TheJoe03: Yeah but it's an old, out of date arena built in the 60s.

Don't forget the 100 million dollar remodel (75% funded by the city) in 1995 that made it 'one of the finest in the league'. Forgive me if I don't believe these guys as far as I can throw them.

davidphogan: While cities may not see revenues from local sources increase, all the studies that show money is just spent elsewhere doesn't seem that believable.

http://www.imakenews.com/cppa/e_article000623460.cfm?x=b11,0,w

http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2008/05/sports-stadi u ms-and-economic-development-a-summary-of-the-economics-literature/

http://antidismal.blogspot.com/2008/06/economics-of-sports-stadiums.h t ml

There's a few but I only pulled from the first page of google results. Suffice to say I've looked at dozens of these things. I don't doubt one exists and I don't think just one would change my mind necessarily, but I've yet to see a study not funded by stadium people or developers that found a substantial financial benefit when looking at the economic data post-arena. It's a myth.

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/20111996?uid=3739960&uid=2129&ui d=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=47699034352527

That's one from the southern economic journal regarding Florida... They did a regression analysis on taxable sales from 1980-2005. 'new stadiums, arenas, and franchises as well as mega-events appear as likely to reduce taxable sales as increase them. Similarly, strikes and lockouts in professional sports have not systematically led to reductions in taxable local sales.'

JohnBigBootay: Don't forget the 100 million dollar remodel (75% funded by the city) in 1995 that made it 'one of the finest in the league'.

Okay, but if they still played in that arena in 2012, it would be considered one of the worst in either the NBA or NHL. As far as not trusting the NBA, I can't disagree there.

JohnBigBootay: http://www.imakenews.com/cppa/e_article000623460.cfm?x=b11,0,w

They in no way met my criteria: For each of the cities included in the study, Baade examined the economy of the whole Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) rather than looking exclusively at the hosting city.

JohnBigBootay: http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2008/05/sports-stadi u ms-and-economic-development-a-summary-of-the-economics-literature/

Once I got to the article the one you cited was quoting, they didn't explain methodology or results. That's pretty bad.

JohnBigBootay: http://antidismal.blogspot.com/2008/06/economics-of-sports-stadiums.h t ml

Cites the same guy.

Can you cite something that says a city won't benefit by taking tax dollars from its neighbors and surrounding region? That would refute my post, not vague studies covering MSA's or areas that aren't even clearly defined.

basemetal: Your Average Witty Fark User: basemetal: If you would have built one the first go round, you'd be in the NBA playoffs right now.

/idiots
//your shame, my gain!

1) Fark you in the face, you're a farking retard.

[i369.photobucket.com image 640x480]

No, I'm not mad. I'm pointing out that the best part of you ran down your mother's leg.

davidphogan: Can you cite something that says a city won't benefit by taking tax dollars from its neighbors and surrounding region? That would refute my post

To be frank, I don't care overmuch about refuting your post. I just don't want the city I live in to subsidize another sports operation. And I'm comfortable that the preponderance of the data shows there is no net economic benefit from subsidizing pro sports, let alone enough of one to justify the subsidy.

Can you cite something that says a city won't benefit by taking tax dollars from its neighbors and surrounding region?

I did. Not that you showed anything that said otherwise. Other than your feelings about your friends from portland. Not to be combative but you could probably look up information to sate your curiousity better than I could.

JohnBigBootay: To be frank, I don't care overmuch about refuting your post. I just don't want the city I live in to subsidize another sports operation. And I'm comfortable that the preponderance of the data shows there is no net economic benefit from subsidizing pro sports, let alone enough of one to justify the subsidy.

I don't live in Seattle, and if you think it's a bad idea, fight it. That's cool, I live in Portland, and we have our own NBA team, and should get our own NHL team. NFL/MLB won't happen here any time soon, so I can visit Seattle if I want to watch the Chargers. (Oh, wait, what? Spending money in Washington? Holy shiat, I live in Portland and haven't been to WA state since... Wow, 27 months ago? It's 14 or 15 miles away, and they have sales tax. I guess you can pump your own gas, but liquor costs more, and you're in Vantucky.)

But, of course a few vague studies focusing on regional effects doesn't realize that getting people from the burbs to spend money in the city is the same as them spending in the burbs, except it's not even close to the same. Having people from anywhere in the PNW and with another NBA team they have PDX and Vancouver area people, plus random WA state residents who can shift their spending to Seattle from another area. Add in (if they get an NHL team) that they'll be the closest team to a shiat-ton of Americans who don't feel like becoming Sharks fans but watch hockey.

If Seattle wants to finance a project that screws the rest of the Seattle/Tacoma/Olympia/area, well, good for them. Seattle can make themselves a priority if they want. They'll draw up Portland basketball fans again, and draw in hockey fans from all over the PNW. Seattle's so close to Canada that I'm surprised they're not covered with Tim Hortons and hockey already. I guess Starbucks knows how to play some defence.

JohnBigBootay: The city, if all goes well, gets paid back. Gee, what a great deal. No thanks.

They get paid back, get an NBA team, possibly an NHL team (having all 4, 5 if soccer counts, teams is good bragging rights, btw), an awesome venue for concerts and events, a landmark, and (if built in some shiatty industrial area) a building that would help improve said area. Where is the negative there? Getting paid back isn't a negative at all, just neutral, so why exactly are you so against it? What if they paid interest on it? Would you still be against it?

here if you want to read about how stadiums and owners are just farking over the average guy:



it'll have all the information and citations you want. well, unless you're looking for those bullshiat nonexistent studies that claim stadiums revitalize a district or make money for the city.

/it's cool seattle needs a viaduct collapse...

It's funny just how different the Sonics story is out here in flyover country, when it's not the "woe-is-us, we did nothing wrong" yarn being told by Seattle.

People who paid attention here know about things like Bennett's repeated meetings with legislators, trying to find new sources of funding (or at least do the simplest thing possible, extend the existing tax that funded Safeco and Qwest). They wondered about Seattle's BS about the proposed arena being too expensive when Orlando had one on the drawing board that ended up costing pretty much the same (around $500 million). They remember the parts of the story that at one time had Seattle pissed but are now ignored because they don't fit the narrative (like the "sweet flip" e-mail - Seattle remembers the part that says "we'll move the team," but ignores the part that says "we can also sell them off if the arena gets built").

Was Bennett going to move the team? If he had the chance, yes - and everyone knew that. Stern allowed him to buy the Sonics in part because of that threat. It was supposed to get Seattle to play ball. Argue all you want about the sincerity of his efforts to stay, but everyone knew (or should have) that moving the team was in play as soon as his group took over.

If Seattle had built the arena, the team would have stayed. If nothing else, the relocation committee would have made sure of that, because it's bad business for all if a team gets something like that and then leaves anyway. This is where Seattle usually brings up the KeyArena renovation, without mentioning that it no longer fit the NBA's revenue models. It's also where they complain about being tired of paying for such things - well, if you won't, someone else will.

The bottom line is that Seattle tried to dictate to the team how things would be, and whether you agree with it or not, that's not how sports leagues operate. The team gets what it wants or it moves, and it's been that way all the way back to the Brooklyn Dodgers.

Someone upthread said something about OKC not understanding this was a business deal. Thing is, OKC always understood it was a business deal. OKC was always prepared for the possibility Seattle might wake up, do the deal, and keep the team.

But that doesn't fit Seattle's persecution narrative.

davidphogan: and you're in Vantucky

OK, that's pretty good. We visit friends in Vancouver a lot and they have (of all things in the Pac NW) a backyard swimming pool. We call it The Coulmbian Riviera - I like Vantucky better.

TheJoe03: They get paid back, get an NBA team, possibly an NHL team (having all 4, 5 if soccer counts, teams is good bragging rights, btw), an awesome venue for concerts and events, a landmark, and (if built in some shiatty industrial area) a building that would help improve said area. Where is the negative there? Getting paid back isn't a negative at all, just neutral, so why exactly are you so against it? What if they paid interest on it? Would you still be against it?

Yes. Because Seattle doesn't get an NBA and NHL franchise. Chris Hansen does. I'm disinclined to help him accomplish that with public dollars. Now if the city wants to grant the permits and make zoning changes in non-residential areas to allow him to do so, great. But financially? No. The citizens that live here have voted against subsidizing pro sports on multiple occasions but they do them anyway. So they passed I-91 - any public investment in sports arenas has to beat the return on a 30 year treasury. And it didn't squeak by either, 75% voted yes. Fact is despite all the spin, the information provided thus far on Hansen's deal does NOT satisfy I-91. If he can get it there, good for him - and maybe, for us. If he falls short, well, then he owns some nice property down by safeco. Hopefully he'll build something that actually creates living wage jobs and makes a meaningful contribution to the tax base. Pro sports have proven time and again across the nation to not satisfy that criteria.

IAmRight: Oh, and Seattle citizens didn't even want the other stadiums to get paid for with public funds - politicians rammed it through anyway.

/shoulda let baseball go instead, baseball sucks


I certainly realize I'm in the minority but I'd rather have the kingdome back. All in one, more parking, and paid for. But that's partially because I'd much rather sit in a half empty stadium than a full one. It's more fun. If the game is actually important, then the stadium will be full and I'd rather be watching on tv anyway.

IAmRight: /CSB
//but it's about the only interesting memory I have of the Mariners besides the 1995 ALDS, which everyone has


Fun times. I will NOT admit to smoking weed under the outfield bleachers during the national anthem at a sparsely attended M's game. But if I had done that, it would have been fun. Last kingdome memory I can recall right now is standing in line for playoff tickets to games I never got to attend because they never happened. I was there for hours and we had pizzas delivered. I got a refund but it was still fun.

JohnBigBootay: IAmRight: /CSB
//but it's about the only interesting memory I have of the Mariners besides the 1995 ALDS, which everyone has


Fun times. I will NOT admit to smoking weed under the outfield bleachers during the national anthem at a sparsely attended M's game. But if I had done that, it would have been fun. Last kingdome memory I can recall right now is standing in line for playoff tickets to games I never got to attend because they never happened. I was there for hours and we had pizzas delivered. I got a refund but it was still fun.

Kingdome was great, and ridiculously loud. I loved watching the Chefs get stomped 45-0, or when Steve Largent leveled the Bronco's Harden, Elway crying to the refs that he couldn't hear. Goodtimes....

Tickle Mittens: Kingdome was great, and ridiculously loud.

That it was. Safeco is a wonderful park. But you know what? I like dive bars more than glitzy martini bars, eclectic old hardware stores more than home depot, weird kitschy restaurants more then the cheesecake factor, etc. I think lots of people are like that. So I don't know why everyone looks at me like I'm crazy when I say I honestly preferred the kingdome to safeco or qwest.

Truman Burbank: It's funny just how different the Sonics story is out here in flyover country, when it's not the "woe-is-us, we did nothing wrong" yarn being told by Seattle.

People who paid attention here know about things like Bennett's repeated meetings with legislators, trying to find new sources of funding (or at least do the simplest thing possible, extend the existing tax that funded Safeco and Qwest). They wondered about Seattle's BS about the proposed arena being too expensive when Orlando had one on the drawing board that ended up costing pretty much the same (around $500 million). They remember the parts of the story that at one time had Seattle pissed but are now ignored because they don't fit the narrative (like the "sweet flip" e-mail - Seattle remembers the part that says "we'll move the team," but ignores the part that says "we can also sell them off if the arena gets built").

Was Bennett going to move the team? If he had the chance, yes - and everyone knew that. Stern allowed him to buy the Sonics in part because of that threat. It was supposed to get Seattle to play ball. Argue all you want about the sincerity of his efforts to stay, but everyone knew (or should have) that moving the team was in play as soon as his group took over.

If Seattle had built the arena, the team would have stayed. If nothing else, the relocation committee would have made sure of that, because it's bad business for all if a team gets something like that and then leaves anyway. This is where Seattle usually brings up the KeyArena renovation, without mentioning that it no longer fit the NBA's revenue models. It's also where they complain about being tired of paying for such things - well, if you won't, someone else will.

The bottom line is that Seattle tried to dictate to the team how things would be, and whether you agree with it or not, that's not how sports leagues operate. The team gets what it wants or it moves, and it's been that way all the way back to the Brooklyn Dodgers.

Some ...

You don't hold a community hostage. If you want to work WITH them, great, but you don't act like a petulant child and make threats. There was never any intention from day ONE to keep them in Seattle. The CITIZENS of Seattle and the surrounding suburbs got farked, because short of buying the team themselves there was NOTHING they could do.