Great write-up, Goldy.

I don't really buy into their fears that building an arena in this area will somehow attract other businesses, as that hasn't been the case with the previous two sports venues, despite similar predictions. And this is going to be even further south, right?

DOT's estimates put the cost of this overpass at $36 million. (Looks like it has bike/pedestiran lanes as well - nice, since east/west is getting more and more difficult in that area for bikes/peds). Such a tiny cost relative to a $3 billion industry. Weird that the port hasn't moved on this, indeed.

It will also hurt Seattle's existing nightlife, movie theaters, and other amusements. It's a myth that sports brings in new money; in fact, sports fans spend less in other parts of the city and more in the new stadium.

And since the city gets to keep the taxes from the other entertainment venues, it would be a net loss, since this kooky basketball deal has all the taxes earmarked to pay off the loan that private money wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole. Because it's too risky for private money. Hint.

Um, yeah, so remember how the port was confronted with a few hundred additional trips diverted by the tunnel but they were all "OMG LET'S BUILD THE TUNNEL"?

Yeeeeaaaahhhhhh, so as cool as I am on the arena this Port of Seattle argument is utter bullshit from the Captains of the Bullshit Industry.

So who's going to pay for the traffic improvements? Suppose we use a bond to pay for the costs upfront and then rely on taxes and other fees imposed on this new arena? Suppose we ask that this new arena benefit the city and bring in tax revenue rather than the other way around?

I believe the phrase they're looking for is - "What's in it for me?"

FInding it hard to give a fuck about the stadium. It's a loser. "Bank study debunks claim of public benefits from new sports arenas". Just the latest, not the last. This and the weak polling suggest we're not going to have to keep abreast of this much longer.
http://crosscut.com/2012/06/04/sports/10…

The thing is, what the port and port defenders are saying isn't "freeze the area in time"; it's "spend as much time and money planning for the future of this land use as you do for all this other stuff". The tunnel is just another example: we get a hard-on for some jazzy new thing, and we don't even give the impact on the port a second thought.

If you took the $200 mil that the arena would cost, and spent it instead on a major port access project, you might be able to create something that really helps the economic future of the entire region -- starting with good-paying union jobs. The arena doesn't create anything, really -- construction jobs while it's going up, a few sub-minimum-wage jobs after. All the economic benefit goes to the rich and the super-rich.

It's just another example of this city's twin fascinations with (a) shiny "world-class" signifiers and (b) I forgot what you were saying, we're on to something new now. Short attention spans, that's what it is. Even if a new arena is in fact the greatest damn idea anybody ever had, if this particular funding plan falls through, no one will spend an instant on fixing it or coming up with a new one -- the idea will be gone. That's not really planning at all.

The biggest needs at the port, that would make all this traffic worry moot, are grade separation and rail access. What kind of rail connection to the terminals could you buy for $200 mil? Or $400 mil? That's the kind of question the city should be asking -- not "how can I get my name on a plaque -- ooh, is that glitter?"

@7: "If you took the $200 mil that the arena would cost, and spent it instead on a major port access project"

Haven't Goldy and everyone else repeated themselves enough by this point that the $200M is bonds on the arena that can't be spent on other things because it doesn't exist if the arena doesn't?

Great write up Goldy, you lay it out nicely. I'm not up on the issue to have an informed opinion, but that doesn't stop me from having an uniformed opinion. Personally I suspect we will have a new stadium deal one way or the other in the next 10 years. The next one isn't likely to be nearly as good a deal for the taxpayers. Let's grab this deal while we have a chance, the next one will likely involve the taxpayer bending over, as usual.

The Municipal League on Wednesday released a six-page analysis of the Seattle basketball arena proposal, saying the deal is "not risk-free and may not be self-financing as claimed by proponents."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/lo…

"Estimating Seattle arena's total public outlay: $22m-53m, depending how you count"

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

And Richard Conlin chimes in on a $15m property tax bill:

http://conlin.seattle.gov/2012/06/06/how…

Not. Free.

Considering the Port of Seattle is competing with every other port out there, they'd be fronting the money for better access. But the Port hasn't had a stellar track record of wise spending.

The plan to cause more congestion and hardship for 99% of citizens is so stupid and hypocritical and self serving that I'm surprised that it doesn't accelerate the depopulation as people realize they have no power here and everything is done by force and fiat power for a very few.

Meanwhile, Thunder kicked the Spurs...proving that you can take the team out of Seattle, and also you can take the Seattle out of the team!!

The port needs to be constantly improving to keep ahead of vancouver, portland, and long beach. And even then it will be a Sissyphian task. Containerized shipping is a bitch (read _The Box_). Fuck a stadium, the city does not need to finance some millionaires childhood dreams and .09% of Seattle residents who like a sport where bare knuckle fighting is a regular part of the game.

Good writing Goldy. But when you say this,
"the financial guarantees in Chris Hansen's arena proposal, "
I can't help but remember the baseball stadium. We were assured the public wouldn't have to pay for "cost over-runs" . But of course we did - they just re-named it "unforeseen capital expenditures" clever, huh? What's to say this won't happen again?
And I agree with those above, a viable, competitive port is FarMoreImportant than an arena.

I work on Harbor Island and drive or bike through the area daily. My observation is that the bottleneck for trucking isn't traffic in the surrounding neighborhoods, but the entrances to the terminals themselves. You commonly see dozens of trucks lined up to go through the scanners, sometimes completely grid locking the surrounding roads.

Anyway, it doesn't seem like the Port actually gives a crap about how easy/hard it is for trucks to get in and out, because the drivers are paid by the load so they are the only ones paying for traffic delays. I think the Stranger did a story on this recently.

Also, isn't the new Spokane St Viaduct project supposed to route trucks from Harbor Island and E. Marginal to 5 and 90 when it's done? That's how I would go if I was driving a truck.

How does relocating the arena to Seattle Center or Bellevue help the Port with its existing issues or future plans?

It doesn't, Goldy. You said it your self.

The solutions for the Port will not come as a result of killing the arena in that location.

The Port gets a lot of tax money, what are they doing with it besides solving their own traffic problems?

@Baker You know where to get that info. You are a smart man after all. Don't be dumb.

One thing that keeps getting left out of all these discussion is that we are already currently spending $394.8 million to mitigate east-west traffic flow problems for Terminal 46 and make the Port happy.

It's called the Holgate & Atlantic Street Overcrossing and the whole point was to do exactly all the things they now claim they need a shiny new Lander overpass for!

I call BULLSHIT here. Deep. smelly. bullshit.

Hell with the economy. I want to watch a bunch of guys throw a ball through a hoop.

This whole conversation is another example of why the region's ports should be merged. Lately Tacoma has been stealing business from Seattle, and with good reason - it has direct rail access, which much of Seattle lacks. Merge the ports, shift most of the container traffic to Tacoma, and problem solved. Tacoma's port area doesn't have any of the conflicts Seattle's does, as it's totally industrial with no potential residential development.

But mainly I think it's hilarious that the port of Seattle is complaining about a lack of infrastructure in sodo after all the years of mismanagement there. There's a reason these overpasses haven't been built - the port has done a piss poor job over the years of actually running the port.

Here's a solution: Start the Northbound I-5/Eastbound I-90 distributor/collector further south, so that it starts with traffic coming from West Seattle, Spokane Street, and Columbian Way, instead of having that traffic enter the freeway. This will allow for an expansion so the traffic coming from those three sources don't all have to merge into a single lane (causing big backups for all of them). It will also speed traffic on I-5 by reducing lane changes just before the northbound traffic enters downtown.

Then trucks headed from the Port could go south to Spokane Street and use that as their East/West corridor.

I kind of like how the Port's leeriness over an arena can be easily solved by your suggestions. Merge with Tacoma! Take over from the elected commissioners! Fuck earthquake proofing, that's just kissing the Port's ass!

@26, all this stuff has been debated for years, particularly the concept of merging the ports of Seattle and Tacoma. The tideflats in Tacoma are a perfect place for this sort of activity, as it's basically a huge industrial wasteland. It's very different than Seattle. And if you haven't read about how the port of Seattle has taken all sorts of heat over the years for basically being incompetent, then you haven't been paying attention.

The point is that a lot of the things that the Port of Seattle is complaining about now in this arena debate are problems that they could have easily solved on their own if they had acted with foresight and good management practices. Lander Street a problem? Okay, so why haven't they done anything about it? Where exactly are my property taxes going if not to fix these problems that are so critical?

My concern is that they'll end up tanking the arena, which is the best deal we're gonna get (and make no mistake, at some point we WILL build a new arena, it's when not if), and then afterwards they'll continue to do nothing to solve the problems they now claim are so critical.

The Port should get its own house in order before barking so loudly about the stadium proposal.

The trucking system the Port has set up is a disaster. The pay-by-the-load, fake independent contractor system - detailed in the Stranger, the Times, King 5, ... - creates rushes of traffic and significant dead time (and unsafe trucks and pollution and ...) Fixing this would make container movement to the railyards and warehouses much more efficient freeing up capacity for more containers and other traffic. But the Port's dead set against it because the mega-shippers like Walmart are against it but it would mean actually paying the people who driver those trucks. (and oh yeah, those jobs the Port keeps talking about alot of them suck. bad.)

Vancouver had the same kinds of truck traffic problems when its Port was expanding six years ago. They managed to solve it but fixing the system. The Port's mode at this port seems to be whining instead.

Just imagine what this will do to the economy? A very small area of the city is zoned for stadium use. So someone buys some property in that area and declares his intent to build a stadium. Suddenly, everyone shits their pants that--my God!--someone wants to build a STADIUM!--a STADIUM I TELL YOU--on that parcel of land zoned for a stadium. It's heresy! It's awful! How could we allow that to happen?

I'll tell you what will happen. The next time we zone any land for any kind of economic development project that will generate tax dollars to pay for all the goodies that every Slogger wants, a prospective investor will say, "no FUCKING way. not in this crazy bullshit town where zoning laws don't mean shit. I'll take my chances in some banana republic where at least I can count on bribing the locals instead of playing by the rules."