"We would love to see the Sonics stay, and we think there is a funding package out there that will allow them to do so," Trent House, the association's government affairs director, told the Seattle P-I. "We are more than willing to help the new owners."
A representative for Hertz and Avis also told the P-I the rental car giants are open to keeping a 1 percent rental car tax in place to help fund a new Sonics arena.
The tax was created by the state for the county, according to the Washington Restaurant Association, to fund the professional baseball stadium in Seattle. This tax was NOT created by the state for the city of Seattle's exclusive use. The county is the taxing authority, responsible party, for this tax. It is NOT solely up to Seattle how and where this tax is collected or spent. This simple fact has been lost on people like Seattle City Council President Nick Licata, and political troll Chris Van Dyk.
Ballot Initiative 91 (I-91) was not a State Initiative.
Ballot Initiative 91 (I-91) was not a County Initiative.
Ballot Initiative 91 (I-91) was a City of Seattle Initiative.
Please read the lead paragraph from the Initiative:
AN ORDINANCE to Prohibit the City of Seattle from Providing or Leasing Facilities or other Goods, Services, or Real Property to Professional Sports Organizations at Below Fair Value, and Providing A Method to Enforce this Restriction.
What the result of the vote (74.05%. 103371 votes) means is that the city is not allowed to participate in funding a sports arena unless they make a "rate of return on a U.S. Treasury Bond of thirty years".
Seattle City owned Key Arena is not a site that can be used unless the "rate of return" stuff above.
With the support of the Sonics new arena from the Washington Restaurant Association and Hertz and Avis rental car companies endorsing the extension of King County Food and Beverage Tax to support the new Sonics arena the 22 million dollar debt still owed in Key Arena will not likely get resolved through refinance of the reconstruction using the King County Food and Beverage Tax.
Not only did the City of Seattle reject the Sonics, they rejected support for the intent of the tax source. The city is now on the hook for that $22 million = dumb.
Still, it is possible for the Sonics to stay in Seattle using the King County Food and Beverage Tax. What!!!
That's right, the Sonics and some oother partner could build a new arena on King County owned property, or on private property, in the city of Seattle tomorrow and there isn't much the City of Seattle could do to stop it using I-91. Why do you think the King Dome was named the King Dome and not the Seattle Dome? I-91 doesn't give the City of Seattle the authority to stop the collection of the county tax in all of King County, including Seattle, or the spending of that tax money on an arena in King County, including in the city of Seattle as long as they don't use city owned property. King County is the taxing authority granted by the State of Washington.
The City of Seattle is out of the sports arena business. I live in North Seattle, if my back yard was large enough I could give it to the Sonics for a new arena, the county could fund the construction with the King County Food and Beverage Tax and I-91 couldn't stop it. The City doesn't own every plot of land in the city.
The City is out but the city isn't, get it?
As a side note: Why would you partner with somebody that owes $22 million on a proposed property anyway? It isn't as if the collecting and spending of the tax is up to them. That includes using the tax to cover the $22 million dollar Seattle debt and Nick Licata's dream for a new wine and cheese tasting palace at Seattle Center.
King County Food and Beverage Tax could be spent on a new arrena in Renton, Bellevue, Fall City, Tukwilla, Shoreline or Duval (well, maybe not Duval) and that would be up to King County Executive Ron Sims, the King County Council, the Washington State Legislature and the Governor of the State of Washington, Chistine Gregiore.
Notice how I didn't say Nick Licata, or Greg Nichols, Chris Van Dyk, or I-91. Know why? Because they do not have the authority to decide anything beyond Seattle owned property using I-91. They said what they had to say through I-91 limited to the City of Seattle owned property, that's the limit of there authority. Now they may argue their point of view at another level of government, but it is above their level.
They are not the "deciders" for the rest of us.
1 comment:
Nice article Baker.
Post a Comment