If Richard Conlon kills this deal he deserves to be ran out of the city. Does he care more about

A) screwing over McGinn
or
B) driving money, tourists, and revenue to the city

Just remember we still owe around 60 million bucks on the Kingdome. Yes, the one we blew up.

Stadiums don't pay for themselves and it is a myth that they do. The NY Times did a huge article on this a couple years ago and looked at a dozen stadiums that were losing tons of money for their cities (I believe the Kingdome was included), but I can't Google up the link with 60 seconds of effort.

Auburn Hills is totally a super busy place outside of game days... right.

Why can't we fix up one of the stadiums we *already have* instead of adding a whole new one?

We need to end Seattle Provicialism and start thinking like a region...or even...a state!

We already have resources....the Tacoma Dome...which is completely idol.

We have spent tens of billions of dollars on transit which should allow us to situate facilities in any part of our region. Tacoma Dome has its own Amtrak-Sounder-Bus station, and it has scads of parking.

Plus, as anyone who has ridden on the Sounder from Kent to a Seahawks game...the sports audience is mostly from outside, not in, Seattle.

If you want to bring people to the city, more power to you. But fuck this "suburbs=sprawl" nonsense. There are 600k people in Seattle, but 3m in the Puget Sound. You couldn't put them all in the city if you wanted to. Which you don't.

Meanwhile, many suburbs belong to the Cascade Agenda, and are taking on Regional Growth Center designation with a shit ton of associated development and density.

Put another way, the Issaquah Highlands and Talus are more dense than West Seattle or Magnolia, and our restaurants aren't any more corporate than yours. Stop this divisive ad hominem nonsense regarding the Eastside, because you are wrong and look childish.

Why not place this arena in Bellevue or Tacoma? They could use a pro sports team franchise.

There's also the argument that we have more arenas per person already and adding more is just going to reduce revenue to the others.

Econ FAIL. People from the suburbs come into the suburbs for other things besides games, too. The net economic gain of a sports arena is extremely small -- laughably so when you consider the size of the investment.

You know what else brings people and money into the city? Jobs. Industry. Trade. Why not invest in those?

No, we should chuck them away to provide a handful of sub-minimum-wage jobs sweeping and selling hot dogs to rich people from the suburbs.

@5 "completely idol" - This accurately represents the amount of brain power your arguments have.

Good, build it in Bellevue. Like I give a shit. I hope they find space along the lightrail...

@2 - NY Times article... but the real reason for the long paydown on the kingdome is because they're really working hard to retire the bonds.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/08/sports…

http://www.leg.wa.gov/JointCommittees/LF…
2% Hotel/Motel Tax - Until 2013, 70% of the funds go to art and heritage programs,
and 30% goes to the Kingdome.
1% Car Rental Tax - Currently, 75% of the proceeds are directed to Kingdome bonds
and 25% to youth sports activities and facilities.

There's a reason Hansen wants this built in SoDo: Suburban arenas are a remnant of 1970s/80s white flight and urban decay. Financially, they don't work. This arena will either be built in the city of Seattle, or not at all.

Always nice to see a troll post acknowledging none of the subtleties raised in the ka-fucking-jillion posts on this shit already. Perfect for a lovely morning like this.

#6

It also raises the question...why are few of the media outlets have any regional focus.

It is like we have these 2.4 million people, most of whom moved here from California to Somalia who have zero voice in decision making.

And then you have this small core of mostly white folk who rattle on night and day about J.P. Patches and Space Needles as if some 24 year old living in Redmond and doing JQuery actually gave a darn.

To me the centrist core is over bearing, and increasingly inane and irrelevant.

If this is such a great venture why doen't Mr Hansen and his buddies put up ALL the cash for it?

@14 where are the subtleties in the fact that stadiums are a waste of money and a parking/traffic nightmare?

I mean, any idiot who played Sim City can tell you putting 2 big stadiums next to each other is a traffic disaster.

@8) The facts about Seattle's benefit still stand.

@13) The Sonics wanted to move to the suburbs.

@14) That's rich coming from you.

@16) They need the city's bonding.

@17, you misunderstand my meaning, not for the first time nor the last.

"But if Seattle passes on this deal, you better believe that developers will move forward with their plans build a facility in Renton or Bellevue, where they're chomping at the bit to build this thing."

Then let them!
Why do you think that this matters at all?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mEvovWoq…

You say build it or it will flee to the suburbs.

Like that's a bad thing.

Why?

They're building light rail too.

I say build it there and let THEM pay for it.

Oh, and cancel the monstrosity known as the Billionaires Tunnel.

A report last month to the King County Council found the arena would create about 1,800 jobs statewide during the two years of construction, including 600 direct construction jobs. Many of those would be in Seattle.

What does that mean? That all the workers represented by these jobs will be Seattle residents? How would you even know that? I bet construction workers from all over Puget Sound will show up trying to get in on a project like this. Someone in Auburn isn't going to just wait til a big construction project comes to town.

@18 use Bellevue's bonding.

Seattle's is overspent - we can't even afford the SR-99 tunnel bonding along with the SR-520 western approach bonding, and you know it.

I'm just going to leave this here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity…

If you build it, they will come.

Um, any idiot would know the events will not be played at the same time. get a clue.

@18, moreover, you are a poopyhead.

I find most opposed to this haven't bothered to read the plan or understand the plan. They don't get it won't cost them anything unless they attend an event at the stadium, it won't take money from the general fund, it won't take money from schools, roads or libraries and the money from tourism the arena would create will actually increase revenues for schools, roads and libraries. If you are for those things then you should support this. It is not like past stadium deals so to lump them together is naive and ignorant.

@29: which we can't do with any of the stadiums that already exist, why, exactly?

This logic works great! I agree we should do everything we can to bring nascar into the city of seattle.

Its the most popular sport in the country after all.

@13: Hansen wants to build in SODO because he bought up lotsa property there that he's hoping we the people buy back from him at considerable profit.

My spider sense tells me there's something not right about the deal. I keep expecting Sasha Baron Cohen to break character and reveal that that his new film is about a zillionaire hedge fund manager who wants to build a stadium.

Looks like a busy month down at the Tacoma Dome:

http://www.tacomadome.org/events.aspx

Yep, not like we already have a regional sports stadium, designed for nearly the same number of basketball fans (18,000) just sitting idle and yet centrally located with transit and parking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacoma_Dome

@31: Do some research. You can't play basketball in Safeco or Centurylink. Key Arena would not work for NHL. Neither will the Tacoma Dome.

And how exactly has Lower Queen Anne managed to scrape by since the Sonics left town?

@33, again misinformed. It won't be at a considerable profit. Read the freakin MOU.

#33

The problem for zillionaires is that there is no more easy money on Wall Street. So in order to prop up all their leverage, they have to create mega projects to justify valuations in real estate. It is a sad desperate move, done for none of the high minded civic motives they espouse. And of course the usual con arts and politicos are there for their sliver of cake from the public trough.

@27 for Best Title For Dominic Ever win.

Besides, if we hold out, we can bring back cart races downtown, and the hammer toss.

Dom@18: Wrong. Clay Bennett had no intention to move to Renton. He proposed a Renton arena knowing full-well that it was unrealistic and would never happen. This allowed him to say, "Look, I tried to keep the Sonics in the area, but you didn't want them."

It pisses me off when the national media perpetuates this falsehood. It's even worse when local journalists do so.

#35

Bullshit

(Tacoma Dome) also hosted the Tacoma Rockets Western Hockey League team from 1991 to 1995, the Tacoma Sabercats of the West Coast Hockey League from 1997 to 2002,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacoma_Dome

Ya lets make them play in Tacoma! Great idea. 1. Tacoma Dome would need huge upgrades, 2. Seattle Supersonics should play in Seattle, not Tacoma, 3. Tacoma would reap the increased tax revenue from tourism, not Seattle, 4. Seattle is centrally located in the Puget Sound, attendance would be difficult for anyone North of Seattle, 5. Who in the hell wants to hang out in Tacoma?

#40

You are so wrong...there were serious proposals for Renton with one agent even offering land for free if they built it there.

@41 so it worked for minor league hockey, then it should work for NHL! That's like saying the Mariners should be able to play at Cheney Stadium.

New chant for Jan Brady:

Seattle, Seattle, Seattle

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yZHveWFv…

#44

Difference:

Tacdome has the same seating capacity as the proposed new stadium.

@38 you're right its a big conspiracy. It wouldn't be easier for Hansen to remain anonymous, stay out of Seattle's ridiculous political process, and invest his money elsewhere where he'd see far better returns than this venture. Good theory. I'm sure he woke up one day and said to himself, you know let's screw over the city of Seattle.

@34: The Tacoma Dome is a dump. It would have to be totally rebuilt. It's far from the population center of the region. Nobody would spend time or money in Tacoma; they'd get back in their cars and drive home again.

Worst idea ever.

@46 Have you watched an event at the Tacoma Dome?

God these freaking idiots on here that spew nonsense without following this entire process or reading the MOU they are crying about.

Having lived in Pioneer Square I was able to see firsthand how Stadiums adversely impact most businesses. Only those directly serving the stadiums such as sports bars see any increase in business on game days. Regular restaurants and any other business has to deal with the traffic rerouting and congestion making it hard for anyone else to reach their business. Then there is all the garbage and bodily wastes left everywhere. I have witnessed more game fans than homeless people relieving themselves in alleys. For businesses and residents of Pioneer Square game days were dreaded more than enjoyed.

@18 - Did you read any of the analysis other than the summary?

Some points to consider:

1) Of the 'outside' King County money, the majority of it was attributed to concerts/arts, not sports activities. Since those activities already exist in the city, this revenue would not be associated with the construction of a new arena.

2) A clear majority of that $13 million tax revenue you cite is the result of activities taking place 'inside' the facility. As the agreement sits, you would be agreeing to redirect that money towards paying down the bonding. That is an odd definition of 'revenue' in my opinion.

3) The largest chunk of the sports related revenue goes directly into the pockets of player payroll. The bulk of that money tends to leave the community rather than be re-circulated - which makes it a relatively poor investment for the City.

4) Yet again, the claim is made that there will be millions of new visits to the area is made on one hand, while the other hand is making statements that this will not affect the Port operations.

Download and read the Key Arena Subcommittee report to better understand the issues underlying the economic analysis. The reason why Clay-Clay (and to a certain extent the HS partnership) wanted out of Seattle Center is that a) Key Arena exists within the conext of the Seattle Center operations which affects meeting space/conference center revenues and b) parking revenues are/were very difficult for the team to capture. You can also pull the documents that the City posted regarding the negotiations with the HS team for some insight on what was offered.

The Tacoma Dome is completely incapable for use as a major league facility. This picture says it all:
http://img594.imageshack.us/img594/7861/…

Can you imagine a respectable NHL franchise playing in a setup like that? Renovation would be waaaaay more costly to the public than Hansen's proposal which costs NOTHING to the general tax fund! (read @29's post or the M.O.U. if you are confused or don't understand this). Also, if the NBA left town because KeyArena (with its suites) was inadequate, how the hell could they consider the Tacoma Dome as a permanent venue?

I'm sick and tired of the "why a new arena if we already have existing ones" argument. The reason we don't have professional indoor sports here is because the arenas in their current state are inadequate. Renovation of any existing arena to meet major league standards would be more costly to the general public. A plan like Chris Hansen's comes along very rarely. If this doesn't get passed, I'll definitely lose hope for Seattle politics.

Are there even enough fans around here to support a basketball team? If we build it, will they come?

Also, is there any regional benefit to spreading out the sports teams? One could imagine that building a destination in Renton would bost economic activity for the Everett-Tacoma metropolitan area more than putting another stadium in Seattle. Is that true?

I guess I'm convinced that the stadium isn't a bad deal for Seattle (presuming that interference with the port isn't a problem). And if there really are people who go nuts for basketball (not me), then why not build a stadium? Just don't mess with shipping.

@55
"Can you imagine a respectable NHL franchise playing in a setup like that?"

Why not?

"Renovation would be waaaaay more costly to the public than Hansen's proposal which costs NOTHING to the general tax fund!"

So certain people keep claiming.
But if this is true, why haven't private investors jumped on the chance to fund it?

"Also, if the NBA left town because KeyArena (with its suites) was inadequate, how the hell could they consider the Tacoma Dome as a permanent venue?"

More like, if the NBA left town before because the stadium was not good enough for them, what happens 5 or 10 years down the road when they want a new stadium AGAIN?

If this deal is so good then private investors would be all over it.

The reason Seattle politics is the way it is because the morons like the ones here keep electing the same do nothing politicians.

@49

Right that's why the sonics played one of their best seasons ever in the Tacoma Dome!

@49: This is completely irrelevant, but the interior timber frame of the dome is actually quite gorgeous if you get a good look at it.

Funny thing, though. I've been to the Tacoma Dome precisely once. I had free tickets from The Stranger, I found free parking, I didn't arrive early enough to go the mile into downtown for food, and after the show I got the hell out of there. I actually felt a bit guilty about my complete lack of contribution to the Tacoma economy.

The economic participation of about 99% of people traveling to a SoDo event will follow roughly the same narrative as mine (save the free ticket and parking, which at least would have contributed to public coffers in Tacoma, versus Hansen alone in SoDo).

@54 Flawed logic. Major concerts pass over Seattle for other cities because of the lack of an adequate major concert venue.

@62 thanks for the accusation, but what is this based on?

@61 and where is your 99% figure coming from?

@63: hahahahahahahaha example?

And how exactly has Lower Queen Anne managed to scrape by since the Sonics left town?

Point being "nearly all".

Nearly all will come to the event, watch the event, and leave. Little-to-no external economic benefit.

You know, just like every economic analysis ever describes (including this one, when read correctly).

But don't forget to enlighten us about the times U2 and Radiohead and Justin Bieber skipped Seattle because of a lack of adequate concert venues.

@60 Right! and that's why they quickly went back to Seattle!

@68 its your own opinion, nothing more. I come to games from Thurston County and always spend money in Seattle outside of the stadium. So I guess I'm one of your 1%.

If you don't want to pay for the arena, its quite simple, don't attend an event there. Not sure what is so complicated for you. You guys can attend your green festivals and hemp festivals and ignore us idiot rubes that like something like sports that you don't. But hey, you're the open minded ones.

looking forward to the Issaquah Sonics or the Mercer Island Mosquitoes.

@43: Free land in Renton...AWESOME! So why wasn't an arena built there? Because suburban arenas DO NOT WORK!

@70: Yes. If traveling to a sporting event causes you to spend discretionary entertainment dollars that would not otherwise have been spent on discretionary entertainment, then you are in an extreme minority. Congratulations!

But for the last time:
Public bonding capacity ≠ paid for only by attendees
Tax waivers and redirects ≠ paid for only by attendees
Associated infrastructural investments ≠ paid for only by attendees

The "only arena users will pay for the arena" talking point is bullshit through and through.

I've always supported a new arena, as long as the billionaire pays for it and for a trolley line (or other form of mass transit) to the stadium.

#61

I've been to Tacoma Dome several times...Aerosmith, Bizkit Eminem Anger Management Tour, Motocross, AC/DC.

What I like about it is that it has the low, comfortable Dome Style seating, compared to the nose bleeder SafeCo, CenturyLink style. Yet every where I sat I had a great view and very much felt the audience participation in the show.

And also...Lynyrd Skynyrd is coming to town 27 Sep...and they chose Showare Center in Kent!!

Prime example why Seattle needs a better concert venue.

@74 It causes me to spend entertainment dollars in Seattle that I may spend elsewhere, which is why it is a good deal for Seattle.

@63 -

You were earlier commenting about people not reading the MOU, I would gently suggest you read the Key Arena Subcommittee report since it contains a direct analysis of the opportunities and costs of capturing events requiring venues larger than the Key before passing judgement on anyone's logic. The opportunities for shows that are in that 16k-20k slot that a new arena could support are very small, and very likely to be nixed due to date availablity.

The analysis done for the Key was that less than 1% of west coast bookings would be in the 16k-20k capacity range, and that date availability was a much larger concern due to the Sonics' schedule. Additionally, Key was not utilized for a number of shows that it could have booked because it was too big; accordingly, a proposal was developed to create a 'Key theater' within the facility to allow it to more effectively host shows in the 5k-10k range.

Obviously, stacking a full season of NHL dates on top of the Sonics dates would limit the ablity of a new arena to capture a portion of that market.

@78: I'm sorry. I stopped paying attention when you said that a washed-up rock band playing a 6,000-person venue in the deep suburbs was a prime example of something relating to the economic potential of an expensive new venue.

Oh, yeah, and also: http://www.pnwlocalnews.com/news/1480018…

2) A clear majority of that $13 million tax revenue you cite is the result of activities taking place 'inside' the facility. As the agreement sits, you would be agreeing to redirect that money towards paying down the bonding. That is an odd definition of 'revenue' in my opinion.

Quoted for truth and emphasis.

You know for a fact, Dominic, that the majority of that $13 million will pay for the arena ITSELF. It is not new money for the city. And the plan as it stands now does not include the bill for related infrastructure improvements, which means the rest of that $13 million is already spoken for.

@16) They need the city's bonding.

No. If that were the case, they'd ask us for a loan, not for the city to pay for the arena itself and not for the city to give $100 million to $175 million to Hansen personally for the land he bought for $25 million.

You are a credulous hack.

we need more stadium rock here in Seattle, doods!

I can't wait to see the "hard dollar numbers" that show how Kent is thriving in the ShoWare Center's reflected glow. My breath is bated.

"come on, it's a great benefit for Seattle." "i've read the MOU." "we have the guarantees." "this will make us a world class city ." "hey NIMBY, what are you afraid of?" yup.

Every good con man offers their mark the illusion that they understand and are ahead of the con.

1) Chris Hansen, who is investing his money is not interested in the Tacoma Dome. He's not interested in Key Arena.
2) The SODO site is ZONE for stadiums.
3) The Port closes it's doors and gates at 4:30 p.m. Games for the MBA start at 7 p.m. Concerts at night would start around 7 p.m. or later. There will be no traffic issues.
4) Read www.sonicsarena.com
5) It's I-91 compliant 100%
6) Chris WANTS a private / public partnership. He'd be giving the building to the city. He's trying to help us for goodness sake.

Some argue that this $200 million in bonding could be better spent on roads or schools.

The $200 million participation by the City and County will be fully repaid by tax revenues which would not exist but for the Arena. So it is inaccurate to compare investment in the Arena with conventional public spending. After accounting for incremental/ancillary taxes the Arena will generate, the City and County’s tax revenue should increase well beyond the investor guaranteed debt service on the bonds. All things being equal, we believe this should result in the City’s borrowing capacity increasing in time -- which again would not be the case with most conventional public spending.

What protections are in place to safeguard the public until the bonds are repaid?

Several layers of protection exist for the City and County throughout the term of the bonds. The Investor Group is responsible for any shortfalls in Arena tax revenue, and is obligated to protect the City and County General Funds from any exposure to Arena-related debt obligations. To supplement this guarantee, the Investor Group will fund a reserve account equal to one year’s worth of City/County debt service payments, and will increase the reserve amount any time the Arena does not generate at least double the revenue necessary to pay one year’s debt service. Furthermore, the Investor Group’s equity investment in the Arena and NBA franchise will serve as collateral against the City’s contribution.

What about substitution of tax dollars -- are these really new taxes?

While there is unquestionably a “substitution” of entertainment dollars in the region that will be spent at Arena events, there is minimal redirection of tax proceeds as the property tax is on the incremental value of the property created, the B&O tax is on businesses that would not exist (NBA/NHL), and the admissions tax does not apply to most other forms of entertainment and the City of Seattle does not collect admissions taxes on Seahawks, Mariners, or Sounders games tickets. Furthermore, the Arena will generate incremental “new” taxes for the City and County from patrons who attend Arena events from outside the City and County borders.

Why did you choose this location over KeyArena or another location?

The SoDo location was selected because of its proximity to downtown and to other sports facilities. The existing infrastructure (including parking) around the SoDo location which currently serves the neighboring sports facilities makes for a more cost-efficient development. In addition, the proximity to downtown Seattle and the public transit accessibility make the SoDo location superior for patrons seeking a convenient and cost-effective way to attend events.

What will happen to KeyArena once the new Arena is done?

The new Arena tenant(s) will play two or three seasons in KeyArena during construction of the new Arena. We have agreed to modernize several elements of KeyArena at our own cost, leaving behind a better facility than currently exists. After the temporary tenancy, the Investor Group has agreed to help the City of Seattle find a long-term usage for KeyArena that provides the utmost benefit to the community.

How do you address the concerns over traffic and freight mobility?

The independent traffic study performed in Spring 2012 concluded that the addition of the Arena to the SoDo sports complex will have a minimal and manageable effect on the event-night traffic in the area. While Arena events will generally have similar weekday evening, and weekend start times, as Mariners games, the majority of the Arena events will occur on non-overlapping days of the year.

Additionally, an Arena sellout will draw far fewer fans than even a 50% Safeco sellout. On those rare occasions when Safeco and Arena events occur at similar times, the total traffic counts are still likely to be less than those of a large CenturyLink Field event, which is currently handled ten or more times per year. Arena events will not overlap large (45,000-plus-fan) events at CenturyLink, which currently drive the densest traffic days in SoDo.

Is there enough parking for the Arena?

The Seattle Mariners have reported that in recent years the number of cars driven to a game for each 1,000 fans is approximately 280. If the vehicle counts at the Arena are similar (as anticipated, because the events are at similar times in the same area), then needed parking for a sellout event would be approximately 5,000 spaces. This represents less than one-third of the existing parking spaces within a 15 minute walk of the Arena site.

What are your plans for ancillary development around the Arena?

The Arena Investor Group has invested in some real estate surrounding the chosen Arena site. While no detailed plans exist for this land, the intent of the investors is to cause development of a modest but energetic mix of retail, dining, and entertainment establishments centered around the blocks north of the Arena site. The Investor Group has proposed that a pedestrian mall be opened along what is currently Occidental between Atlantic and Massachusetts. This would provide a safe and lively corridor for visitors to all the SoDo facilities.

Why will this Arena draw more concerts and events?

Seattle’s history as an influential market for music has ensured that many touring artists continue to visit despite the lack of a modern Arena facility. However, there are cost inefficiencies that must be absorbed by those artists and promoters due to the lack of modern technologies at KeyArena. In addition, KeyArena lacks adequate truck loading access, which makes the load in and load out for large concerts very difficult, time consuming, and expensive. These costs drive some promoters to other cities instead of stopping in Seattle or instead of playing multiple dates in Seattle. The new Arena will be built with the most current technology, which make it far more attractive to artists and promoters.

Can Seattle support five major sports franchises?

As the 15th largest Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) and 12th largest US TV market, the Puget Sound region is the largest market in the United States that has only two of the traditional four major leagues (NFL, MLB, NBA and NHL) represented. Considering the region’s incredibly strong corporate base, and the fact that Seattle is also amongst the fastest growing and most affluent major markets in the US, we believe the region can easily support additional franchises.

Some argue that this $200 million in bonding could be better spent on roads or schools.

The $200 million participation by the City and County will be fully repaid by tax revenues which would not exist but for the Arena. So it is inaccurate to compare investment in the Arena with conventional public spending. After accounting for incremental/ancillary taxes the Arena will generate, the City and County’s tax revenue should increase well beyond the investor guaranteed debt service on the bonds. All things being equal, we believe this should result in the City’s borrowing capacity increasing in time -- which again would not be the case with most conventional public spending.

What protections are in place to safeguard the public until the bonds are repaid?

Several layers of protection exist for the City and County throughout the term of the bonds. The Investor Group is responsible for any shortfalls in Arena tax revenue, and is obligated to protect the City and County General Funds from any exposure to Arena-related debt obligations. To supplement this guarantee, the Investor Group will fund a reserve account equal to one year’s worth of City/County debt service payments, and will increase the reserve amount any time the Arena does not generate at least double the revenue necessary to pay one year’s debt service. Furthermore, the Investor Group’s equity investment in the Arena and NBA franchise will serve as collateral against the City’s contribution.

What about substitution of tax dollars -- are these really new taxes?

While there is unquestionably a “substitution” of entertainment dollars in the region that will be spent at Arena events, there is minimal redirection of tax proceeds as the property tax is on the incremental value of the property created, the B&O tax is on businesses that would not exist (NBA/NHL), and the admissions tax does not apply to most other forms of entertainment and the City of Seattle does not collect admissions taxes on Seahawks, Mariners, or Sounders games tickets. Furthermore, the Arena will generate incremental “new” taxes for the City and County from patrons who attend Arena events from outside the City and County borders.

Why did you choose this location over KeyArena or another location?

The SoDo location was selected because of its proximity to downtown and to other sports facilities. The existing infrastructure (including parking) around the SoDo location which currently serves the neighboring sports facilities makes for a more cost-efficient development. In addition, the proximity to downtown Seattle and the public transit accessibility make the SoDo location superior for patrons seeking a convenient and cost-effective way to attend events.

What will happen to KeyArena once the new Arena is done?

The new Arena tenant(s) will play two or three seasons in KeyArena during construction of the new Arena. We have agreed to modernize several elements of KeyArena at our own cost, leaving behind a better facility than currently exists. After the temporary tenancy, the Investor Group has agreed to help the City of Seattle find a long-term usage for KeyArena that provides the utmost benefit to the community.

How do you address the concerns over traffic and freight mobility?

The independent traffic study performed in Spring 2012 concluded that the addition of the Arena to the SoDo sports complex will have a minimal and manageable effect on the event-night traffic in the area. While Arena events will generally have similar weekday evening, and weekend start times, as Mariners games, the majority of the Arena events will occur on non-overlapping days of the year.

Additionally, an Arena sellout will draw far fewer fans than even a 50% Safeco sellout. On those rare occasions when Safeco and Arena events occur at similar times, the total traffic counts are still likely to be less than those of a large CenturyLink Field event, which is currently handled ten or more times per year. Arena events will not overlap large (45,000-plus-fan) events at CenturyLink, which currently drive the densest traffic days in SoDo.

Is there enough parking for the Arena?

The Seattle Mariners have reported that in recent years the number of cars driven to a game for each 1,000 fans is approximately 280. If the vehicle counts at the Arena are similar (as anticipated, because the events are at similar times in the same area), then needed parking for a sellout event would be approximately 5,000 spaces. This represents less than one-third of the existing parking spaces within a 15 minute walk of the Arena site.

What are your plans for ancillary development around the Arena?

The Arena Investor Group has invested in some real estate surrounding the chosen Arena site. While no detailed plans exist for this land, the intent of the investors is to cause development of a modest but energetic mix of retail, dining, and entertainment establishments centered around the blocks north of the Arena site. The Investor Group has proposed that a pedestrian mall be opened along what is currently Occidental between Atlantic and Massachusetts. This would provide a safe and lively corridor for visitors to all the SoDo facilities.

Why will this Arena draw more concerts and events?

Seattle’s history as an influential market for music has ensured that many touring artists continue to visit despite the lack of a modern Arena facility. However, there are cost inefficiencies that must be absorbed by those artists and promoters due to the lack of modern technologies at KeyArena. In addition, KeyArena lacks adequate truck loading access, which makes the load in and load out for large concerts very difficult, time consuming, and expensive. These costs drive some promoters to other cities instead of stopping in Seattle or instead of playing multiple dates in Seattle. The new Arena will be built with the most current technology, which make it far more attractive to artists and promoters.

Can Seattle support five major sports franchises?

As the 15th largest Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) and 12th largest US TV market, the Puget Sound region is the largest market in the United States that has only two of the traditional four major leagues (NFL, MLB, NBA and NHL) represented. Considering the region’s incredibly strong corporate base, and the fact that Seattle is also amongst the fastest growing and most affluent major markets in the US, we believe the region can easily support additional franchises.

@83 He paid $25 mil for the land? Where did you pull that number from? That's not even half of what he's paid for land. And the city amount is capped at $100 mil for the land so not sure where you get the $175 mil. Again, bad info, read the deal, quit spewing nonsense and lies.

Why is Public Financing Needed for the SoDo Arena?
Jun 29

Over the course of the last week, the question has been raised as to why public financing is needed for the Arena project. As discussed below, we believe there are three key reasons:

It improves the economics of the project to an acceptable level
It reduces the upfront equity commitment required
It is fair given the public benefits the Arena will provide

Public support improves the economics of the project: The first reason why a public contribution is necessary to the Arena project is that it meaningfully improves the economics of the project. In our proposal, we have not asked the City or County for any existing funds or tax revenue streams. Rather, we have simply asked the City and County to reinvest the direct tax revenues that the Arena generates into the project.

As almost everyone is surely aware, building and operating a sports Arena is not and has never been a high return-on-investment endeavor. This is the reason most modern arenas have had some level of municipal/public investment.

While we are confident that we can consistently operate the NBA franchise together with the Arena at a sufficient level of profitability to protect the public investment in the project (and have created numerous safeguards in the MOU to insulate the public’s exposure to risk), the City and County Councils must appreciate that there is a significant difference between operating profitably and earning an adequate return on our investment. While we will again state that investment returns are not the primary motivation of our group, we do believe it is fair to ask that the project meet a minimum return threshold.

In this regard, while it is true that there is a financial benefit to us from using the City’s and County’s bonding capacity—as these public entities currently have a lower cost of borrowing than would be afforded us by the private sector—the primary benefit to us is that the City and County are contributing back the direct tax revenues from the project, as opposed to the interest rate differential between the public and private financing rate.

Given the significant financial risks the investor group is shouldering and the amount of equity financing required for the team and Arena (well over $300 million), the investor group believes that the public contribution requested is required to make the project financially viable — with “viable” being the key word here. Even after taking into account the public support we are asking for, we do not believe the expected return on this project would be comparable to the expected return on a typical private sector investment opportunity with a similar risk profile. The public sector contribution merely raises the return profile to a “minimum threshold” under which we — as long time supporters of Seattle sports — are willing to move forward with the project.

It reduces the upfront equity commitment required: The second reason public financing is necessary for the project is that it reduces the amount of equity required to be put into the project up front. By agreeing to lend back to the Arena its future tax revenues, the City and County have agreed to commit up to $100 million to the project the day an NBA franchise is secured and another $100 million upon completion and the commencement of Arena operations ($25 million without an NHL franchise).

Again, the total cost of the Arena and NBA franchise is projected to be in excess of $800 million, and if we add an NHL franchise, the total investment is expected to be in excess of $1 billion. Thus, even though the private sector contribution will still be in excess of $600 million ($800 million with hockey), the $200 million public contribution meaningfully reduces the significant capital required to fund the Arena construction.

We would also just like to clarify one other point. Contrary to recent speculation from some journalists that our group plans to use debt to finance the entire private contribution, the NBA investor group is planning to invest $300-400 million in “cash equity” into the project (Arena and NBA Franchise), and additional equity will be contributed if an NHL franchise is acquired. The private debt financing contemplated for the project is less than $300 million ($150 million for the Arena, $125 million for the NBA franchise).

It is fair: The last, and perhaps most important reason we have requested a public sector contribution to the Arena project is simply because we believe it is a fair and reasonable request of the City and County.

Our investor group has offered to invest over $600 million in private funds into the project. In doing so, the Seattle City and King County Councils must appreciate that each investor in our group will be making a significant cash investment into the project at the expense of alternative, higher return investment opportunities. Again, I don’t think anyone would question that there are many higher return investment opportunities available than an Arena or NBA franchise.

As detailed in the MOU, the public sector contribution is limited to the direct taxes attributable to the Arena, with the City of Seattle and King County keeping their respective share of all of the ancillary tax revenues generated from Arena patrons outside of the Arena. As we highlighted in detail in our recent open letter to the community, the ancillary tax revenues that the City and County will keep include:

The sales tax from out of City/County Arena patrons on out of Arena merchandise
Hotel taxes from traveling Arena patrons
Increased property taxes on ancillary real estate
Parking taxes on street parking and non-affiliated Arena lots
The multiplier effect on the income from the new jobs and spending

In this regard, we would just highlight that public/private partnerships are increasingly common in the U.S. In an attempt to promote economic development and job creation, local governments around the country have realized the positive results that can be achieved by providing reasonable tax and financing incentives to those private businesses that produce tangible and intangible benefits for their communities.

The incremental tax revenue and new jobs that the Arena can generate for the City of Seattle, King County and the State are clear. But there are public benefits beyond those and beyond providing an opportunity to heal the wounds of 2008 and bring back our beloved Sonics. The Arena will host a wide array of concerts, family shows and other community events; it will bring visitors to our wonderful downtown core; and it will give our youth exposure to two wonderful sports that promote hard work and team cooperation.

Given the amount of private capital required to finance this project and the economic and public benefits the Arena project will afford the City and County, we think it is more than fair to ask for the public sector to contribute back into the project a portion of the taxes that will be generated by this community asset - none of which would exist if it were not built.

Rip. Off. It will be good when this goes down in flames. McGinn will follow. Brinksmanship is not a good play in Seattle realpolitik.

How much money will it earn if the teams suck?

People nearby our tailgate, drive all the way from Spokane to watch the Seahawks play. You have some driving from Portland. And its a sure bet you'll have Portland people driving up to see the Trailblazers take on the Sonics. People from Vancouver BC will drive down to see their Canuks play whatever NHL we bring to the city. We had 20,000 Nebraska Corn Husker fans travel to see them (kick our asses) at Husky Stadium last year. Sports Tourism, its a legitimate thing.

People who were against the Seahawks stadium vote, are using the exact same arguments now as they did back then and they were proven wrong because even though the Seahawks suck, but they still sell out games.

The Target downtown will bring in more jobs and revenue than the stadium will, and will be used by more people more often, and requires less investment from the city and region, and increases business at the Port instead of being a giant headache.

Time and again econ studies have shown that the economic activity of a stadium is more-or-less taken from other entertainment alternatives in the city for those nights.

Also note, the OKC Thunder played about 38 home games, including the playoffs. That's a HUGE investment for about a month total of sports use of the park. Triple that in the hopes of an NHL franchise and a concert most weekends and and you still have a giant structure that will sit dormant for 3/4ths of the year.

The answer to "should the city pay anything for a professional sports stadium?" should always be "Oh hell no!"

@90
"It improves the economics of the project to an acceptable level"

Kind of contradicts the "this is such a great deal" rhetoric, doesn't it?
If it isn't such a great deal and private investors won't invest in it then why should the government invest in it?

"It reduces the upfront equity commitment required"

Yeah, see the above point.
You've just stated the same issue twice.

"It is fair given the public benefits the Arena will provide"

This is about financing.
Why go off on a tangent about "fair"?
Different people have different ideas about "fair".
Try to stay focused, okay?

@89,

Last I heard, he spent $25 million; apparently that number has risen to $35 million, but, even by his own estimates, he'll spend $40 million. We pay him $175 million if he secures an NHL team.

Hansen stands to make millions off the land deal alone. He isn't doing this out of altruism. He didn't become a multimillionaire hedge fund manager by being stupid.

@96 WRONG. The total amount for land is capped at $100 million. That is fact, and it's up to $100 million based on appraised value. I get it you hate rich people. But please, get the deal correct before you start spewing your hatred.

@97
"I get it you hate rich people."

Can you stick to the posted facts and questions?

Additionally, wouldn't the hoped-for concerts basically be redirected from the comparably-sized Key Arena? And wouldn't ticket prices be higher to pay for the fancier new digs?

Also Bailo: Lynyrd Skynyrd played in Kent because hardly anyone in Seattle gives a shit about them.

@ 93, football doesn't exactly compare to the other major sports because a) there are far fewer home games to get to see, and b) because we have an entire culture built around going to football games that barely (it at all) exists for the others (e.g. tailgating).

Even if you take away the hellish border crossing, no one is going to come down from Vancouver to see the Canucks. Not when they're going to be in the same division and play each other 6 times. Interconference NCAA football doesn't compare, especially when the example you give is for a team with a long, storied tradition, something the Canucks still cannot claim. (For any Canucks fans reading this, I say the same thing about the Avs, even with our two Stanley Cup championships.)

People won't come to see the games if the teams suck, and recent history has shown that brand new stadiums and arenas no longer lead to much-improved (or immediately-competitive, if they're expansion) teams. The economies and player agreements have changed too much since the 90s, when every new stadium and arena was home to an instant contender. Look at the Miami Marlins for the latest example. (Ironic - they won two World Series at their crappy old home.)

There might be enough basketball fans in Seattle who won't worry so much about that, but you're not going to sell out any hockey games unless the team that moves in is the Detroit Red Wings.

No, many large concerts (non Lynyrd Skynyrd) skip over Seattle on their tours because Key Arena is inadequate in many respects, especially when it comes to load in and load out. So the concerts that require 6 trucks to be unloaded at once usually go to Portland and Vancouver instead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staples_Cen…

Staples Center .... was financed privately at a cost of $375 million.

ATT park...

I could find others. If the deal was gold, private investors would build it.

Why not the Tacoma Dome??

BECAUSE THE TACOMA DOME SUCKS DICK.

"Who needs a nice, comfortable bed to sleep in when I have a perfectly good pile of human shit right here?"

@101
So the concert has to draw A number of people
Of whom B will be from outside the immediate area
And also have C number of trucks that require simultaneous loading/unloading.

Which will result in $D of money spent.
Of which $E will be spent at the event.
Leaving $F being spent in the concert area but not inside the stadium.
Of which $G will be spent beyond the normal spending.
Of which $H will be the taxable portion of $G

So B times $H calculated for each of those concerts and added together equals why do you think anyone is going to believe your claims of future revenues when you have to go through so many numbers that are subject to factors beyond the control of the stadium and the surrounding area.