, 2012 8:16 pm
    If this facility is built, does that assure us a franchise?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • rational wrote...
    If this facility is built, does that assure us a franchise?
    June 7, 2012 9:17 pm
    I don't think so. Last I heard the team most likely to relocate was the Kings. Then they had a deal in Sacramento, and then I thought I heard that may have fallen apart again. either way, I do not believe the NBA has made any sort of promises rather less a guarantee.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Zagnut wrote...
    C"mon Man, I've responded to this question of yours over and over and over, but you can't seem to comprehend the simple concept.
    June 8, 2012 5:10 am
    This is arena PROPOSAL. If it is approved then it will be built IF A BASKETBALL TEAM IS ACQUIRED. If no team is acquired then the arena will NOT be built. Get it?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • fartforce1 wrote...
    Actually, You CAN build a world class port anywhere there is landing.
    June 7, 2012 8:31 pm
    The early Jews showed us this and then the Greeks and then the Romans followed by Carthinians and Spanish and English and Chinese, Japanese and Singaporeans ect.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Weiser Postban wrote...
    If the port and unions are against it...
    June 7, 2012 9:40 pm
    It MUST be good! Sign me up!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }