Comments

1
Can we build the arena just west of Denny? I'm thinking Fairview would be great.

We could call it Dead Dog Stadium ...
2
The only thing more fabulous than spending hundreds of millions of dollars on an arena for a pro sports team is spending hundreds of millions of dollars on an arena that sits empty. Does everyone in Seattle have a brain-eating virus or something? We're still paying off the Coliseum remodel (empty) and the Kingdome (demolished). Wouldn't we be better off just throwing the money on a bonfire or something? Or just give it to Chris Hansen (not even a Seattle resident, is he?) in cash. Maybe he'll spend it on cocaine and the dealers will get rich at least.
3
Great piece. Agreed on everything, except I kind of like basketball.

But honestly I'm in it all for an NHL team (cc: Megan Seling)
4
The Seattle Times editorial board are even stupider than implied here. The only reason the relocation committee rejected the Seattle bid is that the arena deal didn't have ENOUGH public money behind it.

Why would a panel of NBA team owners unanimously decide to reject the larger bid in favor of a smaller, last minute cobbled-together one from a significantly smaller media market? Wouldn't that devalue their own teams? It would, unless the smaller bid included ton of public money for a new arena - something the owners absolutely have an interest in.
5
I will laugh so hard in about six months when Hansen's hedge fund has collapsed and all the Seattle fuckwits have to explain why they got suckered.
6
I like to pretend I'd have been able to grasp all the issues around this if I hadn't been so distracted by Hansen's toupee-looking hairdo from the get-go. Until he gets a different haircut (or more shapely rug) I'll be useless when it comes to arena facts.
7
#6, trust me, a year from now he'll appear with a shaven head, or maybe a dead raccoon up there. A new toupee will be beyond his budget.
8
Please. Hansen's rich no matter what happens to his fund. Maybe not NBA-owner rich, but Bennett & McClendon were grifters playing with smoke and mirrors, too.
9
What @4 said. This result is due to the NBA's "business model," which is all about emotional extortion and looting the public treasury to the fullest possible extent. The league isn't interested in accepting a deal based on fairness, predicated on the notion that the city's risk should be kept small and the owners of the team, as the prime benefactors, should support most of the cost. They want the deal in which public investment is highest, with the municipality that is most eager to get royally fucked straight up its collective asshole. Right now, Sacramento wins on that score and it's not even close.
10
Dudes!

I've got it!

We'll build it above where the 99 tunnel drill stops dead!

Win win!

Two money holes, one exceeded bonding authority!
11
Interesting stance for the Times to take after that glowing puff piece they ran a few weeks back. Feign support for Hansen and the NBA coming back, get access to Hansen...then turn right around and tell him to build it himself. Do they even read their own newspaper?
12
If we didn't get the team because we didn't offer the public financing then good for us. It is extortion and every city should stand up to the league and the owners. I feel good about this.

That said, I hope they never build the stadium, as it's totally pointless now.
13
@9 a caller on ESPN radio brought up the story of how the Mariners got here. Namely, an anti-trust suit brought by the state Attorney General. (I wasn't here then. If this is untrue, sorry.) Bob Ferguson could anti-trust sue the NBA. Intriguing idea, yeah?
14
Please. Hansen's rich no matter what happens to his fund.

Just wait, you'll see.
15
No arena at all?

*waaaaaaaaah*

Why even have a government if not to build arenas for millionaires to watch millionaires play a kids game? Oh, it's not only for millionaires. It's also for middle-aged male non-millionaires who want to spend their precious remaining time alive on Earth staring at the millionaires playing the kids game, wishing they were not themselves.

Maybe our state legislators can put aside that budget thingy and put a little effort into this important basketball arena problem that plagues us.
16
@5/7/14-- Making bold predictions counter to the common belief is the coward's way of making predictions. Sure, it SEEMS ballsy to make the pick that goes against prevailing wisdom, to pick the underdog, but really all you're doing is hedging (ironic, no?). If the generally expected outcome comes to pass--if the favored team wins--nobody pays attention to your stupid prediction, but if you're right... Look at you! You're the genius!

Congratulations, you are as mentally evolved as Dick Vitale.
17
#16, just wait, you and the rest of the fuckwits will see what bullshit you bought into.
18
The argument is that this is a gift horse that shouldn't be looked in the mouth.

However, it seems like should anyone dare to even want to see the said horse from a distance, using a telescope, a coterie of bully bloggers and paid cronie commenters (i.e., 80 percent of SLOG) descend into the webosphere to crush dissent.

Even if this were manna from heaven, from what we now know about "hedge funds" shouldn't someone be doing due diligence?

From what I've read, a lot of these guys made their money by selling local governments on scams and then absconding with the money leaving the treasuries bankrupt from worthless securities. What is even the name of the hedge fund, who are its clients, what are its deals?

19
"First of all, the location of the proposed arena in Sodo as opposed to the Seattle Center or Renton or Bellevue had fuck all to do with the relocation committee's decision to reject Hansen's bid."

First of all, you don't actually know that. Second of all, it has everything to do with why the deal will fall apart, and is falling apart. The main contingency is Hansen has to have a team or he has nothing. Not to mention that teo judges have said there is no deal, Hansen's attorneys said in court there is no deal, and then Hansen and McGinn turned around and lied to the NBA and said there is a deal. Maybe what blew it for the relocation is that Hansen, Dow, and Mike are LIARS. So what does that make you Goldy? An apologist, which is actually worse.
20
Give the new arena to the Stoners... SODO is the heart of the coming GREEN LIGHT district. There is more money and fun in weed than the NBA any way and you don't have to deal with spoiled millionaire financial whizzers.... Make a real tourist attraction out of it... Lot of places got NBA and stadiums, become the only Green Machine Weed Palace Mother Fucker Damn thingy sort of place in the owrld..;-D
21
Wake me when David Stern is dead.
22
Why is this editorial surprising? The Times wants the arena in Bellevue, not Seattle. Whatever reasons they give are horseshit to disguise their true position.
23
Put the fucking stadium/tattoo parlor on Neptune. Thrilled that this boondoggle has gone down.
24
#18, the Slog pays people comment? Slog, if you'll pay me, I'll say anything you want. I'll be a typical Seattle fuckwit if the price is right!
25
NHL! NHL!
26
@11 And do you even know what an editorial is?
27
the deal is alive on paper. In reality it's 90% dead. There is no team available, and it's clear that the arena deal for SODO location is subject to lawsuit uncertainty; so even if a team is acquired we're far from being "alive." It's like saying the patient got hit by a truck and is in a coma, but is still alive. the chances of resuscitation are low.

Next time, suggestion to Hansen and his apologists: follow our laws including our site selection laws and I 91. Try to obey the law. Others do. Oh, and pay for it with ticket sales -- our law basically says you can't get anything from the city you couldn't get in a private transaction, so there's really no point pursuing tax subsidies or special tax credits or anything like the MOU -- we ended tax subsidies for pro sports teams in I 91. If this means no team, hooray -- many businesses struggle and pay taxes without special treatment and pro sports should be the same way. Why can't the 44K fans pay more for tickets to finance the stadium entirely, without a public tax subsidy scheme?
28
AT&T Park in SF in 2000 was built entirely without public funds. The only public funds used were port redevelopment money that would have been used on a large project anyway. Prior to that, Dodger Stadium in 1956 was built with only private funds. It can be and has been done, but The Stranger likes its ideology more than its facts

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.