Port wants arena elsewhere, but it's Sodo or nowhere

Port Commissioner Tom Albro is a big sports fan and would love to see the Seattle Sonics back in town.

Just not in Sodo.

"I think the return of basketball and the Sonics is a great thing," he told a King County Council committee Tuesday morning. "Basketball: good. That siting, without massive mitigation: bad."

A new multipurpose sports arena in Sodo, drawing thousands of cars every few nights into an part of town dominated by the maritime industry, would be a "massive killer for us," Albro said.

There's already too much traffic from Mariners games, and there are already too many transportation issues in the industrial neighborhood, port and labor representatives told the council's Transportation, Economy and Environment Committee on Tuesday. Extra congestion from a new arena would further disrupt port operations, they said, and could cause shipping companies to move to other harbors.

"We are not opposed to an arena itself, we are opposed to an arena in Sodo," said Cameron Williams, president of International Longshore and Warehouse Union Local 19. "You can build an arena anywhere, but you can't build a world-class, deep-water port anywhere." 

The problem is, for a new arena, Sodo is the spot.

Seattle has an investor, Chris Hansen, who has bought up land south of Safeco Field. He has offered millions of his own money to help build an arena there. And there aren't an abundance of millionaires willing to do that.

"We only have one proposal in front of us," King County Councilman Joe McDermott said. "We can't go around and look at other sites for a private investor to use. We have only one site, and we can accept it or reject it."

That's the reality. And the issue is quickly developing into "arena versus port." 

However, Albro and the other representatives are realistic. As Hansen's arena proposal sits before the King County and Seattle city councils, maritime leaders are urging local decision-makers to address the traffic problems a new arena would create -- and the problems that already exist in Sodo.

Throughout the past decade or so, the city promised traffic mitigations as two new stadiums were built near the port. Much of those promised projects have not been completed.

That has left a bad taste in the port's mouth. And now this?

"The prospects of adding a sports and entertainment arena, while popular with the general public, would pose a threat to the movement of freight in the area," said Dan Gatchet, chairman of the Washington State Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board.

He, like the others, advocated for a different arena site. But if an arena is to be built in Sodo, Gatchet said, traffic mitigation projects should be fast-tracked so that they are completed at the same time as the arena -- or very shortly afterward.

Port of Seattle CEO Tay Yoshitani said the industrial community wants a thorough review.  So far, the arena project has advanced at an accelerated rate -- an official funding proposal was drafted just four months after the plan was even announced.

The port, labor unions and other organizations want the city and county councils to slow down, take a breath and really examine the issues at hand.

Meanwhile, architect and former Seattle city councilmember Peter Steinbrueck said the proposed project could be in violation of the 12-year-old law that designated the area -- as some have called it -- a "stadium district." On the contrary, Steinbrueck said, a June 2000 law established a "stadium transition overlap district" that merely allowed Safeco Field and CenturyLink Field to be in Sodo.

The law's intent, he said, was to protect the industrial district from commercial encroachment by establishing a buffer zone of stadiums. But no third venue was ever considered in creating that transition district.

"Within the boundary (of the buffer zone) the arena does work, but it absorbs all remaining land for a third stadium," Steinbrueck told SportsPress Northwest after the committee meeting. "It loses the original intent as a transition area. A transition area is used to (separate) sports-recreational use and heavy industrial use. There's a very heavy industrial use here."

A third venue could be shoehorned into the area, but the 2000 law could make for a lot of red tape.

"This process may take longer than some people may want," County Councilman Peter von Reichbauer said. "But we have questions and these questions have to be answered."

Hansen knows this. Speaking with The Associated Press on Tuesday, he said the arena project will take some time -- five to seven years, most likely.

"We keep saying it, and I think people are listening and hearing us say it, but they're probably hopeful it happens before then," Hansen said. "I think they're so excited about the prospect of us getting the deal through that they haven't thought about the patience required on the other end.

"I'm sure there could be some disillusionment if this takes a long time. That's one of the things that worries me."

Hansen went before a different King County Council committee Tuesday afternoon to answer questions about his arena proposal. There, he said the Sodo site was selected because his analyses showed it made the most financial sense.

The current KeyArena site, at the Seattle Center, would not work -- contrary to the suggestion of some maritime representatives earlier in the day. It would be too expensive to tear down KeyArena, Hansen said; there is not enough parking in Lower Queen Anne; and he needs KeyArena as an interim venue if he acquires an NBA franchise soon.

Under the agreement among Hansen, the Seattle mayor's office and King County executive's office, Hansen's investment group would need to nail down an NBA team before any public funding is granted. The city and county, together, would contribute $200 million to the project -- $120 million for Seattle and $80 million for the county. However, the county's contribution is dependent on whether Hansen can find another investor for an NHL franchise.

The $200 million would be used to purchase the land and arena building from Hansen's group. That would eventually be paid off -- and, potentially, turned into profit -- by taxes on arena operations and the venue itself, plus on tickets and arena parking.

Mayor Mike McGinn and others have said Hansen's offer is too good to pass up. But it's now the job of the city and county councils to ask the tough questions.

"All nine of us would love to see the Sonics back," Von Reichbauer told Hansen on Tuesday afternoon. "The devil's in the details."

--------------------------

Notes --

The King County Council's budget committee grilled Hansen on several additional points Tuesday afternoon. Some of the questions were to clarify misconceptions perpetuated by The Seattle Times last week. 

-- Hansen has reportedly paid around $40 million, so far, for the property at his proposed arena site. Meanwhile, the city has set aside $100 million for purchasing that property. Some skeptics have wondered why Hansen would flip the property at such a steep increase, insinuating that Hansen's group would profit from the deal.

On Tuesday, Hansen explained that the public contribution is quite simply capped at $200 million. If the property is appraised at $100 million, the city and county would purchase the property for $100 million, then pay $100 million more for the arena when it is finished. Likewise, if the property is appraised at, say, $50 million, the city and county would purchase the property for $50 million, then buy the building for $150 million after it's completed.

"It's not like this is a moneymaking proposition for us," Hansen said of the arena construction. "As a security, we're giving you the building and the land ... the most secure piece."

-- Hansen has agreed to a number of guarantees and safeguards to protect public funds from unforeseen financial risk, such as team bankruptcy. These include giving the city and county extra arena rent, if needed; first-dibs on revenue; non-relocation agreements and other concessions.

But there are many skeptics who, after previous bad experiences with sports venues in Seattle, are understandably wary of contributing public money. They want the financial risk on the public to be all but eliminated.

"You can't take away every possible risk," Hansen said. "Al-Qaida could detonate a nuke ... a tsunami could come and rush over the seawall ... you can't take away every single possible risk."

But Seattle's history with the Sonics is exactly why Hansen agreed to all those guarantees and safeguards, he said. He feels his proposal amply protects the public; Councilman Larry Phillips said he respectfully disagreed.

-- Councilwoman Julia Patterson asked Hansen to explain why he thinks basketball and potentially hockey could succeed in a city where people's entertainment dollars are already split between many other attractions. Last week, a Seattle Times editorial asked the same thing.

Hansen said his arena group, before even buying the Sodo property, conducted a study on which cities would be viable for new sports franchises. Seattle was right near the top, he said.

More than 40 years of Sonics history has shown that Seattle is a great basketball town, Hansen said. And when attendance wasn't great, it was because the team wasn't doing well.

Hansen said his group is contucting market research to determine an appropriate amount of suites, box seats and ticket pricing. Regardless, he said, three-quarters of team revenue these days comes not from ticket sales, but from contractual deals -- broadcasting rights, sponsorship, naming rights and others.

"You put a good product out there," Hansen said, "people will come."

Nick Eaton can be reached at 206-448-8125 or nickeaton@seattlepi.com. Follow him on Twitter at twitter.com/njeaton. Visit seattlepi.com's home page for more Seattle news.