Last week, I posted about how I was mystified that newspapers ever oppose transit. Transit is the best time to read newspapers. Compare that to the attempts to replace the King Dome and to keep the Sonics. They kept pushing to make a deal no matter how horrible it is to Seattle and King County; I had always figured their editorial board were at least partially doing it to keep the newspaper afloat (not necessarily consciously, but at least in the back of their minds).
I mean, I care about what’s in the news and editorial sections, but I also care about the sports. And a lot more people care about sports than they do about another piece on how we need charter schools, or even good reporting. When Goldy asks, “what’s changed between now and then?” in relation to The Seattle Times’ editorializing against the new stadium, he means in terms of policy. After all, whatever problems this stadium proposal has, it’s better than ones they shilled for. But I wonder if maybe there’s a business model factor.
20 years ago, the two papers were the only game in town in terms of covering sports. Now though, if you think bloggers and other independent agents have done a number on the news, well that’s nothing compared to sports. The Seattle Times won’t be the only place to get the scores on the new Sonics or the new Seattle Metropolitan Hockey Club.
Another thing is that The Seattle Times pissed away a lot of its credibility pushing for the stadiums that turned out to be a bad deal. I go to Mariners games regularly and absolutely love it. But I wish that public money hadn’t been used to build it. When the people who shilled for the stadium see it 2/3 empty, well, it makes it tough to demand another one.
Finally, it’s a different editorial board than it was 20 years ago. It’s not the same thing for it to have different positions as an individual changing positions willy nilly.
You forget that Paul Allen owned the Seahawks. An anonymous Japanese businessman had controlling interest of the Mariners, but local businessman like Howard Lincoln had an important minority share. And when the Sonics started pushing to replace Key Arena, Howard Schultz still owned them.
Hanson is an outsider, and nobody knows who’d actually own a new NBA or NHL team. For the tiny clique that controls Seattle politics, that matters. Personal connections are far more important than whether it’s good public policy for anyone else. Also, too: credit would rightfully go to McGinn, an outsider, and the Times can’t have that.
When in doubt, just remember that it’s government of the 1%, by the 1%, and for the 1%. The rest of us are the nuisance that has to be enlisted, mollified, or fooled in order to make such a government “legitimate.” Locally it’s always been that way, up to and including the $4 billion and counting downtown real estate project known as the tunnel.
There seems to be an almost frantic urgency to the effort to launch Hansen’s new arena, with obtaining “approval from the people” treated as a minor inconvenience at the most. I don’t know about the rest of y’all, but when this sort of thing happens the hairs on the back of my neck start to stand on end and I start to get really curious about what we aren’t being told.
It doesn’t help that Mayor Mike seems to be acting pretty cavalier about development plans that fast-track upzoning to “solve problems” in areas where nobody else seems to think there are any. Ironically this morning’s Bothell Fishwrap is questioning some of what’s going on up on Capitol Hill.
All of the above being said, I have to agree that Safeco Field (when are they going to rename it after a company that still exists, anyway?) is almost a perfect place to watch a baseball game–so good in fact that it hardly seems to matter if the home team sucks. Then again, we went to the Storm’s season opener and were reminded that creaky old Key Arena has some similar virtues as a basketball venue.
@1 Thirty years ago, Seattle’s political insiders (led by ex-news anchor and then-mayor Charley Royer) wanted to build a giant waste-to-energy plant in South Seattle. Then, too, the insiders’ attitude was they could roll over neighborhoods and citizens. Well, we beat their ass, and beat it good; the giant incinerator was never built and the giant recycling program that you see today — Seattle was the leader and set the example for the rest of the USA — was the work of grassroots activists who beat City Hall and overcame the power of the 1-percenters with the power of a good idea that stood on its own merits.
The campaign to recycle instead of incinerate began with 6 ordinary people and 2 rabbits seated at a kitchen table with a quixotic belief entrenched power could be defeated by a good idea. It took years of doorbelling and community organizing effort, and Royer’s City Hall fought us all the way, but amazingly we somehow won. Looking back on half a century of political activism, it was Roger Rabbit’s and Mrs. Rabbit’s finest hour.
The takeaway here is that it can be done. Good ideas have a way of overcoming vested monied interests. But they don’t sell themselves; it takes commitment, dedication, and tons of hard work.
I agree, safeco is just about as good as it gets for a baseball stadium…..love the place.
The data is in on stadiums and the data isn’t good. That’s what 20 years will do. Trade and manufacturing make money, and make Seattle. Anyone can have a sports team, but not everyone gets in on global trade. The Times has set aside its hatred of the Port because so many conservative entities are against this.
If we had a different mayor, the whole deal wouldn’t have been mismanaged. But we have McGinn, and the only thing keeping him alive are the progressives who are getting screwed refusing (afraid?) to call him out as just another shill for the 1%, albeit with green marketing credentials.
Safco is one helluva ballyard, but it has one very big handicap; the Ms SUCK.
I figured all along there was a hit on taxpayers somewhere in Chris Hansen’s scheme, and I was right. No professional sports team can make money without a free venue, paid for by taxpayers, and Hansen’s basketball/hockey hall is no exception. He wants $200 – $300 million from us. According to the Times, polls show two-thirds of Seattleites are against it. Whattya wanna bet it’ll be built on our dime anyway? And whaddya wanna bet the $200 – $300M will balloon to $500m? We’re gonna end up with a Basketball Palace costing us half a billion dollars, and we’ll have absolutely no say in it. These guys have mastered the art of taxation without representation.