This reminds me of when my best friend in college nearly flunked out. His dad said, "The days of me paying for your good time are over, son." My gut tells me the local taxpayers still aren't going to support paying for an arena. Do you know the details? Is this new perspective owner willing to pay for it himself?
Yes, that is what is so promising about the funding aspects. The city is on the hook for a low interest loan, but it must be paid back with revenue raised from the new facility. If it isnt paid back, the arena operator is on the hook for the difference. The arena is also responsible for all overages.
Seattle voted down both the baseball and football stadiums and upgrades to Key Arena. The people of Seattle are not going to raise taxes, for a stadium deal. This deal is structured not to raise taxes or put the taxpayers at risk.
From one of the articles I linked in the first post.
Hansen is hoping to raise $290 million in private investment for the new venue. The entire cost of the facility would be between $450 million and $500 million. Public funding participation would be capped at $200 million, with revenue generated mainly by operation of the facility, and with rent paid by the teams and by the arena operator.
Under the proposed agreement, if those sources do not generate enough money, the teams would be on the hook to pay more in rent, said Dwight Dively, finance director for King County. He spoke with media at a City Hall briefing before McGinns news conference.
There will be no new taxes because of this, said Fred Podesta, finance director for the city of Seattle. There will be new revenues created by the arena.
City and county representatives stressed that there would be little to no funding obligation by local taxpayers. The proposed agreement includes financial security provisions that would make Hansens investment group responsible for construction cost overruns and operational shortfalls, said Beth Goldberg, director of the citys budget office.
Edited by Fennis, 21 February 2012 - 02:06 PM.