You are viewing the most recent posts on this topic.
September 5, 2013 at 4:27 PM
Do the math
The city of Seattle has been corrupted in such a way that it has allowed hedge-fund guy Chris Hansen to pay for an economic-impact evaluation of his arena proposal, thereby assuring the sort of objective research expected of paid advocates like lawyers or public relations people. [“Editorial: Make Hansen fund arena vote in Seattle,” Opinion, Aug. 20.]
Owners of professional-sports franchises claim the economic impact of a professional-sports team is equal to the sum of all the money spent by a fan of that team; not only tickets, but T-shirts and ball caps and refreshments, both at the game and before and after the game.
That seems like a lot of money, until you realize that it’s mostly money being spent in different places within the same local economy and to accurately calculate the contribution of a professional-sports team to a local economy it is necessary to calculate the losses of other businesses in the same economy.
You’re not adding anything to Seattle’s economy by having people drinking in a bar in Lower Queen Anne when they would otherwise be drinking in Ballard or Capitol Hill, you’re merely shifting the places where money is spent.
I hope that Seattle will insist on a traffic study as part of economic- and environmental-impact reports. Such research could use traffic-flow simulators, which could be used to estimate the effects of adding thousands vehicles to and from a new arena. Calculate how much time people would spend in traffic, turning fossil fuels into pollution, each time there would be a game.
I’d bet that when you consider the costs in other people’s time and environmental costs, the economic costs of an arena in Sodo would be greater than the supposed benefits of Chris Hansen’s proposal.
Tony Formo, Seattle
August 22, 2013 at 7:02 AM
The Golden Rule
So Chris Hansen backed a public vote on an arena deal for Sacramento? [“Hansen’s Calif. donation may hurt his NBA hopes,” page one, Aug. 17.]
Sounds like a good idea for his proposed new stadium deal here.
Edward Washington, Kirkland
Response is telling
More often than not, incidents like “Hansengate” tell me more about the people reacting to the events than the perpetrator. [“Hansen fans, foes differ over misstep,” page one, Aug. 18.]
[Seattle City Councilmember] Bruce Harrell was quoted saying “we knew this was a business deal and we knew that for Hansen it was a profit-making enterprise. He’s a very likable, very approachable guy, but he did not amass his fortune being a nice guy.”
There is so much wrong with this statement that I don’t know where to begin.
How many times have we heard that the best con artists are the ones who were “just like my son”? This has nothing to do about being nice or playing hardball. It’s about knowingly and systematically breaking the law.
I voted for Harrell — thanks, Seattle, for being ahead of me on this one.
Paul Casey, Seattle
August 20, 2013 at 4:41 PM
Hedging his bets
Why the surprise and disappointment with Chris Hansen’s anonymous contribution to a petition campaign to put Sacramento’s new arena to a vote? [“Hansen fans, foes differ over misstep,” page one, Aug. 18.]
After all, he is a hedge-fund manager. He was just hedging his bets.
David Gacek, Seattle
I am writing about Jerry Brewer’s column this Sunday. [“Sadly, Hansen’s tactics not out of the norm,” Sports, Aug. 18.]
Since when do we exonerate Chris Hansen’s reprehensible behavior simply on the basis that everybody does it?
The last I heard, two wrongs still don’t make a right.
Peggy Scales, Seattle
June 6, 2013 at 8:04 PM
‘Don’t care’ attitude not surprising
It should hardly have been a surprise to King County citizens that two-thirds of Stuart Elway poll responders indicated a definite ho-hum about the NBA’s Sacramento Kings remaining in that city [“King County residents shrug about NBA rejection,” NWWednesday, June 5].
Reasons for the “don’t care” attitude should have included the strong hunch that prospective ticket buyers here feared they’d be high-priced out of being spectators.
Other fans I’ve known had already given up on renewing as Sonics season ticket purchasers several years back because of ridiculously escalating prices. With player and executive salaries continuing to rise almost geometrically, there was little hope of the admission tab leveling off.
Rod Belcher, Des Moines
May 5, 2013 at 7:52 AM
If you want more stadiums, move to L.A.
Based on my reading of The Seattle Times, it seems that the National Basketball Association deal was Seattle versus Sacramento, and Seattle lost, at least for now [“Deflated but no surrender,” page one, April 30]. Where was my voice, the one that cheered when we lost the bid for playing roulette with professional basketball teams?
Not even Danny Westneat acknowledged the many people here who don’t want a Los Angeles-style shopping complex or more stadiums clogging our roads.
If Chris Hansen, the mayor and the staff of The Seattle Times want basketball so badly, why can’t you all move to L.A. and leave us to suffer with just two stadiums instead of three or four?
Benjamin Barrett, Seattle
May 3, 2013 at 11:45 AM
Kings staying in Sacramento is a relief
For those of us whose lives do not revolve around professional basketball, the decision by the National Basketball Association to leave the Sacramento team in Sacramento is a wonderful gift [“Deflated but no surrender,” page one, April 30].The vast majority of the citizens of Seattle who cannot afford the exorbitant prices to see the games can now celebrate the demise of this latest attempt by the city to gift the uber rich another way to spend their idle time.
Additionally, the thousands of dollars the city was to “loan” the developer will now be available to fund city work that benefits all the citizens. Does anyone really think the city would have gotten that money back?
Soon, the whining by the fanatics (root of the term “fan”) will be over. What a relief that will be.
George Bush, Port Townsend
NBA made the wrong decision
I have really come to despise the National Basketball Association (NBA) for raising their middle finger once again at our region by denying a perfectly legitimate and aboveboard effort to purchase the Sacramento Kings and move them to Seattle to occupy a brand new state-of-the-art arena [“Deflated but no surrender,” page one, April 30].
These consummately despicable operators who clearly missed the bitter irony of seating integrity-challenged carpetbagger and Sonics thief Clay Bennett — at the head of the relocation committee — have raised prevarication and perfidy to an exquisite art form.
What I don’t get is why the citizens of Sacramento are celebrating. Recent history, as well as the carefully parsed statement from the NBA’s relocation committee, assures us that before too long, fans will be following the Tulsa Kings — Tornadoes? — as they battle the Kingston (Jamaica) Bobcats in the NBA Finals.
David Doyal, Federal Way
Consider building arena on the Eastside
Your editorial suggesting the Sonics be somewhere else in the Puget Sound basin, coupled with Danny Westneat’s notation of “location, location, location,” strikes a chord [“Editorial: Bring Sonics back in different location,” Opinion, May 1].
Consider the Redmond, Bellevue, Kirkland triangle. Somewhere in that area there should be a spot for their sports palace. My gut feeling is that more than half of the fans live on the Eastside anyway. It might help the cross-lake traffic, too.
Gerald Morrow, Seattle
April 27, 2013 at 8:02 AM
Seattle shouldn’t forget about alternate arena locations
I find it interesting that I keep reading in The Seattle Times about another “latest revision” to a planned arena in the Sodo District [“Remaking Sodo,” page one, April 22].I am concerned that I have yet to read even the location of the “other sites” that are supposed to be under consideration.
In October 2012, the Seattle City Council “received a number of significant concessions from Chris Hansen,” according to Councilmember Nick Licata’s blog.
The first concession is: “A full SEPA review will be completed before any Transaction Documents are signed. That means the city will take into consideration alternative sites, traffic congestion and freight mobility.”
When is the city going to even name one of those alternative sites, let alone give us an update on how they might be designed?
Gregg Whitcomb, Seattle
Trending with readers