Home / Recent stories / The Political Arena

The Political Arena

On the topic of building new palaces for professional sports teams, Seattle has something like the political equivalent of PTSD. Large numbers of people are still bitter that not once but twice in the mid-90′s, Seattle voters turned down public financing of large new stadiums, only to have them built with tax dollars anyway. For what became Safeco Field, state legislators overruled voters; in the case of CenturyLink Field, owner Paul Allen financed a statewide vote that trumped Seattle’s “no” vote. Ever since, it takes only the mention of a pro sports team wanting a nice place to play to trigger all sorts of anxiety among people with 15-year memories.

On the flip side, many people who like sports really, really like them – to the point where they’re irrational about the benefits. Sports teams are a popular form of entertainment, and to the extent possible with transient young millionaires playing for billionaires, provide a form of community identity. What they are not is any sort of civic economic engine – any number of studies have shown that entertainment dollars not spent on sports are generally spent somewhere else, and that the economic multiplier effects of a new facility are relatively modest for the money being spent. Advocates invariably turn to these false arguments because, while totally legitimate, it seems frivolous to argue the real reason they like pro sports: because they’re fun.

All these dynamics were in play in 2006, when Starbucks mogul Howard Schultz sold the Seattle Sonics basketball team to an Oklahoma hedge fund businessman named Clayton Bennett. For the next two painful years, Bennett made a series of ludicrous demands that Seattle taxpayers build a new $500 million arena — demands designed to not take “yes” for an answer. Activists on both sides predictably howled, Bennett moved the team to Oklahoma (his intent from the start), and Seattle lost its pro basketball franchise.

for most Seattleites, the post-Sonics quality of life in our city hasn’t really changed all that much. But for some, life has never been the same. A steady murmur of voices has continued to try to find ways to get another pro basketball team, or a new pro hockey team, in Seattle – which means building a new “state-of-the-art” arena to house it, at a time when government cupboards are bare.

Lately, those murmurs have become a roar again. Last month it emerged that Mayor Mike McGinn’s office hired a consultant last July – at a price of $19,500 a month – to advise the city on how to build an arena and lure the NBA or NHL to Seattle. Earlier this week, documents obtained by the Seattle Times showed a far more advanced behind-the-scenes city effort, with Sodo land owned by wealthy San Francisco hedge fund manager Christopher Hansen being targeted for an arena whose construction would have “minimal impact on taxpayers.”

What Hansen and the Times account neglect to mention is that by law any new arena deal has to have no such impact; one of the reactions to the Bennett fiasco was overwhelming voter passage in 2006 of Initiative 91, which requires the city to make a net profit on any arena deal. But you can see why McGinn is treading lightly, and behind closed doors. Any deal to build an arena – even if it’s entirely with private funds – is likely to delight some people and enrage others, regardless of the details. And the details, in this case, matter.

Let’s set aside, for the moment, wonder that McGinn and the city would be so anxious to do business again with a pro sports league (the NBA) that negotiated in such stupendously bad faith only a few years ago. And let’s concede, for the sake of argument, that a new basketball or hockey team would bring enjoyment to a lot of people. What is it about this city’s leaders and grandoise megaprojects? The city is already on the hook for a $4 billion (minimum) downtown tunnel that few wanted. The waterfront planning process continues to be deluged by fanciful schemes the city cannot possibly afford. Meantime, the economy is still lagging, the city is chronically strapped for money, and a lot of Seattleites are hurting financially.

The people hurting, of course, are not generally the ones who would cough up $100 a ticket – or tens of thousands for a corporate suite – for a basketball or hockey team at a new arena. If McGinn really can pull off a deal that requires minimal public investment, then, sure, there’s civic value to having a new arena and a new team or two. It harms nobody, creates a few jobs, and gives some people a good time.

But that’s not a financial priority. Seattle taxpayers shouldn’t be scrambling to please out-of-town hedge fund managers who have millions of disposable cash that’s theirs in the first place because they pay so little in taxes. Even if you think big companies deserve huge public subsidies (and I don’t), a new basketball team owned by a bazillionaire, with its minimal economic impact, should be low on that list.

McGinn wants to duck the firestorm that’s sure to surround any arena deal – but the PTSD reaction happens for a reason. Seattle taxpayers have been burned before. We deserve to know the details of any new deals being cut in our name. –Geov Parrish

Comments