Extremely well written piece. Thank you. The last couple paragraphs illuinate what really added expenses to the current sports stadiums and the Gates Foundation locations; the costs of rerouting traffic and building new transportation infrastructure to accomodate these structures. Generally these costs are hidden from the public. The City seems attracted to any project that gives them quick tax revenue like sports tickets. This money isused to pay for all the city employees. Really running the city is running a business, a comptetive business with the advantage of being able to skim a percentage off the top of every ticket (car rental, hotel room rented etc) sold. Thats wht the City Council is so enthusiastic without much due diligence. Quick cash.

Actually, you are wrong about the "quick cash." The tax revenue on tickets, concessions, etc., which would and should go to the city, will instead be used to pay off the construtciont bonds for the arena. So, the city (and county) won't get any "quick cash" from this deal, at all. That is the public tax subsidy for the arena -- the taxes collected at the arena that should go to the city and county general funds will instead be used to pay for part of the arena.

There is a reason the backers are trying to rush this through with as little public scrutiny as possible, and great thanks are due Matt Fiske for illuminating these concerns in this well-written piece.

Here's a key point backers don't want focus on: "The true benefits to backers are greater than most people realize. The opportunity costs and the risks to governments are frequently clouded by fan-fueled boosterism."

There is no rush. There is no team. Even if a team becomes available, there are far better places to put a new arena than in the city's premier industrial and manufacturing center, and wiping out high-payng good jobs for low-wage service sector jobs.

The key phrase here is "behind closed doors."

McGinn, the "progressive" darling of Seattle's hipsters, bicyclists, and all-night drinkers, has been just as secretive as any Republican plutocrat.

First he tried to give away the Key Arena as if he owned it. Then he uncorks some lie about how this isn't a subsidy to a California billionaire. He adds another lie about how the city is insulated from financial risk. He pretends to offer a citizens review committee, which winds up being packed with real estate developers. You know, the same ones he's trying to exempt from zoning laws that require them to including parking in their new buildings.

Okay, so we have another gigantic piece of evidence that McGinn is every last bit as corrupt as any other politician who's ever waddled through Seattle with his pockets stuffed full of cash. But let's not let the city council off the hook, because they're all in on it too.

Meanwhile, the voters will be required to vote on a series of tax increases to preserve basic services, as if what we pay now shouldn't fund them. We have the best local government that rich special interests can buy.

The cherry on top of this sundae is that the "progressives" of Seattle actually defend this cast of characters and call them "progressive." Why? Because they'll paint a few bike lanes on the crumbling concrete? The "progressives" are such cheap dates!

Public Policy Analysis in theory considers "worst case," more often than not the theory in practice is best case. This even though the problems with doing so now abound, and far beyond our fair city.

A mere five days ago the WSJ just reported the grossest one yet. Goggling exactly: "Glendale's Public Hockey Project" bypasses the paywall.

Less than a month ago the WSJ was reporting on missing in action sports teams at Kansas City. Goggle exactly: " Urban Center Is Budget Hole" for that one.

A few days before that another city was singing the blues. Goggle exactly: " Newark, Devils Walk Away From Fee Deals"

Prior to this latest "do I have a deal for you," I confess to paying attention to more important things.

Add Wenatchee to your list.

I agree with the other commenters that this was a refreshingly useful and informative piece of writing. I had no idea of all the "hidden" extras in benefits Hansen and his investors could potentially reap. I knew for sure that this plan would involve public money and would result in other, more important, needs being unmet, or as NotFan notes, and extra taxes levied against us.

I have to say I am so disappointed in McGinn. As others note, he went right over to the dark side (this assuming the best that he wasn't part of it to start), and is ever more firmly entrenching himself there along with our council members.

It would be great to have someone not beholden to the developers (including the transit folks) for whom to vote. But that seems unlikely. They would never be able to raise the money to run a winning race. We should lobby for a local ordinance repudiating Citizens United.

When all the data comes out, this will be revealed as a huge embarrassment for the Mayor's office, as well as his biggest failure.

One can only hope.

Maybe Matt would like to write this when he has the MOU, and not just the assertions he pulls out of his ass.

Or not.

Of course, Mr. Baker is already pushing this deal as hard as he can, without having see the MOU, right, Baker? Baker doesn't care what is in the MOU, he will support it no matter what.

How much crap have you written about this arena deal without having seen the MOU, Baker? You don't mind pulling assertions out of your ass, do you?

Is there anything that could be in the MOU that would cause you to withdraw your support for this boondoggle, Baker?

I doubt he'd ever be against it. But I'd be for it if the guy who wants to build it will pay for it himself. You know, just like Amazon is going to pay for its own office building?

Seattle wants the NBA back, and will take the hockey that goes with it.It has wanted the NBA back ever since the Sonic's left. And now the "remorse" sets in which can only be satisfied by a lengthy "Seattle process." And process, and more process. Yes, the investors will make money, and hopefully the City will do its due diligence, which it should, and the taxpayers will be out some bucks. But bottom line: Does Seattle "want the car?" To be continued.

The taxpayers "will be out some bucks" only if we tolerate official corruption.

Remember "you have to buy now or the opportunity will be gone forever"?

So 2007.

Certainly I do not have a vested interest in an NBA stadium in Seattle short of having some sympathy for the way the Sonics were so cruelly yanked out of town. That said, this is a good article with some problems as well. We are in a diverse global economy. Even sports function in this manner. A basketball fan is Madrid reads a story about Seattle Super Sonics and thinks positively about the city. Another is offered a job in Seattle from Boston and must decide if his/her lifelong love of NBA is to be forsaken as part of the cost. These factors help determine where companies locate or relocate. These same companies often gain great tax benefits from local governments for doing so (or not leaving). Seattle competes with other cities for these things to keep the city vibrant. Non-sports companies use the exact same tax laws to gain an advantage over competitors. Using depreciation of intangibles for taxes was around before NBA franchises. Same with depreciation of fixed assets. The article is carefully worded to mislead that only sports teams can do this. Still, I am not in favor of public financed arenas unless ticket taxes are dedicated to retiring the bonds and there is no up-front cost to the government except transportation. Yes, transportation is a cost to the government, as it is for a new mall or a new park. Most of those costs are borne by the federal government when they involve interstate highways.

Non-sports companies use the exact same tax laws to gain an advantage over competitors.

Within a week of McGinn having announced the sweetheart subsidy for his new billionaire BFF from California, Amazon announced that it would erect three office buildings downtown. Did you notice the city offering to pay half the cost of the buildings out of the sales tax receipts on the books Amazon sells?

I didn't notice anything like that. So don't tell us that every business gets a bucketload of subsidy, because it's not true. And if someone stays in Boston rather than take a Seattle job because there's no pro basketball team here, I'd say the dummy didn't want the Seattle job to begin with.

Frank McCourt, recent owner of the Las Angeles Dodgers surely must be or should be Mr. Hansen's inspiration. McCourt bought the Dodgers in 2004 for $430 million, he then ran up $579 million in debt, never made a profit and then sold out (after entering bankruptcy) for $2 BILLION. The LA market, the glamour, the publicity, the stars...etc. It is more than sad, it is sick-making, that Seattle would harm our port, the should-be soul of the city, to even one 15 minute traffic jam in order to join this mass hysteria of big image, big money sports. As most commenters above note there is no payoff except to those afflicted by media driven professional sports neurosis.