So we ARE gonna have to pay a bit more in taxes for this thing, on top of extra traffic policing and all that crap? Fuck you guys, fuck this arena, fuck professional sports.

I'd pay $2 or $3 more a year in taxes on my house if they used the money to give loans to Seattle entrepreneurs who wanted to start small businesses in the city. But not some bored rich fucker who wants to become a team owner so he can call Mitt Romney his friend.

San Francisco told these pricks to finance their playground privately. And guess what? They did! We need to grow a pair and stand up to these bullies who try to make us feel inadequate if we don't pony up and pay to sit at the cool table.

Since we're trying to nuance, the story you link to suggests "mayor's own budget office volunteered" isn't how the public managed to learn of this. More like "an official of the City Budget Office, by no means the personal fiefdom of the mayor, disclosed under Council questioning that".

I like the elegant pivot toward the end, too, the "who knows?" that shrugs off other unintended consequences as too darn nuanced to even be worth guessing at.

We get to pay a tiny bit more in taxes and Hanson stands to make around $50 million-cash- on the land transaction alone. woo hoo.

So we get to pay $2-3 more in taxes, and city funds will be diverted to pay for traffic mitigation and other shit. Don't play coy and pretend that the city won't be on the hook for associated costs. Who gets the shaft when that happens? The homeless or the taxpayers?

Just wondering, do the people that are strongly against any kind of taxes for stadiums feel the same way about the taxes we paid for the opera house and the symphony?

In other words, are people feeling anti-tax, or anti-professional sports, or both?

What I want to know is how long after this thing is built do they deem it too small, not enough sky boxes, and inadequate? Then come the demands for the city to build a new & improved version or else they'll take their toys and leave.
8, 10, 12 years max.

@7

Pro sports is a billion dollar industry and can take care itself.

Classical art, like endangered species, poor children, and people with disabilities, are worthy of public support and preservation. The reason government exists is to do things individuals or the free market can't do on their own. Pro basketball is not one of those things.

"This property tax shift could have been discerned from the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) by any property-tax-savvy reader who bothered to try."

Remember that statement if this gets approved.
If we end up owing $80 million on a worthless arena (like we did with the Kingdome) when it is finally demolished THEN IT IS OUR OWN FAULT FOR NOT BOTHERING TO READ THE PAPERWORK.

How about this, Goldy?
How about we REJECT that because if it was such a great deal then they people pushing it would be able to get PRIVATE financing for it.

"But there will be zero hit on public coffers, and it is important to note that this extra revenue would not be possible without the arena so it couldn't be used to pay for other city services."

If you approve this then money to pay for it will magically appear!

But if you don't approve then then the money won't be available for other projects. Why did you think it would be? Do you think money magically appears?

"As I explained in Part I of this two-part series, the whole tax issue is a lot more complicated and nuanced than the initial media reports have made it out be."

And the problem with "nuanced" and "taxes" is that it just takes a few minor changes IN THE PROJECTIONS to turn a financial disaster into a financial powerhouse.

Instead of X people spending $Y at the arena Z times a year ... what if it was X+1%? And X+1% spent $Y+1%? And instead of Z times a year it was Z+1?
Suddenly we're all rich!

And when on 1/2*X people show up and they spend 1/2*$Y and they only do so Z-5 times ... well the projections were a little off and I'm sure that the tax payers will be okay will funding the shortfall in order to keep their team. Right?

Wow. Some smart people came up with this plan. Also let's be real. The money in this deal for Hanson isn't in the arena. It's in the ancillary development near the arena that the arena makes possible. Without that, the deal doesn't make sense for him. But this incentive is also what makes the deal good for the city. It insures that someone will work hard to do that development, because they need that synergy to make the deal work for them. This improves the odss that the value of the land on which the arena sits will also increase.

If you hate pro sports, that's cool. But if you don't, I suspect this is the best deal we'll ever get in our lifetimes for an arena in Seattle. Otherwise, the arena is in Bellevue or Renton, which just strikes me as a shame, having grown up with the Richfield Coliseum, which was equally inconvenient to both Cleveland and Akron. It's so much better for northeast Ohio that the basketball arena is back in downtown Cleveland, where it's easily accessible by transit.

This has been the trend in most other cities too the last 20 years. Bring it back downtown. Why we'd opt to let our arena run to the suburbs is beyond me.

Transit proximity is a huge virtue of this plan. No other option would be as centrally situated, and as Goldy pointed out in his first part of this series, the arena would generate additional taxes for Metro.

That's why McGinn and Dow are for it. They know this is the best deal we'll get. I'm sure McGinn loves the transit friendly aspect.

It's really pretty amazing to see how deep Hanson and his people looked at the finance on this. They obviously looked at every constraint and figured out a way to address each one. This is at such a higher level of creativity and intelligence than the arena shit proposed by Howard Schultz.

I also like that it kind of gives the finger to Tim Eyman.

I'll always regret voting "no" on the Seattle Commons. Many of the same sorts of arguments were made about the loss of industrial space, etc.. But my friends who said, "it's going to change no matter what happens with this vote" were spot on. So now we get SLU development, loss of industrial warehouse space, but no park.

SODO is going to change too. It's already changed a lot in the last 10 years. The day Starbucks moved into the Sears building, that was pretty much a foregone conclusion. There will continue to be more and more people down there. It's the only central city neighborhood left that can be developed. The port is probably right to be concerned. That writing has been on the wall for a long time.

Paradoxically, the tunnel the port fought so hard for will hasten that too, by allowing for waterfront development further south.

But I firmly believe that this sort of development can co-exist with the port. They just want that Lander Street over pass thing and maybe another one. Expensive? Yes. But we're going to need to do that, not because of the arena, but because these improvements are a pre-condition of allowing the port to co-exist with the non-industrial development that is pretty much inevitable in SODO over the next 20 years.

Check out what's happening in Georgetown. It's really hitting stride. Mark my words, the Square Knot Diner is the final tipping point in that neighborhood. The amount of small business growth and cultural activity down there the last 5 years or so has been huge.

Little by little, that will creep north into SODO and SODO will creep south in Georgetown. It will still have an industrial feel, but it won't be as purely industrial as it is now.

There's very little meat on the bone north of Jefferson Street for artists and other creative people who need affordable places to live and do their thing. Once those people start making it nice, other folks in need of more affordable place invariably follow.

All of the best options for affordable space are south in SODO, Georgetown, South Park, White Center, Delridge, Beacon Hill, Columbia City, and Hillman City. Perhaps Christopher Hanson gets this, because he grew up in the south end.

We've got to invest in the future. Our city is going to keep growing. Why don't we try to look at where the puck will be in 2023 instead of where it is now.

@1 for the Obvious Conclusion win.

I am going to rape you. But I am not going to rape you as bad as someone else would rape you. So you should be thankful.

The money in this deal for Hanson isn't in the arena. It's in the ancillary development near the arena that the arena makes possible. Without that, the deal doesn't make sense for him

And what would that be? I missed the part where Hansen bought up all the land in SODO. He does, however, stand to make millions off the sale of the land for the arena *alone*. How about he show good faith by selling the land to the city for what he originally paid for it?

Hansen's land deal alone is a good reason to view this scheme cynically. How is it that he's making millions by selling land to the city? Is it because merely slating that property for an arena and getting the government to pay for it is enough to double or quadruple the property's value?

We are being played.

@15
I think you seriously overestimate this. This is in no way equatable to rape.

He promises to wine and dine you (and a VERY nice theater show). It's just that you have to put out first.

And we're practically almost 90% sure that he WILL deliver on the dinner and show after you've taken a cab to the motel room that you've rented for this evening. All projections for him taking you to dinner look favorable.

And there's almost no chance of him skipping out of the restaurant and leaving you with the bill for that as well.

@19 you forgot after all that he has a rusted chainsaw for a dick and he isn't going to use lube when he shoves it in our collective asses.

it is an unsolicited penetrative act which will satify Hanson's fantasies* and leave me with nothing other than a slghtly larger tax burden.
Sounds like rape to me!

*not to mention turn a handsom profit up front

@9 - in other words, the Nick Licata memorial "no cultural value" point of view. So what you're really saying is that classical music and ballet -- i.e. things that white and largely rich people like and play -- are okay to spend public $ on. But basketball, football, and baseball -- i.e. things that black and largely not rich people like and play -- are not okay to spend public $ on. Got it.

I am an Nigerian prince. Please send me $500 millions dollars and I will building your city a new sports stadium for basketballs and also hockey perhaps.

@22: Oh yes, please do tell us about the all the rich stage actors, opera singers, and ballerinas.

The fact of the matter is that the average NBA player salary for 2011 was $5.15 million, versus an average (2008) wage of $21.24 per hour for orchestra musicians - and that only during the music season.

I'd like to further point out that your assumption poor people and minorities don't enjoy the fine arts is wrong.

@24 - where did I say poor people and minorities don't enjoy the fine arts? I'm in favor of spending tax $ on things like Benaroya and McCaw Hall. I'm also in favor -- and voted for -- spending tax $ on the stadiums for the Seahawks and Mariners. And this proposed arena is a better deal for taxpayers than any of the four above.

The point is that people like to say that we should spend tax money on "the fine arts," but not on sports. Everybody likes to pretend that there isn't some class or racial element to this, but come on. When Licata talks about basketball having "no cultural value" he's full of shit. There's lots of minority kids who are probably out playing halfcourt right now. It has cultural value to them. It teaches them hard work and how to play as a team. It lets them interact with coaches that may be the only father figure they've ever had in their lives. It may -- not always, maybe hardly ever, but may -- give them motivation to keep their grades up to do something that they really love.

So really what Licata is saying when he made that statement is that basketball is largely played by black kids from the inner city, so therefore its value is nil. I think that's offensive, because different things are valuable to different people, and we should try to be a little more accepting of each other because we might just learn something.

Some people like ballet. Some people like the symphony. That's great. They both have value. But lots more people like basketball, baseball, football, and hockey. And if you go around smugly telling the vastly larger group that likes the latter sports that they get no $ while instead the vastly smaller group that likes the former arts gets tax $, you're setting yourself up to get fucked in the long run, because you won't have the votes. So good luck with that.

Bax is right on! Subtle racism on display...a lot of wealthy musicians play benaroya.....not to mention all the 'film industry' tax subsidies...subsidizing rich actors and directors....

more people will attend pro games than go to symphonies....so pro sprorts should get more support

It's going to be worth more because of all the money they're spending on traffic studies, and permits, & etc.

And he's going to be spending a lot more than that on the arena, so anyone thinking he's going to be "making a ton of money off the land sale" is confused about what's going on.