Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Seattle Council rejects crucial Arena vote


Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, Aladeen said:

100 bucks says those councilwomen are fugly

For all we know the councilwomen are all sports nuts, and didn't want public money to go to building an arena, or they had transit and other reasons for voting. There seemed to be concerns that the ownership group hasn't addressed yet. Looks like the main concern is council is worried about spending taxpayer money for an arena that doesn't have the rights to an NBA/NHL team yet. 

 

From the Seattle PI.

 

The Seattle City Council dealt a significant blow to California billionaire Chris Hansen's attempts to bring an NBA franchise to the Emerald City.

In a 5-4 vote on Monday, the council voted down the sale and conditional closure (or "vacation") of a a one-block stretch of Occidental Avenue south of Safeco Field, a key component of Hansen's arena project.

Councilmembers Lisa Herbold, M. Lorena Gonzalez, Sally Bagshaw, Debora Juarez and Kshama Sawant voted against the proposal, which would have cleared the way for Hansen to acquire a Master Use Permit from the city for the construction of the arena with hopes of luring an NBA or NHL franchise to the city.

 

Rob Johnson, Tim Burgess, Bruce Harrell and Mike O'Brien voted for the proposal in an emotionally charged, densely packed council chamber at City Hall.

Hansen released a statement following the vote on SonicsArena.com:

"Today's City Council vote was disappointing but we don't believe it is the end of the road in our quest to bring the NBA and NHL back to SeattleWe know all the fans who have stood solidly by us these past years share our disappointment but it is important that we all stay focused on our shared goal.

We now need to take a little time to step back and evaluate our options, better understand the council's concerns and find a path forward. We will keep you posted."

Citing concerns about moving forward without any assurance of Hansen acquiring an NBA franchise, Bagshaw and other opponents urged the council to delay any approval of the street vacation, calling the vote "simply premature."

"It doesn't make sense to me that we're moving ahead," she told the full council and gathered audience, "particularly when we've not tied this to an NBA team."

In her statement before the official vote, Sawant said she could not vote for a proposal that undermined the "working waterfront."

Seattle Mayor Ed Murray released a statement shortly after the vote condemning the council's action.

"I firmly believe that a new arena will be built that brings the NBA and NHL to our region," the statement read. "The City's past actions contributed to the Sonics leaving Seattle. Today's council vote makes it less likely that the NBA will return to the City of Seattle. Despite today's vote, I remain committed to exploring all options to bring the NBA and NHL, not just to our region, but to a new arena in the City of Seattle."

Monday's full-council vote came almost two weeks after the council's Sustainability and Transportation committee voted 4-1 in favor of the street vacation, with Bagshaw registering the lone no vote.

On March 15, hundreds packed City Hall to register public comments about the potential Occidental Avenue closure, with arena proponents (many decked out in Sonics green and gold) pitting themselves against representatives of the Port of Seattle and various trade unions.

Monday's public comment period saw familiar themes to the March meeting.

Supporters, which included Sonics fans as well as members of several trade unions and non-profit organizations, touted the community benefits of the arena, with fans pleading the council not to stand in the way of the possible return of the NBA.

Opponents, including Port of Seattle President John Creighton and Port Commissioner Fred Felleman, argued against the arena as a vanguard of a "gentrified Sodo" and warned of the impact on blue-collar jobs, with Creighton calling the potential harm caused by the vacation of Occidental "unmitigatable."

In addition to voting on the street vacation the council also weighed in on several amendments, including one submitted by Herbold that would allow the vacation only after Hansen acquired the rights to an NBA franchise. That was defeated 6-3 in what seemed at the time like a good sign for arena supporters.

Another amendment unanimously approved the scheduling agreement reached by Hansen's ArenaCo group with the Seattle Mariners and Paul Allen's First & Goal, Inc., which operates CenturyLink Field.

In October 2012 the City of Seattle and King County approved a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Hansen that would allow him to collect $200 million in public funding for the construction of the arena.

The MOU expires in 2017.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is much more here

http://www.seattletimes.com/sports/nba/seattle-city-council-kills-sale-of-street-for-sodo-arena/

 

Councilmember Sally Bagshaw, a former prosecutor who spearheaded opposition to vacating the street, is said by sources to have lobbied her female colleagues hard in recent days to sway their votes.

 

One source said the three female council members who were undecided had become increasingly put off in recent days by the personal attacks Bagshaw was taking from male sports fans on social media and certain talk-show hosts on Sports Radio KJR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, StraightFlush said:

I don't think there's a reason for anyone to try bringing basketball back to Canada. 

 

The game really sucks when you can ignore three quarters of the game, tune in for fifteen minutes, and know who will win just by which team is taller. 

 

I mean come on.    You want basketball to be interesting, raise the hoop five feet and see who really has skill

Respectfully disagree with you. 

Most sports the 4th quarter or 3rd period or 2nd half is the best. 

 

Best player in the game right now is steph curry..he is 6"3. 

Lebron James 6"8, that's no where near the tallest they get in the game. 

Basketball, like every sport played at a high level is extremely difficult. 

 

You are entitled to not enjoy a sport, but I don't think saying that basketball doesn't have much skill is fair at all. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tony Romo said:

Respectfully disagree with you. 

Most sports the 4th quarter or 3rd period or 2nd half is the best. 

 

Best player in the game right now is steph curry..he is 6"3. 

Lebron James 6"8, that's no where near the tallest they get in the game. 

Basketball, like every sport played at a high level is extremely difficult. 

 

You are entitled to not enjoy a sport, but I don't think saying that basketball doesn't have much skill is fair at all. 

 

There's plenty of skill in basketball, but IMO it is incredibly boring.  I much prefer watching basketball highlights, where the athleticism of the stars is showcased.  But for the games as a whole, when there is about a 50% chance of scoring with each possession, it gets to be rather pointless.  Seeing games live helps, as with most sports, but not enough.

 

Back to the OP, Depending on how the city/state is doing financially, using public money is not necessarily a bad thing, as it's a big investment in the community.  Lots of jobs involved to build and run the place, as well as for local retail in team merch.  Those all generate significant new taxes going back into city/state coffers.  I suspect that the council takes that into account.  It will be interesting to learn what concerns really held this up

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Kragar said:

There's plenty of skill in basketball, but IMO it is incredibly boring.  I much prefer watching basketball highlights, where the athleticism of the stars is showcased.  But for the games as a whole, when there is about a 50% chance of scoring with each possession, it gets to be rather pointless.  Seeing games live helps, as with most sports, but not enough.

 

Back to the OP, Depending on how the city/state is doing financially, using public money is not necessarily a bad thing, as it's a big investment in the community.  Lots of jobs involved to build and run the place, as well as for local retail in team merch.  Those all generate significant new taxes going back into city/state coffers.  I suspect that the council takes that into account.  It will be interesting to learn what concerns really held this up

Its been shown to be not true that it pays off for a city to build a stadium. That's just some clever marketing by developers who use sports fans to pressure governments into paying them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, butters said:

Its been shown to be not true that it pays off for a city to build a stadium. That's just some clever marketing by developers who use sports fans to pressure governments into paying them.

I understand that it can be abused, and cities have been sucked in to overspend to attract teams in the past.  I don't know the details on the proposed public cost, nor the city's economic state in this case, to comment whether it is viable for Seattle, but to insist that it is entirely privately funded can lead to them missing out on a good thing, considering everything I mentioned.

 

I don't think the city should foot anywhere near the whole bill, unless they were to get some kind of additional profit sharing from the teams/entertainment group.  And even then, that might be too risky a proposal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Kragar said:

I understand that it can be abused, and cities have been sucked in to overspend to attract teams in the past.  I don't know the details on the proposed public cost, nor the city's economic state in this case, to comment whether it is viable for Seattle, but to insist that it is entirely privately funded can lead to them missing out on a good thing, considering everything I mentioned.

 

I guess I'd say "so what" to missing out. If no one paid the ransom to the team owners the stadiums will still get built because there is money to be made. Its just entertainment. Why subsidize sports and not music venues or movie theaters (for example)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, butters said:

I guess I'd say "so what" to missing out. If no one paid the ransom to the team owners the stadiums will still get built because there is money to be made. Its just entertainment. Why subsidize sports and not music venues or movie theaters (for example)

If it gets built anyway, sure.  But, teams have left places before because they didn't get some kind of deal, and teams may well avoid coming to a city without getting a deal.  If that happens, the city loses out on a lot of jobs, both one-time for construction, and on-going for maintenance, retail, food services, etc, both on-site and off.  Then there's the free PR for tourism, as opportunities increase to present your city to viewers on TV.  

 

There's a lot of income involved for the cities, and that's what they miss out on if the team goes elsewhere.  They just need to not go nuts and cave completely to the teams, like has happened in the past.  It's no different, except for scale, on how government gives credits to filmmakers to encourage making movies/TV shows in their areas.  It's an investment in the community, and the risks/costs need to be weighed against the potential rewards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Kragar said:

If it gets built anyway, sure.  But, teams have left places before because they didn't get some kind of deal, and teams may well avoid coming to a city without getting a deal.  If that happens, the city loses out on a lot of jobs, both one-time for construction, and on-going for maintenance, retail, food services, etc, both on-site and off.  Then there's the free PR for tourism, as opportunities increase to present your city to viewers on TV.  

 

There's a lot of income involved for the cities, and that's what they miss out on if the team goes elsewhere.  They just need to not go nuts and cave completely to the teams, like has happened in the past.  It's no different, except for scale, on how government gives credits to filmmakers to encourage making movies/TV shows in their areas.  It's an investment in the community, and the risks/costs need to be weighed against the potential rewards.

Teams leaving cities for lack of deals should be encouraged. Tell them not to let the door hit their ass on the way out. Playing cities against each other for greater incentives is a bunch of BS.

 

If you think governments should fund businesses then it shouldn't be restricted to sports. Why not subsidies for movie theaters too? Hell, why doesn't the city pay for half the construction of each new starbucks.

 

Lets face it... all the sports fans who talk about the economic benefits are being two faced. Sports fans aren't a bunch of economists. They just want to watch sports. And they will ape any argument that supports it. Never mind the fact that studies have shown that the benefits aren't really as tangible as claimed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, butters said:

Teams leaving cities for lack of deals should be encouraged. Tell them not to let the door hit their ass on the way out. Playing cities against each other for greater incentives is a bunch of BS.

 

If you think governments should fund businesses then it shouldn't be restricted to sports. Why not subsidies for movie theaters too? Hell, why doesn't the city pay for half the construction of each new starbucks.

 

Lets face it... all the sports fans who talk about the economic benefits are being two faced. Sports fans aren't a bunch of economists. They just want to watch sports. And they will ape any argument that supports it. Never mind the fact that studies have shown that the benefits aren't really as tangible as claimed.

Ideally, you're right.  It would be awesome if arenas etc. can be built solely with private money.  If wishes were horses...

 

When you consider the scale involved, having a sports team coming to a city is a hell of a bigger deal than a movie theater or a Starbucks.  Also, if you don't think cities spend their tax dollars to develop/improve their business districts, you're fooling yourself.  Sometimes cities need to spend money to attract business, especially if they are in competition with other cities.

 

Likewise, when cities/states/provinces do things to make it less appealing for businesses to operate there, at times businesses will walk.  Again, the city loses.  In each case, they need to weigh the impacts of their decisions.  When it comes to big-ticket items like sports teams, it has even farther reaching impacts.  When you have an influx of millionaires, what happens?  More properly taxes come in, and you see community development like what the Sedins did donating to the hospital.  

 

Your last part is BS though, IMO.  They/we don't need to be economists.  Anyone can see the value of what an incoming franchise is worth to the city.  It's often all about the money, and rightly so.  The city decides to make an investment, or not.  If not, and the sports team can afford to do it on their own, more power to them.  If they can't, they walk.  If nothing gets done, then everyone misses out and no one wins.

 

Is it best for the city if something like this is completely privately funded?  Sure.  Is it always going to happen?  Not a chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On May 3, 2016 at 9:14 PM, camaro ss said:

I don't know if I want a team in Seattle. I think Seattle didn't allow Vancouver to have a baseball team back in the 80's because it would get in the way of ticket sales for the Mariners.

I guess I must've missed the bit where VAN was ever considered a hot destination for a potential MLB franchise. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On May 3, 2016 at 8:23 AM, Toews said:

Seems weird that they split based on gender.

 

In any case shouldn't this be good news for the prospects of a team in Quebec City?

Not necessarily. Quebec City's "problem" is that they're a Canadian city. No way will the league expand into Canada again if there's a viable U.S. market in the mix. That's how Las Vegas shot to the head of the expansion queue. And, that's why it seems the league is still waiting around for Seattle to gets its act together regarding the arena situation.  But, they won't wait around forever, and, they (Seattle) need to keep in mind that Milwaukee is building a new arena for the Bucks. If that new arena is going to be configured for hockey, and if an interested potential ownership group steps up, they could wind up getting that second  franchise when the league eventually does expand to 32, which I believe the NHL, MLB and NBA will do in order to keep pace with the NFL. Plus, Milwaukee would still allow the NHL to add another franchise to the Western Conference if the Seattle option falls off the table. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On May 3, 2016 at 3:13 AM, StraightFlush said:

I don't think there's a reason for anyone to try bringing basketball back to Canada. 

 

The game really sucks when you can ignore three quarters of the game, tune in for fifteen minutes, and know who will win just by which team is taller. 

 

I mean come on.    You want basketball to be interesting, raise the hoop five feet and see who really has skill

Typical complaint of the casual fan. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/4/2016 at 1:22 PM, Kragar said:

Your last part is BS though, IMO.  They/we don't need to be economists.  Anyone can see the value of what an incoming franchise is worth to the city.  It's often all about the money, and rightly so.  The city decides to make an investment, or not.  If not, and the sports team can afford to do it on their own, more power to them.  If they can't, they walk.  If nothing gets done, then everyone misses out and no one wins.

 

Is it best for the city if something like this is completely privately funded?  Sure.  Is it always going to happen?  Not a chance.

My point is that all the economic arguments are really just sports arguments in an economic wrapper. No one cares about Seattle's economy. No one is commenting on non sports related real estate deals. People want a team in Seattle, and use the economic thing as an excuse to bolster their argument. They don't care about jobs. They care about having a local team (or rival in our case). That's what people do, generally speaking - fool themselves about their own motivations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...