Analysis
Proposition No. 1 calls for a special sales tax within King County
of one-tenth of one-percent over 20 years to support up to $240.8
million worth of bonds for a retractable roof baseball stadium
with natural turf; $70 million in bonds for Kingdome ceiling repairs;
and $100 million in bonds for miscellaneous Kingdome capital improvements--provided
that the Seattle Mariners sign a legally enforceable contract
to play at least 20 seasons in the new stadium.
The Metropolitan King County Council ordinance creating the ballot
proposal sets out various conditions designed to protect the County's
interests against cost overruns; to limit the spending authority
of a new Public Facilities District (PFD) that will operate the
stadium; to ratify the Mariners' commitment to contribute $45
million toward stadium construction; and to share profits with
the County.
The tax is estimated to cost $7.50 per person annually.
Back to the Top.
Proponents argue that absent progress on a new stadium, it is
almost certain that the Mariners will leave Seattle. On the other
hand, construction of a new baseball stadium will produce market
conditions that will ensure the continued presence of the Mariners
in Seattle and provide other benefits, as well. Retaining a viable
Mariners team in Seattle will boost the regional economy. Baseball
today provides 1,805 jobs and total economic activity annually
of $115.5 million, according to an economic-impact study done
for the Mariners. State and local governments will also benefit
from higher tax revenues.
The presence of a major-league franchise adds to the quality of
life that makes Seattle a special place. It brings national exposure
and tourism, benefits many businesses in the area, and provides
a venue to bring the community together. The colorful Pioneer
Square district relies significantly on baseball activity for
economic support. The stadium would include a natural grass field
and a retractable "canopy" that would be open to the
skies in good weather. Also planned are various amenities, such
as a child-care play area, group picnic space, increased seating
for people with disabilities, and a quality restaurant with a
view of the field.
Marketing studies by the Mariners show that a new stadium here
could attract as many or more fans as other major-league ballparks,
including those in Denver, Baltimore, and Cleveland, where new
facilities have tripled baseball attendance. The Mariners believe
a new stadium here would produce average attendance of 36,000
per game, up 17,500 from this season's average.
The new baseball stadium represents a public-private partnership
that includes a high level of private support. The Mariners would
contribute $45 million toward the total construction cost of $250
to $300 million. They have also agreed to share operating profits
and any capital gains from the future sale of the team to a new
owner. The team is supported by local business people who have
formed the Baseball Club of Seattle and have already invested
over $165 million into attempts to keep a major league baseball
team in Seattle.
Proponents note that sufficient safeguards are in place. Under
the terms of a King County resolution, sales-tax revenues collected
under the new, higher tax (which would be 8.3 percent, up from
the current 8.2 percent) cannot exceed $240.8 million. Taxpayers
would not be liable, county officials say, for any cost overruns.
Moreover, a positive vote is only the first step in a multi-step
process toward developing a new stadium. The tax hike will not
take effect until satisfactory specifics regarding the site, stadium
design and management, and other terms are negotiated between
the County, the Mariners, and a newly formed public facilities
commission, and until a final lease agreement is signed. This
means that pre-development costs would likely be borne by the
Mariners.
In addition to helping finance a new Mariners stadium, revenue
from the proposed sales-tax increase would be used to retire the
roof-repair debt at the existing Kingdome of $70 million. Regardless
of whether the tax increase passes, King County will have to retire
the roof debt, possibly cutting such services as law enforcement
to make up the difference.
A good deal of the $100 million earmarked in the sales-tax measure
for Kingdome enhancements represents deferred capital spending
for repairs and improvements that will be needed regardless of
the building's future uses. Even without football and baseball,
the Kingdome would continue as an important center for other kinds
of entertainment, trade shows, and miscellaneous public events.
Finally, the cost to taxpayers is modest--only $7.50 per capita.
Back to the Top.
Opponents argue that taxpayers should not subsidize wealthy owners
and players in a private enterprise, particularly one that has
lost hundreds of millions of dollars through 19 losing seasons.
This is particularly true when the problems inherent in major
league baseball as a whole--such as high salaries, erratic revenue,
strikes, etc.--remain unsolved, and cannot be solved locally by
building a new stadium.
We already have a functioning baseball stadium, albeit not the
newest nor the best, but more than good enough to accommodate
those who want to watch baseball. Local rainfall records show
the costly "retractable" canopy sought for the new stadium
is not necessary. Baltimore, for instance, has built an excellent
open-air stadium for $131 million, while the Mariners want to
spend more than twice that, in part because of roof expenses.
Furthermore, there are public needs of greater urgency and importance
everywhere one looks. Critics say it is self-indulgent to spend
millions on a new building without first meeting primary obligations
such as education and health care.
Even with the advertised amenities, it is not realistic to expect
that attendance in a new stadium could average 36,000 per game,
which is the Mariners stated attendance goal, given that the team
currently averages less than 19,000 per game. Nor is it likely
that the team would achieve its break-even goal of about 30,000
attendees per game. Uncertainties about the financial stability
of the Mariners is compounded since state and county legislators
have so far displayed at best lukewarm support for baseball.
Despite the terms of the pact between the Mariners and King County
that are intended to perpetuate the team's presence here, there
is no way to truly guarantee that the Mariners will remain in
Seattle if large losses continue. Nor is there any way to guarantee
that the project won't run over budget or to oblige anyone other
than the County to step in to complete a half-finished stadium.
Critics foresee a worst-case scenario in which the region could
wind up with not one, but two costly but empty stadiums.
Critics also say it is not appropriate that voters are being asked
to raise taxes for a new stadium without knowing where it will
be built; what it will look like; and how it will be administered.
Site selection to date amounts mostly to speculation about possible
use of publicly owned land north or south of the Kingdome, which
is already being considered for other purposes. Even though the
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) restricts the county's ability
to determine a final site, the bottom line is that voters lack
sufficient information to make a good decision. Similarly, there
are no firm details on how the property is to be managed, and
voters lack other important specifics about the project that are
in part the result of a fast-paced, short planning process.
The rising expenses of admissions, parking, concessions, and other
items already are driving the price of major-league baseball beyond
the means of many families. The new smaller Mariners stadium
will have a reduced number of less-expensive general-admission
seating, which will be subsidized by more luxury suites. Hence,
the overall outlook is for both higher taxes and overall higher
ticket prices.
Proponents say one cannot have a "major league city"
without a major league ballclub and that most communities would
be eager to vote for a stadium subsidy. Yet stadium measures
have been defeated three times each in San Francisco and Miami
and rejected by voters in Santa Clara County, San Jose, and Oklahoma
City.
Back to the Top.
The Municipal League has compiled key arguments for and against
the stadium facilities tax measure. We do not make a recommendation
as to how we believe King County citizens should vote.
The League finds that there are equally compelling "good
government" issues on both sides of the measure. The measure
failed to command sufficient consensus among Board members to
warrant a yes or no recommendation. The League concludes that
voters should make their decisions on the measure based on their
own personal priorities for how public funds should be expended
for capital projects.
Back to the Top.
Back to Ballot Issues
Home
The Municipal League researches and analyzes ballot measures and
other issues affecting local government. For more information
or to join a Municipal League committee, e-mail the League,
or call (206) 622-8333 for more information and mention you saw
our web page!
copyright (C) 1995, The Municipal League of King County
Ballot Issues Report