About that Sonics thread ...

Chris Hafner — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 17:02:44 -0000

First off, hi, I'm a long-time lurker here. Many thanks for all the hours of workplace distraction. Thanks to USSM and LL, I feel that I've perfected the Blackberry maneuver - i.e. reading about baseball on my Blackberry during important meetings, with a stern, thoughtful look on my face. You know, as if I'm keeping on top of some important workplace emergency.

Anyway, I just caught up with the recent Sonics-related diary and became incredibly depressed reading it. There were lots of good points about Clay Bennett, and sports subsidization by governments, and what felt a little bit like Sonics hate. But it felt like the same old conversation, when I think some of the pertinent points of this new deal and ownership group gets around a lot of that.

I think the same thing is going on here as it going on with the legislators - the Sonics issue in past years has been radioactive, which makes it harder for this particular deal to be thought about and judged on its own merits.

Anyway, I wrote up an FAQ on the deal for family/friends, based on what information I have. I might be biased, because I'm a hard-core Sonics fan, but I thought maybe this would help. If posting this separately is the wrong thing, we can delete and I'll add to the old thread.

And again, this is my first post here, so apologies if I'm violating some etiquette. I'm also totally open to any corrections if I don't have the right info.

And if you don't like the deal I'm outlining below, I think you should call your legislator and have them shoot it down, just as I'd love to see people who agree with this to call their legislator as well. That's democracy in action!

Q: I don't care about the Sonics and am not a basketball fan. Why does this matter to me?

A: Because this proposal, unlike every other proposal in the past, is a decent proposal for taxpayers even if you take the Sonics out of it.

Seattle Center is in poor and worsening financial straits - the taxpayers already carry that responsibility. What's in front of the legislature is a plan where King County--not the whole state--would pay $75 million to infrastructure upgrades to Seattle Center. That taxpayer money would not go to Key Arena, but would instead go to Seattle Center infrastructure. That is money that would likely need to be spent anyway.

The major benefit here is that the new local ownership group would kick in $150 million of their own private money to upgrade Key Arena. This would obviously benefit Sonics fans, but it would also benefit anybody who uses Key Arena for any purpose. It would be an additional shot in the arm for Seattle Center.

Q: I don't like the idea of subsidizing a professional sports team when there are lots of other important things our state needs. Why should we do this?

A: Well, for one thing, the county money wouldn't subsidize a sports team - the county money would upgrade Seattle Center infrastructure. It would not line the pockets of a sports team owner.

Also, the source of this funding is the Safeco Field tax, which is set to paid off early. That tax is not available for use on education, transportation, or anything else. This is not robbing money from any other program. In fact, if we pass this up and the city or county later has to renovate Seattle Center, that money would have to come out of the general fund and could otherwise fund other programs such as education and transportation. Doing this now would prevent that.

Q: Didn't we pass an initiative preventing us from supporting the team?

A: We passed I-91, which says that any public money put into sports arenas would need to be a better investment for taxpayers than a normal investment. Chris Van Dyk (who wrote and lobbied for I-91, is the head of Citizens for More Important Things, and has campaigned hard against past arena plans) has reviewed this new initiative and has said he thinks it's a good deal for Seattle taxpayers. Same with Nick Licata. If those guys think this is a good deal, that should speak volumes.

Q: Why should we keep the Sonics around when they're not very good?

A: Yeah, the Sonics aren't very good at the moment. But sports is a cyclical thing, and basing whether you want to keep a team based on win-loss records is an example of very short-term thinking. The Mariners and Seahawks haven't always been great teams, but we stepped up and kept them around. Because of that, we all got to share in a historically good Mariners season (2001) and a Seahawks Superbowl appearance (2005). We will get to share in any success they have down the road. The Sonics will get good again, and the core is there for a really good team in a few years. If we let the Sonics go now, we won't just be losing the crappy team we see today; we lose any possibility of seeing a good Sonics team ever again. That's incredibly sad for anybody who enjoys basketball.

Q: Why should we help Clay Bennett? He's a billionaire and hates our region.

A: This wouldn't help Clay Bennett - the deal is not on the table for him. Actually, it's the last thing Bennett wants - he wants a clear road to move the team, and having local ownership and an arena plan in Seattle makes it much more difficult for him to leave.

Q: Okay, I do care about the Sonics. But aren't they gone anyway? What good will this do?

A: Clay Bennett has said the team isn't for sale; but this is a necessary step to get him to sell. The NBA Board of Governers has not yet voted to allow him to move. The consistent message has been that if there is a strong local ownership group with an arena solution, it would be very difficult to move the team (the Board of Governors is made up of team owners; several team owners are on the record as saying local ownership and an arena would change the outlook). We haven't had that in the past.

It's all a leverage game. By suing the Sonics to stay for the next few years, the city has already supplied the stick. Now, with a star-studded ownership group and an arena deal in place, we supply the carrot. The combination of the two is our best shot at getting the move rejected, forcing a sale, and keeping the team here.

But if we let this moment pass, we won't have anything to offer and the team will leave. This is our last, best shot.

Q: Why is the timing so important?

A: The NBA Board of Governors votes on the team relocation next month. That means we have to figure this out in this legislative session, which ends this week. Delay means the Board of Governors. So far legislature is dragging their feet - most of them seem to think the deal makes sense, but they remember how radioactive this issue was a year ago and are afraid that people won't educate themselves.

Q: I don't have much time; how can I express my opinion?

A: It's shockingly easy. Whether you're for or against this, just call the legislative hotline (1.800.562.6000) and tell them your opinion. You tell them your name, address, and opinion, and that's it - takes about two minutes. It does make a difference.

Q: What do you think?

A: I think having the Sonics around is important - just like the Mariners, Seahawks, our city parks, the Seattle Art Museum, ballet, opera, Intiman Theater, etc., it's part of what makes this region so special. I remember three years ago when the Sonics were really good - people were into it and even perfect strangers were talking about it.

Even beyond that, I'm a fan of Seattle Center and am not sure how Seattle Center would survive without a major tenant for Key Arena, and without 15,000 people showing up at Seattle Center 41 nights a year. I'm really surprised that the new deal would embrace Seattle Center - most of the others have not. That alone makes me for it.

I also think if we don't get this done now, we will lose both the Sonics and the $150 million the new owners would spend to revamp Key Arena. And it won't necessarily save us the $75 million on Seattle Center infrastructure upgrades.

I think it's a shockingly good deal. I'd do it today. But then again, I might be a little biased.

Q: I don't trust you as far as I could throw you. What else can I read?

A: That's wise.

Slade Gorton's comments here: http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/buzz/archives/133889.asp
Steve Kelley (yeah, I know): http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/stevekelley/2004270266_kelley090.html

SB Nation User Blog: Chris Hafner

About that Sonics thread ...