public financing

Cities revolt

The New York Times published a great article on Monday regarding Seattle's rejection of public financing for sports teams. Most people who've been following the dust-up between the Maloofs and Sacramento are aware of similar altercations in the Northwest. Unlike Sacramento, however, Seattle has a long history of public financing for arenas. It also has 3 (for the time being) professional sports teams. I personally would like to see Seattle get a Major League Soccer team, but I don't know if I have much company in that. There was talk of it when I lived there.

Sports teams are a thorny issue for mid-tier cities. Seattle is world-class. It has some of the most successful companies in the world, many benefactors eager to put their stamp on the city (c.f. Paul Allen), great character and many amenities. Seattle won't suffer for lack of a basketball team. Sacramento, however, might. If (when) the Kings leave, Sacramento will have the River Cats. That's not saying much for a region that has the potential to draw in folks from Reno to Vacaville. I always thought of the arena measures as a way to catalyze railyard development, despite the Kings' desire to completely undermine design review.

I suppose I don't understand why owning a sports team has to be a megamillion dollar enterprise that extracts money from a community without putting much back in. As far as social functions go, sports teams aren't all that. Granted, the team members do some community outreach, but I doubt it makes much more difference than putting some extra funds into afterschool programs at the Boys & Girls Clubs.