Initiative may call for revision of Seattle arena proposal
SEATTLE -- The agreement for a new sports arena in Seattle may need to be change in order to avoid a lawsuit.
At the center of the controversy is Initiative 91, which says the city cannot make a deal for a facility like the arena unless there is a fair return on its investment.
The issue was at the focus of Thursday's Seattle City Council meeting. The council is considering several options, including granting the arena deal an exemption from the initiative or reworking the agreement with King County and arena investors (See entire presentation)
But the initiative's original sponsor says the city is setting itself up for a lawsuit.
"This would lead to endless controversies and legal challenges, and we strongly urge you to get the pro-sports folks to put their money on the table and move this forward," said Chris Van Dyk, a co-sponsor of the initiative.
According to a new report, the city predicts an annual shortfall, meaning arena backers will need to pay more rent than expected as a part of the 30-year deal.
However, arena investor Chris Hansen believes the city's analysis is flawed. He claims he deal complies with I-91, and the report fails to take into consideration other sources of revenue. If there is a shortfall, he says, arena owners will cover it. (Read Chris Hansen's full rebuttal)
Hansen believes the annual return to the city will be between 8 and 10 percent -- an amount that "significantly exceeds the return required by I-91," according to the pro-arena website sonicsarena.com.
KOMO News has confirmed the city has spent $593,000 on consultants and legal fees for the deal. Arena investors will cover the costs, according to the city.
Steinbrueck criticizes proposal, signs on as port consultant
This week the Port of Seattle confirmed former Seattle City Council member Peter Steinbrueck signed a $40,000 contract to serve as a consultant on the arena deal.
The port has criticized the deal over potential traffic issues and job losses. Steinbrueck offered his own criticism late last month, saying that the arena would violate stadium district boundaries.
"All the room is taken up there," he said.
KOMO News has obtained copies of e-mail exchanges that show Steinbrueck began communicating with port officials about the arena in April. Six days after publicly criticizing the deal, he sent a proposal offering his consulting services to the port, according to the exchanges.
Steinbrueck is said to be traveling this week and unavailable to comment.
Port officials did not wish to comment.
At the center of the controversy is Initiative 91, which says the city cannot make a deal for a facility like the arena unless there is a fair return on its investment.
The issue was at the focus of Thursday's Seattle City Council meeting. The council is considering several options, including granting the arena deal an exemption from the initiative or reworking the agreement with King County and arena investors (See entire presentation)
But the initiative's original sponsor says the city is setting itself up for a lawsuit.
"This would lead to endless controversies and legal challenges, and we strongly urge you to get the pro-sports folks to put their money on the table and move this forward," said Chris Van Dyk, a co-sponsor of the initiative.
According to a new report, the city predicts an annual shortfall, meaning arena backers will need to pay more rent than expected as a part of the 30-year deal.
However, arena investor Chris Hansen believes the city's analysis is flawed. He claims he deal complies with I-91, and the report fails to take into consideration other sources of revenue. If there is a shortfall, he says, arena owners will cover it. (Read Chris Hansen's full rebuttal)
Hansen believes the annual return to the city will be between 8 and 10 percent -- an amount that "significantly exceeds the return required by I-91," according to the pro-arena website sonicsarena.com.
KOMO News has confirmed the city has spent $593,000 on consultants and legal fees for the deal. Arena investors will cover the costs, according to the city.
Steinbrueck criticizes proposal, signs on as port consultant
This week the Port of Seattle confirmed former Seattle City Council member Peter Steinbrueck signed a $40,000 contract to serve as a consultant on the arena deal.
The port has criticized the deal over potential traffic issues and job losses. Steinbrueck offered his own criticism late last month, saying that the arena would violate stadium district boundaries.
"All the room is taken up there," he said.
KOMO News has obtained copies of e-mail exchanges that show Steinbrueck began communicating with port officials about the arena in April. Six days after publicly criticizing the deal, he sent a proposal offering his consulting services to the port, according to the exchanges.
Steinbrueck is said to be traveling this week and unavailable to comment.
Port officials did not wish to comment.
Like I have already written, The Seattle City Council has year after year harassed the Seattle residents concerning the replacement of the arena. Harassment: harassment (either harris-meant or huh-rass-meant) n. the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands. The purposes may vary, including racial prejudice, personal malice, an attempt to force someone to quit a job or grant sexual favors, apply illegal pressure to collect a bill, or merely gain sadistic pleasure from making someone fearful or anxious. Such activities may be the basis for a lawsuit if due to discrimination based on race or sex, a violation on the statutory limitations on collection agencies, involve revenge by an ex-spouse, or be shown to be a form of blackmail ("I'll stop bothering you, if you'll go to bed with me"). The victim may file a petition for a "stay away" (restraining) order, intended to prevent contact by the offensive party. A systematic pattern of harassment by an employee against another worker may subject the employer to a lawsuit for failure to protect the worker. I may be wrong but if the people of Seattle do not wish to pay for this new arena in part or whole, this year, and next year the âBoardâ brings it up again, and the following year it is brought up again, does this not fall under the definition as Gerald and Kathleen Hill have described the word HARASSMENTâ¦
The âBoard has heard us all say NO year after year after year.
When will a group, committee, or some assembly finally check into the idea that this is harassment   and sue to stop this HARASSMENT........Â