Seattle Times NBA editorial devoid of facts – and readers know it
The editorial, titled Bring Sonics back in a different location without public money, says that “snatching” the Kings is the wrong way to get a team, and that the SoDo location is the wrong place to put the team.
“The fundamental flaw in the proposal was to put a professional sports and entertainment arena in Seattle’s Sodo District, which represented a threat to the city’s industrial zone and the economic engine that is the Port of Seattle.
Basketball will return and thrive here when the focus is on the sport and not using the franchise as a lever for real-estate development.”
Dori says the factors cited by the Times are completely irrelevant. The committee recommendation against bringing the Kings to Seattle had nothing to do with the location of the proposed arena in SoDo, nor with the perceived threat to industry. It was all about NBA politics. It was about rejecting Seattle to spite the politicians that didn’t care about keeping the Sonics in 2008.
“They also said that would be a threat to the city’s industrial zone. There’s no study that indicates that, a threat to the economic engine that is the Port of Seattle. Again, no study that supports that either. But the Times is just making stuff up in this editorial, as far as I can tell,” said Dori.
Most of the editorial’s almost 150 online commenters seem to agree with Dori.
“I didn’t think it was possible but the Seattle Times has proven you can write an editorial that completely omits facts, timely information and purpose. Kudos,” wrote The Mittens.
“Perhaps from her perspective,” wrote Jacque Dough, “or that of the editorial board on the small chance I’m wrong about her hand on this thing, the location is not right for Seattle, but it’s an absolute certainly that the NBA board of governors absolutely didn’t care or consider the proximity of the new arena to the Port of Seattle.”
“This article is a complete contradiction to the truth about why the NBA is not coming to Seattle. The NBA owners want publicly funded arenas. Sacramento was willing to publicly fund more. They win. This article was written by someone with very little knowledge of the subject. Little embarrassing that it was even posted,” wrote paulseattle.
“The location had nothing to do with the vetting process. To imply that it did is ridiculous. The NBA could care less about the Seattle Times editorial board’s desire to protect the interests of the Mariners organization.
Also, the headline is misleading as the article makes no mention of public money. The public money in this deal is (a) about financing and (b) certainly didn’t cause the NBA to support the Sacramento bid. Your agenda is ridiculous,” wrote RadicalCenter.