Public opinion much more complex on arena than media's picture
The results of a poll released last week are being stereotyped as the public wanting a new sports arena but not being willing to pay for it. That simplistic summary misses a great deal.
A week after The Elway Poll on the proposed Seattle basketball/hockey arena, it seems appropriate to weigh in before some unfounded conclusions calcify into “common knowledge.”
Interpretation of the public attitude about the arena proposal is already falling into the convenient meme that “the public wants the arena, but they don’t want to pay for it.” Neither part of that conclusion is quite accurate. First, there was no majority strongly in favor of the arena proposal. Second, it is being presented as free. It’s not fair to disparage the public for wanting something for nothing when that is precisely how the deal is being presented.
For starters, 30% of survey respondents were “strongly in favor” of bringing professional basketball and hockey to Seattle. Another 24% said they were “favorable” to the idea, “but I don’t feel strongly about it.” Keep that 30% number in mind.
The arena proposal is rather complex and at the time of the survey few people had heard any details. In the survery, we introducted the proposal as follows: “The proposal is that the City of Seattle would buy the land from the investors. The city would own the land and the investors would own the arena. The arena would pay rent and taxes to the City out of proceeds from games and other events at the arena. This money would repay the purchase price of the land.” Some 35% described their “initial reaction” to this proposal as “favorable” and another 25% were “leaning to favorable.”
Survey respondents were generally divided over questions of using the city and county’s borrowing capacity to guarantee the construction, locating the arena near the Port and the other stadiums, and incurring public cost for transportation and other improvements in the area around the arena.
On the issue of using public funds, there was no even split. These survey respondents, like Seattle voters on R-71 a few years back, were clear. Given a choice, 62% of these respondents said: “Any new professional sports arena should be privately financed. There should be no risk that any public money will ever be needed to pay for this arena.” On the other side, 32% said: “The benefits of having professional basketball back in Seattle — plus professional hockey — outweigh the risk that taxpayers might eventually have to pay something.”
At the end of the interview, we posed a series of “costs” versus “not building the arena at all.” The costs were: 1) “committing taxpayer dollars to the project”; 2) "using local government borrowing capacity for construction bonds”; 3) “incurring public costs for transportation and safety improvements in the area”; and 4) locating the arena near Safeco and Century Link Fields and the Port. For only two of those four “costs” was there a majority on the side of the arena — the location and the ancillary costs for transportation and safety.
Given four choices between building the arena and a reason not to build it, only 29% chose the build option all four times, while 32% said no to the arena all four times.
Bottom line: 3 in 10 voters want the arena and are willing to incur almost any cost to get it (the same number that wants the NBA back in town); 3 in 10 do not want the arena; and 3 in 10 think it might be OK, but not if it costs anything. Only 1 in 10 fit the stereotype of wanting the arena but not wanting to pay anything for it.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Thu, May 31, 6:07 a.m. Inappropriate
Wonderful detail. Thanks for posting this.
Posted Thu, May 31, 9:32 a.m. Inappropriate
Clearly this proposal to use public funds for an arena should be subject to a public vote and No, I-91 was NOT that public vote. I-91 was a concept -- that a publicly subsidized sports facility must return a profit for the public -- and it is not at all clear that this proposed arena would do that.
More important, this proposed arena, in the proposed location, would have huge negative impacts on a key industrial and manufacturing center of the city. Though it would generate construction jobs for a time, it would ultimately force out family wage blue collar jobs in return for low-paying service jobs.
Read the comments of some of the key supporters -- that is their stated goal: to create an "entertainment district" in what is now a key industrial and manufacturing center for the entire state.
Also read Art Thiel's recent piece, which mentions that even now farmers in Eastern Washington are affected by traffic in Sodo.
This is not simply about yes or no to pro basketball and maybe hockey, as some portray it. It is a decision of enormous magnitude and consequences, and the public needs and deserves an opportunity to make the ultimate decision.
If the public is to vote on a seawall, libraries, schools and other vital services that do not only serve those who have certain financial ability, then the public surely should have the opportunity to vote on whether to provide public funding for a facility that many will not be able to use because the price of entry will be more than they can afford.
Posted Thu, May 31, 5:57 p.m. Inappropriate
If is complies with I-91 as the mayor has said then I doubt the council will place this on the ballot with the sea wall and libraries vote.
2 of those 3 things ask to raise taxes. Comparatively, the arena will look "free", and the other two not "free".
I'm guessing that is ot really the choice the council will want to put before the voters. The choice they will want on the ballot is between keeping libraries open, or not, between replacing the sea wall, or catastrophic flooding.
Posted Thu, May 31, 6:21 p.m. Inappropriate
The council will do everything it can to avoid a public vote. The only thing they're interested in is a billionaire's dollars for their next election campaign, plus anything else he shovels at them in the form of skybox tickets and cash-filled suitcases.
Posted Thu, May 31, 10:25 a.m. Inappropriate
How about another one of those "trick" Yes/Yes No/No votes that resulted in our soon-to-be-gridlocked tunnel fiasco on the waterfront? By creating a third confusion generating option, the moving, shaking, stake holding minions of special interest can toss back another scotch and finish their dirty work in some back room in Olympia.
Posted Thu, May 31, 11:56 a.m. Inappropriate
The "no public money" caption on the photo isn't accurate. The Giants received a $10 million tax break from San Francisco, and the city also put in about $80 million of transit improvements for the ballpark.
Posted Thu, May 31, 6:13 p.m. Inappropriate
Only 1 in 10 fit the stereotype of wanting the arena but not wanting to pay anything for it.
I'm part of the 10%, I guess. Maybe. I can't say I "want" the arena, but I'm perfectly fine with it if it's entirely private. I see it as no different than any other business facility.
Posted Thu, May 31, 6:36 p.m. Inappropriate
This poll is very clear: 62% of respondents said they OPPOSE the current arena proposal.
I hope the City Council is paying attention.
Posted Thu, May 31, 6:55 p.m. Inappropriate
"Bottom line: 3 in 10 voters want the arena and are willing to incur almost any cost to get it (the same number that wants the NBA back in town); 3 in 10 do not want the arena; and 3 in 10 think it might be OK, but not if it costs anything. Only 1 in 10 fit the stereotype of wanting the arena but not wanting to pay anything for it."
67% do not oppose the arena as long as they don't have to pay for it. Don't go, it won't cost you (expect to hear that for 2 months).
Posted Fri, Jun 1, 1:52 p.m. Inappropriate
We hear all kinds of lies, so I suppose we'll hear that one too.
Posted Fri, Jun 1, 3:28 p.m. Inappropriate
"Given a choice, 62% of these respondents said: “Any new professional sports arena should be privately financed. There should be no risk that any public money will ever be needed to pay for this arena.”"
This proposal includes up to $200 million in "public money."
Ergo, 62% of poll respondents are OPPOSED to this current arena proposal.
62% of respondents feel the arena should be privately financed. This arena proposal is not entirely privately financed, as Hansen, McGinn, and Constantine all agree.
Your comprehension has not improved at all, Mr. Baker.
Posted Sat, Jun 2, 11:40 a.m. Inappropriate
My comprehension is fine. I'm just telling you what the opposition argument has been and will be.
Still no word on who paid for the poll.
Posted Thu, May 31, 6:40 p.m. Inappropriate
I'm convinced the the Seattle Times and the Publicola kids didn't actually see the poll before writing their opinions last week.
Who paid for the poll?
Posted Thu, May 31, 6:49 p.m. Inappropriate
"For only two of those four “costs” was there a majority on the side of the arena — the location and the ancillary costs for transportation and safety."
It appears that even the public doesn't believe the Port, bad news for the Seattle Times Editorial Board, either nobody reads or believes their hyperbole, either.
Posted Fri, Jun 1, 4:23 p.m. Inappropriate
I wonder what the shooter thought about another entertainment venue for the elite? Something like, uh, "This city ain't worth saving," probably.
Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.