You will disagree with their every point just for the sake of disagreement. You refuse to admit there is any problem at all with yet another stadium, the financing, the tiny reality there is no TEAM for said stadium, the fact there are tens of thousands attempting to get out of SoDo/Pioneer Square at 6 PM each night after work, which is when those attending events at Safeco/Seattle Arena would be arriving... The taxpayers of Seattle don't need yet another sports-related albatross around their necks. Are you willing to personally underwrite the Seattle Arena "facelift" in 13 years, for instance? The average NBA stadium is in use for that period of time before being torn down or "remodeled". Chris Hansen won't be paying for it. Again, Salk: You don't pay to get into the place. You won't pay a nickel towards admission or upkeep. Why should any of us who actually DO pay listen to any point you make on the subject?

Ironic response coming from a Seahawks fan, considering wheat holds 2.5 times more fans per event and the financing of the stadium contained infinitely more risk. How you are okay with one, but not another--better-- deal, is beyond comprehension.

where i crushed you and made u look like a complete idiot. same thoughts apply

I could direct you to the MOU, sir, which states the arenaco will be on the hook to keep the facility up to NBA specs, for the duration of the lease. Mediation will be available if the city feels the lease is not being lived up to. So, sir, ballmer and the rest will be on the hook for the facelift it will need in 13 years, just like the mariners are on the hook for Safeco, and Paul is on the hook for Seahawks. MOU signed, he hunts for a team. Team secured, only then does money change hands. I'm sure it's difficult for those who work to get out of the city, but then that's the price for living in the city. The opportunity to gain national concert acts, NCAA tournaments, much needed convention space, is paramount to this city's tourism needs. If your going to argu against, get your facts correct. Read the actual documents, do the math. Make your own conclusions based on that. We voted to keep your obviously beloved Seahawks, In a deal that much much worse than this in a stadium that sits empty most of the time.

You will disagree with their every point just for the sake of disagreement. You refuse to admit there is any problem at all with yet another stadium, the financing, the tiny reality there is no TEAM for said stadium (The arena won't get built until a team is secured, so there's no risk there.), the fact there are tens of thousands attempting to get out of SoDo/Pioneer Square at 6 PM each night after work (Safeco Field hosts 81 dates a year with a higher average attendance than the full capacity of the arena will be. Somehow the Sodo area has been able to function all these years.) , which is when those attending events at Safeco/Seattle Arena would be arriving... The taxpayers of Seattle don't need yet another sports-related albatross around their necks. (Unless you buy a ticket to an event held in the arena, you won't pay a dime for the arena.) Are you willing to personally underwrite the Seattle Arena "facelift" in 13 years, for instance? (I don't think any of the taxpayers would be. That's why it's written in the MOU, a legally binding document, that Hansen's group has agreed to pay for any needed renovations in the future themselves.) The average NBA stadium is in use for that period of time before being torn down or "remodeled". (The Rose Garden, United Center, Bradley Center, Oracle Arena, TD Garden, Target Center, U.S, Airways Center and Wells Fargo Center would beg to differ. KeyArena is an outlier, not the norm.) Chris Hansen won't be paying for it. (Yes, he will. See above.) Again, Salk: You don't pay to get into the place. You won't pay a nickel towards admission or upkeep. Why should any of us who actually DO pay listen to any point you make on the subject? (If you don't want to pay, it's very simple: don't go to the arena.) (This post is ironic coming from a Seahawks fan, considering this proposal is a much better deal for the tax payer than that stadium deal was. I can only assume you've enjoyed the "albatross" that is CenturyLink Field. Again, it's okay to be against this proposal. Just make sure your opposition is based on facts).

to whom?

So, stadiums that are paid for are considered an albatros? You do know an albatros was considered good luck, unless you killed it.

Its too good of a deal to pass up. Whether it is in Seattle remains to be seen. Hansen is giving Seattle first crack and truly would like to get this thing done in Sodo. If Seattle says "no thanks", than all he has to do is drive across 520 and offer this same deal to Bellevue. The COB Council would accept this deal with open arms. The Bel-Red corridor area of Bellevue is currently going through a long range redevelopment and a professional sports venue would be a great addition to this area. And, you wouldn't have to deal with a Port.

I propose that 710 start a smear campaign and boycott the next concert hall or museum, Seattle plans to build. Sound pretty crazy right?!...Don't hate something just because you don't understand it...I'm blown away with how ridiculous and unprofessional the Ed. Board has handled this issue. I can understand due diligence and actual research but this has been just plan weird. I think it was Wassle or Howdy who said you don't see sports fans saying no to proposed museums or concert halls. Hopefully the Times staff wises up and we get this once in a lifetime deal done and get the NBA back and some NHL!

Wow, where to start? Are you implying that basketball fans would be unlikely to attend a concert or visit a museum?

Next; concert halls and museums are not for-profit enterprises operated by private investors. Many museums offer free, or highly discounted admission, one day per week so that the entire community can afford to come through the doors. Will we expect that currently non-existent NBA team to hand out free tickets to the taxpayers who they hope will help finance their playpen? Nope. In fact, only the most well-heeled taxpayers will be able to afford to attend more than a few games per year. The average NBA seat is $80, the good ones are $hundreds per seat per game. Compare that to the price of admission to a museum.

And of course, where do you want to take your kids? Down to the NBA arena where the "gangsta" image is glorified, where the players are looking nervously over their shoulders for the approach of yet another process server bearing papers about the latest local paternity suit, or down to a museum where they can learn about Ronald Reagan, John Kennedy, Eisenhower, the Roosevelts, Lincoln, Jefferson, Washington et al?

That's complete ignorance and pretty racist. Your comments are absurd, abusive and uncalled for. Take your hate elsewhere. Actually, get rid of your hate. That is not benefitting anyone, especially yourself.

Look in the mirror for the racist, Enginerd. I'm talking about behavior, and in response you're profiling some particular race or another as especially representative of that behavior. That's apparently your viewpoint, but it's not mine.

The tats and the attitudes of many players (of more than one race, by the way), their off-the-court personas, etc etc etc, do indeed glorify a lifestyle that many parents would not want to recommend for their kids.

Maybe racist wasn't the correct word choice, but your comments are still ridiculous and incorrect regarding the players. There are good and bad role models in any area of life, and to associate all NBA players to one category is just ignorance. People can go to NBA games and learn about someone who overcame a lot of obstacles in life to achieve something and how they are giving back to their communities through their charities or summer camps for kids. Gangstas indeed. If you're really worried about how their "lifestyles" will affect your kids, then you're not trying very hard. The NBA also glorifies hard work to perfect a craft to achieve success, just like going to Benaroya Hall to watch the symphony.

One only has to look at his long line of blog posts to know this is blatantly true. He thinks only he has the right answers to everything which gives him the right to denegrate all other socio economic and ethnic groups. His little 'gangsta' theme is simply todays lightly veiled hate mongering. Just ignore the buffoon, he won't go away. Spewing his vile hatred is the only way he can make himself feel superior to others.

But he is against the government being involved with something he isn't interested in, even if it is a financially positive deal for the public. Lose money on something he likes - good. Make money on something he doesn't like - bad. My 7-year old has the same selfish attitude. I'm thinking she will grow out of it though.

That's OK though. I'll continue paying my taxes to support the schools that will educate his 7 year old, even though my kids have been out of school for years.

That is, of course, unless he sends her to a PRIVATE school. Taxpayers should not have to subsidize private enterprise.

They're are called tax cuts or tax write offs. Do you think Starbucks, Amazon, Microsoft or Boeing do not get rebates or tax subsidies?

Every loophole in the IRS code will be available to the Seattle Slippery Sonics.

Does Starbucks approach a neighborhood and ask the residents to build a new coffee shop, at public expense, so Starbucks can then sell coffee for as much as the traffic will bear?

When Amazon relocated to South Lake Union, did they demand that the citizens construct their office buildings for them?

If Seattle passes on this deal...

... or if Tacoma/Bellevue decide to start talking with Chris Hansen

It may turn into a bidding war for the three (or two) cities.

What if Tacoma/Bellevue (or even SeaTac) said "We like your idea Chris, and we can sweeten it for you by: -----"

I wonder how many less hoops (pun intended) would be set out for Chris to jump through in these (or other) alternate cities?

Less red tape?

Better deal for the investors?

I wonder if secret talks are already in the works with alternate cities?

Only problem is, the stadium guy didn't buy some vacant land that he plans to turn over for a 250% profit in either Tacoma or Bellevue.

Finding space in Bellevue might be tough. Tacoma, not so much. The $40 million Hansen spent for that property in SODO would probably buy up several blocks in the heart of Downtown Tacoma....(and that's a shame, it's a lovely town, with great people- just no commercial viability in the historic business district).

This so called 250% profit is incorrect. The land is sold at FAIR MARKET VALUE up to 100 million. He's spent over 50 mill on land your 250 % would make it 125 million. Number doesn't jive. Plus he will pay for all of the permits and pay for environmental am SEPA. How much extra do you think that costs? If FMV is 75 mil then that is what the city/county pays for the land.

Seattle needs to learn what Stockton CA learned in its recent filing for bankrupcy. They paid 68 million for an arena. Look where they are now. No tax dollars should be spent on entertainment venues - ever ! http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/1708683251001/lessons-learned-from-stockton-bankruptcy/

As for spending money on an arena. I have no problem with the argument that government should not write checks to build entertainment venues. Although I also think an argument could be made that it can make sense in certain instances. However, this Seattle arena proposal is different. It does not require the government to write a single check. Your comments, like so many of the anti-arena comments, seem to come from the perspective of someone who really has no clue how this deal is structured. You would be well advised to educate yourself on a subject before spouting off.

That'sa pretty extreme statement. So it NEVER makes sense for a city or county to put ANY dollars into a deal that will allow them to MAKE/EARN FAR MORE than their investment? That's actually pretty poor fiscal responsibility.

Are you really trying to compare Stockton to Seattle? Stockton is a dump of a city, isn't a coastal city, and doesn't have any industrial strength. I wonder what a $68 million arena looks like. Probably makes Key arena look state of the art.

Salk

I agree with you wholeheartedly. The liberal elitists that run that rag called the Seattle Times oppose anything that is built by, financed by, or could be used by people they deem evil. Those with money that they actually worked for. They would rather see wealth redistributed to whom they "favor": the "poor" and minorities who vote for them, or politically favored groups such as unions, environmentalists or bike nazis!

Plus, they hate kids!

I think the entire point of the opposition to this stadium proposal is that it is not going to be entirely built by, and financed by, "private money that people actually work for."

The overwhelming majority of the opposition to the stadium would disappear immediately if it were strictly a private enterprise. Don't ask Seattle tax payers to go $200 into debt and hand the money over to a group of elite billionaires so they can buy a team and build a stadium, and there isn't a public issue (other than zoning) left to discuss.

It seems that lately the prevailing business motto in many industries, certainly professional sports, has been "privatize the profits, but socialize the costs and losses".

How many times are we willing to let the NBA break the basketball heart of Seattle? They need a place to play? Let 'em play in the last basketball palace they demanded; and that was deemed "state of the art" by the NBA Commissioner when he visited the place on opening night. Key Arena is sitting empty, costing taxpayers huge dollars every day.

The day will come when the NBA will give the Seattle investors permission to sell the new team (if we get one at all), and the new owner can move it to Bumbuck, Minnesota simply by paying off the remaining years of the lease. (ala Key Arena).

In return, they receive land and an arena that will have a paper value of over $400 million. This $200 million INVESTMENT does not even require a down payment. Then the loan will be paid back, with interest, by the revenues generated from the arena. Then the tax payers will own the land and arena free and clear. Meanwhile, Hansen will be paying to keep the arena up to NBA standards, so the arena will not be outdated once it is paid off. The city will receive the addition benefit of two sports franchises and numerous other entertainment events that would otherwise not come to Seattle.

Lots of people would be eager to promise to pay the city back, with interest, if only the taxpayers would build them a facility in which to open a business.

Why is a sports franchise any more, or less, deserving than some other private enterprise?

There have been systems where the government invested in almost every business in sight. Most of them were east of the Iron Curtain.

Forget about the details of this deal, look at the big picture. Should the government be involved in erecting buildings for private businesses? If somebody said the government should finance the construction of a car wash, a supermarket, a hardware store, or a clothing shop nearly everybody would scream bloody murder--- and rightly so. What makes the Seattle Slippery Sonics somehow exempt for the moral laws of free commerce? Because they bounce a basketball around?

The answer, of course, is that an arena, like a concert hall, adds to the culture and landscape of a city in ways that a car wash or taco stand don't. Plus, the arena will only be used for basketball games 41 days a year. The rest of the year it will be used by other forms of entertainment and private enterprises. Private entertainment enterprises that will only perform in cities that have such arenas.

you would get the answer that the public *voted* to tax itself to erect the concert hall.

The Seattle Slipout Sonics are adamantly *opposed* to a vote of the public on this issue. They challenged the Seattle City Council to "do your jobs, and give us the money!"

Hate to break it to all these out-of-town billionaires, but here in Seattle we don't consider it the "job" of our city council to help build facilities for private enterprise, even if the enterprise promises to pay the money back.

Anybody who wants to put on a pop, rock, or country concert in Seattle already has several fine venues available for the purpose.

There is lots of public money qualifying people can get to start or build a business. Didn't you know that, all wise one? How about the huge tax breaks companies get from cities and states to build and/or keep their base of operations where they are? The big difference between these and the arena; the city ends up owning the arena while they get no ownership of any of these other ventures. Where is your indignation about these other ventures?

to the Seattle Slipout Sonics?

There will be no grants available, as for tax breaks you would have to ask our elected officials that love to hand them out to corporations and businesses. If you want to hate someone for the Sonics breaking the lease and leaving, blame the corrupt mayor who brokered the deal. Frogsplash wrote it all out for you.

It's in the proposal. 30 years, no less.

The $200 million is not going to the owners so they can buy a team. And it's not 200 million unless there is an NHL franchise. The money is strictly for the land and arena. And you are mislead about the NBA breaking the Key arean lease. The courts were about to rule, and most agree the ruling was to bind the Sonics to their Key Arean lease, when the city announced a deal letting Bennett out of the lease. No lease for Key arean was broken, Mayor Nichols and his gang let Bennett buy out the lease.

Ever get a phone call from a sales rep asking you to buy their paper on just Sunday and they will throw in the rest for free? The Newspaper industry is a dying...er dead business model. The only thing it had going was reliable reporting based on facts for the most part. Now it's about as credible as a celebrity gossip site. I will never buy another newspaper or visit the seattletimes.com website again.

Who wants to get information from a paper that obviously has it's own agendas and slants. It's no longer my homepage on my computer and I won't give the Times the time of day anymore. The newspaper industry is already dying off, why don't we speed things up for this biased liberal paper.

It was long overdue, but this morning I cancelled my paper from the Seattle Times. This article was the last straw for me.

WELL, I would imagine that they are just shaking in their boots over that one !

Get your facts straight and stop embarassing yourselves. Salk owned whoever the fool is that wrote this drivel. Chris Hansen is providing a chance to create jobs, make SODO a nice place to be (not an industrial craphole) and make Seattle a 4 sport city (not counting Storm or Sounders because....well you know why). All the hippies and liberals who support the arts over anything else need to get off the weed and pull their heads out of their behinds. A golden opportunity is being passed on that would make Seattle a more prominent city and bring back a team that I and many others loved and brought joy to growing up.

Stop buying. Period. Stop voting for idiots. Stop buying Starbucks brands. Stop viewing the Seattle Times.