Sonics Unveil Arena Financing Plan
Posted on Thursday, February 8th, 2007 at 6:11 pm by Brian Robinson
UPDATE: Margarita Prentice had a great Op-Ed piece in this morning’s Seattle Times. This is a great opportunity for fans of the teams ro write the paper with an endorsement of the plan. Letters to the editor should be no more than 200 words, concise, and sent to opinions@seattletimes.com
PLEASE SEND A LETTER! All the other papers should also be mailed if possible.
Lastly there is an interesting event coming up tomorrow with Slick Watts and I’m told maybe a couple of Sonics players in attendance. Cooinciding with this Sonics event will be a public art unveiling featuring the Mayor, County Council Members, and possibly even our old buddy Nick Licata. I’ll be there and hope we can get some other support in Green and Gold.
One of the courts that recently received a face lift will be on display Saturday, Feb. 10 at Van Asselt Park in South Seattle. The Seattle Parks and Recreation Department is hosting a grand opening of the renovated and expanded Community Center at Van Asselt with Sonics Legend Slick Watts joining the festivities. Sonics & Storm fans are encouraged to attend the celebration from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. in their favorite Green and Gold gear. Van Asselt Park is located at 2820 S. Myrtle Street, next to the New Holly campus
The Professional Basketball Club today released new details regarding their proposed public financing for a world class, multi-purpose arena in either Bellevue or Renton. Expectations are that a proposed owner contribution, as well as a site selection will follow within the next week or so.
As expected the proposed taxes largely mirror the successful packages put in place for Safeco and Qwest Fields. Allocations or extensions of taxes on restaurants, rental cars, and hotels would be paid largely by visitors.
It should be noted that there are NO NEW TAXES whatsoever involved in this financing plan, nor is there any significant charge to local taxpayers who would perhaps be hit the hardest by the restaurant tax, a mere $.50 per hundred dollar tab.
In addition to these taxes the team is requesting that a state sales tax credit, currently allocated and approved for county economic development be contributed to the arena. This type of funding was recently used to build a convention center in Wenatchee as well as various other state projects.
One notable highlight of this package is that it is projected to generate $430 million with only the first $300 million being applicable to the arena. Additional funds would be available for other projects. Also the proposal would dedicate a 1% Hotel/Motel tax toward local arts funding with 1% going towards the arena. Under current Stadium financing the entire 2% tax goes toward Qwest and Safeco.
Proposed public financing for a world-class multi-purpose arena in King County – SB 5986
The public portion of financing for the proposed multi-purpose arena would come from existing tax sources – no new taxes – levied entirely in and as approved by King County. All the taxes sources are already in place and being used to finance facilities. Revenues above $300 million will be available for other purposes.
SUMMARY OF FINANCING PACKAGE: (apologies for format)
Sales Tax Credit for Safeco Field – .017%
This credit against the 6.5% state sales tax has already been approved by the Legislature (along with a similar tax credit in the box below) for every county in the state to use for economic development. Would extend from 2012 to 2029 (after Safeco Field bonds paid off.) $150 million
Sales Tax Credit for Qwest Field – 0.16%
As with the tax credit above, this credit against the 6.5% state sales tax has already been approved by the Legislature for every county in the state to use for economic development. Would extend from 2021 to 2029 (after Qwest Field bonds are paid off). $77 million
Restaurant Sales Tax for Safeco Field – 0.5 %
This tax is generating revenue at a quicker pace than anticipated which, along with the tax credit (above), is enabling the Safeco Field bonds to be paid off early. From 2012 through 2015, 25 cents on a $50 restaurant bill or 50 cents on a $100 restaurant bill. $75 million
Car Rental Tax for Safeco Field, 2%, and the Kingdome, 0.75%
As with the first tax credit (above) and restaurant tax, the 2% tax is helping pay off the Safeco Field bonds. The 0.75% pays off Kingdome bonds. From 2012 through 2015, $2 on each $100 for a car rental in King County; starting In 2016, 75 cents on each $100. 2% = $18 million; 0.75% = $22 million
Hotel/Motel Tax for Qwest Field, 1%
This is currently a 2% tax, but the proposal seeks only 1% of it; the remaining 1% would be directed to fund the arts beginning in 2021. Starting in 2021, $1 per $100 of a lodging bill. Paid primarily by out-of-county visitors. $81 million
(Note: This is total revenue with the first priority for arts and facility maintenance.) TOTAL $423 million
February 8th, 2007 at 7:14 pm
Did they happen to go into more details on the site and possibly provide additional visuals of what the arena would look like. I think an artist rendition of the arena would go a long way to helping people make all of this tangible
February 8th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
One notable highlight of this package is that it is projected to generate $430 million with only the first $300 million being applicable to the arena. Additional funds would be available for other projects.
Such as paying off the Key Arena debt?
February 8th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
Are these the nominal values of the revenue streams? or the present day value of them that can be used as security and provide enough revenue to sell $300 million bonds for the arena construction and pay all the interest too?
February 8th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
Status of Bellevue / Renton discussions given a little more shape/detail here in Seattle Times story http://tinyurl.com/yuyrve
February 8th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
From the SeattleTimes article
“Sonics lobbyists worked the halls today, rounding up sponsors for the draft legislation. By the end of the day, five senators had signed onto the bill. The team plans to start looking for sponsors in the House next week.”
Seems like this weekend would be a good time to write your legislators if you haven’t already. Heck even if you have reiterate your stance.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/districtfinder/
February 8th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
Great weekend to write your legislature. I’ll flesh out what else I know of the plan tomorrow. The team did a good job with this one and I’m expecting that all, or almost all of the effected bodies will endorse the plan.
February 8th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
Well, I e-mailed all those in my district (the 4th; Doc Hastings, Jerome Delvin, Shirley Hankins, Larry Haler; then of course Maria Cantwell & Patty Murray). I still need to e-mail the governor though.
February 9th, 2007 at 12:26 am
I found another bill that demands a 10% income tax on all players and forbids any other tax from going to any stadium / arena project. I don’t know how much support this will get or if this is just a gimmick.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5891&year=2007
February 9th, 2007 at 1:10 am
well, if THAT passed, you can probably say good bye to all pro sports in seattle. can you imagine trying to attract free agents?
February 9th, 2007 at 8:20 am
“I found another bill that demands a 10% income tax on all players and forbids any other tax from going to any stadium / arena project. I don’t know how much support this will get or if this is just a gimmick.”
It’s a gimmick. Such a bill would have to be presented as an amendment to the State Constitution and would require a 2/3 majority to pass. This bill has fewer sponsors than Margarita Prentice’s does.
February 9th, 2007 at 8:25 am
“It’s a gimmick. Such a bill would have to be presented as an amendment to the State Constitution and would require a 2/3 majority to pass. This bill has fewer sponsors than Margarita Prentice’s does.”
Without question a gimmick. Not to mention that it extremely discrimitory. How could you justify saying that only people in one chosen profession have to pay a tax, then have that based on something that’s entirely regulated by government spending? You can’t. Gimmick probably having to do with getting a name out there for re-election purposes.
February 9th, 2007 at 9:22 am
An editorial on the arena by Sen. Margarita Prentice
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2003563354_rentonsonics09.html
February 9th, 2007 at 9:46 am
I think this proposal, if people can get their prejudices of ‘funding millionaires’ put aside for a moment, is very sound. NO NEW TAXES, and the arts may get a boost also. This should be a no-brainer, if the Sonics can get out the message that this won’t cost anyone more than the odd 50 cents now and then, assuming they rack up $100 meal bills very often. Spread the word!
February 9th, 2007 at 10:04 am
The financing plan looks pretty solid. Does anyone know if cost overruns were addressed in the plan? I remember the whole debacle with cost overruns with Safeco Field and I’d kind of like to know who’s on the hook for that if it occurs.
February 9th, 2007 at 10:25 am
Definately a weekend for mass letter writing to our legislators, reps, etc.
Great opinion article by Margarita Prentice. Glad to see one of our legislators speaking out…….
February 9th, 2007 at 10:41 am
Brian (or anyone) - if/when you have the time, can you explain in a bit more detail how a sales tax credit for Safeco Field (or any of those tax credits) raises money for a Sonics arena?
February 9th, 2007 at 10:55 am
Basically the way it works is that people pay a state sales tax, in an amount that is established already and not subject to change. The counties collect this tax and then send it along to the state.
The state has already approved that each year any county may take a rebate of that sales tax, and use it for approved economic development investment. In wenatchee these funds were distributed to build a convention center, and other buildings or projects all around the state. In this case King County would (in very rough numbers) collect their .087 sales tax, and sent .085 to the state, keeping the rest to build the facility. This has already been approved and if it doesn’t go to the Arena/Convention Center would go to some other, similar use.
The concept is that when counties and cities invest in economic development it winds up creating stronger counties and a larger tax pool for the state. In the end they get that money back many times over.
February 9th, 2007 at 10:55 am
“I found another bill that demands a 10% income tax on all players and forbids any other tax from going to any stadium / arena project. I don’t know how much support this will get or if this is just a gimmick.”
that’s amazing. What an incredibly discriminatory and borderline racist piece of legislation.
February 9th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
As i read this, it appears that a lot, if not all, the $ kicks in after a significant amount of time - with 2012 being the first year the state tax credits start. (after the Qwest Field and Safeco Field credits etc… are due to expire). Is that right? If so, is ownership planning on paying the upfront costs - which i would guess are extensive - although i really have no idea how these things are paid for. I am assuming the project would begin sooner than 2012. Also, any discussion of the debt owed on Key Arena?
February 9th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Dear Editors,
Thank you to Margarita Prentice for her support of the Sonics and the regions new facility.
Prentice is one of the few local politicians understand that our region needs to work with successful businesses if we want to maintain the vibrant growth of our communities.
This year Microsoft will host its annual “Tech-Ed” event in Orlando, inviting nearly 20,000 of the worlds leading technology professionals to a city 3000 miles away from its home. Orlando will not only have the opportunity to collect tax dollars from those visitors, but to showcase itself to potential new businesses and investors. These people should be coming to the Puget Sound and be exposed to our booming tech economy and wonderful, vibrant city. Some would possibly choose to start new businesses or relocate existing ones to the region, others may return for family vacations. Instead they go to Orlando, far from the center of the High Tech Industry.
Prentice points out accurately in her article that having anchor tenants like the Sonics and Storm enable us to build venues such as this, at substantially less risk and cost than we could without them. We need to continue to support these efforts
Regards,
Brian Robinson
Seattle, WA
February 9th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Please, please, please get some letters to the editor out today and this weekend. Subject ideas could range from “I love basketball” to “What’s the fuss, I don’t see anything in this tax package that will affect me”, to “This is culturally important for my family”.
February 9th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
“Prentice is one of the few local politicians who understand that …”
Good letter Brian! Just one small thing in case you haven’t sent it yet…….I think you need “who” between politicians and understand in your second paragraph. Just a minor editting thing. ;o)
February 9th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
I sent Margarita an email letter two weekends ago….said alot of those same things she had in her letter to the editor…..great stuff……..
I need to send more to all the local eastside legislators again this weekend…..especially since I’m a voter and tax payer on the eastside.
February 9th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
“If so, is ownership planning on paying the upfront costs - which i would guess are extensive - although i really have no idea how these things are paid for. I am assuming the project would begin sooner than 2012.”
I’m taking an educated guess here so this may be way off.
Initial up front money probably comes from the team and private investment. Secondary money will come from bonds issued to pay for the completion. The funds to pay off those bonds will come from the package proposed.
“Also, any discussion of the debt owed on Key Arena?”
interesting question. I’d imagine it might be something that the Reps from Seattle will want to have included in the package or they’re going to have a huge white elephant in thier mist.
February 9th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
The bill is not yet available from legislative site and there is no fiscal note prepared.
Press accounts of revenue streams are lacking clarity about whether they are stated in current or nominal dollars, which is important to understand the total tax revenues devoted to the project and the true size of the public’s share of the costs.
No description of the basic mechanics of the bond plan, no details on private contribution, no site selection and neither city having made a formal offer on infrastructure support and there isnt even a firm timetable to do so…I understand this is a partial, pre-release to try to draw attention to the “no new taxes” angle but I personally will continue to wait for the full details. I’ll tune in again Tuesday when more of them may be available.
February 9th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
For debate purposes, and to make sure our position on economic benefit is solid, I need to play Devil’s advocate for a minute. On the PI soundoffs, folks like “Dubya” and “factcheck” like to tout information from the Andrew Zimbalist report that operates on the premise that recreation money will be spent elsewhere if not on a sporting event, and will still bring in the same amount of tax revenue, thus concluding that pro sports has zero economic benefit. Of course this also assumes that the money comes from within the same tax base and does not consider tourism or out of district people.
My question is are there enough Snohomish and Pierce county fans that goto the games to provide the “new money”? I know that being an international town, that visitors from other countries will have a curiosity which does help.
February 9th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
“My question is are there enough Snohomish and Pierce county fans that goto the games to provide the “new money”? ”
Or from the western side of the Sound, or from Olympia, or from Bellingham, Canada, Spokane, etc. I don’t know how you would track that but there has to be a percentage of tickets sold from out of County, to dismiss it completely would be absurd.
If pro sports truly have zero economic benefit, then why are cities fighting each other to get these teams to move to their communities?
February 9th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
“My question is are there enough Snohomish and Pierce county fans that goto the games to provide the “new money”?”
According to the Key Arena Economic Assessment, 75% of all Sonics Season Ticket Holders come from outside the City of Seattle and 33% come from outside King County.
“like to tout information from the Andrew Zimbalist report that operates on the premise that recreation money will be spent elsewhere if not on a sporting event, and will still bring in the same amount of tax revenue, thus concluding that pro sports has zero economic benefit.”
Here’s a simple answer to this. If next year the Sonics do not have an arena in place all money I would spend on the Sonics will instead be placed into taking a trip to either Vegas or Hawaii. Unless you assume that ‘Vegas’ or ‘Hawaii’ is where ‘King County’ wants its ‘recreation dollar’ spent I’d argue that the ‘zero economic benefit’ theory is bunk.
Basically that’s a theory that covers things on a large scale, such as a country or global economy. If instead of going to the Sonics game I go for an extra night at the beach in Oregon, the theory falls apart completely.
February 9th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
“My question is are there enough Snohomish and Pierce county fans that goto the games to provide the “new money”? ”
A chart in the Key Arena Study Final Report (Exhibit 20) gives the following percentages for ticket buyers outside of King County to Sonics games for the 2004-2005 season.
Single games 54%
Package buyers 36%
Season Ticket Holders 26%
http://seattlecenter.com/images/media/pdf/KAS%20FINAL%20REPORT%202-15-06.pdf
I live in south Everett. I may still be inclined to spend money in King County if the Sonics leave but it won’t be as often.
February 9th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
Zimbalist’s work is the bible of anti-arena and anti-sports activists. The premise you state, that virtually all money would be spent elsewhere is really the key to all of his conclusions.
I don’t believe it personally. It seems way, way too black and white for either side to assume that 100% of recreational dollars would leave or stay. The answer is of course somewhere in the middle. My general feeling is that sports fans have a passion that creates a level of spending where there would not be one otherwise. The person who allocates $5000/year to buy season tickets for him and his family is not going to feel inclined to spend that same money on movies, nor is the business who buys those same seats to entertain clients.
I tend to think that Sports dollars are much more from the same pool of money as travel dollars than they are movie dollars, so every person who cannot attend sports games may travel within the state, but likely will go outside.
Seattle simply does not have the entertainment alternatives to keep those dollars in the area. If you live in LA an argument could be made that instead of taking your kids to the football game you take them to Universal Studios. If you live in NY you take them to the theatre. In Seattle you’re talking about flying to Disneyland, Vegas, or maybe a quick hop to Victoria BC. Really how many times can you go to the EMP or Gameworks. People clear up the $1000 they spent to go to the Sonics and instead fly to Vesas one weekend and go on dayhikes in the Cascades all winter.
It’s all speculation at this point…
February 9th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
In other news, Ray gets snubbed again as he isn’t named one of the replacement all-stars.
I cannot understand the logic behind sending Tony Parker and Josh Howard over Ray. These guys are the 2nd best players on their teams while Ray is a legit superstar. No respect for the man in Green
February 9th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
Thanks for the data. I think my entertainment dollars would end up going to the Blazers and AN OREGON GAS STATION for the trip.
February 9th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
I’m a Sonic fan who lives in Bellingham. I go to about 10 Sonic games per year. There are a handful of occasions we’ll stay for the weekend taking in a game or two, eating at nice restaurants, staying in a hotel downtown and of course the wife likes to shop during the day. If not for the Sonics, those weekends would not happen. We seldom go to Seattle for reasons other than the Sonics. Your argument that people would take that money and use it for a trip to Vegas or like place I feel is very valid. I know in my own case, we just spent a weekend in southern California. Not downtown Seattle. Direct flight from Bellingham by the way. It was so nice.
I’ve never bought the assumption that if money isn’t spent on a sporting event it would be spent somewhere else thereby proving the sports provides no economic benefit. It’s definitely not true for me personally. That’s a very huge assumption to make in a study that is based on hard numbers everywhere else. Take that unsubstantiated assumption out and the study would completely change. I just can’t give a lot of credence to a study that takes that huge of a leap.
February 9th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
~~~I found another bill that demands a 10% income tax on all players and forbids any other tax from going to any stadium / arena project. I don’t know how much support this will get or if this is just a gimmick.”
that’s amazing. What an incredibly discriminatory and borderline racist piece of legislation.~~~
- I dont think this is borderline racist and really even that discriminatory if the state already had an income tax. I’m pretty sure that I read that at least one arena was paid in part by a tax like this.
February 9th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
” I dont think this is borderline racist and really even that discriminatory if the state already had an income tax.”
If the state already had an income tax it would be even more egregious. A special, unique income tax on any specific profession, whatever it is, is completely discriminatory, anti-commerce at best and should be unconstitutional. We’re not talking about professional licensing fees, but a tax on one specific type of job.
Think about it; it’s like paying for new grocery stores by taxing the income of checkers and courtesy clerks, or paying for new medical clinics by taxing doctors. I can’t think of a single other profession where applying that logic would fly.
February 9th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
That just doesn’t make sense. Tax the players to support the place where they work? In what other industry would this even be seen as a viable option? Tell me that any of you wouldn’t throw a fit if you had to give up 10% of your salary to support the building of a new office facility for your company.
February 9th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
Or if the comment is brought up that the facility is built using taxpayer dollars, then why not pay for county and state jails by a 10% income tax on police officers? Or pay for new buses, stops and facility upkeep by taxing bus drivers? It’s just a dumb idea. Even if you believe in the premise the number of professional athletes in this state is so small that I can’t see how the state makes any serious income off of it. Assuming it’s on all pro athletes and not just NBA players you’re talking about a tax on a group of at most about 100 people in this state counting the Hawks, Sonics, M’s, Storm, some of whom are making league minimum like guys in AAA or near the bottom of the M’s 40 man roster. What is 10% of Andre Brown’s income in the grand scheme of things?
February 9th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
Hi all, I live in Snohomish County and was wondering if any of this money to go to the new arena has any effect on Snohomish County residents. As far as I know the tax is statewide, but the county can decide what to do with the money. Modifying the tax to allow a marginal percentage of money (relatively speaking) to go to building the arena would be at the discretion and cost of King County residents — so why is this a statewide legislative issue, or is it? If it is, I will definitely write my legislative district and show them that I am a 15 some odd year fan of the Seattle Sonics and would hate to see them go. I have purchased 7-game packages in the past and I also live out of county so it is true that others go to see the Sonics play, not just those who live a few blocks away! To sum it up, please let me know what I can do to help keep the Sonics in the Western Washington area — and end this hatred of professional athletes who are being portrayed in very discriminatory ways. Sure they make a lot of money, but how much do the owners make? I think their anger is misdirected.
February 9th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
“What is 10% of Andre Brown’s income in the grand scheme of things?”
Haha, Andre Brown would not get taxed if his partial payoff is less than $300,000.
Yes, our northern neigbors in Alberta (where else but Canada) do tax hockey players for arena payments. A tax like that here would hit the M’s much harder than the Hawks, because of no caps in MLB.
February 9th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
tmb
The tax is not statewide but would only be paid in King County. If you ate at a restaurant, stayed at a hotel or rented a car in King County you would pay it.
The reason the state legislature is invloved is they have to create the enabling legislation. The taxes then have to be approved by the King County Council.
February 9th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
Rashard Starting tomorrow, as mentioned on the news, is good for the team. He’s back early from injury, has a good post game, and might be willing to go there more while his hand gets better.
tmb Says:
February 9th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
“Hi all, I live in Snohomish County and was wondering if any of this money to go to the new arena has any effect on Snohomish County residents. As far as I know the tax is statewide, but the county can decide what to do with the money.”
They are collected in the county and spent in the county.
It is a local sales tax collected on top of the state wide tax. This includes in the seattle city limits. So, the tax wil go on but the city will not keep the team, that’s just a dumb move by seattle.
February 9th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
“The taxes then have to be approved by the King County Council.”
Which is actually a no-brainer for them if its approved on the State Level. There’s few chances that you’ll see a local government turn down tax money for a project, especailly when it will net them more tax down the line.
February 9th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
Those tax extentions are NOTHING! And no new taxes! Plus one of the taxes gives money to the arts that without this deal they wouldnt get! This seems too good to be true! But why do I think the opposition will be too stubborn and ignorant to realize?
February 9th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
Ron Sims and the county council has been solving the problem ever since the city of Seattle rejected the team. There is enough county support that this might not see a public vote, and i think seattle is getting paid off to keep quiet.
February 9th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
Tax the players. hahahhaaha. That would be great for drawing free agents to Seattle.
February 10th, 2007 at 10:42 am
Let me say that, in general terms I am not opposed to some type of tax on player incomes.
In every state that has a state income tax players must declare a portion(I’m not sure if it’s 1/82nd or some other number) of their income for days worked within a state and pay income tax on that portion. Since we have no state income tax these players come and work in our state and we see no revenue from it. It seems like we could find a way to tax these out of state workers that would be fair. While Rashard Lewis pays real estate tax, sales tax, etc. within the state Shaq does not and yet he works here 2-4 days per year at a pretty high wage.
That said this little side bill is a pathetic piece of obstructionist garbage. If they wanted to be constructive and look for answers lets find some well thought out plan that says that out of state workers who earn a certain amount of wage for days worked within the state of washington are required to pay an “alternative tax form” of some kind and help foot the bill. They can cater it towards athletes by stating that the first $50,000 is exempt or something like that, but it has to be fair and equal across the board. Why can’t these guys look for solutions instead of being pissy this way?
February 10th, 2007 at 11:53 pm
The bill is now available and includes language that would allow a public facilities district to contract with a prospect tenant of such a facility for virtually any type of arena development costs. This could payback Bennett’s development costs if agreed to.The bill would allow a public facilities district to give a tenant a master lease and would allow the district to undertake bridge financing- additional short-term debt to pay back the long term construction bonds til more of the tax revenue comes in (as was proposed with the monorail. it is may not be unusual, it is a smoothing of the financial path, but it will add to total cost, as I suspected).
February 11th, 2007 at 12:11 am
It is quite possible that the Sonics want to use the public facilities district’s new financing authority to buy the land (if it is Bellevue, 6 parcels could be awkward, incremental and risky) or perhaps purchase options on land. Doing it themselves, is more risky to them but also morean indication of committment. Someone risks and they may prefer it be the public’s money. That may draw discussion.
Nature of Sonics private contribution still be defined.
Some teams choose to pay long stream of rent for bulk of private contribution (with lower present day value, a la Sacramento Kings proposal as previously discussed here). They could also be involved in arranging the shortterm bridge financing or paying some of the costs of it and present that as part of their “contribution” (another example: Orlando Magic offering to guarantee some of debt)
Tuesday is the start of the details and the real discussion. It is time.
February 11th, 2007 at 10:52 am
Here’s an editorial in today’s Everett Herald supporting a new Sonics Arena
http://www.heraldnet.com/stories/07/02/11/100edi_editorial002.cfm