Totally agree. No other franchises seem close to selling and Stern/Silver keep shooting down expansion. Heck, even if another franchise looks to be on the market, you'd think Hansen might be a little gun shy after this mess. Bad time to be a Sonics fan for sure. Of course, if they get the team, they're gonna be on cloud 9.
Gasoline is far more important than a stadium, why doesn't the government force taxpayers to fund gasoline? We need free gasoline for everyone especially during emergencies. Also free emergency surgery for anyone, that's more important. Additionally, the sports subsidy is much much higher than what you claim counting tax breaks on municipal bonds (there are other exemptions too). But let's entertain your comment, you're still ignoring the inefficiency of a stadium and declining attendance across most sports. The cities that host the Olympics frequently lose money and it has far more interest than NBA basketball. Further, what you're saying is that it is something like a government loan, paid back by the Sonics and anyone wanting to host an event there? That's still not going to solve the Socialist Calculation Problem that all bureaucrats have. The problem is with centrally planning the terms of the loan. What happens with interest rates, late payments, who keeps track of the loan, etc. The central planners can barely manage a post office, let alone anything intricate that might take years to pay back like a loan. TARP isn't fully paid back years later, nor was it a good idea in the first place. BTW if politicians would collude together and refuse to give money to anyone, sports owners wouldn't be able to fleece the public at all.
Neoclassical economists are pretty left-wing and even they can see the additional costs of taking in a new stadium. http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/h...cle_dc577017-05ea-5010-bafc-3cc27313b889.html The Sonics are going to fuck taxpayers one way or another. Stadiums are only used maybe 100 out 365 days including home games and concerts, it doesn't create jobs you might as well fund a public museum instead. Let's be honest, sports fans just want to force their lifestyle and demands on others. I'm sure they won't mind, but that isn't right.
Part 1 in an infinite series: "A million questions I would have, if I was a politician in Seattle" Is the loan adjusted for inflation? What rate will inflation be a few years from now? What if the state calculates inflation differently from what the best people in the market say inflation is? What if less revenue is generated than originally thought from taxes? What if attendance continues to decline in sports stadiums? How long do we wait before the loan is modified? Should a government loan be modified? Is this a loan at all, perhaps just a subsidy in case tax revenues aren't generated quickly enough? Who pays the public security that attends this stadium? How do we ascertain the collective bargaining agreement for police officers used as security, or on patrol, around the stadium? What is an "appropriate" government wage for these government employees? Why do government employees tend to get paid more than they would in a market economy? Who builds the stadium, and what if they make the stadium more expensive than originally thought? Why just a basketball stadium, why not a public hospital instead? What if instead of a basketball stadium, we tried to attract rich people and entice them to move and live here by giving them tax breaks instead? Why not build a planned parenthood center for abortion, or several of them all over Seattle instead of a stadium? Why force one group of people to subsidize the other, but let our cronies get tax breaks? Why not subsidize charter schools for poor kinds instead of s stadium? How insolvent does Seattle have to be before they decide to ban all subsidies of any kind? What if the Sonics want renovations again in ten years, how do we know they need renovations? Hey, why not build an extra police station in a bad neighborhood? Why not fund St Jude Children's Hospital instead of building a new stadium or hospital? Or if we decide to give SJCH some money instead of these rich NBA owners, and some of it is a loan, when should they have to pay us back? If we do decide to give money to the Sonics, what kind of process and list of rules do we have to follow to determine when to pursue legal action against them? What if managing the Seattle loan causes our bureacrats to work overtime, what should our overtime wage be? How many secretaries and assistants should we hire to manage the Seattle calculation ordeal? How does one know when they are getting fleeced in a deal? And if we do get fleeced in this Seattle deal, do our politicians get a pass or do we pursue legal recourse against them? What if we decide against funding the stadium, and instead decided to improve prison conditions or legalizing drugs? What if we make tourists pay for the stadium via hotel taxes instead? etc...
To be honest, you've lost me here. Gasoline has a huge tax and it's a use tax...bike to work and you don't pay for it. Indirectly, costs for other things go up when gasoline prices go up, but that metaphor does not transfer to the arena. Arenas don't follow standard righty/lefty models. To me, it's slightly refreshing because enemies become allies and vice versa. Anecdotally, most liberal lefties are anti-stadium. You could also view the proposed $500 million stadium as a good deal to the public because the team is paying for roughly $300 million of it (depending on whether NHL goes to Seattle, the private contribution could be a quite a bit higher.) How many public buildings are 60% paid by the private sector? Like I said, the 40% public contribution comes from events that are held there. Don't want to pay for the arena? Then don't go to arena events. Are you arguing that public officials/central planning are cruddy at their job, so it shouldn't happend because they won't manage the project well? Could be true, but I guess that means we should just stop doing large projects all together? The mayor and the county council also built in a lot of protections that would require the Hansen group to cover additional costs. It's not your garden variety arena deal and it's much different than the Virginia Beach deal you compared it to. Bottomline, if this deal has a problem, it could be that it's a little too good for the city...I'm pretty sure current NBA owners don't like the look of the Seattle deal as much as the Sac deal because Seattle drove a harder bargain. They don't like bad precedent because they know it'll be used against them at some point.
No no, FREE gasoline. As in free. ;] Bike to a hospital in case of an emergency? I don't think so. What if I'm successful I certainly can't bike to work if I live far away, public transportation is inefficient too. So who cares about the cost we're not going to pay for it anyway, it is about public safety and positive rights. I deserve free gasoline. It IS more important or do you disagree? Yeah I wasn't really targeting lefties, in Florida public stadiums get funding all the time and we're more "middle of the road" than Portland or Seattle. The right suck , don't use a false left/right dichotomy. I am only concerned with what I mentioned. Well clearly they aren't paying "60%" of the stadium's costs. As I detailed later on. Morally speaking, I don't see how even 1% is appropriate. Are the minority your property? Yes, yes we should stop. You're making an interpersonal assessment of utility. It isn't your money to fiddle around with though, I think that's the whole point. Relative to what?
A lot of the funding, interest, protections around the deal you questioned were raised during the public comment phase, as well as by the city and county politicians as they negotiated the deal. Seattle politicians aren't push overs when it comes to this stuff and they negotiated to a place good enough to get the deal done. A lot of your questions have zero to do with stadium, so I don't get why you raise it in this context. Funding for the arena isn't being pulled from somewhere else...it's specific to events held there. Pay of government workers versus private sector? We don't need another hospital in Seattle. Schools already receive massive subsidies under the state constitution. Cancer research is not and never has been meaningfully funded by city and county sources. Funding police and fire is important, but it is not being redirected to the arena and is irrelevant. The basis to your argument seems to be that there are other things you'd like to focus resources on. I get that -- then focus your efforts there. Resources are not being diverted from the causes you like to build the arena or pay for it.
Not specific enough. Continue. And tell me, what is the interest? What does it "cost" to build the stadium? Define cost. Oh and read the post and answer some questions instead of ignoring them, they were pretty specific. Of course they are, do you have a minimum wage in Seattle? Protectionism? Rent Control? How much are you currently paying your police officers in Seattle? Define "cost". Pick up your local left-wing Economics textbook then, and look in the "O" section. I'll give you a hint, O.C. Yes? Oh I would LOVE to see this explanation, bruh. How many of them are charter schools, and private schools? Dude stop, you can not address everything I assure you. I never claimed it was, in the past. Why isn't it funded then in other words? Is it important? You tell me? Also explain why, and how many of them should use patrol cars, and how many police officers should be on foot. Also tell me how many fingerprint machines and computers to buy for your local police station. And how long does it take to fire a police officer in Seattle, and how did they determine that? That's the most obvious case of government failure with police officers, to give you a break. Really, and how did you arrive at this conclusion? I guess I should ignore every single Economist that has ever taught at a major university then.
Basically the city is lending its credit to facilitate the arena being built. There are personal guarantees in effect. If huevonkiller had billions of dollars and wanted to personally guarantee bonds to build other infrastructure or give "free gas" it would be the same thing. The problem is, nobody wants to do that. There is no current opportunity cost here, as there are NO other opportunities currently to extend credit with personal guarantees by billionaires.
I commend your input Zybot. Let me just ask a few questions, and make a few comments, if you don't mind. Yes. Define "personal guarantee". Similar sure, but not the same. Your hypothetical case involves my money, which is very different. I get to do what I want with my money. Indeed. As it stands now at least. Just to clear up any confusion, please define opportunity cost. I certainly agree that there are no other opportunities currently to extend credit by billionaires.... Or are there? You tell me, are you sure?
Honestly, Huevo, I get why you raise some of the issues you raise, but it's so Clay Bennett era. Totally different deal on the table. You might not be aware, but Seattle politicians are pretty anti-arena and it's not for nothing that an arena deal got signed. Huge private contributions, huge personal guarantees made by Hansen and crew. Funding limited to arena events (and not non-specific taxes fees/taxes involving cabs, rentals cars, hotels, like baseball park and football field got.) You're right the money being fiddled around with isn't mine and it isn't the average taxpayers. It's significantly on the Hansen group and to a lesser extent on those who will go to the arena (which I hope will be me on opening night sporting a sign with the Blazer insignia and welcoming the Sonics back to town.) The pot you're stirring has been stirred plenty already in this town and the problems by and large resolved. If you've followed it closely, you would have seen concrete material issues raised by anti-arena people reduced to hypothetical issues by the time the deal got signed.
Danny Westneat is a Seattle Times columnist that was pretty strongly anti-arena in times past. He's definitely left of center and is a pretty good example of a smart person looking at the big picture who changed his mind, given the deal Hansen and crew put on the table. Here's a link to his column regarding the arena deal...it's a pretty good synopsis of the change in mindset that happened here since Clay B. want his palace built for him. http://seattletimes.com/html/dannywestneat/2018312489_danny30.html
I honestly appreciate some of your sentiment in recognizing the "problem", and would like to move on, however you can not proceed without answering my basic question. Your argument is like another language to me. Define "anti-arena", "huge", "funding", "limited". Most importantly what do you mean by "cost", I can not follow your premise otherwise. Is it? What is significantly? I have no problem with you donating your income, I hope you have a fun time watching whatever it is you want to watch. I don't think you've ever seen this pot before. ;] Hypothetical issues? Are there any, I certainly can't think of one at the moment.
Oh I'll certainly have to break this down later, but being left of center is not a good sign to me just to let you know. To each his own. ;]
Anti-arena = people who would like to do something else than build an arena. See also, Citizens for More Important Things, of which you should be a member Huge = high percentage of overall arena cost paid by Hansen. Limited=public contribution to arena construction is confined to fees, taxes and surcharges of events that occur at the arena Cost= money required to purchase land, build arena and maintain the arena Significantly?= Read the Westneat column. To be blunt, you need to read up on the deal before you bash it. You're fired up about a deal that you don't understand. Believe me, there's not much you've raised that's a surprise. Living where I live, it's been a constant conversation since 1993 (first baseball park, then football and now basketball) and we actually have some smart articulate people that are anti-arena here.
What do you mean? all of these are appropriate. Especially this one. I'm educating and I'm informing... on the mob. I bet you didn't see that one coming. that's what she said. Well now... How is the weather in Idaho? Do you guys get tired of that joke about you guys being hoes? I know we don't here. poop/ fart. doodie.
@WojYahooNBA: The NBA committees have voted no to relocation of Kings to Seattle, sources tell Y! Sports. Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2
