On Wednesday Chris Hansen’s SonicsArena team renewed their request for a street vacation in SoDo, sending a letter to Mayor Jenny Durkan and Seattle City Council.
The letter was released on @SonicsArena social media Friday afternoon . Here’s the letter:
Mayor Durkan and City Council members:
In early 2017, we submitted a revised application for a conditional vacation of a one-block section of Occidental Avenue South in SoDo. The intent of this application is to make possible a shovel-ready arena project to put Seattle in the best possible position to attract an NBA team. In April 2017, the Seattle Design Commission approved the urban design and public benefit of the proposed arena and recommended the conditional vacation be approved by the City Council.
When our original street vacation application was denied in 2016, we went back to the drawing board to address the concerns we heard from the Council. Our new proposal addresses those concerns with several additional important changes and improvements, including;
- Zero Risk: Approving the conditional vacation will not expose the city to any risk or cost because the arena will not be built, and the street will not be vacated, until and unless a team has been secured. Simply stated, no team means no street vacation, which means no risk to the city.
- Private Financing: Our proposal is now 100% privately funded and requires no public financing or subsidies. Also, if constructed, the SoDo Arena would pay many millions of dollars annually in property and other taxes. This incremental tax revenue would be unencumbered, so that the City of Seattle will have full discretion on the allocation of its tax receipts.
- Improved Freight Mobility: This new proposal includes an additional $1.3 million for SDOT Freight Master Plan projects. Importantly, since the Council considered our original proposal, the Lander Overpass project has been approved and is now underway. This new overpass will not only improve freight mobility through SoDo, but it also dead-ends Occidental just south of the proposed arena site.
- Community Benefit Agreement: We have committed to an expanded Community Benefit Agreement designed to foster equity, social justice, and provide meaningful benefits to local communities. The CBA includes economic development, targeted local hiring and contracting, family wage employment opportunities, job training and apprenticeships, partnerships with organizations that serve youth and undeserved communities, and a strong mechanism for ongoing dialog and partnerships.
- Joint Scheduling Conditions: Scheduling conditions that will minimize the potential for multiple events on the same day and ensure a coordinated approach to traffic and other transportation issues in the Stadium District remain an important part of the new street vacation petition. With only one team (NBA) playing at the SoDo arena, scheduling is relatively benign and is easily managed in other professional sports’ cities.
According to a recent ESPN article about the possibility of an NBA return to Seattle, “… the situation could even require Seattle to have a second new arena with the NBA as the main tenant if the city wants to outbid other markets to attract a team, multiple ownership groups told ESPN.”
We believe providing an alternative arena option in SoDo creates an insurance policy for the city, particularly if a future NBA ownership group is unable to strike a competitive deal at Seattle Center. Having both Seattle Center and SoDo as viable options for potential NBA team owners would send a powerful message to the NBA, that not only is Seattle the best available market, but we also understand what an NBA team requires to be successful.
We look forward to working with you and we remain fully committed to doing everything possible to bring the Sonics back to Seattle.
– Chris Hansen, Wally Walker, Erik Nordstrom, Pete Nordstrom, Russell Wilson
Comments
Well
This is kinda interesting. But it just kinda sounds to me like "hey, dont forget about us". Dont really think inevitably it does much if anything
By hughc5 on 02.01.19 2:24pm
Why wouldn't the city approve this?
It’s an incredibly well written and, to my eye anyway, incredibly compelling case. There is literally zero downside risk. The only reason I can think of, is that OVG doesn’t want the competition. Which shouldn’t be the city’s problem.
Why not put ourselves in the best possible position? Am I missing something?
By danieltiger on 02.01.19 2:39pm
Nope, it’s only good
But Leiweke will come out and wave a shiny object that will make people here think this is a bad thing
By MelloDawg1 on 02.01.19 4:17pm
So how is hansen suppsoe to get that NBA team when he's not going to build said arena until NBA gives them a team
and the NBA even if they do give Seattle a team won’t give a team to a group that isn’t actually building the arena. Only 1 group is actually building that arena the #1 issue that the NBA has with Seattle to begin with and that isn’t Sodo arena gorup.
By gstommylee on 02.01.19 10:18pm
It has nothing to do with competition
but realistically that hansen has zero chances of landing a NBA team at all.
By gstommylee on 02.01.19 10:13pm
Then why not do it?
As the letter says, there is literally zero risk to the city. It’s a conditional vacation. He doesn’t get a team, they don’t vacate the street. If you’re right and the NBA won’t give him a team because he doesn’t have steel in the ground, then this is a wasted piece of paper. But if you’re wrong, and having another arena plan "shovel ready" does matter, how stupid would we be not to be ready?
By danieltiger on 02.01.19 10:45pm
Cause its a waste of the city's time and money
to do something that might not even be legally. You can’t just give a street vacation just cause someone asks for one especially for something that has ZERO chance of actually getting built. Hansen needs to move on by either selling it or building something else that does not require a street vacation.
By gstommylee on 02.02.19 7:48am
How is it a waste?
It’s literally one more committee meeting and a yes vote. It costs the city nothing.
I would also point out that you, me, and the city has no idea if this will happen or not. That’s the whole point. It’s another card to be able to play, if it’s necessary. If it doesn’t end up being necessary than it doesn’t matter anyway.
By danieltiger on 02.02.19 11:56pm
And the lawsuits that will come after that
By gstommylee on 02.03.19 9:05am
Why are you opposed to it? You fighting the lawsuit?
By Trolltossin on 02.12.19 9:20am
Dude, stop.
"Something that might not even be legally"??? I assume you mean "legal" and if you do… my god, your legal arguments are soooo freaking awful. How is it not legal to build an arena in SoDo (hint… it’s not illegal).
Hansen’s arena ain’t gonna get built, which is fine, but you’re absurd "legal reasoning" behind it is beyond laughable.
My suggestion to you: read Brian’s comments, give him a rec, and then stop.
By KingFrankel on 02.03.19 8:05am
Can the city actually give a street vacation even conditionally?
Based on a project that requires a team before it even happens?
By gstommylee on 02.03.19 9:06am
Yes.
Yes they can. That’s why SDOT recommended approval.
By danieltiger on 02.03.19 1:48pm
The city rewrote the street vacation policy last year
but the process and much of the language is unchanged.
Here is relevant language from the previous information about the process:
The SoDo vacation skirted that because there was an actual project going through the review process, but there was never a guarantee that the project would actually be built. That did factor into the May 2016 denial of the vacation.
(It has to be noted that most of the rationale behind denying the vacation was based on false information and pretense. The vacation was expected to pass, even 20 minutes before the council meeting that day. But a false narrative was loudly presented in public that day and ultimately a majority of the council bought into that narrative. More work could and should have been done to shore up that vote and counteract the growing false narrative, and yet there was a lot of resting on laurels under the belief that fact was on the project’s side and that the vote was secure.)
The new language removes mention of "speculative purposes" and now says this:
That seems to be more open to the SoDo proposal. But they’ve also included a lot more requirements for a project to match up with the city’s Comprehensive Plan for city development, as well as neighborhood plans and, in the case of SoDo, the Manufacturing/Industrial Center plan. That’s a lot that has to be considered now for a vacation, so it’s not as "simple" as it was three years ago.
They’ve also made the conditional approval process more concrete, particularly with time of completion that doesn’t mesh well with the uncertain nature of the SoDo proposal. From the policy:
Ultimately, with the project dependent on getting a team — and the fact it would compete with the project the city has already agreed to — there isn’t much benefit to the city granting the vacation.
Plus, with the SoDo group saying they are committed to sticking around to be a backup option if the Seattle Center project falls through, there’s no urgency to approve a street vacation.
By Matt Tucker on 02.03.19 1:43pm
Yes, You Are Missing Something
First, this repeats a pattern of behavior w/ the SODO Arena Group. Anytime OVG Seattle or NHL Seattle reach a significant milestone, SonicsArena floats a tweet to distract from the achievements and progress of the Seattle Center Arena Project.
Secondly, the City has a vested interest in maximizing revenues at its arena and the vitality of Seattle Center. They have little to no stake in the other proposed arena.
Third, it’s difficult to accept a lender would finance a $1B arena project less than 5 miles away from the Seattle Center Arena. If AEG officially partnered w/ the SODO Group then there might be more substance to consider.
If Silver and the NBA truly had reservations about the selected project, they would’ve informed their friends and business partners not to bother designing the arena to comply w/ their standards. There are security and design elements adding to the project budget that would not be required if this were exclusive to NHL events.
They have every right to advocate for their project. I’m not sure their tactics will deliver the outcome they seek. They may have better luck with a new council; however, with Harrell and Bagshaw retiring, I wouldn’t be surprised if Juarez became the next Council President.
By Sixth Man on 02.01.19 11:43pm
And johnson retiring too
By gstommylee on 02.02.19 7:46am
Also the OVG arena would never been built either
cause MOU stated both leagues have to approve it.
By gstommylee on 02.02.19 7:49am
I’m aware Johnson is tapping out. I specifically mentioned Harrell and Bagshaw as they are the most likely councilmembers to remain or become Council President for 2020 and 2021 if they sought and won re-election this November. Since they are retiring, my opinion is that Juarez is the most likely successor though Gonzalez is another likely candidate.
By Sixth Man on 02.03.19 10:42am
I'm not disagreeing with any of this
But I don’t see why it matters either? This is a conditional vacation, that only gets approved if they get a team and financing to build an arena. It’s a procedural approval that only matters in case of a good outcome.
The overwhelming possibility is that an NBA team will play at KeyArena with the NHL team. But just in case, why not have another possibility?
By danieltiger on 02.02.19 11:59pm
High Stakes Meetings
The Mayor(s) and Council* have had numerous conversations w/ the league office throughout this process. I’m certain that dialogue informs the City’s decisions and, in this case, indecision. The NBA likely has its invisible thumb on the scale in favor of their friends and business partners comprising the Oak View Group and Seattle Hockey Partners. I think many people are simply overlooking the likelihood that the City is acting on the recommendations it received from the Association to achieve a mutually desired outcome: the restoration of our Seattle SuperSonics.
*most likely Harrell, Bagshaw, Juarez, and Johnson
By Sixth Man on 02.03.19 1:41am
So the idea here is that it just adds noise
That’s basically what you and Brian have said. Which, ok, I can respect that. I think it’s a bit ridiculous; they have definitely not acted in good faith towards this project. But, as you say, the ultimate point is to bring the team back.
By danieltiger on 02.03.19 1:51pm
Question
How is hansen going to convince the NBA to say no to a fellow owner Bonderman, Leiweke and an arena that is already been built and go with an outsider whose group doesn’t even have the wealth (needs a $$$ guy which they lack) to afford the 3b dollar investment for a building that won’t be built on spec that will not ever make financially sense since SCA has the concerts and the hockey team.
Remember it is much easier to get a team if you are already a member of the NBA club than you are an outsider. Balmer is the exemption to that. Also the NBA said no to hansen regarding the kings and gave the team to someone who was a minority owner of the warriors at the time.
By gstommylee on 02.03.19 2:05pm
Another thing
How is Hansen going to convince anyone that is of extreme wealth to want to bring the NBA team to sodo arena when its much cheaper to join the SCA group and bring the NBA team to that arena instead. Just 2b for the team instead of 2b + probably close over 850-900m+ for the arena.
By gstommylee on 02.03.19 2:08pm
Who cares?
I know you think you have this all figured out, but none of us do. I don’t know what’s going to happen and neither do you. The only point I was making was that the more chances we have, the better that seems to me. People here, including Brian, have argued that it’s possible that having the SODO arena could cause business problems for SCA, and maybe that’s true, so maybe it’s better this way. I don’t know.
I am not arguing about what the NBA will or won’t do, because I have no idea. All I’m saying is that two birds seem better than one.
By danieltiger on 02.04.19 10:35pm
I am saying hansen is going to have difficult time
convincing people both the city that its such a great thing to have a 2nd privately funded arena that does nothing but hurt SCA and convincing the NBA that they should say no to David Bonderman a fellow NBA owner and yes to someone that basically telling league give me a team then I’ll build that building. This is not how things work. You don’t tell the NBA what to do. Its one thing if that’s the only building its another when there is already a building under construction and would be open by the time the NBA decides to give Seattle a team again. Its much easier to become a majority owner of the team if you are already an owner of a NBA team. Balmer being an outsider was an exemption.
By gstommylee on 02.05.19 8:26am