Supersonic Downs
Posted Sep. 18, 2007 at 10:27 am by Mike SeelyCan't tell you how thrilled we are with the news that the Muckleshoot Tribe is willing to donate a large parcel of land near Emerald Downs to whoever wants to build a new Sonic arena there. For hybrid fans of horse racing and hoops (of which I'm one), there's no sweeter scenario. But that's not to say we're not frustrated with how a couple typically sane entities have reacted to this news. For one, Margarita Prentice, longtime friend of Supe who's never been afraid to rake snooty Seattle across the coals, had the following to say in the Seattle times (followed by a logical rebuttal from Rollin Fatland): "One prominent Sonics supporter, Sen. Margarita Prentice, D-Renton, said she doubts the NBA wants an arena so close to the horse-racing track or nearby tribal casinos. An association with gambling is 'a major issue.' That's a hurdle that I don't know how it can be surmounted,' Prentice said. Fatland pointed out the tribe's casino is not adjacent to the proposed arena site and said it is unlikely the Muckleshoots would own the Sonics arena."
Prentice's concerns would only hold water if either Emerald Downs or the Muckleshoot Casino had a sportsbook. Which, of course, neither of them do—which leads us to the unfortunate conclusion that Prentice might be more concerned with siting the new arena in her homebase of Renton than the team's greater good. We sure hope we're wrong there, because we're fond of the scrappy Senator. Someone we're not so thrilled with, on this issue at least, is the SEIU Healthcare 775 Union, which has consistently been in sport hater Chris Van Dyk's pocket since day one of Operation Sonic Storm. Here's 775 Prez Dave Rolf's inane reaction to the Muckleshoot proposal: "While the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe made a generous offer, we are concerned about comments made by Muckleshoot spokespeople regarding the likely need for public funding for a stadium near Emerald Downs. We believe that in a state with 600,000 people without healthcare, a desperate shortage of affordable housing, and a school system that ranks among the lowest in the nation in per pupil spending, it would be unconscionable for elected officials to spend taxpayer dollars on a new sports stadium. We remain strongly opposed to any taxpayer subsidy for a new stadium and are committed to pursuing all options as necessary– including county and state initiatives or referenda – to block public subsidies for a new stadium."
We actually agree with Rolf that health care, affordable housing and schools should be much higher public priorities than financing sports stadia. But here's the thing: When you fund these monoliths, you're not inherently stealing money from health care, housing, or schools, as Rolf would lead us to believe. No legislator in their right mind would willfully skimp on funding the basics in order to fund an arena. It's a different line item in a polar opposite corner of the budget universe.
Topics: Sonics
Comments
Great article. I've been really wondering about Margarita Prentice ever sincce she told the Daily Oklahoman that Clay Bennet did all he could to get an arena deal done. What a pawn.
Posted Sep. 18, 2007 at 2:08 pm by AlexIn other news, check out this dude teeing off on the Durantula. While I sincerely hope this guy's way off in his prediction, I really admire the gusto he puts behind his argument (that Durant will be a disappointment): http://morekrolik.blogspot.com/2007/09/not-so-fast-kevin-durant-lovers.html
Posted Sep. 18, 2007 at 2:15 pm by SeelyIt's nice of the Indians to contribute land, particularly after we took so much of it away from them many years ago, however, the contribution fails to solve two potential problems: Who will contribute money to build the arena? The state has rebuked Bennett's desire for public funding and none of the local daddy warbucks have stepped forward to help fund a new arena. If there are deep pockets willing to fund such a venture, why didn't any of them buy the team from Howie Starbuck when he put the team up for sale? The other problem is that the location is potentially too far away from the corporate largess in the seattle-eastside-snoho county area to make it profitable. Even with the Key Arena in the center of the city, the Sonics couldn't move enough of the luxury boxes to avert massive annual losses. How much better could they do located a short drive from the tacoma smelter sites? Could they get deep pocketed professionals to drive from the north to auburn to watch the sonics?
Sounds like a huge gamble for Bennett or anybody remotely interested in purchasing the Sonics
Posted Sep. 18, 2007 at 6:09 pm by peter"Indians"? Nice one "peter", I think they might take offense. This isn't India.
"The other problem is that the location is potentially too far away from the corporate largess in the seattle-eastside-snoho county area to make it profitable."
Oh, ok, I've heard that there was a study done by somebody, they announced it a couple days ago, had something to do with the Sonics viability in Auburn.
More than 50% of the fans live on the east side, have you driven from the east side to a Sonics game? You might as well drive to Auburn, at least you can park. The bigger point was that it isn't a "huge gamble for Bennett or anybody remotely interested in purchasing the Sonics", not only that, but the owner of the study will kick in FREE LAND.
They Muckleshoot, They Score!
Posted Sep. 18, 2007 at 6:41 pm by Mr BakerIt's a nice gesture to offer land for the new arena, but regardless of the study, it's not a proven location. The same study showed luxury suites are pretty much tapped out in Seattle, so why not stick with the Key? Everyone says they'd rather have the Sonics in Auburn than out of state, but do they just like the idea of them being around, or are they really planning on hauling themselves out there on a regular basis? And although we've talked about using the hotel and restaurant tax for the new arena, where's the money actually going to come from now, since that money is tied up until 2012 or some such time? Didn't that one study show it would take 25 years to pay off the arena, which would drag it out practically to the half century mark. Private investors need to pay for the arena, and if the Shoots want to throw in some free land and the state some tax benefits, that's enough.
Posted Sep. 19, 2007 at 1:25 pm by MaddyMy pockets ain't that deep...
Posted Sep. 19, 2007 at 11:39 pm by Chris Van DykThe study within the study is what is really interesting in the Muckleshoot analysis. A case is being made to the NBA and Bennett to stay in Seattle. Consider this report information:
? Seattle is a premiere NBA City when compared to similar size cities (essentially top 4 of 7) as well as NBA overall (inside top 50%). If you?re the NBA you want to be in this market (either Auburn or Seattle) because the demographic make-up of the region is superior for the target market sought by the NBA and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. Further, the levels of entertainment spending by the target market are also superior to averages in most other NBA cities.
? Sonic ownership has underutilized the target market and significant improvements in attendance seem most reachable with improved marketing.
? The current arena provides target #?s for luxury boxes and premiere seating. A new arena would not/should not have measurable increases in these forms of seating. The current arena is fairly inadequate for concourse amenities.
? The business community wants the NBA in this market and is supportive of keeping it, whether in Seattle or Auburn, but prefers Seattle. Compared to Mariners/Seahawks, the business community involvement in luxury boxes, premiere seating advertising and sponsorship is far lower.
? Even with free land the cost of building a new arena at almost $500 million is not justified AND not as effective as solving the problems (primarily concourse related, perhaps parking secondarily) as making the necessary improvements.
One reasonable conclusion is that Sonics management (pre-Bennett) has been the root cause of much of the franchise?s financial problems. The NBA would be ill served by the Sonics leaving Seattle for any reason. The solution is in a Key Arena remodel.
I doubt that Bennett would agree, his agenda seems to be ?get it all? or go to OK. I also doubt that Seattle city government can pull it off, there agenda seems to be our way or the highway. Not concerned if highway leads to Auburn or OK.
Situation calls for state government and NBA to get involved. Gov?t must say ? Here?s the amount of money we can provide $? make it work? NBA must say ?Make that money work, we NEED to be in Seattle.?
Posted Sep. 20, 2007 at 9:13 am by AMichael