gizmo2337 Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 Just make it an election issue for the next council. It will happen.....eventually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kragar Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 2 minutes ago, butters said: 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. I don't agree. Let's take sports out of the equation, and consider the Vancouver Convention Center. It was a huge topic when it was built, and again during its recent expansion. The status of the projects were in the news. Politicians got involved, partially because the VCC is a crown corp. But the climax is still the same: the decision of the province to financially support these projects needs to be weighed on the same scale: what's it going to cost vs. what benefits will be gained, be it income or public opinion or whatever else they consider. The arguments are pretty much the same then as it is with Seattle here. Maybe you are right, in that the people arguing for the arena don't care, but that doesn't matter much. The team owner needs to sell their position to the city, so when pitching to the city, they present it in the most appealing way possible from the city's perspective. They don't need to sell it to the fans. As you correctly point out, they just want a team. Consider an example:, if you are shopping for clothes, does the salesperson point out their commission as an incentive for you to shop there? Not at all... they present clothing in an appealing manner and give recommendations based on your taste, how certain clothes will look on you, and sometimes price. The salesperson doesn't much care why you want it, so long as they can figure out what makes you want it, since really all they want is to close the deal. That in itself does not make the pitch invalid. As long as the benefits are honestly understood, then the buyer can make an informed decision on the deal, whether it's a person buying clothes, or a city investing in a sports arena. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
butters Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 29 minutes ago, Kragar said: Maybe you are right, in that the people arguing for the arena don't care, but that doesn't matter much. The team owner needs to sell their position to the city, so when pitching to the city, they present it in the most appealing way possible from the city's perspective. They don't need to sell it to the fans. As you correctly point out, they just want a team. I am in fact talking about the argument as it happens on sports forums rather than the overall political process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
butters Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 34 minutes ago, gizmo2337 said: Just make it an election issue for the next council. It will happen.....eventually. but hopefully not on public dollars http://www.bondbuyer.com/news/washington-taxation/bill-would-prohibit-tax-exempt-bonds-for-sports-stadiums-1099959-1.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kragar Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 9 minutes ago, butters said: I am in fact talking about the argument as it happens on sports forums rather than the overall political process. I'm really missing your point here. You responded to my first post here with: On 5/4/2016 at 6:14 PM, 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'm not sure what that, or any other response you made to me has to do with forum arguments, aside from the fact that we are indeed discussing this in a forum. I won't deny that fans get can used in situations like this. Ideally, the council will ignore most of the noise from fans, and do what is right with the money. However, we've all heard politicians attempt to abuse our intelligence with claims that whatever pet project they have will be "good for the kids", or some similar claim, when all they are doing is trying get public support to validate their reason for spending money, regardless of whether or not the project is a good idea. Politics is an emotional business. None of that invalidates the possibility that it can be a good idea for the city to provide some funding for projects that improve the business community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alt kilgore Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 On 2016-05-03 at 8:34 AM, Mackcanuck said: 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 More sharing options...
Mackcanuck Posted May 10, 2016 Author Share Posted May 10, 2016 1. Seattle’s City Council wouldn’t approve an arena in a location specifically zoned for arenas. 2. They wouldn’t approve a street vacation after their own Department of Transportation formally recommended it. 3. They sided with the Port of Seattle, which, per Tim Burgess, had failed to produce any tangible evidence that the street vacation would be detrimental. http://q13fox.com/2016/05/08/commentary-the-full-proof-arena-proposal-that-weve-all-been-missing/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahyoung Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 Does anyone know why they just don't put a new team in Key Arena? I mean the place where the supersonics used to play. Seems like the obvious location to me. If they want a new arena 5-10 years down the road, they have plenty of time to discuss that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 31 minutes ago, jmahyoung said: Does anyone know why they just don't put a new team in Key Arena? I mean the place where the supersonics used to play. Seems like the obvious location to me. If they want a new arena 5-10 years down the road, they have plenty of time to discuss that. How many NHL/NBA clubs have talked about playing at Pacific Coliseum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mackcanuck Posted October 21, 2016 Author Share Posted October 21, 2016 It is not dead yet! http://www.king5.com/news/local/hansens-arena-group-buys-more-sodo-land-investment-now-close-to-125-million/337635210 SEATTLE -- Chris Hansen's Arena investment group has done it again - closing on a major acquisition of land in Seattle's SoDo neighborhood. The only question is what's next? On Tuesday, public records indicated Hansen's LLC, known as WSA Properties, closed on two more parcels between 1st Avenue South and Occidental. One is the Taylor Edwards Building at 1518 1st Avenue South - home of Henry's Tavern, and another is a vacant lot. The price tag: $25 million dollars. The assessed value was just $8.8 million. It brings his team's total investment in the neighborhood at close to $123 million. Just last month, his team closed on a piece of property, more than 4 acres in size, stretching from S. Holgate Street all the way south to Walker Street. The prices paid by Hansen's group, $32 million, was nearly three times the assessed value. His group had previously had an option to buy the property and have designated it for a potential parking garage. The latest acquisition means that Hansen's group owns most of the land on the east side of 1st Avenue South, between Edgar Martinez Way and Holgate, with the exception of one gravel lot and the "DreamGirls" adult entertainment club. It's a clear sign that Hansen's group still has confidence in his long planned Arena project and/or the Seattle economy. The purchase comes five months after the Seattle City Council rejected Hansen's request for a street vacation of Occidental, between Holgate and Massachusetts. The vacation was considered the last major legislative hurdle after more than four years of discussion, that would allow Hansen's proposal to move forward. Hansen and his partners agreed with the city on a Memorandum of Understanding to build a $500 million arena back in 2012. That agreement expires next year. Neither the NBA nor NHL has signaled whether they would provide a team before the expiration of the deal. Multiple reports have indicated the NBA is said to be close to finalizing a new Collective Bargaining Agreement, which could, after the dust settles, reignite discussions about expansion. Hansen's group now owns 12.65 acres in Sodo -- 16 properties comprising more than 551,000 square feet. The landscape has changed, in more ways than one, since the City Council's May rejection. Since the vote, the federal government has granted millions for the Lander Street Overpass project, which has long been a sticking point in any arena conversations. The Port of Seattle sees the overpass as critical to moving freight into and out of SODO. SDOT says it still needs $27 million dollars to build the Overpass. Hansen had agreed to pay $18-20 million for the Lander project, in exchange for the Occidental vacation. In addition, there have been questions raised about Terminal 46, which is part of the Northwest SeaPort Alliance. The terminal's potential to grow cargo took a hit in August when its biggest customer, Hanjin Shipping, declared bankruptcy. The Mariners ownership group, long led by Howard Lincoln, has also now been reorganized. In August, John Stanton, a former Sonics minority owner, took control. Meanwhile, Mayor Ed Murray commissioned an "Industrial Lands Advisory Panel" in August to look at the long-term use of SoDo. One of the first questions it may have to answer is what are Chris Hansen and his group planning? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted October 21, 2016 Share Posted October 21, 2016 Seattle Sea Dogs NHL team (i.e. Coyotes). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apollo Posted October 22, 2016 Share Posted October 22, 2016 On Monday, May 02, 2016 at 9:00 PM, Tony Romo said: You don't think Vancouver will ever get a team again? Definitely will imo. Just a matter of time When the team failed, the city wasn't as flooded with rich as it is now. There was less excess income to pay for tickets... It can definitely support one now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
on the cycle Posted October 24, 2016 Share Posted October 24, 2016 Hockey in the desert makes sense, but not in the pacific NW? Seattle would be a fantastic place for an NHL team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tas Posted October 24, 2016 Share Posted October 24, 2016 I think seattle would be a mistake for the nhl. at best it would be 4th in line for people's sporting entertainment dollar (behind the seahawks, mariners, and sounders), and would be 5th if/when the nba comes back. that's bleak. seattle just doesnt have the population or hockey specific fan base to support it. and then you have all the canucks fans on here saying how they would go down to seattle in droves to watch the canucks play when the canucks can't even sell out their own arena with tickets available for $25 each. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neko Posted October 24, 2016 Share Posted October 24, 2016 On 5/3/2016 at 7:02 AM, Ghostsof1915 said: Well the Whitecaps had a perfect venue in their Waterfront Stadium plan, and expandable from 25,000 to 35,000. Outdoors, grass, and right by the Skytrain and Seabus. That plan was killed when residents worried people would be too loud and unruly. It would have been built privately over the railyards. We could have knocked down BC Place and put in more residential area. Sometimes good ideas get scuttled by politics. Why not expand Empire Fields at the PNE grounds? The least costly and there's room to expand seatings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted October 24, 2016 Share Posted October 24, 2016 Just now, Creepy Crawler said: Why not expand Empire Fields at the PNE grounds? The least costly and there's room to expand seatings. Waterfront stadium would have had access to Skytrain and Seabus that the PNE doesn't have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jägermeister Posted October 24, 2016 Share Posted October 24, 2016 On 5/3/2016 at 0:53 PM, Screw said: ....or 4 men, 4 woman and one Trunk Person? Then they would have voted yes on PROP XW2. Let trunk people get married. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squamfan Posted October 24, 2016 Share Posted October 24, 2016 On May 3, 2016 at 7:02 AM, Ghostsof1915 said: Well the Whitecaps had a perfect venue in their Waterfront Stadium plan, and expandable from 25,000 to 35,000. Outdoors, grass, and right by the Skytrain and Seabus. That plan was killed when residents worried people would be too loud and unruly. It would have been built privately over the railyards. We could have knocked down BC Place and put in more residential area. Sometimes good ideas get scuttled by politics. that would have locked nicethat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted October 24, 2016 Share Posted October 24, 2016 4 hours ago, Creepy Crawler said: Why not expand Empire Fields at the PNE grounds? The least costly and there's room to expand seatings. Crappy transit to PNE area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucks.brad Posted October 24, 2016 Share Posted October 24, 2016 4 hours ago, Creepy Crawler said: Why not expand Empire Fields at the PNE grounds? The least costly and there's room to expand seatings. I loved Empire...the temp stadium was loads better for football. As others have commented...it was terrible for transit. I think only a few bus lines went near it? (135, 27, 16). So not too friendly in that aspect. I would have loved having an outdoor Waterfront stadium. A grass pitch would meant a lot of the superstars who hate turf, might actually have played here instead of claiming injury. Even after the renovation, BC Place feels empty and a big bag of hurt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.