Would it be possible to point out that we, the people, had voted down a stadium issue, yet not only was the vote of the people ignored, the stadium will be built. The existing enclosed stadium,with mutiple purpose will be torn down, and replaced with one with half the usability, and therefore greater cost to the taxpayer.

With this in mind, the legislators expect us to abandon I-695 and rely on their wisdom.

-- Peter MacKintosh (pmack@wans.net), September 20, 1999

Answers

Peter writes:

"Would it be possible to point out that we, the people, had voted down a stadium issue, yet not only was the vote of the people ignored, the stadium will be built. The existing enclosed stadium,with mutiple purpose will be torn down, and replaced with one with half the usability, and therefore greater cost to the taxpayer."

I think you're a little confused. The failed Safeco vote has nothing to do with the destruction of the Kingdome.

We, the people, of King County voted down the first Safeco Field package. I'm curious, do you live in King County? It seems like people have this perception that Safeco was voted on by the state. It wasn't. As I said before, Safeco has nothing to do with tearing down the Kingdome.

We, the people, of the State of Washington approved the new football stadium and exhibition center to replace the Kingdome. Part of this package was that the Kingdome would be blown up. The new exhibition center that is rising in the former south parking lot of the Kingdome handles the boat shows, auto shows, etc. Expect more conventions and the like there than you would have seen in the Kingdome.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 21, 1999.

My mistake, I thought we had voted the seahawk stadium down. It had much less justification for being built than Safeco field. At least the Mariners made a run at the pennant. But look at the structure of the contact with the Mariners. The Public officials were pretty poor negotiators with our money.

-- P M (Pmack@wans.net), September 21, 1999.

Peter writes:

"At least the Mariners made a run at the pennant."

At least you remember this! Most people seem to forget that the Seattle area was going beserk over the M's when they almost got the World Series. It's not like the legislature decided to fund Safeco in spite of massive public outcry against it; it was quite the opposite at the time.

In fact, I'd bet you all the money in the world that if the stadium vote had happened immediately after the '95 playoffs instead of just before, it would have passed.

The Kingdome is a dump anyway. I won't be shedding any tears when it is blown up.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 21, 1999.

RE: "the Kingdome is a dump..." I guess we really got our money's worth from that fiasco. And those who have to do business in the Seattle area and are paying exorbitant room taxes on their hotel room (whether or not they even have heard of the Mariners) are happy you all in Seattle have a nice stadium to go to.

-- Rick Melanson (rickm@omnicast.net), September 21, 1999.

Actually Rick, professional sport teams provide more than enough economic stimulus and extra tax revenue to make upfor the tax money spent on building the stadiums. Team related merchandise as well as local bars and restaurants gain a great deal of private investment into the economy, and the government benefits from the added sales tax revenue. The teams themselves pay B&O taxes, and professional athletes have to be licensed and pay a fee in this state. I supposed that someone could complain that the government is bleeding these teams and athletes dry in taxes and fees, but somehow I doubt many people would feel very sympathetic.

As for the "exorbitant" taxes on hotel rooms, I haven't exactly heard any outcry from Seattle area hotels about losing customers to other hotels. It would seem as if people staying in Seattle hotels either don't care about the tax, or don't even notice it.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), September 22, 1999.

There are a few fact bending statement here.

1. The SafeCo Field was voted down twice. Period. Yet it was built anyway.

2. Anthony Anton of the Washington Hotel & Restaraunt Association (one of the biggest players of getting the baseball field built) is the one who claimed that the restaraunts would benefit. Now almost three years later he now reports not only record losses in hotel revenues, but that restaraunts in downtown Seattle are failing due to lack of customer use. Why? The food at SafeCo Field is excellent.

How do I know all this? Mr. Anton told me himself.

I-695 has my unwaivering support. I hate paying for the entertainment needs of crazed sports fans while I can't hire SKILLED computer professionals for $150,000 because our school system can only produce a 3rd grade educated sports fans.

-- William Sheehan (wsheehan@billsheehan.com), September 22, 1999.

William writes:

"Now almost three years later he now reports not only record losses in hotel revenues, but that restaraunts in downtown Seattle are failing due to lack of customer use. Why? The food at SafeCo Field is excellent."

Huh?! Safeco's been open a grand total of two months. There haven't been restaurants closing right and left downtown in that time. If restaurants are in fact having trouble it's because in the past three years the number of restaurants downtown has gone way upward, a fact that is largely unrelated to Safeco Field.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 22, 1999.

Just a thought about the intent, or the interpretation of the intent, of 695.

The stadium vote was interpreted by some to be a rejection of the funding method, and not the facility. So the facility was approved with another funding method.

I-695 would cut the MVET, and the projects currently funded by MVET unless the legislature does a bailout. How will the legislature know how many voters are voting on the MVET, and how many are voting on the programs funded by the MVET?

I mention this because many on this site have been very critical of the projects funded by MVET, and were very happy to see them cut. Others have assumed that the state can adjust and fund everything necessary, with that misleading 2% tax reduction will be spread out so nothing is really seriously threatened. Which way will it go, and how will the legislature interpret the vote?

Those who believe the stadium vote was about the funding method, probably don't have a problem with the fact it was built. Those who thought it was about the facility, won't accept any explanation of why their vote was ignored. The same thing will happen with the MVET, if 695 is approved.

If it passes, some will claim the will of the people is being ignored again, if the legislature restores things like tranportation funding or sales tax equalization. Others will claim that the legislature is being vindictive and irresponsible, it they do not restore things like transportation and sales tax equalization.

Either the cuts are real, and talking about them is not "scare tactics"; or the intent if the initiative is just to cut costs, and has nothing to do with the progams funded by the MVET. Both can't be true. I believe I-695 is just about cutting taxes, and has nothing to do with the programs. In other words, it tells the state to do what you are doing, but do it cheaper. No other voter "mandate" is intended or implied. Until that is clear, it is no wonder the programs that will be cut by loss of the MVET are scared.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 24, 1999.