The Arena proposal: Oh, what a lovely donnybrook!
In the basketball and hockey proposal, Seattle has the high-stakes, long-drawn-out conflict it loves to wallow in. Here's a rundown on the major issues and how they will shake up Seattle politics.
Office of the Mayor
Seattle may not get a basketball team, but it does have a great big, obsessional sports event on its hands, worthy of the Viaduct Wars of recent years. This is the battle over Mayor Mike McGinn's new pet project, the basketball/hockey/rock-show arena proposed just south of Safeco Field. Great! Another distraction from the serious problems facing our region and our politics!
Battles over sports facilities are especially intense in this region. Politicians can't afford to ignore juicy offers by moguls to build a facility and go fishing for a major league team, and so McGinn's hand was forced once Chris Hansen, a Bay Area hedge fund manager, approached the city about nine months ago. But neither can politicians afford to be rolled, or to appear to spend public dollars on billionaires. The result is a kind of elaborately lawyered and spin-doctored kind of deal that invites skepticism.
Similarly, opponents must operate through surrogates, invent objections that mask their economic self-interest, and frame their opposition with care. ("Citizens for More Important Things," the previous anti-arena group that helped scotch a deal to keep the Sonics, is a good example of a well-framed name.) The Seattle City Council, likely the leader of the skeptics, will have to contend with charges that members are simply opposing the mayor's project because they don't want him getting reelected in 2013.
In short, a glorious (and silly) donnybrook. Mix in with this Seattle's chronic anxiety about whether it's major league enough (can six major league sports satisfy our yearning, or do we also have to have an Olympics?), and you really do have a kind of existential saga.
So let's take a dispassionate look at the biggest underlying issues, before things get way out of control.
One such issue is KeyArena at Seattle Center, the former home of the Sonics. Hansen apparently told the mayor that he had no interest in renovating the Key, effectively taking it off the table. But as City Councilmember Sally Bagshaw has asked, "What is it about KeyArena that money can't fix?" With nearly $100 million already invested in remodeling the Key and $490 million proposed for the new facility in SoDo, you would think the Key could work for just a few hundred million or so.
There are problems with the Key, particularly its comparative distance from I-5 and the growing traffic problems in South Lake Union. But there is a whole infrastructure of parking, nightlife, bars, restaurants, and buslines that serve lower Queen Anne. There's also the financial health of Seattle Center to factor in. Downsizing the Key to smaller rock shows and basketball crowds for the Storm and Seattle U. may not be the best financial fix.
Fixing the Key is plausible, if not ideal. First, the floor for basketball would have to be enlarged to accommodate hockey; this would be expensive and might cost some seats. Then the north and south ends would have to be extended substantially to handle concourses for food, exhibits, luxury boxes and the like. There are shortages of parking and serious access problems for loading in big shows. Expect all this to be put back on the table, though Hansen might short-circuit this debate by flatly ruling out the Key and threatening to take his marbles and leave town.
Curiously, Hansen could even end up managing the down-sized KeyArena. Hansen won't want to have a similar-sized Key competing for rock shows with his new Arena, so downsizing the Key will be an essential part of the deal. Hansen may be pressured to pay for some of this renovation, and the city says in its FAQ that "Chris Hansen has expressed interest in running the Key long-term."
Next comes the issue of whether the SoDo location is desirable, and what financial interests are behind it. Start with the fact that almost no location for an arena (or a convention center, or a hospital) is desirable. They are bulky, high-walled, parking-intensive institutions that fit poorly in any human-scaled, mixed-use urban setting. That's why they are normally relegated to the suburbs or disused, cheap land like railyards. The Eastside, which at least has people rich enough to afford basketball tickets, has apparently dropped out of the running, fearful of huge traffic jams at the I-405 intersections. One plausible location, south of Boeing Field in land owned by developer Dave Sabey, has good highway and transit access, but is probably too far from the Seattle hotels to gain favor.
The Sodo location about six blocks south of Pioneer Square's historic district is a transit nexus (Sound Transit, Metro bus tunnel, Amtrak, ferries), and it can keep the parking garages for other sports facilities busy in other times. It's close to I-5, SR-99, and I-90. But it's hard to imagine much of a supporting neighborhood, such as lower Queen Anne, arising nearby, particularly because of the industrial zoning that manufacturing interests will work hard to retain. Indeed, one of the deep Seattle issues of whether to allow SoDo zoning to change to allow residential and commercial uses will resurface in earnest in the Arena War.
The debate will also shine light on a significant figure in SoDo, the attorney Henry Liebman who has used greencard-related overseas investments to assemble 40 acres of properties, running mostly south of Holgate Street, the southern boundary of the proposed Arena. Liebman figures to be a powerful force for upzoning the area, and his publicity-shy ways could cast him in the same suspicion-rousing role as Paul Allen, the major developer in South Lake Union. Seattle loves such melodramas, and Hansen's own demeanor, avoiding the public and living in the Bay Area, will also fan such flames.
The proposed SoDo location also raises the issue of traffic, particularly Port-related and freight traffic, in the area. Freight mobility is already impacted by the stadiums, as well as the years of detours for the waterfront tunnel replacing the Alaskan Way Viaduct. That said, the traffic impacts of teams at KeyArena might be worse.
A third big issue will be trust. These deals require leaps of faith in such tattered institutions as the NBA and the NHL, famed for ripping up supposedly binding agreements with cities when necessary. Seattle ought to know, of course, after watching its binding agreements for the Sonics to play at the Key, and a 30-year lease on the Kingdome, both prove short-lived. The proposer of the deal, Chris Hansen, is unknown and his rapid acquisition of wealth via hedge funds will compound his problems in gaining trust. (Attention: Occupy Seattle!) One also wonders at his real motives for this project, since he hasn't been a Seattle benefactor before (he grew up in Seattle), isn't much of a sports fan, and will bring in other (unnamed) investors who might control the enterprise. This is not exactly the Nordstorm family.
One possible investor would be Steve Ballmer, Microsoft's CEO, a true basketball fanatic, and the almost-savior of the Sonics at the Key. Another motivation could be the need for Microsoft to have large meeting spaces for its sales conventions and other pep rallies. The new Arena, one should note, is not just about sports and rock shows: it will also be a large facility for big meetings, rallies, maybe even a national political convention, a very big deal for focusing attention on any city.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Tue, Feb 21, 10:04 a.m. Inappropriate
There is surely a Nero-fiddling aspect to the arena debate that can't be denied. But why fight it? There is no serious possibility that Americans in general, or Seattleites in particular, are going to awaken from their self-induced stupor to somehow rationally tackle the myriad problems that this society faces. It's clearly too overwhelming to contemplate. So let's just go with the flow and enjoy a real Roman party. First suggestion: carry out the historic theme explicitly by modeling the new arena after the original Coliseum. For the dedication we could re-route the Gay Pride Parade through SoDo, climaxing with Dan Savage ceremonially tossing Rick Santorum to a select bunch of local cougars. And PVR arising from the dead? Who could even have imagined that? Maybe he'll reincarnate this time as a French Socialist. The possibilities are endless!
Posted Tue, Feb 21, 10:22 a.m. Inappropriate
What about all the money the city is spending on The Next 50, Seattle Center's pat-me-on-the-back celebration of the 1962 Seattle World's Fair? This is really the year to reinvent our civic center and its historic Coliseum (aka Key Arena). Mayor Mike has definitely cast his eyes the other way.
Posted Tue, Feb 21, 10:52 a.m. Inappropriate
"The new Arena, one should note, is not just about sports and rock shows: it will also be a large facility for big meetings, rallies, maybe even a national political convention, a very big deal for focusing attention on any city."
The seating capacity of the new arena will be 18,000, according to the information provided the public so far. KeyArena holds about 17,100. So, the new arena is not significantly any bigger than KeyArena, and wouldn't be able to host any events that that Key could not hold, other than NHL and NBA games. Certainly, it wouldn't be big enough for national political conventions.
We already have KeyArena, the Convention Center, the trade show events center at Century Link Field, an NFL stadium which hosts large concerts, a MLB stadium which has hosted a big pro wrestling event (which drew around 50,000), and a brand-new college football stadium which will open in about a year.
A new, 18,000-seat arena is not going to bring any new events to Seattle other than the NBA and NHL. That is the only thing this is about.
http://www.king5.com/news/local/KING-5-Poll-80-percent-oppose-taxpayer-money-for-new-arena-139757733.html
And the public is overwhelmingly opposed to any public money going into a new arena, according to this King 5 poll:
"Eighty percent of respondents said they opposed having taxpayers help cover some of the costs for a new arena, compared to 10 percent in favor."
Only 10% favor public funding part of the cost of a new arena. Ten percent!!
Everyone I know is opposed to this deal. One good friend of mine, who was a big Sonics fan, while discussing the possiblility of a new NBA/NHL arena in Seattle almost screamed, "NOT ONE DOLLAR of public money" should go into such an arena.
This proposal is a scam, and the general public is smart enough to see through it. It is pure publci subsidy of pro sports billionaire owners and multi-millionaire players. We have had enough of that.
Posted Tue, Feb 21, 2:37 p.m. Inappropriate
We do not need another "publicly-owned, multi-purpose facility that hosts a variety of recreational and cultural events for the benefit of the entire region" (as Chris Hansen's February 15, 2012, letter to Mike McGinn and Dow Constantine refers to the potential structure.) If someone wants to build a facility, hire performers, and sell tickets to their performances, he should purchase some property, build his facility, and operate his private business like any other. The taxes that such a business would be required to pay to the city regardless of the method by which construction of the structure was funded should not be used to repay the public for chipping in on construction costs.
Posted Tue, Feb 21, 3:43 p.m. Inappropriate
If someone wants to build a facility, hire performers, and sell tickets to their performances, he should purchase some property, build his facility, and operate his private business like any other.
Like, say, Pacific Northwest Ballet, Seattle Symphony, Seattle Art Museum and Seattle Opera?
Posted Tue, Feb 21, 3:48 p.m. Inappropriate
Given the news today about the Phoenix Coyotes, the NHL seems really unlikely. Spending $400 million for 900 incremental seats for 41 pro games a year seems like a big waste of money.
Posted Tue, Feb 21, 4:03 p.m. Inappropriate
McGinn continues to amaze me in that every time he manages to do a half-way decent job on something (e.g. recent snow removal) he then quickly reverts to form and again looks like he's detached from reality. How many times does Seattle need to get burned by out-of-town rich guys peddling their public-private snake oil about sports stadiums? As the old joke says, "enough is too much." And that goes for McGinn and his symbiotic mini-me, Mr. O'Brien, as well.
Posted Tue, Feb 21, 5:32 p.m. Inappropriate
Disgusted with both Constantine & McGinn's pandering. McGinn has obviated the reasons I voted for him. I fear, however, that there will be no candidate that isn't in the pro corner for this boondoggle. Despite what any of these folks say, public money is involved as the proposal now stands. We need to say NO and figure out some way to make that NO stick. Enough already with this stuff!
Posted Tue, Feb 21, 5:42 p.m. Inappropriate
I disagree that battles over sports facilities are especially intense in this region. These battles occur in almost every city--right now Tampa, FL, Sacramento, CA), yet the powers that be cave to the millionaire sports owners -- maybe it's because they are mostly men?
And of course the "Arena Review Panel seems tilted toward supporters of the idea." Aren't all "stakeholder groups" just supporters of whatever proposal is being considered by the powers that be?
Blue Light you forgot the Intiman and Bagley Wright -- all businesses that get public dollars and still can't pay the rent they owe to the City.
Posted Tue, Feb 21, 7:31 p.m. Inappropriate
Mayor McGinn has finally figured out how to define his one term legacy. Up to now, his biggest success was the passage of the school bond issue on the last ballot. Of course, that passed in part because he did not actively support it. Now he can claim that he brought back the Sonics. Well, the good news is that he will be long out of office when (if) the new arena is built and the sports teams are in place.
Posted Wed, Feb 22, 5:07 p.m. Inappropriate
David, the property is already zoned for stadiums.
See page 20 of the draft www.StadiumDistrict.org proposal crafted by the Mariners and Seahawks.
The Mariners and Seahawks inadvertently made the case for something to go on in the Stadium District during their off seasons, how can they get more sustained activity in the Stadium District, increase density, and apparently increase the irony.
The proposed arena is within the 15 minute walking circle, with its center being at the north lot of Seahawk stadium.
To answer the "why not the Key" question, 1st, the new arena will have only about a thousand more arena seats than Key Arena (true) with all of those 18,000 unobstructed views of the NHL ice. Key Arena, at best, can provide roughly 9,000 unobstructed views. There will be larger floor surface area for the ice in the new arena, therefore more on the floor seating and display area for non-sports events. It is bigger. In order to get another 9,000 unobstructed views at Key Arena you would have to do such a major remodel that you would spend a lot more in construction costs than has been casually treated in your article. And remember, you must keep the roof lines/beams in place, they have architectural value to the city.
While Key Arena is renovated the city would be on the hook to pay for all of the Storm's temporary relocation costs (up to two years), a deal that was exempt from I-91.
The proposal results in the city and county having joint ownership at the end of the bonds. The county has responsibility for the ticket taxes, etc, and they have some bond capacity that can take pressure off the city.
The county has a financial interest in the resulting activity from this facility. As far as your "why Dow" question, well, Dow had the "why me" type question almost a year and a half ago.
http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/2010/09/moving-forward-with-king-county.html
I'll answer that now as I think all of us did then, we need political leadership. Turning to the City of Seattle just hasn't worked out so well in the past (it's true). And... a solution anywhere in King County is a solution.
My answer to him is the same as it is to you, it's about who you can trust. The city may be where stadiums are located, but few are actually city stadiums. They are county entities for the most part, and it just didn't matter to us basketball fans where in King County an arena gets built (still doesn't).
I commend the mayor for staying inside the I-91 lines, and moving something forward that is remakibly free of structural obsticals, leaving people with transportation infrastructure to complain like Rooseveltians about density, and people that have hard feelings no matter what was proposed.
A municipality was going to be approached and the county would be involved somehow. I think that if Seattle drops the ball then you would see an arena pop up near a light rail line in Bellevue.
Mike Baker
Sock puppet, er, Political tea leaf reader for ArenaSolution.org
Posted Wed, Feb 22, 6:44 p.m. Inappropriate
I didn't answer the "why Dow" question very well from Dow's perspective, since I don't actually know what his thoughts are, but this is how it looked like it would go to me:
Somebody would propose an arena.
The county would be involved in some way.
The county has credibility when it says that it doesn't have any money. Dow confirmed that fact, but that is not what is lacking, it is leadership. The county, no matter how you look at it, gets an upside in some way. The county isn't putting money in but they get money out of it by people coming to King County to spend money. Dow is the executive at the highest level to make any proposal move forward anywhere in King County, people outside of him in all directions are just not as free to make a decision.
From the fan perspective, the NBA and politicians let us down, and they all had their reasons, some good, some purely political insulation. Unlike other instances where this has happened there happen to be some budding movie makers that really took people to task in a very public way. All we really wanted was for leaders to lead, and be honest, apparently too much for some people.
A friend (Camp Jones, great human being) bid an won at an auction (not kidding) lunch with Dow. I was invited, lucky me. We fans were able to tell him that we would support any effort that came his direction to get an arena in King County. There is remakibly little downside for an exec that has no money, and the support of pretty vocal citizens to at least try.
From the fans side, there is zero downside.
What he is left with is evaluating this proposal that isolates the effort to the facility, in Seattle. It's the municipality exec that carries the greatest portion of downside from other constituencies.
I think he looked at the proposal and saw that it was possible.
It is more credible because Dow was there, not less.
That says something about his credability, too.
I think this happens, and your guy Peter finds a way to green ribbon the Stadium District asthetics and density to enough of an advantage that his earlier comments don't look so half thought out.
Posted Mon, Mar 12, 8:37 p.m. Inappropriate
and the others "from Missouri" must be an obscure movie reference or tip of the cap to the slogan "Show me". Seattle is big enough to welcome the NBA and NHL and the big boy pants events and say goodbye to the outdated and 'built for 12 year old, skinny,teeny-bopper concert crowd' that finds comfortable seating at Key Arena. Also, lets look to SODO for convention center space and never expand the current downtown 'Ellis debacle'.
Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.