ESPN Radio’s Mike Salk continues to unload on the Seattle Times over the incoherent nonsense they’ve been writing about the proposed arena deal.
Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?
Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!
To my way of thinking, both the Times and Hansen can go bugger off. I personally think that there is a strong case that the new arena would interfere with operations at the port. It’s not the start times that matter; it’s already been pointed out here and elsewhere that though the games might start at 7pm, the flow of people into downtown for the game starts much earlier. And it’s not just the arena. If the arena gets built, Hansen also intends to build an entertainment district around it, with restaurants, hotels, nightclubs, and boutique stores. People are going to end up going to those places at all hours of the day.
Furthermore, traffic in the Sodo area is already in a bad position. It’s right at the point where two Interstate highways intersect with one another. Millions of people pass along I-5 or I-90 or both in the vicinity of Sodo every morning and afternoon. Thousands of people have shifted their drives to I-90 due to the tolling on 520. Getting on the freeway is dodgy in places. And then there’s the surface streets. And on top of all this preexisting traffic from commuters and two sports stadiums already extant, we want to add more traffic for two new sports teams, plus concerts, plus all the people going to eat and shop and party in Hansen’s district, at a time when we are barely able to keep up with road maintenance and transit and transportation budgets are cut?
My position is and always has been that if there is a reasonable chance that the port could get screwed by this deal, we shouldn’t go for it. In my opinion, if there is any possibility of the port getting screwed at all, it is too great a risk. We can build a stadium anywhere, but we’ve only got one port. And anyway, why do we need a basketball team, or a hockey team? To be a “world class city?” As I see it, Seattle will get those teams as a consequence of being a world class city; it will not become a world class city because it has those teams. When we make this a truly great city, the NBA and NHL will come asking us. We won’t have to go hunting, as we are at the moment.
Really, the fact that this project is being bankrolled by some very wealthy individuals who will reap the lion’s share of the profits and yet who are still asking the city and county to share part of the risk is just icing on the cake. In my opinion, that is the least significant part of the case against the arena.
Does the staff at Horse’s Ass have a united opinion on the matter of the arena, or are you divided?
Granted, for a variety of reasons (including years of high-handed management) there are a lot of people who don’t particularly like the Port, and probably like to indulge in the notion that we’d be better off without it.
If any of y’all want to get an idea what kind of place Seattle might have been absent a major port operation, I might suggest you go take a look at Port Townsend.
Word @2.
I’m against for 2 reasons.
#1 The port
#2 Corporate welfare. We’ve other things to do with our money.
future engineer @ 1,
“Does the staff at Horse’s Ass have a united opinion on the matter of the arena, or are you divided?”
“Staff at Horse’s Ass”?!? That’s hilarious!
But to address your rather naive question, no, there is no “united” opinion. Frequently we independently end up in the same place, but that is usually a consequence of shared aspects of our political philosophies.
I have not formed an opinion on the arena proposal yet—and given that I don’t live in Seattle, may never form one.
I for one am of a mind that there’s nothing at all wrong with Key Arena as a major-league basketball venue. At the time the plug got pulled, the Sonics weren’t putting butts in all the seats anyway, so it was never clear how increasing the number of seats was going to solve that problem. I don’t remember whether anyone bothered to ask David Stern, nor whether he and Clay Bennett stopped swapping spit long enough to offer a credible answer.
@4 lol. In retrospect, very naive, even if I am fairly new here. It should have been obvious that a place that calls itself “Horse’s Ass” is going to be anarchic and free-wheeling to the core. For further evidence, see the open threads.
You might want to form an opinion on the arena proposal if you live in King County, even if you don’t live in Seattle, since the County would be on the hook for a portion of the money. It won’t be as big of a share as Seattle’s, and you won’t have to pay twice like people in the city will, but you will be paying.
On the other hand, if you don’t live in King, then it’s a moot point. In that case, thank you for keeping your nose out of it. There were two letters to the Times that really pissed me off supporting the arena. One of them came from a guy in Gig Harbor, and the other from a guy in Lake Stevens. Neither one of these guys would have to live with the consequences if the deal went sour, or have to help pay for the arena, and here they are telling people in Seattle “just do it!”
@5 Yeah, seriously. The Key Arena’s fine. It already exists, and while Queen Anne isn’t the most convenient place, no place in Seattle is really “convenient” as far as sport’s stadiums go. And it’s a hell of a lot better than building another one right next to Seahawk Stadium and the baseball field. Also, lol @ Stern and Clay Bennett swapping spit. That was a hilarious mental image.
future engineer,
“In retrospect, very naive, even if I am fairly new here. It should have been obvious that a place that calls itself “Horse’s Ass” is going to be anarchic and free-wheeling to the core.”
Sorry to say, but still naive. There is a substantive reason for the name “Horse’s Ass” that is entirely unrelated to anarchy or even free-wheeling. This is a blog written for and by liberals. That we may or may not agree on particular issues isn’t a sign of anarchy. It’s a sign that we are forming and expressing our honest opinions on issues, rather than parroting talking points from a “think tank”, Party, or radio talk show personality.
“For further evidence, see the open threads.”
Ummm…you have confused the contributors to the blog with the commenting community. That’s naive, too.
“You might want to form an opinion on the arena proposal if you live in King County”
I do live in King County, and still may not form an opinion.
As a current scientist, I am unlikely to form an opinion on the project based on groundless emotional appeals. What I would find convincing are sound studies and analysis.
You seem sold on being against it but without much in the way of objective analysis. My advice to you as a future engineer is to form your opinion only after an objective weighting of evidence and objective evaluation of various theories about the impacts. That kind of reasoned approach will serve you well in your future career.
Darryl,
Thanks for taking the time to try to talk some sense into me. I needed that.
Cheers.
@6
You might want to form an opinion on the arena proposal if you live in King County, even if you don’t live in Seattle, since the County would be on the hook for a portion of the money. It won’t be as big of a share as Seattle’s, and you won’t have to pay twice like people in the city will, but you will be paying.
This actually isn’t true. If you never use the proposed arena, you won’t pay taxes to build it. The only taxes will be on the commerce created by the arena itself.