Features

Why Seattle 
Needs a Stupid 
New Sports Arena

And Why All the Lefty Non–Sports Fans 
Who Are Going to Fight Against It 
Are Wrong This Time

Why Seattle 
Needs a Stupid 
New Sports Arena

James Yamasaki

  • comments (84)
  • Print

If "City of Crappy Stadium Deals" is not Seattle's official motto, it should be, considering how thoroughly local taxpayers have been reamed by wealthy team owners over the past couple decades.

Taxpayers spent $384 million in 1997 building Safeco Field after the Mariners threatened to move, followed by another $300 million for CenturyLink Field after the Seahawks threatened the same. In both deals, taxpayers picked up the bulk of the cost but almost none of the revenue from these purportedly publicly owned facilities.

Meanwhile, after the city and state refused to give in to the Sonics' demands for a half-billion-dollar publicly funded hoops palace in Renton, the team left for Oklahoma City.

And more than a decade after its implosion, we still owe $69 million on the Kingdome, while losing millions of dollars a year on KeyArena, thanks in part to a $75 million refurbishment in 1995 that was financed by 20-year bonds but secured by only a 15-year lease.

Like I said, crappy deals. And I opposed them all. Especially the Sonics' most recent attempted extortion.

But honestly, truly... this time it's different.

That's not to argue that our national obsession with freakishly large millionaires shooting hoops, slapping pucks, and otherwise throwing, hitting, kicking, and heading balls isn't stupid. It is. But then, much of what makes life worth living is stupid and irrational, from the entertainingly dreadful TV shows we watch to our willful conflation of love with the hormone-fueled urgings of sexual desire. Even my oh-so-mature adult obsession with politics is stupid and irrational, focused as it is on an exercise that in both practice and coverage is virtually indistinguishable from professional sports, but for the occasional political contest that has actual consequences.

But to those of you who would say that government should have absolutely no role in incentivizing, facilitating, or (gasp) subsidizing a new sports arena, I say: Get over yourself and your hippie/hipster faux-libertarian fiscal moralizing. Cities vie for professional sports teams because people want them. They fill some basic (if stupid and irrational) human need. Even if you have no interest, the addition of NBA and NHL franchises would arguably improve the collective quality of life in our region... particularly for our 11-year-old boys.

The question has never been whether taxpayers should subsidize sports facilities, but rather by how much, to what end, and at what cost to other services? And by those metrics, the public/private proposal announced last week by Seattle mayor Mike McGinn and King County executive Dow Constantine looks to be a helluva deal.

Under the terms outlined at a jam-packed press conference, the city and county would jointly contribute no more than $200 million to a new $490 million facility, the remainder coming from a private ownership group headed by Seattle-born mystery-moneyman Chris Hansen. Unlike previous arena proposals, the public contribution would be capped, with the private investors responsible for picking up the tabs for all cost overruns, maintenance, and future enhancements.

Also unlike previous arena proposals, the public investment would pay for itself, with little or no risk to taxpayers. The city and county would issue $200 million in construction bonds, on a 30-year term, with the annual debt service met through taxes on the arena (admissions, concession sales, B&O, property) plus rent paid by the teams and the facility operator. The teams would also set aside millions of dollars in a capital expenditure fund and a debt service reserve fund, and in years when even the latter fell short of meeting debt service, the teams would be obligated to pay additional rent to make up the difference.

And what if the teams were to attempt to break the lease? The proposal calls for a 30-year lease to match the term of the bonds, with a binding nonrelocation clause. Even in bankruptcy, county and city taxpayers should be covered, with their contribution representing a "senior tier obligation," meaning we would be the first creditors paid. Essentially (if indirectly), the franchises themselves—worth hundreds of millions of dollars—would serve as collateral on the public bonds.

The entire deal is structured to protect taxpayers and general-fund services. No bonds would be issued until the teams were acquired and the private investors ponied up, and only tax dollars generated by the arena—tax dollars that wouldn't otherwise exist—would be used to service the debt. Over 30 years, the arena pays for itself, entirely within both the spirit and the letter of the allegedly anti-arena Initiative 91. "I voted for it as well," McGinn offered of the 2006 city initiative that required professional sports teams to pay "fair value" on publicly financed facilities.

No other city in recent memory has negotiated such a favorable arena or stadium deal; these are far better terms than taxpayers got on Safeco Field and CenturyLink Field, not to mention the half-billion-dollar freebie for which the Oklahomans ransomed the Sonics.

Sure, there's that libertarian Cato Institute study that shows zero net economic benefit from sports teams and their arenas—I myself relentlessly cited it in opposing previous arena proposals. But we all know that discretionary spending isn't really a zero sum game, and we've apparently little problem with taxpayers subsidizing other entertainment venues, like parks, playgrounds, opera houses, zoos, community centers, and the arts.

Indeed, for knee-jerk liberals to attempt to rigidly value all public expenditures purely in terms of dollars and cents that might otherwise be spent on schools or potholes or feeding the poor is to argue so far to the left as to come full circle to the right, embracing a market perspective that can't value anything without a price tag.

And this is not the talk of an eager season ticket holder. I say all this as someone who roots against all of Seattle's professional sports teams. I grew up in Philadelphia during an era of unmatched futility in professional sports. By 1974, the Phillies had not had a winning season since 1967, the Eagles since 1966, and the 76ers were setting new marks for awfulness, having finished the previous season with an all-time NBA worst record of 9–73. By the age of 11, I had no conscious memory of what it was like to root for a winning team, let alone a champion.

And then the expansion Flyers came out of nowhere to beat the crap out of the rest of the NHL on their way to two consecutive Stanley Cups. It is hard to explain what something like this means to a young sports fan, unless you once were one. For example, I couldn't personally give a shit about the late, great Seattle Supersonics, but I don't need to imagine the euphoria their 1979 NBA championship must have brought to my adopted city.

I know. I've been there. It's unforgettable.

You can't put a price on the sense of civic pride that sports teams can engender.

So while I couldn't give a rat's ass about Seattle teams, because I am a Philadelphia fan—a loyalty forged through years of disappointment, plus a few moments of glory-by-proxy—I understand the stupid and irrational pleasure of professional sports. It's one of the things that make a great city great. And if we want our children to grow up as loyal to their hometown as I did to mine, we'd be stupid and irrational not to take advantage of a deal that appears to be as good as any city will get. recommended

 

Comments (84) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Fnarf 1
Bullshit, through and through.

It doesn't have anything to do with lefties or sports haters. I'm a sports fan. I've been to see dozens of top-level sports teams play. What this has to do with is economics.

The economics of cities paying for sports arenas simply does not pencil out. It CAN'T pencil out.

The money that goes into this arena -- both the rent paid by the club and the taxes paid by the fans -- comes from somewhere else. It is not a net gain for the city. EVERY economic study for the past thirty years says so. The tax portion is supposed to go for city services, but is instead being taken away from them.

The Sonics had a similar "air-tight" deal with the Key remodel. Where are they? Did they hold to their lease? No, they fucked off to Oklahoma where another city offered them a better deal. There is no guarantee whatsoever that this Hansen guy, or more likely the unknown future owner he sells out to once his tax advantages expire, as these guys always do, won't do the same.

Seattle just isn't big enough to support four major sports (or five). One of the places basketball and hockey fans will come from is the other teams, who will suffer, and then appear yet again at the city's door asking for another handout. Guaranteed.

We've been down this road before, in 1976, in 1987, in 1995, in 1999, and 2002. Watching these billionaires pull the football away from city leaders over and over again is embarrassing. How many more times are we going to fall for this?
Posted by Fnarf http://www.facebook.com/fnarf on February 22, 2012 at 9:20 AM · Report this
Looking For a Better Read 2
I wonder how many seasons of playing in the new arena while paying what are essentially above-market rents (relative to other teams in the NBA and NHL) it will be before the "New Sonics" and the Seattle Coyotes start complaining that they can't attract and retain their top talent because of their onerous lease obligations and the small market within which they play.
Posted by Looking For a Better Read on February 22, 2012 at 9:45 AM · Report this
3
I can believe this article because The Stranger has become a political dead end. Subtract out the gay rights gong that it endlessly bashes and it's as clueless as the Seattle Times. Fire half the writers and get a new editor.
Posted by Che Guava on February 22, 2012 at 9:58 AM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 4
Even my oh-so-mature adult obsession with politics is stupid and irrational, focused as it is on an exercise that in both practice and coverage is virtually indistinguishable from professional sports, but for the occasional political contest that has actual consequences.
#whitepeopleproblems

Cities vie for professional sports teams because rich people want them.

Fixed for you.

The bottom line is if this deal were really "self financing" they would not be asking for financing. "Self financing" means it doesn't need fucking help from a third party, the taxpayer. If this were really a "little or no risk" investment, you could easily find a private realty firm to be the landlord and sign that iron-clad 30 year lease with the team as collateral. Even if (big if) the details of the contract were actually written in the rosy way Goldy is dreaming here, there is a risk the city could end up owning the fucking collateral. Which, if things have gone that far south, means owning a money-losing albatross of an NBA franchise, AND owning a money-losing stadium.

Let them sell this deal to Wall Street. Wall Street lends $200 million all the time to underwrite business deals with a realistic, but not guaranteed, chance of success. Often Wall Street is willing to gamble like a drunken sailor. If you can't anybody in private finance who doesn't think this thing is too risky (stinks like a dead fish, more like), the that means it's too risky.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn http://youtu.be/zu-akdyxpUc on February 22, 2012 at 9:59 AM · Report this
Fnarf 5
@4, exactly. If this was really a sure thing, the money boys would be lining up with offers to finance.
Posted by Fnarf http://www.facebook.com/fnarf on February 22, 2012 at 10:16 AM · Report this
6
David Brewster just posted "Oh, What a Lovely Donnybrook!" examining the political angles in play. Not as deliciously conclusion-laden as this Goldy work, but interesting. I like his closer especially:
History has its fine ironies. Mayor McGinn, who arrived in office by fighting the establishment's pet project, the tunnel, may be ushered out by fighting for the establishment's newest pet project, the Arena. At any rate, let history note that this mayor (like all before him) has now made it across that familiar line separating the oppositional maverick to being a mayor of big-project, big-coalition, big-money politics. Thanks, Chris Hansen: We needed that!
http://crosscut.com/2012/02/21/sports/21…
Posted by gloomy gus on February 22, 2012 at 10:20 AM · Report this
Matt from Denver 7
@ 1,

One of the places basketball and hockey fans will come from is the other teams, who will suffer, and then appear yet again at the city's door asking for another handout.


Have no idea what basketball teams you're thinking of, but as to hockey, are you talking about the WHA teams? I doubt they'll be too much affected.

Seattle is similar in size to Denver, as far as greater metropolitan areas are concerned, and we're able to support four sports teams (so long as they're fielding teams worth watching - only the Broncos are really guaranteed to keep them coming, but then they're seldom dreadful), as well as two minor league hockey clubs and a MLS squad. Seattle can do the same.

Now, that doesn't mean that you're wrong about the deal itself. I doubt it's as bad as those others and I doubt it will be as good as Goldy is selling it.
Posted by Matt from Denver on February 22, 2012 at 10:37 AM · Report this
8
Hansen can get private financing, assuredly.

What he cannot get is private financing at more favorable municipal bond rates.

This lefty King County resident is all kinds of for this.

As for the argument that we'll have a duplicitous owner later bemoaning our cash-poor, (not-so) small-market I say: Green Bay Packers. Detroit Red Wings.
Posted by malamute on February 22, 2012 at 10:40 AM · Report this
Daddy Love 9
I'm too busy keeping up with the Kardashians...
Posted by Daddy Love on February 22, 2012 at 10:49 AM · Report this
chimsquared 10
Again, there can be no sincere discourse in this forum until two points are covered by several committees of concerned citizens and the appropriate indeterminate amount of feedback is sought.

Point 1: A jock refused to go to the prom with you / stole your girl/guy in high school so therefore professional sports take money away from libraries for disabled children.

Point 2: At no point in this process have vegetarian options at potential concession stands been discussed.

Until these points are fully addressed, it will be hard to come to the meaningful impasse Seattle's nanny liberals long for on this issue.
Posted by chimsquared on February 22, 2012 at 10:55 AM · Report this
Sam Levine 11
$200,000,000.00 in taxpayer subsidies is $200,000,000.00 too much. If they want a stadium they can pay for it.

It's a business that generates money. It doesn't need taxpayer support.
Posted by Sam Levine http://levinetech.net on February 22, 2012 at 11:09 AM · Report this
Will in Seattle 12
Sadly, @1, @4, @11 for the Triple Play Win.

@7 you really have no idea - did you see where the latest NHL team is? I mean, really, it's SMALLER THAN SEATTLE.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on February 22, 2012 at 11:18 AM · Report this
13
Cost overruns: Increased muni bods rates for other necessary projects, as borrowing capacity decreases; accompanying infrastructure improvements (sewage, traffic mods, etc.); loss of tax revenue from other economic factors negative impacted (esp. Port traffic) which will have to be generated from other sources, or taxes will be raised, or other projects/services cut.

Let's not forget that Key Area is publicly owned, and only turned a profit after it was paid off and the Sonics were out, freeing up time for other events. A new facility will lose money, and once the ball teams decides to leave town, will mean excess capacity for civic events, which means both venues (owned by the taxpayers) will lose money. Supply does not drive demand.

But the Wet Dream part seems like a winner, aside from reality that cannot be fathomed in between $9 12oz "pints".
Posted by it's conservatives that will kill this on February 22, 2012 at 11:18 AM · Report this
14
@11..You got it correct.

I could care a less what 11 year old boys want. I'd rather see the land in question used for industrial purposes.
Posted by jeffy on February 22, 2012 at 11:39 AM · Report this
15
It's different you guys. This time the deal comes in a shiny package!

If the freakishly large millionaires want this amazing new investment, then I'm sure the freakishly large millionaires could find the change to spare in their couches.
Posted by suddenlyorcas on February 22, 2012 at 11:41 AM · Report this
Fnarf 16
@12, as usual, you don't understand the question. Yes, Ottawa (the smallest NHL city) is smaller than Seattle. The question isn't "can Seattle support NHL?", it's "can Seattle support NHL on top of NFL, MLB, NBA, and MLS?" Hell, frigging Los Angeles doesn't have all of those.

@7, most Seattle hockey attendees are going to be people who do not currently attend any hockey games at all, but do come from other sports.
Posted by Fnarf http://www.facebook.com/fnarf on February 22, 2012 at 11:59 AM · Report this
Big Time Patriot 17
Seattle already has won a Stanley Cup, been there, done that, why subsidize an investment banker (who is probably paying for this with his middle class subsidized discount 15% tax rate) to indulge his hobby?
Posted by Big Time Patriot on February 22, 2012 at 12:05 PM · Report this
18
@7

Seattle is quite a bit larger than Denver (by 1.5 million people when looking at CMSA), and nearly a factor of 2 in GDP. Seattle can support both franchises, no question.

As for the rest, as always, The Stranger's comment section is strictly for bitching and for people who don't do anything therefore nobody else should be able to do anything.
Posted by KevN on February 22, 2012 at 12:27 PM · Report this
slade 19
don't matter as Seattle will ruin it and turn it into a vote of some sort at some point in time over some issue that will make everyone wonder what galaxy the freaks are from?

Goldy said it all in the first paragraph and really did not need to elaborate save for those who just don't live in and understand Seattle.

It's morally wrong to allow a sucker to keep his money.
W. C. Fields

If you look around the table and you can't tell who the sucker is, it's you.
Paul Scofield

The big clue was when the Name the New Team the Seattle Sonics went to our fat little Mayor "wimpy" as if it would not lead to lawyers and law suits for money and privileges?
Its like before the the first shovel is turned they are trying to cash in and at the same time target polittypiggys who are not so experienced with the legal wolfs?

Shame sham shame sham shame
Posted by slade http://www.youtube.com/user/guppygator on February 22, 2012 at 12:29 PM · Report this
MrBaker 20
The biotech companies wanting a B&O tax break from McGinn should be told no.
And the companies in SLU wanting a redundant power substation should be told no. 4Culture should be denied 25% of the King County hotel tax starting in 2021, and ...

Let's go ahead and go after McCaw for the $44 million dollars in public money "McCaw" Hall was given.
Posted by MrBaker http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ on February 22, 2012 at 12:42 PM · Report this
MrBaker 21
Btw, when the Sonics left town they paid off the debt on the bonds.
Posted by MrBaker http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ on February 22, 2012 at 12:44 PM · Report this
22
In this case, it's not a $200m subsidy: It's a $200m dollar loan via Tax-Increment Financing PLUS what amounts to a lien on operations. That's the best deal any city can enter, ever.

In this case, there doesn't need to be a net positive economic impact, so the studies noted by #1 et al aren't technically relevant - it'd be like asking if TIF funds used to create low-income housing or space for a new farmers market or any other type of civic spending have a net positive impact.

Put it this way: it's a better deal than the Olympic Sculpture Garden, the Pike Place Market, or anything else the city has ever built.
Posted by fetish on February 22, 2012 at 1:04 PM · Report this
Fnarf 23
@22, no, the "best deal any city can enter into ever" is BUILD IT YOURSELF.
Posted by Fnarf http://www.facebook.com/fnarf on February 22, 2012 at 1:32 PM · Report this
24
Panem et circenses -- is this supposed to be a pillar of 'civic pride'? Rootless teams of overpaid mercenaries, part of a closed cartel that combines the worst of socialism and capitalism. Fuck them! Let them pay their own way. Why extend trust and loyalty if they are not loyal, have never been loyal? Well, I guess everyone and everything is replaceable. Even the accessories of a wannabe world-class city. It goes the other way around too. They don't give a toss about what sticker they currently have on their jerseys.

When are those city government suckers gonna stop falling for the bling-bling rackets (convention centers -- Hello Mr. Cuomo, sports arenas, ...)? They're like prostitutes handing out piles of vouchers.
Finally, liberals should stand for COMPETENT government. That may from time to time go against mainstream conventional wisdom. Guess what? That prepackaged wisdom is dying right in front of us.
Posted by ForkyRoad on February 22, 2012 at 2:30 PM · Report this
25
I love how Sloggers suddenly insist on a return on investment when it involves sports and nothing else
Posted by Reader01 on February 22, 2012 at 2:55 PM · Report this
26
Really? Another major league stadium deal? How many times do we have to get raped before we stop going on dates with these people?
Posted by Orv on February 22, 2012 at 3:03 PM · Report this
MrBaker 27
@26, "rape"?
What the hell is wrong with you, and your false equivalency.

Having sports fans overpay for beer and parking is not in a definition of "rape" that I know of.
That's really waters down the word, and diminishes rape victims to that of somebody paying $9 for a god damn beer.
Posted by MrBaker http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ on February 22, 2012 at 3:27 PM · Report this
28
To all the bitching going on in this comments section. It's your same dismissive attitude that screwed Seattle out of a federally fully-funded heavy rail subway system back in 1970 and we are seriously paying for that now for a system 1/6th of the size and 1/10th of the capacity. All because of NIMBYism bullshit.

Here's what you do, when something is offered at ZERO risk to us taxpayers, protected by law, you take it, you ask questions, but you take it.

Fighting Bennett's arena was the right thing to do, but this is COMPLETELY different and a sweet deal even in the fine print. For Pete's sake, read the proposal and do some research before you just start bitching just because that's the group-think Seattle way, step out of your comfort zones, and check this out.
Posted by KevN on February 22, 2012 at 3:44 PM · Report this
29
I will never, ever understand the furious hatred that a huge segment of the Seattle population seems to have for anything related to sports. I understand that some people didn't like being taxed for Safeco and Qwest/Centurylink, but this isn't that. The money for the prospective new arena would come from private investors and a tax on ticket sales. If the arena never gets built, that money doesn't exist. It's not being taken away from anywhere. The arena would generate the money to pay for itself. Everyone saying "They can pay for it themselves", they ARE.

So it comes down to you not liking sports, and you therefore being vehemently against anything sports related occurring in Seattle. Grow up. There's plenty of things that go on in Seattle that don't interest me, I don't advocate that they be run out of town. Hell, I don't care about soccer at all and I'll never watch a Sounders game, but when they were going to come here I didn't throw up my hands and scream "Oh HELLLLLLLL NO THEY DON'T, NOT IN MY OCEANFRONT COMMUNITY!" Who cares? Just because you don't enjoy something doesn't mean you have to become righteously indignant whenever it's mentioned. If you don't like sports, this arena deal doesn't affect you in the slightest. The only people who would be taxed are people who attend games there.
Posted by NO, NOT SPORTS!!! on February 22, 2012 at 3:50 PM · Report this
slade 30
Its a piss poor private investment and that makes it a piss poor private investment and the wonder is "why" would Seattle (who has vacant sky scrapers,Vacant lots and a Vacant city council) entertain piss poor private investments? we could send the Mariners to Oklahoma and turn SafeCo field into the largest most technologically advanced Pot Farm on the face of the planet.

Slide the roof open and let the sun shine in!

anybody or any media outlet that is happy about more failure get started in the failing city is all about the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat.

Posted by slade http://www.youtube.com/user/guppygator on February 22, 2012 at 3:53 PM · Report this
Baconcat 31
Well, the two "likely" teams they were after are off the table, no expansion is likely for a few years and, well... yeah.

It was nice while it lasted.
Posted by Baconcat on February 22, 2012 at 4:00 PM · Report this
32
@Baconcat -

It changes hourly. Regardless, there are a number of NHL teams in the red, and maybe a few NBA teams, too.

The timeline of the arena panel made the Kings an unlikely target to begin with anyway.
Posted by Ryuzaki27 on February 22, 2012 at 4:23 PM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 33
@8

Muni bonds are a lower rate because we can't just walk away, unlike Hansen and his co-conspirators. In other words, we have much more to lose.

All we have to gain is taxes on beer consumed in a different part of town than it would have been consumed in without basketball. Zero net gain in taxes; the only difference is now we have to spend those revenues paying off our bonds. Oh, and extra police, crowd control, sanitation, parking, etc. etc.

"Here, I want to increase your tax base. The only catch is, I'm going to take back the tax money! Ha!" Fuck you is the correct answer to that bullshit.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn http://youtu.be/zu-akdyxpUc on February 22, 2012 at 6:51 PM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 34
@27

Yeah, using "rape" in an extended sense is not allowed.

1611 C. Tourneur Atheist's Trag. v. i. sig. L3, The lust of Death commits a Rape vpon me.
a1616 Shakespeare King John (1623) ii. i. 97 Thou hast‥done a rape Vpon the maiden vertue of the Crowne.
1642 T. Fuller Holy State i. v. 13 When they set Abel to till the ground, and send Cain to keep sheep‥they commit a rape on nature.
1677 R. Gilpin Dæmonol. Sacra i. xii. 94 If thou yield, will not God account it a rape upon thine integrity?
a1704 T. Brown Satire French King in Wks. (1707) I. i. 92 Old Jerom's Volumnes next I made a Rape on.
1733 J. Kelly Timon in Love iii. i. 48 The Mind endures a Rape.
1767 R. Bentley Philodamus iv. ii. 41 Now wine commits, As 'twere, a kind of rape upon his secrets.
1815 J. Hutton Fashionable Follies Pref., Sir, you have committed a rape upon my play.
1887 J. Rhoades Dux Redux iii. 107 What matters it, when sorrow Hath done a rape on time, and every hour Swells to the birth with some new load of anguish?
1929 D. H. Lawrence Pansies 56 You must know sex in order to save it, your deepest self, from the rape Of the itching mind and the mental self.
1950 Times 19 Jan. 6/1 The east German government has seized the opportunity to protest at ‘the rape of the Saarland.’
1975 Times Lit. Suppl. 10 Oct. 1217/5 It is his job to save Juli from the hangman and, in the final court scene, he does it by the public rape of the boy's secret personality and the destruction of his genius.
1992 R. Wright Stolen Continents i. 41 Employing the smooth words for which he [sc. Cortés] was famous...he persuaded the new men to join him in the rape of the Aztec Empire.

OED.

And the rape is the $200 million in bonds to build them a stadium. The price of beer there is called date rape, not rape. Similar, but not the same thing.
More...
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn http://youtu.be/zu-akdyxpUc on February 22, 2012 at 6:57 PM · Report this
35
Sorry...this article sounds too much like all of those "I was against all the other wars but I'm all for taking out Saddam and I don't care how many A-rabs we have to kill to do it" articles that Christopher Hitchens and Co. wrote between 2001 and 2003(well, "Hitch" himself never stopped writing them). It has the exact structure of all those pieces.

Different issue, but same "this time we can TRUST 'The Man'" bullshit.
Posted by AlaskanbutnotSeanParnell on February 22, 2012 at 7:11 PM · Report this
MrBaker 36
@33, "All we have to gain is taxes on beer consumed in a different part of town than it would have been consumed in without basketball. Zero net gain in taxes; the only difference is now we have to spend those revenues paying off our bonds. Oh, and extra police, crowd control, sanitation, parking, etc. etc."

Unless Bellevue became a different part of town then you might just be wrong.
41 nights a year people from Bellevue, and outside of King County, stopped coming to Seattld on a scheduled basis, all being to afford an NBA ticket.
Key Arena still hasn't been able to make up the dates. They are buying beer some place else, just not in Seattle.
Posted by MrBaker http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ on February 22, 2012 at 9:02 PM · Report this
MrBaker 37
@34, way to defend rape, because that word has always been used makes it ok, for you.
Posted by MrBaker http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ on February 22, 2012 at 9:07 PM · Report this
MrBaker 38
Btw, @34, the only way to participate in your rape is to go to the arena and drink beer. To avoid rape, just don't go to a concert at the new arena, or Key Arena since the same group is proposing to manage booking that facility, too.
Posted by MrBaker http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ on February 22, 2012 at 9:11 PM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 39
@38

You clearly do not understand what this deal is about. Somebody told you this was going to be financed with $200 million in "free money" and you believed them.

And clearly the English language hates you right back.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn http://youtu.be/zu-akdyxpUc on February 22, 2012 at 9:39 PM · Report this
Will in Seattle 40
Face it, we have the Mercer Mess fix, our 13th most important priority, funded First, and a Tunnel we don't need and still don't have the funds for, as our two biggest transportation priorities.

State, County, or City - they all sold out to the untaxed One Percenters and are forcing the poorest Seattleites to pay most of the bill.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on February 22, 2012 at 10:19 PM · Report this
Cato the Younger Younger 41
Let me get this straight, we have no money to pay for the tunnel that we are getting no matter what, we have roads that need major money to repair/replace, we have next to no public transit and what we have is falling apart but we are shooting our loads for another fucking stadium?

Yeah, nothing wrong with this picture.

And #3, the real writers who used to be at the Stranger were all fired or left, Erica, Josh, etc.
Posted by Cato the Younger Younger on February 23, 2012 at 6:14 AM · Report this
42
clearly any of you crying about this possible deal have no clue about it either... the arena would fund itself with all taxes and fees only being paid for by people attending events at the venue. it's not complicated. and for the "why doesn't wall street pay for it if it's such a good deal?" wall street doesn't make 30 year investments, they want to fuck you over for as much in as little time as possible, so clearly this id not the type of transaction they'd be interested in.

#41, 40 and anyone else who brings up anything else underfunded, obviously you know nothing about this possible deal and where the funding would come from, because part of the proposal explicitly states that no monies can be diverted from any other ends.
Posted by markification on February 23, 2012 at 8:24 AM · Report this
43
I already pay for Goldylock's bastard child to go to school. What else does he want?
Posted by Betaraybilly3 on February 23, 2012 at 8:36 AM · Report this
44
it funds itself!

this time it's different!

there's no risk to you!

btw, wall st. is also your local bank, or sports fans, or hedge funds and bain capital let them fucking make the god damn fucking investment if it's so shiny and sweet. Goldy has not got a clue about what bankruptcy is: it is turns on not having MONEY come in the door so our "taking the collateral" means we take a useless fucking albatross and btw the very word bond or finance means no, it's not secured by real estate. the asset securing the deal is BY DEFINITION worthless in bankruptcy as if it had WORTH some private CORPORATION would fuc king buy it, wouldn't they?

the broader corruptions of this deal are even worse then the money risk.

1. this kind of deal, like a VLF, turns progressivces into regressives, corrupting them for all other issues.

2. this kind of deal is a huge motherfucking distracgtion when we have potholes needing filling, bridges to rebuild, trains to install, bus lines to restore, teachers to rehire oh BY THE WAY didn't we just hear K-12 isn't properly legally funded and the city has NO FUCKING MONEY OR CREDIT LEFT FOR MORE MOTHERFUCKING IMPORTANT THINGS. Like: people. Like: poor people. Like: public goods that only government can provide.

The whole thing is corrupting from top to bottom including corrupting a so called progressive like Goldy. SOME things are only for government to do, we're not even doing those things so just leave the bread and circuses and massive public subsidies so fucking rich folks from bellevue and QA making $200K a year can drive down park their audi and pay $50 for tickets and watch stupid fucking sports millionaires play stupid ball games and pay $9 for beers -- what the fuck is that for? It's not helping the poor. It's the biggest fucking trickele down scam in history and Goldy ought to be ashamed of himself for this stupid opinion.

We can't even fund fucking gym class time for kids in fucking school, and we should throw $200M of public credit at a fucking sports team? wtf?
More...
Posted by "Nigerian" no-lose proposal! on February 23, 2012 at 8:41 AM · Report this
45
A few points of perspectives on the hockey side of things.

Comparing the size of Seattle to the size of say Ottawa, Winnipeg, or even Denver is a bit misleading. Hockey is insanely more popular and profitable in the smallest, worst Canadian market than it is in probably all but 5 or 6 much larger markets in the US. It's just not a fair comparison. The culture and support for hockey in Denver is greater than it probably every could be here, despite Seattle being slightly larger in size.

Someone mentioned the WHA--I'm assuming you meant the WHL, the league in which the Thunderbirds, Silvertips, Americans, and Chiefs play. Most people in Seattle don't realize (see above paragraph) that these are junior teams-they are ages 16-20, they're mostly Canadian, and they are being groomed as the future of the NHL. They receive a very modest stipend and free housing and education in their host city. Getting a ticket to a game is $16 or $22 bucks, and the arena is hardly ever full. This does not translate into a guarantee for NHL success.

The Greater Seattle Hockey League, which is the adult recreation league in the area, is the 5th largest hockey league in the whole country. The Seattle area has 10 ice rinks that are booked and busy every day and every night of the year-although, not one of them are in Seattle proper. In addition to the GSHL, there are a half dozen or so smaller, independent leagues that operate around and in between the GSHL use of ice times. Most of these small leagues are 4-8 teams, the GSHL probably has ~150-200(ish) teams. An adult hockey team is roughly 10-15 players per team. This market (family, friends, relatives, co-workers...many work for Boeing and Microsoft) is a huge starting point for NHL success in this city.

NHL tickets are expensive, way more than seeing Mariners or Sounders. Hockey, in general, has a huge overhead cost-it's just an expensive game and the arena/ice itself is high maintenance.

There would certainly be people from British Colombia buying season tickets to a Seattle team. Many Canadians can not afford to buy tickets in Canada, and even if they could, the games are all sold out in advance, hands down. They would come down here, no question. The only time people in southern Ontario can see the Maple Leafs, for example, is when the Buffalo Sabres host them, essentially down the road as we are to Vancouver. Any many people in Ontario just go to Sabres games, Leafs or not.

Seattle has never had an NHL team. The Metropolitans, who won the Stanley Cup, won it in a pre-NHL league...the PCHA...Pacific Coast Hockey Association(??). Amongst hockey folks here, BTW, calling the new team the Metropolitans is overwhelmingly in favor.

Do I think NHL hockey would catch on here and be successful? Yep. Is there a market here? Yep. Would I personally be able to go to a game all that often? Nope, but I do go see the Tbirds quite a bit.
More...
Posted by seahockey on February 23, 2012 at 11:48 AM · Report this
merry 46
It's clear from reading the comments that people are losing the point of this whole story.. Allow me to refresh your memories:

HOOPS'N'PUCKS
HOOPS'N'PUCKS
HOOPS'N'PUCKS


Yr welcome.
Posted by merry on February 23, 2012 at 2:34 PM · Report this
47
NBA can take a hike-theyre using us to keep the plebians in Sacramento in line by threatening to move here.
Posted by drinkup on February 23, 2012 at 3:08 PM · Report this
48
why not ? this is why not --->"Taxpayers spent $384 million in 1997 building Safeco Field after the Mariners threatened to move, followed by another $300 million for CenturyLink Field after the Seahawks threatened the same. In both deals, taxpayers picked up the bulk of the cost but almost none of the revenue from these purportedly publicly owned facilities.
Meanwhile, after the city and state refused to give in to the Sonics' demands for a half-billion-dollar publicly funded hoops palace in Renton, the team left for Oklahoma City.

And more than a decade after its implosion, we still owe $69 million on the Kingdome, while losing millions of dollars a year on KeyArena, thanks in part to a $75 million refurbishment in 1995 that was financed by 20-year bonds but secured by only a 15-year lease."
it has happened before and will again , and we will pay for it and get nothing in return . beside what team do they think they are gonna get ? no ones for sale , and really no one really gives a shit about the nba anymore except the people who hope to profit from it .
kudos to number 3 with one exception , fire all the writers and shut the fuck up about glee jesus tit's ! hey you guys made all this stink about getting married , well where are all the fucking lines of fags and dykes at the city hall to get a marriage license ? get married you fucker's , all of you . or is it you just wanted to bitch about it , and not do it opting to be the fuck sluts you are ?
Posted by whatsbeckgottadowithit on February 23, 2012 at 5:50 PM · Report this
49
Just like we needed to keep a state monopoly on alcohol sales?

I'm going to do everything I can possibly do as a citizen to make sure this doesn't happen, because fuck sports arenas, and fuck you.

Posted by sonder on February 23, 2012 at 6:19 PM · Report this
50
The Cato Institute is wrong about the profit from a pro sports arena. Even if we receive a shitty deal on the front end, the back end of a new stadium makes money hand over fist for the city. Every sports game in the new stadiums brings in tens of thousands of people from outside the city that would otherwise not be here. These people spend amazing amounts of money and is a massive stimulant to the local economy, both in terms of private profits and sales tax revenues. The economics of it is really quite simple: When you purchase a home, you don't just pay rent, but you also need to maintain the home and replace the roof every 20 or so years and such, and these types of numbers, applied in a reverse order, e.g., dollars and cents that would normally be spent outside the city of Seattle are spent inside our city, and this, is big motherfucking business. It doesn't take a PhD in Economics to figure it out, it just takes some research, little bit of number crunching and a lot of boredom.... aka, me.

Example: A recent trip from two out of towners to a Seahawks game spent the following:

$86 tickets
$104 food
$10 Seahawks gear
$150 shopping downtown after the game

Total $350

Out of this $350, the city gets approximately $10 from the attendees, but from the businesses selling goods and services? Significantly more.

This is only for two people, now multiply these figures by tens of thousands, and then multiply that number by the number of home games and lastly, add in the number of other events at the stadium that aren't sports related.

Dudes, we're making tons of money off the stadiums, don't be fooled, we've made profit hand over fist for our investment of hundreds of millions of dollars: The math works out, if you're as bored as I am (now that 24 isn't making new episodes), then sit down and do the math yourself, I did about 6 years ago, and I'll tell you, it's fucking phenomenal how much money we make off of our investment! It's a fucking stimulus like no other, perhaps as stimulating as an ounce of meth and 23 porn stars with an itchin for some twichin. (ewe, gross).
More...
Posted by scratchmaster joe on February 23, 2012 at 7:26 PM · Report this
51
who ever wrote this can fuck them self with black berry bushes and no lube.
Posted by bunny monster on February 23, 2012 at 10:54 PM · Report this
Last of the Time Lords 52
Let me sum this up: "The mayor I supported likes this so I like it too! DAMNED be the facts!!"
Posted by Last of the Time Lords on February 24, 2012 at 7:36 AM · Report this
devon rocketship 53
@50 Did you DO an ounce of meth before you made up all those random numbers?
Posted by devon rocketship http://swimtothemoon.livejournal.com on February 24, 2012 at 8:23 AM · Report this
54
But honestly, truly... this time it's different.

...quoth Rihanna.

But we all know that discretionary spending isn't really a zero sum game...

Except that it is.

Even last decade, when the plebs were encouraged to run up massive debt on things like consumer electronics, budgeted spending on entertainment spending was absolutely fixed. People do not tend to increase their debt burden for the sake of ephemeral entertainments.

Posted by d.p. on February 24, 2012 at 9:49 AM · Report this
55
No fucking way.

Fucking knuckle dragging imbeciles.
Posted by DMonaghan on February 24, 2012 at 10:52 AM · Report this
56
Losing the Sonics has slowly erroded inner-city BBall and attitudes towards sports in general. I fucking hate the way that you commenters look at this stuff so one-sided. Its not as simple as 'The Rich' want it. The HOOD NEEDS IT. Someone had to say it, I said it.

Do any of you understand what Jamel Crawford, Jason Terry, Isaiah Thomas, Nate Robinson, Brandon Roy and the rest of Seattle's NBA stars have done for the inner-city?? Do any of you 'liberals' even care? Who else is helping the CD and the south end (where Im from FQ '99)? NO ONE! Not you. Not the fucking cap hill assholes. Not the Government. THE NBA PLAYERS ARE.

WE NEED THE NBA FOR WHAT IT DOES FOR THE YOUTH.

Now go shove your thumb back up your ass, because you were born not to get it.
Posted by doeberman on February 24, 2012 at 11:52 AM · Report this
57
@53

I don't do drugs, never have. Are you confusing me with your dad?

The numbers are hard data from reliable sources.

It's all out there and actually very easy to find, all you need to do is a little research...
Posted by scratchmaster joe on February 24, 2012 at 1:19 PM · Report this
58
I am supportive under the condition that legislation is passed barring Howard Schultz from ever being involved with any aspect, whatsoever. I don't even want to see a cup of Starbucks coffee at this arena.
Posted by clint on February 24, 2012 at 1:20 PM · Report this
merry 59
@56 - Thank You! You are absolutely 100% correct!

@58 - Excellent point. To walk into a new NBA (and NHL) arena in Seattle and see muthafuckin STARBUXX for sale would be, to put it mildy, revolting.
Posted by merry on February 24, 2012 at 2:22 PM · Report this
60
ha! I knew the stranger would get behind a new basketball arena! kind of like I knew they would go O over hill.
Posted by yellowdevil on February 24, 2012 at 4:01 PM · Report this
61
Enough catering to brainless, loud mouthed ignoramus Neanderthals and their stupid, idiotic, knuckle dragging, mouth breathing cravings for chasing, kicking, pushing, drooling, tobacco chewing, drug popping, "hero" acting bull shit...and to their financiers (greedy bastards) who have only one thing in mind: ripping people off. To have been taken for a ride one time would have been too much; twice, puts every tax payer in Seattle in a special nincompoop bracket. Now, three times will have no name in the annals of imbecility and might as well call out "you have me over the barrel, my pants are down!!! Do me!!!
Posted by coropuna on February 24, 2012 at 4:29 PM · Report this
62
@61 Does that go for the dyke-tastic Storm?
Posted by Lesbians playing with balls... A real treat on February 24, 2012 at 5:00 PM · Report this
63
@57,

Well, it's also easy to find numerous scholarly research papers that have reached the exact opposite conclusion of the one you reached on the back of that napkin.
Posted by Mr. X on February 24, 2012 at 6:03 PM · Report this
64
An idea for the Stranger's editors -- have Goldy interview/debate Dave Zirin (http://www.edgeofsports.com/index.html) about stadiums deals in general, and what we know of the Seattle proposal.
Posted by MissEli on February 24, 2012 at 10:37 PM · Report this
65
"$300 million for CenturyLink Field after the Seahawks threatened the same. In both deals, taxpayers picked up the bulk of the cost but almost none of the revenue from these purportedly publicly owned facilities."

Of the $300 million you mention, Paul Allen put up $150 million and bought the team . King county brought $75 million in Kingdome debt and bonded another $75 which has since been paid back. Not exactly "taxpayers picked up the bulk of the cost" but hey why let facts like that or that the public voted and approved this deal enter into your spin.
Posted by Rollinfree on February 25, 2012 at 1:06 AM · Report this
66
@65,

You're wrong - the $300 million public contribution cited by the poster you questioned was indeed made by the taxpaying public as their share of this deal.

The funds you cite were Allen's contribution to this public/private "partnership."

Oh, and the actual public still owes money on the Kingdome.
Posted by Mr. X on February 25, 2012 at 2:25 AM · Report this
67
The government has to keep the people happy. Otherwise they may become upset and ask that government provide real services with its limited resources. They may even consider such things as revolt.

What better way to keep people content than to constantly provide them with "bread and circuses." But, the reality is that all the government sponsored hockey, soccer, basketball, baseball and football will not solve the crisis we are in.

And, where did you get the notion that Washington's liberals were against the Seattle baseball and football stadiums? The people opposed to the stadia were those who thought government should not become partners with private enterprise (its a corporatism issue).
Posted by SteveEugster on February 25, 2012 at 10:32 AM · Report this
68
The government has to keep the people happy. Otherwise they may become upset and ask that government provide real services with its limited resources. They may even consider such things as revolt.

What better way to keep people content than to constantly provide them with "bread and circuses." But, the reality is that all the government sponsored hockey, soccer, basketball, baseball and football will not solve the crisis we are in.

And, where did you get the notion that Washington's liberals were against the Seattle baseball and football stadiums? The people opposed to the stadia were those who thought government should not become partners with private enterprise (its a corporatism issue).
Posted by SteveEugster on February 25, 2012 at 10:35 AM · Report this
Texas10R 69
"Even if you have no interest, the addition of NBA and NHL franchises would arguably improve the collective quality of life in our region... particularly for our 11-year-old boys."

Well Goldy, I wonder if you felt your toes touch the top of that shark fin as you typed this article; and if you waved to the soon-to-be-stunned readers of the Stranger.
Posted by Texas10R on February 25, 2012 at 3:17 PM · Report this
70
The day the Sonic's left was a great day for Seattle. If your life is identified by your allegiance to overpaid millionaires playing a sport who could give a rats ass about you in real life then that speaks volumes about you as a person.
Taxpayer money for privately owned sports franchises and overpriced tickets/concessions.

Socialize the loss, privatize the profit.
And the guy/gal spouting off about how much the ghetto needs NBA millionaires to help the youth, if that is all that is holding your society together, you should swallow a shotgun shell because you are fucked.
Posted by heavyhebrew on February 25, 2012 at 3:45 PM · Report this
71
if a large and prestigious multi-million dollar business in say, the biotech field was looking to set up shop in the city and wanted the city to help invest in the project with a deal similar to the one that is being proposed here, no one would say a word. a new arena would bring in jobs, tax dollars, great for local retail and hospitality industry, etc. sounds good to me.
Posted by cb on February 26, 2012 at 2:37 AM · Report this
72
Having been through the usual lies the sports owners have propagated for taking your money I can add a few points.

1. A new stadium boosts the worth of a franchise. The taxpayers who are essentially investing money into this aren't getting any of that!
2. A public stadium is desired as the various taxes, notably property taxes a sports team pays is greatly reduced.
3. You're building a stadium to (hopefully) attract a team? That's worked out well elsewhere. (Ask Kansas City!)
4. Just because it's a better deal than others have gotten in the past is no reason to say it's a good deal.
5. The teams are proposing a partnership where the taxpayers get all the obligations but none of the benefits.
6. I haven't quite seen where the owners have trotted out the projections of economic benefit yet but their numbers will be grossly inflated. They will also not take into account a number of things such as the income spent on the teams by patrons that would have been spent elsewhere and for a better economic return. Don't forget the income to the NBA and salaries paid to players will likely go out of the area too.
7. When the Dallas Cowboys wanted a new stadium they weren't encouraged by the mayor of Irving, Texas to stay as the amount of subsidies they desired did not balance the benefits. The Irving mayor was quoted as saying they were less than 1% of the Irving economy. After 30 years, the area around the stadium had no appreciable business growth. Dallas has the same problems with the NBA/NHL arena, it was always a bad deal and continues to be.
8. It's a private monopoly, dammit. Let them pay their own way. This really doesn't benefit anyone who doesn't care about sports. This is a large chunk of money to lay out for a minority of people.
More...
Posted by Cujo on February 26, 2012 at 6:44 AM · Report this
73
Folks, see this site for more information of how sports owners manipulate your tax money.
http://www.fieldofschemes.com/
Posted by Cujo on February 26, 2012 at 6:49 AM · Report this
Spicy McHaggis 74
#73 have you ever bothered to read the site you link to? Here's Neil deMause's article on the proposed Sodo arena.

http://www.fieldofschemes.com/news/archi…

From the article: "If Hansen can actually make the numbers pencil out, this could provide a model of how to build a sports facility without tapping the public purse — much, anyway. But there are still many chickens to hatch before they can be counted."
Posted by Spicy McHaggis on February 26, 2012 at 12:17 PM · Report this
75 Comment Pulled (Spam) Comment Policy
slade 76
Seems like sports teams would be in every city if any of this pro playing around was even close to being true? but no its not and that's why teams are shutting down and moving as the rest of the nation is as well?

again after NBA strikes and NFL strikes we realize there is a cash flow problem and America can not entertain rich drunk slobs like Microsoft who will over develop over research over market over advertise and then totally crash and burn the entire dynasty as it cant maneuver around a 4 dollar made in Guatemala plug-in.

The only place for a new stadium is in the UW as it provides for more than just some rich freaks who are looking to sell beer t-shirts ball caps and $10 hot dogs that are 50% corn?

Integrating Pro sports and education is no stretch for my imagination but then again I am not a Republican and demand more than lies and bull shit.
Posted by slade http://www.youtube.com/user/guppygator on February 27, 2012 at 8:13 AM · Report this
77
I put my hand on the stove top burner a couple times in my life. Both times I was told it wouldn't burn me. The question is, am I stupid to do it again.
Posted by Sportsvideo on February 27, 2012 at 10:38 AM · Report this
78
@27: Sorry if my language offended you. I probably should have picked a different word.

My point isn't about overpriced beer, it's that we'll get stuck with the leftover debt after the team leaves. The bankruptcy protections in the contract mean basically nothing; all they have to do is pull all the assets out of whatever shell corporation they set up, then let it go under when they break the contract. There won't be anything left to seize and we'll be stuck paying off the bonds with our tax money. Again.
Posted by Orv on February 27, 2012 at 1:13 PM · Report this
79
This town. I swear. More and more I'm starting to side with Fran Leibowitz.

#1 is completely right. There is no possible math in the known universe that supports another professional sports franchise is a city this size with the tax base and demographics we have.

Why is Seattle falling for this horse shit again?
Posted by tkc on February 27, 2012 at 4:25 PM · Report this
80
To #74: I saw the word "if" in your quote of Neil DeMause. But you've taken one seemingly "good" deal out of many bad ones.

Given how the sports teams have yanked around Seattle, remember that Olympia and CG finally said enough was enough to the Sonics, I seriously doubt all the nifty promises will ever come to fruition. Don't forget they don't have tenants yet. So to get them *after* investing all that money will require some steep concessions. These agreements are always amended later, and never in the favor of the taxpayers.

Believe me, nobody is going to let a chance to let the public pay go by. All the promises and numbers are pure BS until they get it to the point where nobody backs out.

I find it hard to trust anyone with their one hand in my pocket and the other with the palm up. There will be more people along just like that. There always are.
Posted by Cujo on February 27, 2012 at 6:55 PM · Report this
81
@80 didn't you notice the giant sucker town sign when you drove to seattle the last time ?
Posted by whatsbeckgottadowithit on February 28, 2012 at 3:07 PM · Report this
82
@81 Not after Prop 91 got passed back in 2006. Say what you want about the Christine and the legislature but they smacked down the greedy owners.

If they want money to fund a private enterprise then send them to a bank or let the fans buy their PSLs to pay for them. Don't take it out of the pockets of people who don't care about the teams.

I can watch teams from all over the country on TV, I don't need to have a local team, they aren't adding anything to my bank account. As soon as more people figure that out and stay away, the more likely the inflated ticket prices come down.
Posted by Cujo on February 28, 2012 at 7:44 PM · Report this
83
Pay for new schools and more teachers and you have yourself a deal!
Posted by reality fan on February 28, 2012 at 8:16 PM · Report this
Kitts 84
I'm not a fan of sports, but I am a big fan of Sherman Alexie, so I kind of hope this works out.
Posted by Kitts on February 29, 2012 at 6:15 PM · Report this

Add a comment

Most Commented in Features