Kyle Seager should donate half his salary to the cause.

We should refuse to lease to some sports team and turn it into a tent city. Seriously. That field could fit a lot of tents.

Seriously, why do corporations always get (and "deserve") taxpayer funds, but actual taxpayers don't deserve anything when they are in need - of food stamps, health care, livable wages, reasonably priced housing, education, student loan debt relief, or anything else people are actually paying taxes for??? Like, why is (has it changed, I'm not sure) the NFL been a non-profit organization that didn't have to pay taxes for most of its existence, all the while raking in billions of dollars in profit? Enough with the privatization of profit and the public subsidization of everything else. There is absolutely NO REASON AT ALL for taxpayers to be paying for sports arenas. Sports teams can pay for their own arenas or they can cease to exist. Sports teams and their arenas are not NEEDS in a society where there is so much human suffering happening on a daily basis.

I mean, I do understand that Nathalie just drove into town from suburban Los Angeles, but we did try this once, and not too long ago at that.

Let’s see: rent is sposed to be, what, 25% of your income?
(Oh, and is that on the 'gross' or 'net' income?)

So, after licensing fees, teevee/radio revenues, concessions (come with your wallet Fat), admissions tickets / season tickets – oh and parking; fucking parking – I must be forgetting something, how bout the Rent is 25% of that Income. Where does that put us?

I’m guessing it puts us somewhat over that one measly million/year they’re currently paying the owner / builders of that magnificent removable-roof stadium.

"... [the Seattle Mariners are] a business that can and should pay for its upkeep and it can do so while still generating tremendous wealth from the owners.”

Well, duh. And hey, if they feel they cannot afford it now, perhaps we can wait until/if they sell or move the team, they can pay us back at that time. Or something....

Oops: "... [the Seattle Mariners are] a business that can and should pay for its upkeep and it can do so while still generating tremendous wealth FOR the owners.”

@7 -- part 3: that's a Worldview I'd hate to hafta live with.
Jackkal, you seem to enjoy making others Miserable.

I don't think the point of "while we're in the middle of a homelessness crisis" has any merit - there's no plan presently to resolve that situation, and it's unrelated to stadium investment in the first place.

On a visceral level, of course the Mariners should pay for their own stadium.

The real question is, however, is - can King County / SFD run Safeco Field profitably with or without the $180m upgrade? If they run Safeco profitably, then perhaps the $180m is worth it, with or without the Mariners - some research is required if the stadium can be sustainable without the additional investment, or if they can ever recoup the cost. That the Mariners make money there (or not) is immaterial, they're just a tenant. If the city is continuously losing money on the Stadium, the County should simply sell the Stadium directly to the team (or the highest bigger) and walk away.

Hey, do you guys still have a giant hole in your downtown? We should pair up -- sister cities! We done bought ourselves a stadium a few year ago, and we have a housing crisis and a giant hole. I won't tell you which city (Regina) because you'll make fun of us. (Oh, and the new stadium is oval with a flimsy white membrane around the edges. I nicknamed it the Pudendome, but it's not catching on.)

Just tell the Mariners we'll pitch in some of the funds when they finally make the playoffs again. At the rate they are going that should keep taxpayers off the hook for another couple of decades.

First of all, the Mariners are worth $1.45B but that money is only realized when the owner sells the team. The operating income for the Mariners is quite low ~$10M a year and for 2018 the team is operating a loss of $2.4M. Sports franchises are notorious for not making a lot of money/if any at all. https://www.forbes.com/teams/seattle-mariners/

Secondly, the purpose of the public funds is to help with structural maintenance of Safeco in order to increase the longevity of the stadium, which sounds unnecessary because Safeco was built in 1999, however, Turner Field in Atlanta opened for the Braves in 1997 and they moved out in 2016. The Rangers opened Globe Life Park in 1994 and will leave in 2020. Arizona is looking for a new stadium after opening Chase Field in 1998. No one in Seattle wants to build a new ballpark.

Lastly, by my calculation, the hotel/motel tax is projected to collect $1.5B over the next 25 years so that is $562.5M for affordable housing, $562.5M for "arts & culture", $195M for "other tourism", and $180M for the structural maintenance of Safeco. Personally, I would take the King County Council seriously if they redirected the other 50.5% of the hotel/motel tax away from "arts & culture" and tourism to affordable housing but instead they attack the low hanging fruit because they know they will get public support.

I am a sports fan, and go to live games, and appreciate the comforts of a well maintained facility. In Seattle, I am not alone.... Teams like the Mariners benefit from being the only MLB club within 1000 miles or so. They are profitable, and need to fund their own existence, from ticket buyers, concession buyers, TV Broadcast deals etc. While sure, they probably don't compare with the profit potential of the Yankees or Red Sox, I gotta believe that Seattle is in the top 10% or so of favorable markets to be in. Maybe that wasn't the case 25 years ago, but it is certainly true now.

King County residents need to stand their ground, and stop subsidizing billionare sports teams.

Raise the sales taxes on tickets, food, drinks, merchandise, parking, and anything else sold at 'all King County venues with more than 50,000 seats hosting professinal sports events' to offest the $180m.

@15: “King County residents need to stand their ground, and stop subsidizing billionare sports teams.”

That’s actually what happened. In 1995, during the M’s first actual pennant race, we King County voters rejected a stadium proposal. (The closer to the Kingdome the voter lived, the greater the chance of a “no” vote.) The Democratic Governor called the Republican-controlled legislature into special session, and they rammed a more-expensive stadium into our resisting electoral orifice, generously raising our taxes to do so. (Ever hear a local Republican talk about how Seattle won’t ever reject a tax increase? The baseball stadium exists because the Republicans raised taxes on Seattle after, and because, Seattle’s voters had rejected a tax increase.)

@16: We can spend all of the money we want on improving the baseball stadium, and the M’s will still do everything they possibly can to see it sit empty in October.

We own the stadium, we need to maintain it.

If I rent commercial space to a business, it's up to me to make repairs to the roof, not the business.

While I don't like corporate welfare, this isn't it.

@18 The Mariners HAVE to renew their lease. They're over a barrel. What are they gonna do, try to play somewhere else? Also, I think sports franchises will continue to rise. Sports is the one form of entertainment that has value for it's immediacy - it doesn't completely make sense to VoD it, or binge it, like you do for a netflix show. Just like musicians make money almost solely through tours nowadays, sports will remain the bell cow of the broadcast industry.

@19

Wow, no, that is not how a stadium lease works.

You do not just take a boilerplate commercial rental agreement document that you found online in Word format, fill in the right names and address, and have everyone sign it.

The Mariners are 100% responsible for the costs of maintenance-- it's right there in the terms of the original lease (and again in the lease renewal agreement) that their army of lawyers worked out with the army of lawyers representing the Washington State Major League Baseball Stadium Public Facilities District.