Man is it weird reading some peoples interpretations of yesterday’s court win.
Lets me just say that there is ZERO doubt that yesterday was a win. The concept of semantics that somehow the court determined that “this is not a done deal” is really grasping at straws by the opposition.
The MOU is a done deal. The challenge that it was unlawful has been firmly rebuked. Judges are always hesitant to issue summary judgement unless the matter is very clear.
As has been mentioned by many people the completed MOU establishes a clearly defined path and set of criteria to get to the contract being a “completely done deal”. The project funding is done SUBJECT TO SEPA and its findings just like every single other construction project that makes it past the financing stage and to permitting.
While the project is subject to SEPA I do not believe it is subject to political whimsy any longer. The SEPA process is well established and politically independent A developer who puts in the time and money to participate in SEPA (such as Hansen) and after successfully completing that process found their financial partners (in this case the city) had simply changed their minds and abandoned the contractually agreed up on path for reasons other than the SEPA findings would likely be able to pursue litigation claims for both expenses and damages. Council could not just “change their minds” for any reason other than the actual findings determined by SEPA.
Peter Goldman does not want to start SEPA. The ILWU knows that with the MOU in place and SEPA started the process marches forward and they have lost their ability to put political pressure on electeds to renege on the agreed upon deal without cause. The timing makes it much harder for them to politicize this issue in the mayors race. They totally failed to roll the clock back to the point where a their lobbyists could make a difference.
Lets put it this way. At the time when Sacramento has announced their investors, identified their plan and council approved the plan they will consider it to be done. At that time they will likely be 3 plus months of planning BEFORE they begin their own SEPA process.
So it is done in the sense that a path exists and is contractually agreed upon. Hansen still has to walk this down that path just like any development project before it is “done”.
The great news is that it is his risk, not ours. He is the developer who has hopefully anticipated what SEPA will reveal and has to be prepared to mitigate and deal with its findings. He seems willing to take that risk and prepared to move forward. We owe him thanks for that.
Brian,
I may want to add that Sacramento may potential face their own legal issues with their deal that may a bigger issue than those that Seattle had to deal with.
Nah, doubt it KJ says they don’t have lawsuits down there lol
The fact that they aren’t dealing with lawsuits is that they haven’t even got to the point of legal challenges as a few have pointed out.
I know, which makes his comment all that more comical.
Sac doesn’t even have a final site lined up
Sorry to change subjects, but watching the Syracuse and Georgetown game, and damn im loving Carter-Williams for the Kings/Sonics.
I dont see the lack of draft picks being a problem, i see alot of young assets on this team that can be traded if they dont work out
but i still find myself a little baffled about the deadline trade, didnt make much sense to me haha
I am getting more and more excited about the NBA, I am hoping to go to a Hawks game next year then afterwards heading to the Key. thatd be an awesome day.
Brian, the feeling I got from all of his direct testimony, when answering the “why SoDo question, is that he more or less walked down that SEPA mitigation path a year and a half ago when doing his own preferred site selection.
You just don’t pull detailed answers out of the air and give specific answers that he did.
It does bug me a bit that the losers are getting as mich ink as they do. I would like to gett some kind of public indication of how well the process is going. But, that’s just me wanting information, it isn’t a need for them, just a want by me.
An “avalanche”, geez, Goldman was losing his mind yesterday when having to face the judge.
Depending which legal or watchdog group’s numbers you look at, California usually ranks in the top five most litigious states in the country if not alone in first.
I am surprised someone in California hasn’t sued KJ for claiming otherwise.
Yeah they are “special” in Sacramento that they dont have to face lawsuits or public scrutiny even though they will be financing the deal for the most part on public dollars whether its from the genral fund or not. There are some big questions that the taxpayers will have like what if the bid on the parking falls well short of what the city is supposed tp pay? Where will they find the extra millions or tens of millions to come up their end of the bargain. Then who covers cost overruns? How will the fact that their arena, based off last years financials, going to be “fair and competitive” compared to the fact that it is a 100 million dollars less in value? Will the NBA want a palace with a 490-500 million price tag or a palace at 390-400 million price tag (maybe less)?
Other details are how much money will the investor group that is pro-Sac have to borrow compared to Hansen/Ballmer? How much will a RSN in Sacramento net? Right now their contract is 11 million dollars and obviously increase but how close will that increase be to a RSN in Seattle? How much value does the NBA get from the Seattle market with a national TV contract compared to having the Sacramento market? What is the difference in corporate sponsorship dollars even if you use the competition of the other major sports teams in context? How viable is it that Sacramento long term wont be a revenue sharing liability compared to Seattle long term (not a problem for us IMO)?
Almost all those issues I put into question favor Seattle long term without even having to look at it that deeply. The only things the NBA might consider good about Sacramento is historically they have had very good support of the team in terms of the peasents attending. Plus they are the ones that have the team. I guess if there were a couple more arena plans lately that are centered around the owner taking alot of the risk then maybe the NBA would be leery of Hansen’s arena plan but at this point they could say that the Seattle plan is an exception to the model and not the “new” model.
People in Sacramento can try and spin this as not done because it was used in court as “not done.” The thing is that the NBA knows that in court it has to be said that way. The NBA front office is full of lawyers that understand that is how you have to play it at this stage because of the law. Politically this is all but a done deal and we are just waiting on the SEPA process to be lawfully done and then the Seattle and King County Councils will vote to get this finalized. Permits will get done and then the Shovel will be ready once the team comes.
I really cant blame Sacramento FANS for trying to spin in positively for themselves but Aaron Bruski, RE Graswich, Carmichael Dave, etc trying to spin this in their favor and that they are ahead are doing a HUGE disservice to the fanbase who hangs on their every word as gold. They are building up a pedastel higher than it needs to be and that will most likely come crumbling down and it will be that much harder because they thought they had it in the bag because of what they were told by agenda driven baffoons. Sad really because they are setting themselves up for a much harder April.
I think burgess mention that the council will get a briefing on the status of the arena project on monday.
Yes, and I will write up a little column for Tuesday.
Here is the slide packet for Monday’s Council Briefing.
http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/~public/meetingrecords/2013/cbriefing20130225_5a.pdf
Please see page 7 for the high level timeline, and bullet 3 on the last page (17) on Key Arena.
“Dates being held for 2013-14 NBA season starting in November.”
Brian - Thanks for the thoughtful counterpoint to the “Heads I win, Tails you lose” approach taken on every potential issue by certain journalists out there.
Fwiw, Mondays council briefing, although short, will have more substance that is much further along than anything KJ says 3 days later.
Just minding our own business, getting ready for basketball in November at Key Arena, thanks.
So if i read that timeline right the vote on the transaction document will happen late December into January of 14?
That’s by year end. Looks like at least two years in Key and a cutover could happen during the 3rd Season.
It does seems kind of weird that the people who are against the Arena are saying that this was a setback because we need to still wait on the SEPA findings were the same people who were suing them in the first place for supposedly not following the SEPA process…
so that vote would happen by the end of the year but could happen sooner?
@trolltossin:
I don’t think anyone should expect the NBA to have any problem with the “not done” comment about the arena in court.
They know about every step in Seattle(Hansen, Ballmer and McGinn are regularly talking to Stern etc.) and Stern said that Seattle/Hansen has done everything that they needed to.
It’s just SAC reporters still trying to throw mud at Seattle’s arena plans and hoping that something sticks, as that might buy them time.
We’ll see what KJ’s got up in his sleeves next Friday and then we’ll have more of an understanding where they’re at and how much of an impact it could make.
Though, I have a hard time seeing it being a dealbreaker for us, as they don’t have enough time and even if they did have everything put together, they’d still need to go through all the steps we already went through while being on the verge of experiencing their own little lawsuits.
“but it was a mere setback but the SEPA findings will prove our claim that it economically impact and cause us to lose thousands of good middle wage jobs”
I can just see them saying that.
It’s “Family wage” that way they don’t have to say these guys are making over 100k a year (not that I am against them making good money, but the term is definitely used for political purposes).
But still my point still stands that just what i think they would say and since they have yet to prove their point
It looks like end if the year, but, the draft EIS will be available by June. Im going way out on a limb here (trying to remember how this exchange actually happens) By “draft” they mean that they should have a ton of known items that require mitigation and other elements identified, the final EIS would include a formal response by Chris Hansen (does he accept the elements of the study and what do he and the local municipalities agree to do to mitigate those items).
This process feels like it goes on forever, but, a year from now they should be crushing the old warehouse and getting the site ready for excavating and construction.
This is all very real and right in front of us.
Go Sonics!
I would really hate a cutover at midseason, but it could work out if you did it on Christmas Day. I could imagine a good send off for the Key the last home game before, then a road trip, then have the game be one of the feature Christmas day games. I just remember the Mariners moving over midseason and it sort of seemed like the build up wasn’t as great as it could be.
Nobody has the rights to host the 2016 All Star Game, not yet.
I think they should absolutely go for it, and call it home thereafter. That’s a very tight schedule for a big building, but would put their new building on a global map in a hurry.
Certainly a fun idea, but I do think that the first game should be for the fans rather than the league. Either way, it is going to be a national televised game for sure. The Sonics may set a record for being the worst team with the most nationally televised games next year.
Good point, maybe one home game there before ASG weekend.
I would personally like to see that final vote happen as soon as it can and not go into 2014 with the potential change of the city council and mayors office.
Of course not that it really matters with the team here this fall. I just can’t see how SCC and KCC vote this down on the final vote once the team is in place.
I thought someone said the final vote would be early January 2014, in the lame duck of this council/mayor.
I don’t expect Hansen to consume all of his allotted response time to the draft EIS, do you?
I actually expect those schedule dates to be a bit shorter. The council having a plan to process all of it, that’s what the briefing is all about, should help keep everybody pointed toward doing a thorough job that prevents second guessing by what the study means to the community and what mitigation should really look like for Hansen, apart from all the other issues in that area.
Brian made the point, the only reason they can vote it down is by the EIS.
The draft will be out there in June. I think the good questions get officially asked then, and we have a solid idea of how long the rest of the process and decision making will really take.
Tennesse vs texas a&m just started 4th OT
If the team’s already here, I don’t see any way out. Hansen will have to agree to do whatever EIS says he is responsible for, whatever it costs. I do think he already has a good idea what it is going to say and what the response of the councils will be, or he wouldn’t have signed the PSA for the Kings. If by some really small chance he doesn’t know this already and the EIS is unmitigatable, the team already being here would mean a new site would have to be selected and we would have to start over. But I don’t see him not doing his homework before signing the PSA.
I doubt there will be anything unmitigatable cause it already has two stadiums in the area.
That’s a fair point, and yes, I mentioned this much further up the thread, I don’t see Hansen not having a good idea of what the likely mitigation would be before focusing on SoDo a year and a half ago. Fwiw, there are existing public documents on the EIS’ done on both stadiums, so, some information already exists. On the flip side, the MOU states that they have a maximum 150 days to execute the transaction after everything is agreed to. So, it isn’t as if they could drag it out for too long.
Chris Daniels @ChrisDaniels5
RT @RicBucher: Take whatever you want from it: asked if Ron Burkle could keep the Kings in Sacramento, a Burkle business assoc said, “Iffy.”
That’s why i hope its all done and final approval is done before the new mayor and any new members in the city council take office. Its dragging it out that i would hate to see happen.
As far as acquiring the team goes, here is what I think the doubters & SAC fans are underestimating…
#1 - Why would the owners choose to endorse the idea that AFTER one of them sells, they can be forced to accept a “competitive offer” from some local group. They would be voting to establish that as a way of life for themselves. They would be voting against themselves.
#2 - The only reason to disapprove this sale is because the Hansen group doesn’t meet the financial standards OR things would be ugly in the destination city. Neither of those are true. Stern already has endorsed the Hansen group, and our Arena process is looking great.
Bottom line is we have everything going for us this time, and SAC is in the early stages of getting next in line for a team.
First of all, kudos for using the word ”unmitigatable” successfully.
Secondly, what I just don’t get:
Opposing this arena is really in no one’s best interest. It gains us NOTHING. Traffic issues/freight mobility issues exist NOW, without an arena. Wouldn’t it be in everyone’s best interest for all of these groups to come together to find solutions for everyone, instead of wasting time and money to fight each other? Do we not have a city full of brainiacs and innovators that are well-known for thinking outside of the box and coming up with great ideas?
I, for one, find it very hard to believe that a region that gave birth to Microsoft, Costco, Amazon, Boeing, et al can’t figure out how to mitigate these issues, and come up with a plan that makes things better for all parties involved. Well, it isn’t that they ”can’t”. They can, but there are those that just WON’T. It’s sad. For all of their selfishness, they can’t see how they would be doing themselves a favor.
“On the flip side, the MOU states that they have a maximum 150 days to execute the transaction after everything is agreed to. So, it isn’t as if they could drag it out for too long. ”
I’m not understanding this. So after EIS comes out in June, they have 150 days to determine what needs to be done to mitigate the impact? I do agree, about the only thing that could stop this now is if final approval is delayed until after the new council/mayor take office and we end up with mayor Steinbrueck. The latest they could vote with any certainty is the last day this mayor/council is in office. I don’t see the KCC being a problem though.
If there was something unmitigatable, one would think it would been noted in the EIS of Safeco and the clink
Yes, it’s a union talking point, and really one that only applies for those who are far up the ladder enough to write the talking points.
I specifically remember the stagehand at one of the meetings who accidentally let slip the importance of his “family-wage” job… that, along with two other jobs, allowed him to support his family.
I’m not going to lie, the timing of all this makes me extremely nervous. Maybe it is just my dislike and distrust of Seattle politics in general, but if the final vote isn’t until January 2014, the Mayoral and Seattle City Council elections could be highly politicized with the Arena issue. What if Peter Steinbruck wins the Mayoral race? Any final MOE would be dead on arrival, regardless of the outcome of the EIS. The MOU provides a clear process for financing and approving an arena deal, but it must be voted on again, and the MOE doesn’t “bind” the Councils’ or Mayor to final approval.
Many of you will argue that the council’s cannot possibly reject the arena if we have a team back in November. However, I simply don’t think a guy like Steinbruck gives a rats ass.
Peter if new council and steinbrueck tries to kill it for non EIS reasons they would have to defend their stance in a lawsuit and i don’t think thats going to happen.
Numbers Guy1984,
I’m sure he cares when the city gets their buts sued and loses and Stienbreck can’t do jack if the vote is veto proof.
So if it has at least 7 yes votes a future council/mayor can’t overturn it?
Plus political monumental would be too far ahead to where if he gets elected as mayor can kill it. Plus with out knowing what the EIS will ask Hansen to do. There could be a few things within the EIS that Hansen is asked to mitigate that would seriously benefit the port of Seattle.
6. I believe is the #.
just a side note but I really feel like the media and forum conversation is 100% different in Sacramento than it was here.
We didn’t have the cheerleader media members that they do down there. I swear that Aaron Bruski thinks that Carmichael Dave is a great source. None of them are speculating that anything can go wrong, just positioning themselves for KJ’s big save.
We also had a much bigger target in Clay than they do in Hansen and I just don’t remember us being as bitter with OKC fans as they are with us. I would generally just kind of chalk that up to the change in social media and expanded internet. We have Sonicscentral and all of our areas to talk about it and there was really very little OKC “chatter” at a fan level.
I try not to let “perspective” get to me but Bruski is reaching absurd levels of homerism. The others are trying hard to be impartial. he just writes what KJ’s people tell him to.
Isn’t there a Seattle City Council election in November as well? It’s possible the composition of the Council post-election won’t be as “pro Arena” as they are now. I know it’s all speculation but I am just worried about the Arena being issue #1 separating candidates in the Council and Mayoral election. It’s easy for Arena opponents to spin Mis-information about the MOU to an uneducated public in order to garner support (e.g., their vote).
As for lawsuits, my understanding is that the MOU doesn’t bind the Counsels vote in a specific manner. What if the newly elected Seattle City Council and Mayor have a different interpretation of the EIS and choose to vote against the final transaction documents? I don’t think Hansen would have recourse in this situation. I could be, and hope I am wrong – it just worries me.
It’s possible the composition of the Council post-election won’t be as “pro Arena” as they are now. I know it’s all speculation but I am just worried about the Arena being issue #1 separating candidates in the Council and Mayoral election. It’s easy for Arena opponents to spin Mis-information about the MOU to an uneducated public in order to garner support (e.g., their vote).
As for lawsuits, my understanding is that the MOU doesn’t bind the Counsels vote in a specific manner. What if the newly elected Seattle City Council and Mayor have a different interpretation of the EIS and choose to vote against the final transaction documents? I don’t think Hansen would have recourse in this situation. I could be, and hope I am wrong – it just worries me.
Yeah but does that mean the 1st vote or 2nd? I know the 1st vote was 7-2, but if the 2nd vote doesn’t happen until after January 2014, wouldn’t that not apply if it is the 2nd vote and there is a hostile council/mayor? Giving final approval in the lame duck before new council/mayor take office would seem like the most likely best outcome for this. It sounds like this will take time, and I don’t think new council/mayor take over until January 4th.
Brian,
Is there really anything to fear if Stienbreck were to somehow becomes mayor regarding potential roadblock?
http://sulia.com/channel/sacramento-kings/f/a366445f-b12e-460e-9eff-d628a30496bb/?source=twitter
Note the heavy usage of the word preliminary
If Steinbreuck becomes mayor there should be real concern that that all of our corporate presences move out, motor vehicles are replaced with horse drawn buggies (with the exception of port trucks) and the entire city is converted to a nostalgia theme park.
His candidacy must be stopped at all costs. Its bigger than the arena. His is an anti-development, turn back the clock obstructionist.
I doubt there would be that hostile of a council if the current council is fine with the EIS/sepa findings ie no problem what so ever.
Note if there are things that is being mitigated by hansen that benefits the port of seattle. Voting no on it will not help if somehow Stienbreck becomes mayor and we lose votes in the council.
I hope that doesn’t happen.
And I hope the NBA is willing to accept Key arena as permanent venue for the time being if the team is already moved here and the new arena project is dead.
Brian,
I hope that doesn’t happen i would hate to see all this progress goes poof after the new team arrives. I hope the NBA is willing to allow Key Arena as a long as possible for who until a solution happens which would be out side of Seattle.
Yes, I just assumed that a Steinbreuck mayoral run was as likely as this years Kings’ NBA championship run.
Brian - I couldn’t agree more about Steinbruck but I fear that the Arena issue is going to secure Steinbruck as one of the two final candidates after the August primary… It’s incredibly easy for Steinbruck to spread false information about the arena deal to secure votes. A vast majority of the voting block is uneducated about major issues and Steinbruck will start spouting off phrases like “public money waste” and “job killer”. This type of rhetoric can be highly effective and I fear he could leverage this rhetoric to have a shot at the November election. I sincerely hope I am wrong as it has major implications at the broader Seattle economy.
Just so I’m clear on what that means- three days before their self/NBA-imposed “deadline”, they’re JUST NOW authorizing due diligence funds?!? Seriously?
I don’t think Steinbrueck can happen in time to stop Hansen. The race is not for a while. I also think he has slim chances. Many people think he has no chance. I just want to eliminate him, make sure he does not sneak through the primary on an obstructionist single issue platform. It could happen in a crowded race.
Brian, I hope you are right. I am also very worried about his obstructionist single issue plaform propelling him to a “top two” victory in August’s primary. It’s easy for Steinbruck to spread mis-information about the Arena and get votes from voters that aren’t educated on the issues.
I think McGinn has done enough to satisfy constituencies that he doesn’t get bounced in the primary like Nickels. Beyond that, I don’t think “anti-arena” is a strong enough plank to get him the roughly 25-30% he’d need for the second spot- there’s just too many better candidates- hopefully, Bruce Harrell.
The race would need to get California governor recall crowded for the “anti-arena obstructionist” to be a big enough percentage to be top two. Lets just push McGinn/Harrell, so as to ensure two favorable options.
After about a month, that seems about as far along as I’d expect them to be. They’ve already moved faster on this that most cities would in similar circumstances.
Not that I had or have a Seattle vote nor do I think Mayor McGinn has been bad or good (I really am indifferent), but he did ride the wave of anti-99-tunnel proponents to get onto the ballot. I personally don’t think the arena issue is anywhere near the same as the viaduct replacement, especially since the issue will not really be in the papers as a negative or an up-in-the air prospect, but you never know if the single agenda momentum will really get you some votes to get out of the primary.
I think Steinbruek is pretty low on the totem pole of potential candidates in my opinon though.
I think the Sonics situation in 2008 would have been much bigger had Twitter and Facebook be what they are now. Both were just starting out and MySpace was the big thing then. Couldn’t hit as large an audience with the facts like you can now.
Wait, so is this information believable since Carmichael Dave insists that anyone posting on Sulia is getting paid per post?
Come on, they’re not KJ.
LOL okay i am laughing.
Tony Bizjak @TonyBizjak
City mgr’s office tells us they will not officially reveal whales’ names (Burkle and Mastrov) until whales announce they want to buy team
Tony Bizjak @TonyBizjak
That means the council will be asked to approval negotiating principles Tuesday without having been formally told who the city is talking to
Tony Bizjak @TonyBizjak
Asst. City Mgr John Dangberg: Formal negotiations could begin as early as Wednesday, if council says OK. #NBAKings
Tony Bizjak @TonyBizjak
Dangberg: City goal is to present a “term sheet” agreement to council for vote prior to April 18 NBA meeting/vote on future of Kings
For that matter is this the Plan B group?
There is a supermajority of council votes at both the city and county to vote and override any veto.
The only city council person that might have an opponent this election could be Richard Conlin. The person that ran the pot initiative “might” run, and if she does it “might” be against Conlin. He was 1 of 2 No votes.
Steinbrueck took a political hit on Friday, too.
So they want people to say yes to negotiations before they are even going to negotiate with? I know they really know who the people are but why would you ever vote yes on that at all?
So let me get this straight the management office wants city council to vote on principal with out them knowing who the investors are and they won’t reveal who they are until the investors do themselves?
And they want an agreement done prior to April 18th?
Wow… Just wow.
I think the anti-tunnel one issue crowd had more scope and traction because they were talking about spending billions of dollars, for something that most closely represented a huge budgetary failure. (Boston’s Big Dig) Nevermind the more affordable viaduct related options, or the fact that it cut traffic capacity by over a third. That was a beefy single issue. This… not so much.
They’re going to leave with an empty box AND no red snapper.
Totally agree, I was just saying that one issue could take hold. Although it won’t be the arena issue there could be something we don’t know of yet that might come forward. Good thing the majority of the transit issues/infrastructure issues have been worked out at least from the city level.
I’m sure there are better sources out there, but here’s one explanation of “Term Sheet”.
A term sheet is a bullet-point document outlining the material terms and conditions of a business agreement. After a term sheet has been “executed”, it guides legal counsel in the preparation of a proposed “final agreement”. It then guides, but is not necessarily binding, as the signatories negotiate, usually with legal counsel, the final terms of their agreement.
A term sheet implies the terms of a business transaction, as proposed by a party. It may be either binding or non-binding.
Term sheets are very similar to “letters of intent” (LOI) in that they are both preliminary, mostly non-binding documents meant to record two or more parties’ intentions to enter into a future agreement based on specified (but incomplete or preliminary) terms. The difference between the two is slight and mostly a matter of style: an LOI is typically written in letter form and focuses on the parties’ intentions; a term sheet skips most of the formalities and lists deal terms in bullet-point or similar format. There is an implication that an LOI only refers to the final form. A term sheet may be a proposal, not an agreed-to document.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_sheet
I’ve been on the path before. Lower the bar. Retreat. Reset expectations. Retreat again.
It really seems like they don’t have a commitment with these guys. In general they would like to save the kings but the city hasn’t committed to the location and the owners haven’t committed to the price. So they have nothing.
The big question is whether they are even still trying to get there or just trying to save face and avoid political blame.
I’ll be surprised if the council even agrees to continue with a bunch of unknowns. I mean would Seattle city council agree to such a thing?
The website for the Sacrament ESC (i.e. arena) says specifically that a term sheet is an MOU. It would be the same thing as we have accept they haven’t even gotten to that point yet nor through any of the review that would come after that.
Isn’t it political suicide for the council to just rubber stamp negotiations WITHOUT ACTUAL NEGOTATIONS? I mean, if it works that way, why elect these people when, given a difficult decision, they willfully punt?
Thanks BarelyAble. Good to know.
I think what they would be voting on is to start the negotiations.
But the point still stands why would they agree to it with out knowing who it is they are negotiating with.
So - long story short, based on those tweets, KJ won’t be delivering a final proposal on 3/1 … to the NBA or anyone else for that matter. He will be hoping he can deliver a preliminary term sheet that is “fair and competitive”? Game. Set. Match.
A term sheet and an MOU are not the same thing. We had a term sheet revealed by Mike McGinn and Dow Constantine just about a year ago. All the final details were negotiated with laywers and council over a span of months and at considerable legal expense.
Is there any possibility that the whales won’t reveal themselves at all? Sounds like all the pressure would be on the investors.
The funny thing is that now the Big Dig is complete most people are happy with the results. One of those “do things right the first time even if it costs more so you don’t have to do it again in a few years” situations
Sure sounds like they won’t reveal their names before 3/1 to me.
Harrell has virtually no shot at making it out of the primary unless he puts a lot more work into his candidacy. Outside the social justice circle, which is pretty small to start with, he has little if any name recognition and is lightly regarded by most of the groups you need to get elected Mayor. Steinbrueck has name recognition which helps him… I’m not sure McGinn makes it out no matter what he does. People who dislike McGinn REALLY dislike him, and he’s an easy guy to demonize as a candidate because of his amateur hour fumbling and bumblings.
That is pretty much it. There will be no time for the NBA to do any vetting prior to the BOG meeting. KJ will be lucky to get signatures from the whales on the term sheet within a month. Hansen worked with Mayor McGinn for more than a month.
Bingo.
I just read a interesting good point on twitter the fact that this news regarding Sacramento arena plan meeting on tuesday happens to be released the day after ILWU lawsuit was tossed.
Because they do know who they’re negotiating with. They just won’t reveal publicly who they’re negotiating with. Not the best policy when it comes to “open government”, but also not unprecedented. Glendale did essentially the same thing with the Coyotes back in November negotiating with the Coyotes.
Coyotes i think was a bit different situation it was already widely known who the guy was regarding the coyotes situation.
They aren’t going to win any PR points by doing it that way.
Probably because the actual negotiations have already been ongoing from the reports coming out of Sacramento. It’s not like this would be the start of negotiations by any measure. What they’re signing off via the votes would be on would be the formalities of the negotiations.
Depends on who they’re trying to curry PR points with. Besides, if they want to keep the Kings they really have no other course.
Let me rephrase it as momentum swing.
This reminds me of the negative characterization of McGinn when he was running. You know, the anti-tunnel, turn downtown into the kind of place only bicyclists would want to go kind of guy.
New Thread BTW
True, with the Coyotes they only knew the small money front man and even privately had no idea who the money men were whom they were really negotiating with. In this case privately it appears Sacramento knows exactly who they’re negotiating with but publicly they’re not going to reveal them until they reveal themselves. My point was more that negotiations are not always transparent to the public.
Nope, this is a classic mistake of issue advocates. The math here is that only one person obstructs your issue, Steinbrueck, so you oppose him because he opposes your issue.
If a minority of folks running for mayor that were in favor of the arena, then yes, you support those two proponents.
Oppose Steinbrueck and the math will take care of itself.
No way in hell is Steinbrueck going to win. His opposition to the arena alone will cost him, as he has clearly thrown himself into the losers camp on that one. More importantly that will be a key moment for Sonics Fans…. to make sure he does not make it out of the primary. Are you listening, Sonics Fans???
agree on these points. Xteve is right. I say neither man makes it out of the primaries.