KING 5 Poll: 80 percent oppose taxpayer money for new arena

samtime said on February 24, 2012 at 1:18 PM

@Rattler Jeez man, the American education system is failing as a whole and falling behind several Asian countries and you want to put more money toward phys ed? Jeez if anything there needs to be more emphasis on reading, math, and science. But guess what? No one is going to propose the selling of bonds to improve education. This money doesn't come straight out of taxpayers' pockets. I'm not sure what you're point is here, bro. Seattle hasn't had any high level professional sports teams so bankrupt. The Sonics struggled but never went bankrupt. And also guess what? Because of the short-sightedness of voters, the Key Arena is pretty much worthless. Artists don't want to perform there because it makes their music sound terrible. You can't attract an NBA or NHL team there regardless of each sport's respective business model. Outside of the Storm and the Redhawks, how is that building supposed to generate any money for the city???

samtime said on February 24, 2012 at 1:04 PM

Key Arena was paid off last year. Safeco Field has been paid off as well, 5 years ahead of schedule. All signs point to Century Link field getting paid off without a hitch. Kingdome aside, Seattle teams actually have a good track record of paying back the city. With regards to Paris, France @bricsa09, they DO have professional sports teams. A quick web search would have kept you from making an incorrect point. I found a few soccer teams and a basketball team as well. @josefina There are many public projects that only a "privileged few" use. Bike lanes and public art work are the first things that come to mind for me. Sports have just as much of a cultural impact as the arts and public parks. The difference is that the construction of an arena and professional sports brings in jobs and business to the surrounding areas. I don't see the validity in that point you make. I do understand your concern over bond repayment and credit rating though.

paulsencraig5776 said on February 23, 2012 at 8:47 AM

Jeez Rattler...are you always this shortsighted and ignorant? Did you know Safeco Field's bonds were paid off ahead of schedule? You failed to mention that in your futile argument. Would you rather have kids watch basketball or Reality TV? Do you think watching basketball or hockey might atleast inspire some physical activity as opposed to most TV programs. My kids aren't obese, but thanks for the comment.

SteveSmith said on February 22, 2012 at 3:23 PM

@bricsa09 Its funny the naysayers on here are resorting to the bland NO NEW TAXES NOT A SINGLE DOLLAR OF TAXPAYERS MONEY slogan! You sound like kids. Read the proposal and come back with constructive criticisms. Kingdome was horribly planned. You know we're ahead of schedule paying off Safeco? No lets ignore that. and PARIS FRANCE is the city you bring up? Jeezz dude. Its like the most metropolitan city in the world. they have more things going on on a sunday morning then we do in a whole year. Bring something smart to the table. Glad you guys will have no say/vote in this. @josefina is the only one who knows whats going on here and brings up the only VALID argument against this. Rest of you sound like upset children.

Rattler said on February 22, 2012 at 3:33 AM

Jeez Paul... if your kids are like 40 per cent of Seattle kids, obese.... lets use the money to restore phys ed classes for build more courts. Nor give them another reasons to park their butts in front of screen.

Rattler said on February 22, 2012 at 3:30 AM

Ya still owe 70 million for the Kingdome!!!! Stop pretending you can run a business, when you are having troubles running the city and county. I can see it now! Either team goes bankrupt.... and we pay. NO WAY ! NOT ONE DOLLAR, ONE DIME!!!

josefina said on February 22, 2012 at 1:35 AM

Obligating the city and county to $200 million in bonds reduces their ability to sell bonds for other worthwhile projects, lowers credit ratings on other projects and puts the taxpayers on the hook if it does not succeed. It is like co-signing on a car for your worthless brother-in-law. We should not spend a dime on professional sports. It is just a silly and worthless activity for a privileged few.

samtime said on February 21, 2012 at 11:31 PM

@bricsa09 Have you read the arena proposal yet? Your last sentence would indicate that you haven't. How can you say that this arena is subsidized by the rest? The arena's public funding portion is provided through the selling of government bonds. The money isn't coming out of the general fund or existing tax streams. If you want to have a dialogue on the economic benefit of a sports team go watch Sonicsgate. There's a portion of the movie where they talk specifically about the businesses that have closed down in the Queen Anne area after the Sonics left. If you have an arena, you'll have restaurants, bars, and hotels that come along with it. Businesses thrive when there is an attraction that brings people to that area. That doesn't even begin to include the number of jobs for people to work directly at the arena plus the construction jobs to build the arena. For a state with a relatively high unemployment rate, that can't hurt.

paulsencraig5776 said on February 21, 2012 at 10:57 PM

Kids in this area should have the ability to enjoy pro basketball like I did. I am sad that kids these days do not have this opportunity. Some of my best memories of my childhood are from watching the Sonics with my family. Yet because people can't see the merits of this proposal, kids in Seattle will not have this opportunity in the future. Its a shame. Everyone focuses on the $$$$ but there are several intangible benefits of having pro sports in your community as well. Shame on you if you can't figure this out.

bricsa09 said on February 21, 2012 at 5:45 PM

"Don't buy tickets" is assuming, incorrectly, that ticket sales cover the entire cost of a pro sports team. They don't. That's like saying that gas taxes cover the entire cost of automobile transportation; they don't. Many of the ads we see and hear are supporting pro sports and entertainment in general, whether we like it or not. Traffic control is also provided by the taxpayer. The economic "benefit" of having pro sports is questionable, as a tiny number of people go to the games. Big business gets to charge off the cost of their luxury suites to the general taxpayer, however. On the other hand, major cities such as Paris, France do fine without professional sports. It's not been the end of the world since the Sonics left down; people - including the sportscasting cadre - have found other subjects to talk about. As with almost anything, the advocates want their activity subsidized by the rest, for if they had to bear the full cost, even most of them wouldn't attend.

supercrownking said on February 21, 2012 at 5:11 PM

The tax payers will be paying the debt that will go along with this arena. Count on it.

Daytrader said on February 21, 2012 at 5:04 PM

I wonder if the taxpayers of Seattle feel a lilttle hoodwinked when it comes to building a new sports complex in that city based on past experiences?

s10maniac said on February 21, 2012 at 3:52 PM

The players and managers of professional sports make enough that they can suport themselves without tax payer money. I know Mike McGinn's plan is to get the money back but really how often does the government really get its money back on investments. I personally would much rather watch college level sports because they are out there for the love of the game and not to bring in millions for themselves every year.

SteveSmith said on February 21, 2012 at 2:52 PM

@scottcornish Just a heartbroken Sonics fan. Ive read the proposal that Hansen issued last week and the Mayors Q&A pamphlet. Dont have all the details, not sure how the bond repayment will work. Not sure what happens if the attendance is low and there isn't enough tax revenue from slumping sales to cover repayment of the bond. Do the owners cover that? Will the city be held responsible? The Devil is in the details as they say. I just get annoyed with people relating any new arena to tax increases and lack of education funding without reading. No expert just in school so I have a lot of time to read and listen to the radio relating to this stuff and I would absolutely cry if we got the Sonics fan :)

spacedover said on February 21, 2012 at 2:31 PM

Don't get the tax payers of Washington involved in any sport scheme of the future. We don't need it and we don't want it. Let professional sports be fully self floating.

ScottCornish said on February 21, 2012 at 1:17 PM

@SteveSmith, Thank you for your smart discussion and explanations of the real situation. You need to get your facts out to all of the naysayers. If anyone wants to know the facts of this deal, please read SteveSmith's comments starting from the beginning of this comments section. BTW @SteveSmith, who are you? How are you such an expert on this deal?

samtime said on February 21, 2012 at 12:53 PM

As a news organization, King5 is doing the public a disservice by saying taxpayer money is being used to pay for this new arena. The money is being generated by the sale of bonds. There aren't any new taxes being extended or raised to create the public portion of the new arena. As part of the arena proposal, overruns will be covered by Chris Hansen and his group. There are protections in place that shield the public from any financial burden. It's written in the proposal. This is a business gift! The land alone cost Hansen $23 million (which he overpaid for), and in 30 years he will gift that land and the building to the city! I urge someone at King5 to do the responsible thing and break down the details of the arena proposal so we have LESS misinformation floating around out there. I urge the public to learn as much as they possibly can about this proposal so WE as a democracy can have an informed dialogue together about this proposal.

paulsencraig5776 said on February 21, 2012 at 12:42 PM

Were the folks that were polled explained the details of this proposal? Doubt it. Everyone was just asked "Do you want to be taxed for the new arena" which is very misleading since most people won't be taxed unless they use the arena!!! Very frustrating, way to go King 5. Nice way to scew the audience by posting the headline "80% of people oppose taxpayer money for the area". Of course they do, if they think they're the ones being taxed.

rodneylynn773015 said on February 21, 2012 at 12:19 PM

It doesn't matter how many times you explain it or plead your case, there are haters that all they want to do is hate. They are too stupid to understand, how good this would be for the city of seattle and the businesses that surround the area. If they don't want money from thier pocket to help pay for it just don't buy a ticket. Spend your money on D&D dice, and Magic Cards.

NeilFederalWay said on February 21, 2012 at 12:13 PM

There are no new taxes are being created for the proposed arena! SteveSmith has it correct. People need to read the facts before they read a simple pole question. Taxes being raised are BY AND FOR the arena. The arena would have an equivalent of an economic "zero-carbon footprint!" In other words, your tax dollars won't be taken away from public schools, or other needed programs!

SteveSmith said on February 21, 2012 at 11:53 AM

@stonetrails Or it could be that we read every single word of the proposal and the city of Seattle's response. And we have been paying attention in detail and listening to each of the city council members when they speak about this. And It could be that I have posted more than 20 times detailing every little thing but people like you wake up and read TAX and go crazy off the wall. You know I dont hate government and being a Sonics fan I have every right to distrust and hate our City Council after how foolishly they acted 4 years ago. This is a misleading poll. I have stated over and over again what is really happening. But you go ahead and spin the details and hate on the government. Their always trying to rip us off. thats their whole goal. so many pessimistic people in the world.

rodneylynn773015 said on February 21, 2012 at 11:52 AM

Ummm The money going to pay for the arena is coming from ticket sales, taxes that wouldn't have been available if there wasn't an arena. If you don't want to pay for it, don't buy tickets... pretty simple

samtime said on February 21, 2012 at 11:46 AM

Let's find a way to make this thing happen. Having a state-of-the-art, multi-purpose arena has great potential to bring in national sporting events, trade shows, conventions, etc. Seattle would be foolish to pass up this gift. It would create jobs and should encourage businesses to open up in the SoDo area more so than it is currently. I believe WE can do this responsibly. Let's get it done!

hpsweet said on February 21, 2012 at 9:55 AM

It could be 100% of us are against it - but like the Toll on SR520, like so many other things, the Settle won't give a ratsa** what we think.

oldlewy said on February 21, 2012 at 9:53 AM

lets pay for the viaduct replacement tunnel and the new Lake Washington bridge first then with the left over money we could think about a stadium

scott_bellevue said on February 21, 2012 at 9:19 AM

Some of the people talking about buying the teams are billionaires, some of the richest people in the world. If this is such a great money making deal, then let them buy it. The tax payers here have already funded two stadiums. I think that's enough.

skok_cush said on February 21, 2012 at 8:57 AM

hmmm, 80% of the governed populace opposes it, which means, the government will institute it. Ahhh, democracy.

jackwong said on February 21, 2012 at 6:20 AM

We need to stand together to build this thing. This is a great chance to cooperate with the private sector to make something big happen for our children. Without working with the private sector, we wouldn't of gotten the Safeco and QWEST Field, which brings SO MUCH business into Seattle from allover the world. Even in these hard economic times, we have to keep our eye on the target. China is spending billions building up their country, we are the richest country on earth... why shouldn't we?

stonetrails said on February 21, 2012 at 6:10 AM

I'd say pretty much anyone who believes the public won't be paying for this is either very young and therefore has no real experience with governmental lies, or, they are not paying attention to what the government does (as opposed the what it says it will do), or, they are the proud owners of a below-average intelligence quotient.

invalid said on February 21, 2012 at 2:52 AM

80% oppose using taxpayer money. The other 20% figure it's just the 1% paying their "fair share".

SteveSmith said on February 20, 2012 at 11:42 PM

@downtow Hansen will not pay rent. The tenants (NBA/NHL teams) will pay rent. If he owns one of the teams(as Is the rumor he wants to) he will pay rent through the team. I think I have already said that with the revenues being diverted there will be a shortfall. In essence he is paying the public with the public's money plus interest. According to I-91 bonds will only be issued if guaranteed a gain on the return. Not sure what percentage that will be. You bring up a lot of specifics and that is good. Questions need to be asked. I am only using information that was made available to the public last week. Obviously the city council will be doing all the research that relates to your questions. But I find it very very hard to believe the city will throw this away because of $350k a year that can come from other areas without raising the taxes on the general public. The only thing that could stop this is failure to acquire tenants (nba/nhl teams). Wish I had answers but we will find out.

downtow said on February 20, 2012 at 11:13 PM

@SteveSmith, where I struggle is that the property tax being diverted to Hansen so he can make bond payments is the public's money - he's paying the public back with the public's money. Sure - at the end of 30 years we get a facility. But in 30 years that arena's gonna be obsolete and no team will play there. What good will it be to us? And we pay to demolish it. I do question a couple of your comments on how they fill the budget shortfall - you say NO NEW taxes, you and I won't pay for it (meaning no increase in existing taxes) and you don't think essential services will be altered. What's left to fill the shortfall? BTW, how much rent will Hansen pay and on what frequency? Is it a fixed amount or a floating amount? $200M over 30 years at a 5% return is about $7M per year. I fear that subtracting the diverted property tax funds and all the taxes collected (tix sales, concessions, parking, merchandise), Hansen will pay little to nothing in rent (if collected yearly)

SteveSmith said on February 20, 2012 at 10:43 PM

@downtown In my opinion the City Council will have to decide on a few things. If the city can even afford to issue bonds? How and what is affected by the loss of that tax stream? Do the benefits of a $500 million multipurpose arena (if built correctly should have a lifespan of 30 years) outweighs the $350k a year. I think you could see that $350 k a year come from other sources such as the 81 nights a year there will be new sporting events (not even counting trade shows and concerts). People will pay taxes at hotels, and at restaurants. We could impose a tax on athletes as some other cities have where the visiting players have to pay the city of Seattle a tax from the percentage they would earn in that game of their total salary. All these are on the table. I dont think any essential city functions would be altered. I think the Sea Wall is the biggest concern according to Nick Licotta. The only way I see this not happening is if we dont get the teams. Seattle will not pass this up.

SteveSmith said on February 20, 2012 at 10:36 PM

@downtown yes those are all correct numbers. I look at like this, a) the city will own the arena and the land. b) Hansen is investing nearly $300 million into the city, (which by the way numerous council members have said they would be foolish to simply say no) c) I have stated already that the council is in the process of looking at what essential functions will be altered. I am not going to tell you a lie and say nothing will be affected. I am simply trying to dispel the misconception that NEW taxes will be raised or that me or you will have to pay for any of this. And as far as fans not going to other sports games, thats NEVER going to happen. The Seahawks always sell out (its the NFL, you never have to worry about it not selling out) and the Sounders draw the highest attendance in the MLS. The Mariners are pathetic and dont field a winning product, their attendance fall is because of ownership. Seattle is large enough (14th largest mrkt) where we dont have to worry abt ppl going.

downtow said on February 20, 2012 at 10:22 PM

@SteveSmith, when the property taxes from the plot of land are diverted, there's now a shortfall in the general fund. Where will this shortfall be made up? Either you have to cut something (essential services? Fire? Police?), or you have to raise taxes. I did the quick math on all the property taxes that the arena will sit on. It amounts to $350K per year, and with a 4% growth, that comes to $18.5M over the 30 years. That's a HUGE general fund shortfall that has to be made up somewhere. And that's just the property tax aspect. What about the other taxes (parking, tix sales, merchandise, concessions) that are being diverted when that MLB fan decides to spend it with the NBA instead (call them the "defectors"). If the Mariners, Seahawks, and Sounders see a 5% drop in attendance due to the NBA/NHL, that's a significant amount of "lost taxes" due to the defectors.

seattle80 said on February 20, 2012 at 9:47 PM

Well said Steve!

SteveSmith said on February 20, 2012 at 9:46 PM

@hawkfan2 and this meets the I-91 requirement which states that the city will ONLY issue bonds if they are repaid with interest aka Seattle will only issue these bonds if they are repaid with interest and the city makes money. So this does not even have to go to a city wide vote.

SteveSmith said on February 20, 2012 at 9:43 PM

@hawkfan2 Again you dont understand the proposal. Its not an EITHER OR situation. Its not either the $200 mil goes to the arena or to education. That is SIMPLY NOT THE CASE. Education funding has NOTHING to do with this arena proposal. I have already said that the only thing the public has to worry about is the EXISTING tax revenue from the piece of land (that by the way Chris Hansen owns already) will be diverted and used to repay this bond. There is NO money if there is no arena so lets stop with the we need to fund other stuff with this money. Thats not even close to what is going on here. Seattle's bond limit will have to be checked to see if it can even issue bonds. but again that has NOTHING to do with education. If the city could invest $200 mil into the schools with a guarantee that the schools would REPAY the bonds then it would! Im glad even our staunchest opponents (Licotta) have said this sounds like a good deal and are reviewing it, cause the general public are not smart.

hawkfan2 said on February 20, 2012 at 9:34 PM

To anyone (stevesmith) supporting this with bonds and/or city and/or state funds, our state ranks 44th out of 50 for education funding which continues to be absolutely pathetic. Do we really want to continue valuing sports more than education? Our state simply cannot afford ANYTHING until it funds education and other basic services FIRST. check in a few years though and I'll bet our state will be paying for a new stadium and team just like we did with safeco and seahawks stadium...go education funding! 6 more spots to go to the bottom!!!

SteveSmith said on February 20, 2012 at 9:33 PM

@hawkfan2 You'll be happy to know there is no taxpayer money required unless you go to the game. I could explain it again but you can read my posts explaining in detail what is going on. And King5 could not have run a worse worded poll question. Sheesh

hawkfan2 said on February 20, 2012 at 9:28 PM

not interested as its a waste of money...only way I'd support it is if no taxpayer money is required AT ANY TIME NOW OR IN THE FUTURE for a stadium, team, ect. Instead, get some billionaires like Balmer, Gates, and others to fund it from their "leftover" cash....that money would easily pay for the total cost of the stadium and team.

seattle80 said on February 20, 2012 at 9:24 PM

Has anybody read the details of the proposal? If you don't go to the arena it will not cost you ANYTHING!!!!!!! Any "tax" money that goes into the arena is tax money created by the arena. This money doesn't exist without the arena!!!!!! I swear all the anti sports crowd hears is "tax" and "arena" and they are against it without reading the details. I cannot believe King 5 even runs a poll worded this way..... what a bunch of idiots.

SteveSmith said on February 20, 2012 at 9:16 PM

@awol50 Madison Square garden is 44 years old. This would be a 30 year BINDING lease. The Sonics did not have a BINDING lease. Not sure where you are getting risk free. There is inherent risk in this as I have stated. But what people do not understand is the wording of the deal as it is proposed. The teams WOULD HAVE TO sign the 30 year BINDING lease and part of that would have to pay for any cost overruns and maintenance and general upkeep. Every lease is breakable yes, but now you are looking at the glass half empty because the city of Seattle has been spurned before. Chris Hansen does not seem to be an idiot (and lets leave the ethics of being a hedge fund manager out of this). He knows that we have been burned before. He is proposing investing the 3rd highest amount of private money into the building of this arena. Only the aforementioned MSG and Staples center had more private money invested in them. BTW Were ahead of schedule on repaying SafeCo.

awol50 said on February 20, 2012 at 9:04 PM

This so called riskfree lease or can't lose lease is nonsense. Every lease is breakable. Just ask how the Sonics broke their lease. And riskfree? How did that Kingdome loan turn out? Every lease is breakable broken in a bankruptcy filing. So this nonsense of a 30 year riskfree lease is absolutely nonsense. Just ask yourself this question. Which NBA team is playing in a 30 year old arena today? Answer: none. One of two things will happen down the road leaving the taxpayers on the hook. Either file for bankruptcy or threaten to leave way before this arena is ever paid off and blackmailing the city to build yet another arena, while still paying off the old one. Just keep the taxpayers bonding ability and money out of this. If this is so riskfree, I would think a hedgefund manager would just love to build this boondoggle all by himself anyway.

realitychk said on February 20, 2012 at 8:46 PM

Thank you SteveSmith. An explanation/comparison of the tax revenue lost compared to the revenue from sales/employment etc. would be a good thing to see. I hope that we can begin this discussion begin soon. I agree that moving away from "new taxes" to a cost/benefit analysis would be beneficial to everyone's understanding of the potential positive impact this arena could have. Also I hope they can include a detailed risk analysis to shore up the business case. Your arguments have been well stated. I enjoy a good explanation. Thanks!

BraveNewWhirled said on February 20, 2012 at 8:40 PM

I'm sorry. I just don't see how Seattle can continue building gladiator circuses while training a Praetorian guard.

ankh5 said on February 20, 2012 at 8:37 PM

@SteveSmith Thanks for doing a much better job at explaining this than our Mayor and King County Executive.

Phillip_Lepp4c5 said on February 20, 2012 at 8:34 PM

500 people is an extremely small sample size. This survey should be 100% discounted. I cant believe you are reporting this as news.

BraveNewWhirled said on February 20, 2012 at 8:32 PM

...and 20% think it will be paid for by corporate profits.

SteveSmith said on February 20, 2012 at 7:59 PM

@realitychk the Seattle City Council is crunching numbers to see exactly how much revenue is diverted, and if that would affect any essential functions or if it would impact other city plans (the sea wall for example). I think at the end of the day it comes down to do we want to divert tax revenue from one plot of land, (and lets be honest it cannot be anything more than a drop of water in a bucket compared to total tax revenues). Arena will create thousands of jobs. there will be games 81 nights of the year. the real concern is the city's bond limits, and traffic. Im just upset people default to no new taxes as if thats the case here.

SteveSmith said on February 20, 2012 at 7:55 PM

@realitychk You're right and I have stated that is the only concern that should be raised. Diverting tax revenues from the public fund to the repayment of bonds for the arena. I agree that this is the ONLY thing the city of Seattle has to put up. I just want people to understand this part of the deal and know that no new taxes will be implemented. Tax revenue is lost, yes you are correct, but it is not tax revenue coming out of your or my pocket. It is not NEW tax revenue. It is existing revenue streams. This is a valid argument that I would love to have, just not the "new taxes" argument which is PATENTLY false. Also the way the deal is worded and set up the owners of the team(s) would be on the hook for everything, defaults, construction overrides, monthly costs, upkeep, and maintenance. Yes we all pay taxes, but Chris Hansen is infusing almost $300million dollars to improve the city that otherwise would not be there. the lease would be 30 yr BINDING.

realitychk said on February 20, 2012 at 7:44 PM

Steve Smith said, "It is money currently being collected on the property tax and building tax of the plot in SODO." So I understand this. This money is currently being collected as property tax which is part of the funding for government services. If we give up these currently paid taxes does that not take away that tax revenue from the people? The rest of us have to pay our property taxes so it seems that rather than being used for services, this money would be taken from the citizens and used to pay off a bond for a private individual. Trying hard to understand how we do not lose tax revenue. We provide tax revenue up front in a bond? What if the arena goes broke and no property taxes are paid? So then we not only have lost out on the property taxes that property owners have to pay but then we lose the amount of the bond that was issued? Can someone explain how this is not a loss (or at a very minimum a net zero proposition) that rewards private enterprise?

SteveSmith said on February 20, 2012 at 7:11 PM

@ankh5 yes if you at the end of paying off the car give ownership to the city of Seattle. The city will own the building and the land. Thats the difference.

seattle4life said on February 20, 2012 at 7:00 PM

This is just wrong. Those 80% are not understanding the fact that 1) there will be no new taxes, no raise in taxes, WE THE PEOPLE WILL NOT HAVE TO PAY A CENT MORE and 2) THE "TAX MONEY" WOULD NOT EXIST without the arena, CHRIS HANSEN will be paying more taxes and the money would come from Ticket sales and concessions. Boo hoo you have to pay an extra dollar foryour popcorn. PLEASE DON'T LET THIS POLL STOP OUR CHANCE OF CULTURE AND KIDS ENJOYING BASKETBALL AGAIN!!!

ankh5 said on February 20, 2012 at 6:57 PM

Dear Mr. Mayor Can I divert my property tax money this year to go towards the down payment on my new car?

SteveSmith said on February 20, 2012 at 6:49 PM

@ankh5 I agree 100% But my point is people DO THINK that these are new taxes. They think they will be taxed more if this is approved. The only gripe, which you have stated is that existing taxes will be diverted. And like I said the city council has already said they are concerned with how much and what essential utilities it will affect. And the already paid taxes part of your comment is what concerns me too. Yes they are already paid taxes. But those "already paid" were NOT paid by the general public. They were "already paid" and are currently being paid by the owner of the land and the building, Chris Hansen. Your right infrastructure is in need of help, but its not like this deal is an either/or. Its not like the $200 mil WOULD, or COULD go anywhere else.

ankh5 said on February 20, 2012 at 6:42 PM

@SteveSmith I'm well aware of what the general fund is. The point I was trying to make is that people don't care if we are talking general fund (already paid taxes) or new taxes. They just don't want money diverted when there is so much that needs fixing. Infrastructure for one. Having shiny new stadiums when city sewer lines and power transmission and transportation infrastructure is failing is like putting lipstick on a pig. I'm sure it's all going to look good on the TEEVEE though.

SteveSmith said on February 20, 2012 at 6:41 PM

@shoreline I guess I cant link anything onto the comments section. But a simple search will show you that the Keyarena was at or above 89% full throughout the 1990's and 2000's. Please dont say things that are not true. The Mariners have the lowest attendance by a MILE.

shoreline said on February 20, 2012 at 6:29 PM

What would be the draw for any team to come to Seattle with this new deal? Teams exist to make money. Why would any team risk a long term (and probably unbreakable) lease (which would need to be part of the deal) where they have to pay rent for the arena? Especially in a city with a lukewarm fan base at best? The Key arena was rarely more than half full during the Sonic's seasons (except for play off games). The Sonics had the lowest attendance of any of our three major sports teams. If the payback for our "public financing" is so certain, why doesn't Chris Hansen get his financing through private investors or a bank? Why doesn't he sell a "Sonic Fund" in his hedge-fund portfolio and let his hedge fund investors take on any risks and/or profits?

SteveSmith said on February 20, 2012 at 6:27 PM

Look the reason I have a problem with this poll is it is CLEARLY misrepresenting what is happening. The Seattle City Council has already raised questions and concerns and NONE of them deal with new taxes. They are concerned with the city's bond limits. They are concerned with what essential functions/operations of the city (fire, police, education) will be affected by the DIVERTING of the already existing building taxes and how much will be diverted and what to do about that. Even the city council and the opponents have stated on radio shows that this is a good deal but they want to know how much money will be diverted and what to do about it. NOTHING ABOUT TAXES yet King5 asks a poll question about taxes.

SteveSmith said on February 20, 2012 at 6:22 PM

@ankh5 the general fund is not anything I made up. When taxes are collected they go to a "general fund" from which they are dispersed to pay for roads, police, etc. etc. In this case it is NOT taxpayer money. the public does not pay a single cent of the property/building taxes that are currently being collected from the existing plot of land. Chris Hansen who OWNS that land is PAYING those taxes. not me, not you, not anyone in the public. Like I have said whatever those taxes are on the EXISTING building/land will be DIVERTED to pay for the NEW arena. This is the only gripe I could see people having. Benaryoa Hall was financed in a similar way. Taxpayers DO NOT pay the building taxes, they WILL NOT pay any NEW taxes. The people who ATTEND games will pay taxes.

intrepid1 said on February 20, 2012 at 6:18 PM

Well, d'uh... we're still paying for the other "new" arena... and, when we're done paying for that, the baseball stadium will be calling for renovations on the public dollar... how about ditch the bond sales and, better, have a corporation set-up to raise funds through private donations.... really, those who want the team/stadium and pay for it.

SteveSmith said on February 20, 2012 at 6:17 PM

@ankh5 I agree. The way Chris Hansen has set up the deal, and the reason no taxpayer money is involved is that the owners of the team will take ALL of the risk. Hansen's goal is to buy a team as well. If an NBA and/or NHL team were to abide by the lease agreement then it would be no problem. But like the mayor said that is Chris Hansen's problem, not theirs. Heres the catch and the reason I think this is a 50/50 deal, an NBA/NHL team will not move here until the arena is being built and the city of Seattle has said they will not start construction/planning until an NBA//NHL team announces its plan to move. What comes first, the chicken or the egg? My thoughts, and yes I would bet you on this, is that Hansen knows something we dont, otherwise he would not have gone public with this. He wants to buy an NBA team so that will satisfy one half of the deal. An NHL team will be harder to get because the owners will have to agree to the VERY stringent rules laid out by Hansen regarding costs.

poppasito6188411 said on February 20, 2012 at 6:16 PM

The only way I believe that it is "Self Funding" is that the owner of the stadium find the money on their own and public money has NOTHING to do with it. No bonds, no taxes, Nothing of the sort. Just you try to start a business with out your own money and ask the city for bonds or taxes, and they will laugh you right out the city. Because it's high $$$ sports, the politicians bend like reeds in the wind. Sorry, but I think the owners should have to figure out how to pay for it on their own.

ankh5 said on February 20, 2012 at 6:15 PM

So SteveSmith, what is this "general fund " you speak of? Is it some magical pool of money that appeared out of nowhere? Or is it a bunch of already paid taxpayer money that could be put to use in other ways. Enlighten me please. The way I see it then, is that we won't be paying taxes for the stadium. We've ALREADY PAID for something that someone wants us to partly finance in the future for his own benefit. What's the difference?

rmh427 said on February 20, 2012 at 6:07 PM

What's the matter, King 5? Do you feel threatened by the NW sports network that would purportedly be a part of this deal?

ankh5 said on February 20, 2012 at 6:06 PM

Since many of you sports nuts are into betting and odds and such, I still have not heard one of you honestly address the question of the odds of two teams landing here at the same time. From what I understand this deal is hinging upon it. Any takers?

bobo275078015763 said on February 20, 2012 at 6:01 PM

doesn't matter. the city leaders are going to do what ever they decide regardless of what the populace wants. it was either the mariner's or seahawk's stadium that was voted down, and...

SteveSmith said on February 20, 2012 at 5:56 PM

@bam206 it is NOT taxpayer money. It is money currently being collected on the property tax and building tax of the plot in SODO. You know who pays that tax? Chris Hansen, He owns the land and building. Taxpayers arent paying anything. The question is how much money will be diverted from the general fund. That is all.

SteveSmith said on February 20, 2012 at 5:52 PM

@seamikey "Last time I checked, taxes were something paid by the public. If no taxpayer money is to be used" yes but in this case that does not include the general public of greater Seattle. It only counts those patrons who attend the games with the prior knowledge that they will be taxed and said taxes will help repay the bonds. The only legitimate gripe naysayers should have is the existing building taxes from the warehouse (whatever the amount may be) will, instead of going to the general fund, be diverted into the cost of the stadium. THAT IS IT. What ever the property taxes are on that plot of land in SODO will go to repayment of the BOND instead of the general fund. I can see that as a legitimate concern but that is NOT TAXPAYER DOLLARS. Taxpayers do NOT pay the property tax on the current building, THE OWNER OF THE BUILDING DOES, and that SO HAPPENS TO BE CHRIS HANSEN.

paulsencraig5776 said on February 20, 2012 at 5:50 PM

Wow. What a misleading poll. Shameful King 5. I doubt most of the people asked even understand the parameters of the proposal.

crzyppl said on February 20, 2012 at 5:49 PM

As usual, this is another teaser for a quick fix that Seattle doesn't NEED. Anyone out there who believes our tax dollars won't be "needed" sooner than later are just kidding themselves. And with Mayor McWhatever at the helm, I'm scared anything could happen. Seattle is broke....just like most other major cities in the nation. Concentrate on taking care of the needs that the city has NOW, and stop trying to play games with the sports nuts and the rest of us lousy tax payers.

bam206 said on February 20, 2012 at 5:46 PM

There is 200 million in tax payer money being used on this project period. But, the money they are using would not be in the kitty if the stadium wasn't there. That why they say it's " self-funding" . But it in the end the revenue belongs to the people.

bam206 said on February 20, 2012 at 5:42 PM

TugThug: Really? I am for this Stadium, But! After reading your post I am embarrassed that I agree with you. What does that say about me?

gstommylee said on February 20, 2012 at 5:40 PM

Its very misleading when tie deal specifically says no money from general fund or new taxes. Since its being paid off by its own revenue it makes the poll a moot point.

seamikey said on February 20, 2012 at 5:27 PM

"That money would be repaid with rent on the new facility and taxes on game and event revenues". I predict higher event ticket prices in the future, with some sort of creatively named extra "fee" tacked on. Last time I checked, taxes were something paid by the public. If no taxpayer money is to be used, then just what exactly is "public financing"? I think that is the sticking point for a lot of the people.

SteveSmith said on February 20, 2012 at 5:02 PM

@realitychk Not true. The proposed deal clearly states that if anything goes "belly up" the owners of the team are held responsible. This is one reason I believe it will be hard to get NBA/NHL teams to agree to ALL of the risk, but that is how it has been worded. Secondly why ask a question that has nothing to do with the funding/planning of this arena? It would be like me asking if Taxpayers want to pay for all of the arena when I know that they will put nothing into the arena. The question is being worded in such a way as to rile up the public.

SteveSmith said on February 20, 2012 at 4:58 PM

@beachcat007 Couldnt agree more with you. King5 what is the point of a poll if it is asking a misleading question? you even state that the Mayor clearly said this would be self funding. If anything you should ask if people are in favor of the existing building taxes being used to pay off the arena bonds and what those taxes would be diverted from. Not a single tax will be raised. Try this again and word it correctly and see what the results are please.

realitychk said on February 20, 2012 at 4:57 PM

The headline says that we oppose tax payer money to be used for new arena. That is the truth. No misleading headline here. This private arena needs to be the responsibility of the investors and not funded via use of city/county bonds that would be repaid out of tax funds (that we taxpayers would get anyway). Those citizens who desire and support these type of private venues need to sign up to personally support with their own money and then assume the risk as an investor. This is not a government responsibility and certainly isn't a "need" for the "people". Remember, this hedge fund manager is hedging his bets on the backs of the tax payers. If it goes belly up, we lose. No bonds get paid but we already paid put out the money (that we don't have) to support private interests. So yes, 80% are opposed. We have been well fleeced before.

tugthug said on February 20, 2012 at 4:56 PM

wow what happend to the spacing?

lindengroves said on February 20, 2012 at 4:56 PM

Nothing is beneath King %. It hasn't been reporting news since the Bullitts ran it. Nothing but infotainment, of which is just another example.

ruba61 said on February 20, 2012 at 4:53 PM

beachcat............I read it that way too. Their are some people out there that still believe that their taxes are paying for this arena and King5 is distorting the facts. No tax payer money is being used to build this thing PERIOD!

tugthug said on February 20, 2012 at 4:51 PM

Livedhereallmy lifeand neveroncehaveIbeen polled!Doesn'tmatterreally Mcgin and Constipated willdowhat they want anyway!

beachcat007 said on February 20, 2012 at 4:44 PM

Your headline of the article makes folks assume that taxpayers are going to be asked for new taxes in the arrangement with the city and county. They're not. I get the impression you are just attempting to rile up the public. This is beneath you, King 5.