More pissed at the fact that the NHL will not be in a position to come
I am a huge hockey fan. But bringing an NHL franchise to Seattle is fucking moronic. The NHL is already way over-expanded. It's failing in half the markets it's in. The NHL season is way too long, the tickets are way too expensive, the talent is way too watered down, and the league is in too many markets that (like Seattle) have no cultural affinity to hockey.
I want the Sonics back, and it's possible that this was the best deal that Hansen is willing to make, but property taxes are starting to get out of control as it is and where else are you going to get the money without an income tax.
Unless I've completely misread the entire proposed funding, none of the funding was going to be put in a position where the general population was going to be paying for it regardless of use. The public contribution was going to be all dependent upon those that would use the facility through taxes on tickets, etc. Simply put, if you don't want to pay taxes, then don't go to the arena. No change in anybody's lives as it is.
As someone without kids (and I'm sure I'm not the only person on this bored in this position), I could argue that I'm pissed at some of the taxes that I pay to support educational initiatives because they don't directly impact me. Or, just as likely, I could complain about how much funding goes to furthering the arts given that I don't go to an art museum, a symphony, etc. But who am I say that my interests are better/worse than others.
So you'd be ok with a generation of uneducated maniacs running wild?
I want the Sonics back, and it's possible that this was the best deal that Hansen is willing to make, but property taxes are starting to get out of control as it is and where else are you going to get the money without an income tax.
Unless I've completely misread the entire proposed funding, none of the funding was going to be put in a position where the general population was going to be paying for it regardless of use. The public contribution was going to be all dependent upon those that would use the facility through taxes on tickets, etc. Simply put, if you don't want to pay taxes, then don't go to the arena. No change in anybody's lives as it is.
As someone without kids (and I'm sure I'm not the only person on this bored in this position), I could argue that I'm pissed at some of the taxes that I pay to support educational initiatives because they don't directly impact me. Or, just as likely, I could complain about how much funding goes to furthering the arts given that I don't go to an art museum, a symphony, etc. But who am I say that my interests are better/worse than others.
So you'd be ok with a generation of uneducated maniacs running wild?
More pissed at the fact that the NHL will not be in a position to come
I am a huge hockey fan. But bringing an NHL franchise to Seattle is fucking moronic. The NHL is already way over-expanded. It's failing in half the markets it's in. The NHL season is way too long, the tickets are way too expensive, the talent is way too watered down, and the league is in too many markets that (like Seattle) have no cultural affinity to hockey.
Seattle DID have a cultural affinity for hockey. The Totems were huge in the 50s and 60s and Seattle was supposed to get an NHL team in '76 and again in '90 but financing fell through and other interests blocked it.
The Tbirds had a good following at the Coliseum and even now in Kent they draw decent crowds (the Tips do really well in Everett.)
When I played in men's leagues in the last ten years there were hundreds of teams.
NHL teams are failing in two markets not half of markets. And they would succeed in Arizona if they were in Phoenix or Scotsdale and will be fine in Sunrise now that they have a winner. NHL would do fine here. I said for years they need to take advantage of the potential of a PNW rivalry threesome with Portland and Vancouver but MLS beat them to it with resounding success.
Holy shit this deserves a citrus response.
Denial is a river in Egypt and Seattle is a city in scarf wearing douchebag country.
I want the Sonics back, and it's possible that this was the best deal that Hansen is willing to make, but property taxes are starting to get out of control as it is and where else are you going to get the money without an income tax.
Unless I've completely misread the entire proposed funding, none of the funding was going to be put in a position where the general population was going to be paying for it regardless of use. The public contribution was going to be all dependent upon those that would use the facility through taxes on tickets, etc. Simply put, if you don't want to pay taxes, then don't go to the arena. No change in anybody's lives as it is.
As someone without kids (and I'm sure I'm not the only person on this bored in this position), I could argue that I'm pissed at some of the taxes that I pay to support educational initiatives because they don't directly impact me. Or, just as likely, I could complain about how much funding goes to furthering the arts given that I don't go to an art museum, a symphony, etc. But who am I say that my interests are better/worse than others.
So you'd be ok with a generation of uneducated maniacs running wild?
Your reading comprehension sucks
huh?
What funded your education, bright boy?
You missed my entire point ... which isn't surprising ...
My point is that just because I may not benefit directly from something doesn't mean that it is worthless. What I find important may be completely different than what someone else finds important. It's not my place to say that someone else's interests or motivations are better or worse than mine ... just like the reverse isn't true. For anybody that wants to claim that a sporting arena is worthless because they don't use them, I could just as easily counter saying that funding for the symphony, parks, etc. is worthless because I don't use them.
Perhaps the bigger issue of all of this is actually thinking about how and what we fund through taxes. Personally, I'm all in favor of the way the taxes were set up for the Arena through direct use taxes. If you aren't using the facility, you don't get taxed. That makes a lot of sense to me. In contrast, take property taxes and all the different ways that they get split up and I can guarantee that there is at least a handful of things that I'd rather not have my money going to support.
And, to your question about what funded my education, that actually really is a good question ...
My mother wasn't a property owner so she (and as a result I) didn't contribute directly through property taxes, etc. At UW, I paid my own way through school so other than what the state contributed through funding to the University as a whole it was on me. For grad school, it was a mixture of family contributions and a scholarship.
I don't have any problem contributing money towards education. However, I'm also not going to blindly vote for every education ask that comes on a ballot. I do think that we provide a significant amount of funds into education and I would challenge whether or not the funding is being utilized efficiently.
The other thing that I'd throw out there on an arena standpoint is that the big miss by those that vote against arenas and whatnot is that they miss on what the importance of athletics are in shaping values and work ethic in life. Sports give kids something to strive for and is one of the first things where they learn the values of hard work, working together, and competition. If you don't have influences around for kids to look up to, you're bound to see them find other, far less savory, influences.
I want the Sonics back, and it's possible that this was the best deal that Hansen is willing to make, but property taxes are starting to get out of control as it is and where else are you going to get the money without an income tax.
Unless I've completely misread the entire proposed funding, none of the funding was going to be put in a position where the general population was going to be paying for it regardless of use. The public contribution was going to be all dependent upon those that would use the facility through taxes on tickets, etc. Simply put, if you don't want to pay taxes, then don't go to the arena. No change in anybody's lives as it is.
As someone without kids (and I'm sure I'm not the only person on this bored in this position), I could argue that I'm pissed at some of the taxes that I pay to support educational initiatives because they don't directly impact me. Or, just as likely, I could complain about how much funding goes to furthering the arts given that I don't go to an art museum, a symphony, etc. But who am I say that my interests are better/worse than others.
So you'd be ok with a generation of uneducated maniacs running wild?
Your reading comprehension sucks
huh?
What funded your education, bright boy?
You missed my entire point ... which isn't surprising ...
My point is that just because I may not benefit directly from something doesn't mean that it is worthless. What I find important may be completely different than what someone else finds important. It's not my place to say that someone else's interests or motivations are better or worse than mine ... just like the reverse isn't true. For anybody that wants to claim that a sporting arena is worthless because they don't use them, I could just as easily counter saying that funding for the symphony, parks, etc. is worthless because I don't use them.
Perhaps the bigger issue of all of this is actually thinking about how and what we fund through taxes. Personally, I'm all in favor of the way the taxes were set up for the Arena through direct use taxes. If you aren't using the facility, you don't get taxed. That makes a lot of sense to me. In contrast, take property taxes and all the different ways that they get split up and I can guarantee that there is at least a handful of things that I'd rather not have my money going to support.
And, to your question about what funded my education, that actually really is a good question ...
My mother wasn't a property owner so she (and as a result I) didn't contribute directly through property taxes, etc. At UW, I paid my own way through school so other than what the state contributed through funding to the University as a whole it was on me. For grad school, it was a mixture of family contributions and a scholarship.
I don't have any problem contributing money towards education. However, I'm also not going to blindly vote for every education ask that comes on a ballot. I do think that we provide a significant amount of funds into education and I would challenge whether or not the funding is being utilized efficiently.
The other thing that I'd throw out there on an arena standpoint is that the big miss by those that vote against arenas and whatnot is that they miss on what the importance of athletics are in shaping values and work ethic in life. Sports give kids something to strive for and is one of the first things where they learn the values of hard work, working together, and competition. If you don't have influences around for kids to look up to, you're bound to see them find other, far less savory, influences.
I want the Sonics back, and it's possible that this was the best deal that Hansen is willing to make, but property taxes are starting to get out of control as it is and where else are you going to get the money without an income tax.
Unless I've completely misread the entire proposed funding, none of the funding was going to be put in a position where the general population was going to be paying for it regardless of use. The public contribution was going to be all dependent upon those that would use the facility through taxes on tickets, etc. Simply put, if you don't want to pay taxes, then don't go to the arena. No change in anybody's lives as it is.
As someone without kids (and I'm sure I'm not the only person on this bored in this position), I could argue that I'm pissed at some of the taxes that I pay to support educational initiatives because they don't directly impact me. Or, just as likely, I could complain about how much funding goes to furthering the arts given that I don't go to an art museum, a symphony, etc. But who am I say that my interests are better/worse than others.
So you'd be ok with a generation of uneducated maniacs running wild?
Your reading comprehension sucks
huh?
What funded your education, bright boy?
You missed my entire point ... which isn't surprising ...
My point is that just because I may not benefit directly from something doesn't mean that it is worthless. What I find important may be completely different than what someone else finds important. It's not my place to say that someone else's interests or motivations are better or worse than mine ... just like the reverse isn't true. For anybody that wants to claim that a sporting arena is worthless because they don't use them, I could just as easily counter saying that funding for the symphony, parks, etc. is worthless because I don't use them.
Perhaps the bigger issue of all of this is actually thinking about how and what we fund through taxes. Personally, I'm all in favor of the way the taxes were set up for the Arena through direct use taxes. If you aren't using the facility, you don't get taxed. That makes a lot of sense to me. In contrast, take property taxes and all the different ways that they get split up and I can guarantee that there is at least a handful of things that I'd rather not have my money going to support.
And, to your question about what funded my education, that actually really is a good question ...
My mother wasn't a property owner so she (and as a result I) didn't contribute directly through property taxes, etc. At UW, I paid my own way through school so other than what the state contributed through funding to the University as a whole it was on me. For grad school, it was a mixture of family contributions and a scholarship.
I don't have any problem contributing money towards education. However, I'm also not going to blindly vote for every education ask that comes on a ballot. I do think that we provide a significant amount of funds into education and I would challenge whether or not the funding is being utilized efficiently.
The other thing that I'd throw out there on an arena standpoint is that the big miss by those that vote against arenas and whatnot is that they miss on what the importance of athletics are in shaping values and work ethic in life. Sports give kids something to strive for and is one of the first things where they learn the values of hard work, working together, and competition. If you don't have influences around for kids to look up to, you're bound to see them find other, far less savory, influences.
My problem is that I love Seattle sports too much. But every other city I've lived, I've voted no on an arena deal. And it's simply out of principle. It's the only industry where billionaires can easily make hundreds of millions of dollars, yet hold a city hostage and making them pay for your infrastructure. It's complete horseshit. It'd be like if Alaska was the only airline and they said everyone who flies with them for the first 5 years have to pay 75% of the cost for a fleet of planes. In any other sector, it would be universally deemed nonsensical and asinine. So while I'd like nothing more than the Sonics to come back and I'd vote yes just because I want to see that happen so bad. It's just horseshit when billionaire owners are given a free fucking stadium (ie Mariners), make hundreds of million a year on TV deals alone, don't give a fuck about winning and the latte-sipping Seattle inbred pussies still pay these clowns as if the first 10" is completely consensual.
Ladies and gentlemen, YOUR 2017 Friday Harbor SuperSonics!!!!!!!!
Will they have ACCESS??!111!!?!!1? Does Chris Hansen hate hh.com? Will the podcast have no agendas? What about contracts? No upper campus to coattail to. You think it will be pretty uncensored like the HFP? Will there be any holds barred?
I want the Sonics back, and it's possible that this was the best deal that Hansen is willing to make, but property taxes are starting to get out of control as it is and where else are you going to get the money without an income tax.
Unless I've completely misread the entire proposed funding, none of the funding was going to be put in a position where the general population was going to be paying for it regardless of use. The public contribution was going to be all dependent upon those that would use the facility through taxes on tickets, etc. Simply put, if you don't want to pay taxes, then don't go to the arena. No change in anybody's lives as it is.
As someone without kids (and I'm sure I'm not the only person on this bored in this position), I could argue that I'm pissed at some of the taxes that I pay to support educational initiatives because they don't directly impact me. Or, just as likely, I could complain about how much funding goes to furthering the arts given that I don't go to an art museum, a symphony, etc. But who am I say that my interests are better/worse than others.
So you'd be ok with a generation of uneducated maniacs running wild?
Your reading comprehension sucks
huh?
What funded your education, bright boy?
You missed my entire point ... which isn't surprising ...
My point is that just because I may not benefit directly from something doesn't mean that it is worthless. What I find important may be completely different than what someone else finds important. It's not my place to say that someone else's interests or motivations are better or worse than mine ... just like the reverse isn't true. For anybody that wants to claim that a sporting arena is worthless because they don't use them, I could just as easily counter saying that funding for the symphony, parks, etc. is worthless because I don't use them.
Perhaps the bigger issue of all of this is actually thinking about how and what we fund through taxes. Personally, I'm all in favor of the way the taxes were set up for the Arena through direct use taxes. If you aren't using the facility, you don't get taxed. That makes a lot of sense to me. In contrast, take property taxes and all the different ways that they get split up and I can guarantee that there is at least a handful of things that I'd rather not have my money going to support.
And, to your question about what funded my education, that actually really is a good question ...
My mother wasn't a property owner so she (and as a result I) didn't contribute directly through property taxes, etc. At UW, I paid my own way through school so other than what the state contributed through funding to the University as a whole it was on me. For grad school, it was a mixture of family contributions and a scholarship.
I don't have any problem contributing money towards education. However, I'm also not going to blindly vote for every education ask that comes on a ballot. I do think that we provide a significant amount of funds into education and I would challenge whether or not the funding is being utilized efficiently.
The other thing that I'd throw out there on an arena standpoint is that the big miss by those that vote against arenas and whatnot is that they miss on what the importance of athletics are in shaping values and work ethic in life. Sports give kids something to strive for and is one of the first things where they learn the values of hard work, working together, and competition. If you don't have influences around for kids to look up to, you're bound to see them find other, far less savory, influences.
My problem is that I love Seattle sports too much. But every other city I've lived, I've voted no on an arena deal. And it's simply out of principle. It's the only industry where billionaires can easily make hundreds of millions of dollars, yet hold a city hostage and making them pay for your infrastructure. It's complete horseshit. It'd be like if Alaska was the only airline and they said everyone who flies with them for the first 5 years have to pay 75% of the cost for a fleet of planes. In any other sector, it would be universally deemed nonsensical and asinine. So while I'd like nothing more than the Sonics to come back and I'd vote yes just because I want to see that happen so bad. It's just horseshit when billionaire owners are given a free fucking stadium (ie Mariners), make hundreds of million a year on TV deals alone, don't give a fuck about winning and the latte-sipping Seattle inbred pussies still pay these clowns as if the first 10" is completely consensual.
On principal, I don't disagree with you.
Where I would challenge anybody with the firm opinion that it is 100% private is that sports can be viewed as having civic ownership and that if you were an owner that was willing to sink a billion dollars into a market, you'd want to ensure that the community was as invested in you as you were in them.
I do think it's realistic to view sports as a partnership and that where the community contributes is through some kind of ownership. Where I completely disagree with the way things are done is that take the Mariners deal for example where they were basically given everything and have nothing to give back while collecting profits. I do like the setup that is in place with the Sonics Arena where the only "taxpayer" is the actual people that attend. If you don't attend, you aren't paying for it. That makes a lot of sense to me.
Fuck pro sports. Just go out and play basketball, or lace up an play hockey. Watching pro sports is about like watching porn instead of having sex. You have to hire somebody or watch somebody, you are always a paying spectator. Now how does that differ from college football? Good question, I don't know. I guess my argument falls apart.
Fuck pro sports. Just go out and play basketball, or lace up an play hockey. Watching pro sports is about like watching porn instead of having sex. You have to hire somebody or watch somebody, you are always a paying spectator. Now how does that differ from college football? Good question, I don't know. I guess my argument falls apart.
Not true. I've never been able to watch pro sports for 15 hours in a day.
I want the Sonics back, and it's possible that this was the best deal that Hansen is willing to make, but property taxes are starting to get out of control as it is and where else are you going to get the money without an income tax.
Unless I've completely misread the entire proposed funding, none of the funding was going to be put in a position where the general population was going to be paying for it regardless of use. The public contribution was going to be all dependent upon those that would use the facility through taxes on tickets, etc. Simply put, if you don't want to pay taxes, then don't go to the arena. No change in anybody's lives as it is.
As someone without kids (and I'm sure I'm not the only person on this bored in this position), I could argue that I'm pissed at some of the taxes that I pay to support educational initiatives because they don't directly impact me. Or, just as likely, I could complain about how much funding goes to furthering the arts given that I don't go to an art museum, a symphony, etc. But who am I say that my interests are better/worse than others.
So you'd be ok with a generation of uneducated maniacs running wild?
Your reading comprehension sucks
huh?
What funded your education, bright boy?
You missed my entire point ... which isn't surprising ...
My point is that just because I may not benefit directly from something doesn't mean that it is worthless. What I find important may be completely different than what someone else finds important. It's not my place to say that someone else's interests or motivations are better or worse than mine ... just like the reverse isn't true. For anybody that wants to claim that a sporting arena is worthless because they don't use them, I could just as easily counter saying that funding for the symphony, parks, etc. is worthless because I don't use them.
Perhaps the bigger issue of all of this is actually thinking about how and what we fund through taxes. Personally, I'm all in favor of the way the taxes were set up for the Arena through direct use taxes. If you aren't using the facility, you don't get taxed. That makes a lot of sense to me. In contrast, take property taxes and all the different ways that they get split up and I can guarantee that there is at least a handful of things that I'd rather not have my money going to support.
And, to your question about what funded my education, that actually really is a good question ...
My mother wasn't a property owner so she (and as a result I) didn't contribute directly through property taxes, etc. At UW, I paid my own way through school so other than what the state contributed through funding to the University as a whole it was on me. For grad school, it was a mixture of family contributions and a scholarship.
I don't have any problem contributing money towards education. However, I'm also not going to blindly vote for every education ask that comes on a ballot. I do think that we provide a significant amount of funds into education and I would challenge whether or not the funding is being utilized efficiently.
The other thing that I'd throw out there on an arena standpoint is that the big miss by those that vote against arenas and whatnot is that they miss on what the importance of athletics are in shaping values and work ethic in life. Sports give kids something to strive for and is one of the first things where they learn the values of hard work, working together, and competition. If you don't have influences around for kids to look up to, you're bound to see them find other, far less savory, influences.
My problem is that I love Seattle sports too much. But every other city I've lived, I've voted no on an arena deal. And it's simply out of principle. It's the only industry where billionaires can easily make hundreds of millions of dollars, yet hold a city hostage and making them pay for your infrastructure. It's complete horseshit. It'd be like if Alaska was the only airline and they said everyone who flies with them for the first 5 years have to pay 75% of the cost for a fleet of planes. In any other sector, it would be universally deemed nonsensical and asinine. So while I'd like nothing more than the Sonics to come back and I'd vote yes just because I want to see that happen so bad. It's just horseshit when billionaire owners are given a free fucking stadium (ie Mariners), make hundreds of million a year on TV deals alone, don't give a fuck about winning and the latte-sipping Seattle inbred pussies still pay these clowns as if the first 10" is completely consensual.
On principal, I don't disagree with you.
Where I would challenge anybody with the firm opinion that it is 100% private is that sports can be viewed as having civic ownership and that if you were an owner that was willing to sink a billion dollars into a market, you'd want to ensure that the community was as invested in you as you were in them.
I do think it's realistic to view sports as a partnership and that where the community contributes is through some kind of ownership. Where I completely disagree with the way things are done is that take the Mariners deal for example where they were basically given everything and have nothing to give back while collecting profits. I do like the setup that is in place with the Sonics Arena where the only "taxpayer" is the actual people that attend. If you don't attend, you aren't paying for it. That makes a lot of sense to me.
That does make more sense than the Ms situation. What would make more sense however is for either fan ownership or for Hansen to pay for his own stadium.
Fuck pro sports. Just go out and play basketball, or lace up an play hockey. Watching pro sports is about like watching porn instead of having sex. You have to hire somebody or watch somebody, you are always a paying spectator. Now how does that differ from college football? Good question, I don't know. I guess my argument falls apart.
Comments
When they were in the NHL. Allegedly
What funded your education, bright boy?
Which one do you live.in?
My point is that just because I may not benefit directly from something doesn't mean that it is worthless. What I find important may be completely different than what someone else finds important. It's not my place to say that someone else's interests or motivations are better or worse than mine ... just like the reverse isn't true. For anybody that wants to claim that a sporting arena is worthless because they don't use them, I could just as easily counter saying that funding for the symphony, parks, etc. is worthless because I don't use them.
Perhaps the bigger issue of all of this is actually thinking about how and what we fund through taxes. Personally, I'm all in favor of the way the taxes were set up for the Arena through direct use taxes. If you aren't using the facility, you don't get taxed. That makes a lot of sense to me. In contrast, take property taxes and all the different ways that they get split up and I can guarantee that there is at least a handful of things that I'd rather not have my money going to support.
And, to your question about what funded my education, that actually really is a good question ...
My mother wasn't a property owner so she (and as a result I) didn't contribute directly through property taxes, etc. At UW, I paid my own way through school so other than what the state contributed through funding to the University as a whole it was on me. For grad school, it was a mixture of family contributions and a scholarship.
I don't have any problem contributing money towards education. However, I'm also not going to blindly vote for every education ask that comes on a ballot. I do think that we provide a significant amount of funds into education and I would challenge whether or not the funding is being utilized efficiently.
The other thing that I'd throw out there on an arena standpoint is that the big miss by those that vote against arenas and whatnot is that they miss on what the importance of athletics are in shaping values and work ethic in life. Sports give kids something to strive for and is one of the first things where they learn the values of hard work, working together, and competition. If you don't have influences around for kids to look up to, you're bound to see them find other, far less savory, influences.
Where I would challenge anybody with the firm opinion that it is 100% private is that sports can be viewed as having civic ownership and that if you were an owner that was willing to sink a billion dollars into a market, you'd want to ensure that the community was as invested in you as you were in them.
I do think it's realistic to view sports as a partnership and that where the community contributes is through some kind of ownership. Where I completely disagree with the way things are done is that take the Mariners deal for example where they were basically given everything and have nothing to give back while collecting profits. I do like the setup that is in place with the Sonics Arena where the only "taxpayer" is the actual people that attend. If you don't attend, you aren't paying for it. That makes a lot of sense to me.