Seattle area: NBA/NHL arena

[mlemour]

http://blogs.seattletimes.com/today/...to-arena-deal/

City Council demands a cut of arena tax revenue
Posted by Lynn Thompson

The Seattle City Council today said the city must get a share of the projected arena tax revenue as well as as additional financial guarantees before it can agree to build a new arena in Sodo.

A letter to arena investor Chris Hansen this morning said a majority of council members don’t think the proposed arena deal represents “an appropriate balance of public and private benefits, nor [does it] sufficiently protect the City from the financial risks inherent in the arena’s financing”

“In order to move forward, we will need to arrive at a more equitable arrangement,” it says.

The letter comes as the King County Council is poised to vote this afternoon on a memorandum of understanding to build the $490 million arena in Sodo with $200 million in public financing. The county council is expected to approve the agreement, which would commit the county to up to $80 million in funding.

The Seattle City Council letter to Hansen says members “appreciate your willingness to significantly invest in our city and, like you, we look forward to the return of the SuperSonics.”

The letter continues that construction of an arena could be a catalyst for improvements to the stadium district, but that it also should provide “further protections of our vital maritime and industrial job sectors.”

Specifically, the City Council questions the current deal, which provides that 100 percent of the taxes generated by the arena go to pay off the city and county bonds. The letter said that’s not an appropriate balance between private and public benefit, “particularly not when the project will create impacts that Seattle taxpayers will be forced to address with other public resources.”

The letter says the city must be in a first lien position with respect to other creditors. The current MOU said that position will be negotiated when private financing is sought and critics have said banks are unlikely to allow the city to hold first place, but that a shared first place might be possible.

The city also is asking that the written agreement include the amount of equity Hansen and his investment group put into arena construction and team operations. It also asks for independent verification of financial performance targets.

The letter concludes, “If these issues can be resolved, we are prepared to quickly move forward a legislative package that is more financially balanced and strengthens protections for the City and its residents.” It is signed by eight council members; Bruce Harrell did not sign.

[testdrive]

http://www.kingcounty.gov/KCTV/watch.aspx County council live streaming on arena currently going on.....

[alexjonlin]

http://blogs.seattletimes.com/today/...rena-proposal/ County Council just approved it. I understand the City Council's objections. Their investment in the arena will get paid back, but every other business in the city pays taxes which go to providing services to the business, while currently the services being provided to the arena (mainly transportation) will be paid for out of the rest of the city's wallets.

[Distinguished_One]

Building an arena without already having an NHL or NBA team would be foolish. KC built a downtown arena with the hopes of attracting a team in one of those leagues years ago, and they got neither. Both leagues have no plans for expansion within the forseeable future, so the only chance would be a relocation. But both leagues are also doing everything to prevent any more relocations.

[RMacherat]

That may be true. But we really want our basketball back, and it was ordained that we should to be an NHL city. Therefore, we will spend half a billion dollars on an arena. Because we can. So butt out. (typed with all due respect, of course.)

[The Reignman]

Originally Posted by Distinguished_One

Building an arena without already having an NHL or NBA team would be foolish. KC built a downtown arena with the hopes of attracting a team in one of those leagues years ago, and they got neither. Both leagues have no plans for expansion within the forseeable future, so the only chance would be a relocation. But both leagues are also doing everything to prevent any more relocations.

The arena will not be built until a team(s) is secured. Therefore we don't need to worry about having an empty arena with no revenue to pay for the costs. Become better informed on the situation by reading the MOU. http://www.seattle.gov/arena/docs/120516PR-MOU.pdf

[Distinguished_One]

Originally Posted by RMacherat

So butt out.

You'd do well to heed your own advice.

[Distinguished_One]

Originally Posted by RMacherat

So butt out.

Wrong. I have just as much right to post as you do. Actually I have more right to post in this thread as you. So butt out yourself.

[BellevueBoy]

Originally Posted by The Reignman

The arena will not be built until a team(s) is secured. Therefore we don't need to worry about having an empty arena with no revenue to pay for the costs. Become better informed on the situation by reading the MOU. http://www.seattle.gov/arena/docs/120516PR-MOU.pdf

Exactly. So tired of arena opponents tossing around erroneous info as facts. This deal is nearly ironclad in terms of shielding the public from risk. For those who want a Cliff Notes version of the timeline of the plan here goes:

1. MOU gets approved
2. Hansen starts searching for a team
3. Team is purchased and moved to Seattle.
4. Hansen breaks ground on new arena while new team (renamed to Sonics) will play at KeyArena in the interim
5. Arena construction completes and Sonics move into new arena

There is no way this arena breaks ground until an NBA team is purchased and moved to Seattle.

[Distinguished_One]

Originally Posted by BellevueBoy

Exactly. So tired of arena opponents tossing around erroneous info as facts.

I don't know if this is in reference to me, but I'm not an arena opponent. If someone told you I am they're lying.

[RMacherat]

Only five posts and he's already butting heads all over the bar. My post was meant to be capricious and was typed occordingly. Besides, good luck picking a fight with somebody more destingwished than you who doesn't care about anything.

[testdrive]

ummmmmm so how about those Mariners............... ooooooops wrong thread

[The Reignman]

Originally Posted by BellevueBoy

Exactly. So tired of arena opponents tossing around erroneous info as facts. This deal is nearly ironclad in terms of shielding the public from risk. For those who want a Cliff Notes version of the timeline of the plan here goes:

1. MOU gets approved
2. Hansen starts searching for a team
3. Team is purchased and moved to Seattle.
4. Hansen breaks ground on new arena while new team (renamed to Sonics) will play at KeyArena in the interim
5. Arena construction completes and Sonics move into new arena

There is no way this arena breaks ground until an NBA team is purchased and moved to Seattle.

I know exactly how you feel. It surprises me that there are still so many naysayers out there spewing unfounded accusations about the arena deal in the comment sections of various websites, with Seattle Times being the worst I've seen. Not everyone is a NBA/NHL fan. I get that. But to oppose something that could benefit the city in many ways, with little to no supporting evidence, is getting old.

[BellevueBoy]

Originally Posted by Distinguished_One

I don't know if this is in reference to me, but I'm not an arena opponent. If someone told you I am they're lying.

Yes I was referencing you based on your tone when you said it'd be foolish to build this arena before securing a team. The comment about naysayers spreading lies is a more general statement about all the opponents on various websites (Times, Stranger, etc) and the ones that spoke at the public hearings.

I don't know what your stance is and I honestly don't care. I just have an issue with those who make false assumptions and then spread them as fact.

[Distinguished_One]

Originally Posted by BellevueBoy

Yes I was referencing you based on your tone when you said it'd be foolish to build this arena before securing a team.

WRONG. That does not make me an "arena opponent". It means I think it would be foolish to build this arena before securing a team. Who told you I was an arena opponent? Or did you just make that up yourself.

I don't know what your stance is and I honestly don't care. I just have an issue with those who make false assumptions and then spread them as fact.

WRONG. I never made any "false assumptions". You are the one who made the false assumption (aka, lie) that I am an "arena opponent". Where did I make an assumption? All I said is it would be foolish to build the arena without securing a team. I never said that would happen. You made the ASSUMPTION that that's what I thought would happen, even though I never actually said that.

[RMacherat]

One of my great-grandchildren asked me, "Great-grandfather, what's a troll?" Assuming he wasn't asking about the appearance-challenged homosexual usage, I showed him this thread. "Oh, I see," he said.

[LCIII]

Can we just drop it and get back on topic?

[Distinguished_One]

Originally Posted by RMacherat

One of my great-grandchildren asked me, "Great-grandfather, what's a troll?" Assuming he wasn't asking about the appearance-challenged homosexual usage, I showed him this thread. "Oh, I see," he said.

So you showed him your posts? You didn't need to do that. You could have just replied "me".

You've got idiots attributing things to me that I never said. I never said I was against the arena. Nor did I say that the arena would be built without a team. Nor did I tell someone to "butt out" without prior provocation.

Oh, there are trolls in this thread all right.

[Distinguished_One]

Originally Posted by BellevueBoy

Yes I was referencing you based on your tone when you said it'd be foolish to build this arena before securing a team.

How does that make me an arena opponent?

[Distinguished_One]

Originally Posted by RMacherat

One of my great-grandchildren asked me, "Great-grandfather, what's a troll?" Assuming he wasn't asking about the appearance-challenged homosexual usage, I showed him this thread. "Oh, I see," he said.

Nope, you would be the troll. Telling me to "butt out" in post #1025 without provocation. Not only had I not provoked you prior to that post, I hadn't even addressed you once in the entire thread. You were trolling by giving me an order (to "butt out") to get a response out of me. That is the very definition of a troll.

As for BellevueBoy, I want him to show me exactly where I said I was against the arena. I think he's lying. I don't think I'm against the arena at all. Maybe I did say that though. Just give me the quote and the post number.