Why Sonics and not NASCAR?
February 23rd, 2006 by Steven GardnerSteven Gardner writes:
Great Western Sports’ Rich Johnson characterized ISC’s strategy
with legislators as a “small error.” State Sen. Margarita Prentice
called it a “classic blunder.” See Thursday’s story
Prentice, who is willing to see tax money
used to renovate Key Arena, has a lot of problems with the speedway
proposal. Some of her concerns are ones that won’t go away even if
the funding measure passes. The big one is transportation.
On the bonding issue, however, you see
Rich Johnson (he’s from Great Western Sports) commenting here that
because the Public Speedway Authority is a different government
entity, it doesn’t impact the state’s bonding authority. I think
he’s right, but I don’t know it. I haven’t yet received that
confirmation from state government types. If he is, it still
doesn’t remove Prentice’s transportation concern.
What it does point out, however, is that people are possibly making
decisions for and against the track based on wrong information. In
any major public debate, that’s not unusual.
State Treasurer Mike Murphy and State Sen. Tim Sheldon are
consistent in their views. Murphy says “No public funds for private
purposes.” Sheldon’s argument is similar. I’m sure track proponents
could find inconsistencies if they wanted to, but for the most part
the stands Murphy and Sheldon take wouldn’t be changed by the
bonding capacity question.
Prentice, however, appears to not put immediate roadblocks to
public funding. She just thinks the speedway funding package
doesn’t work. I’m guessing there are a lot of people who aren’t
opposed to using public funds for the speedway if the numbers seem
right.
Mr. Nelson rightly asked for more information on the funding
package. We have discussed here how to present the package in a way
that people understand it correctly. I agree that it probably needs
to be out there again. We’ll get on it.
Loading ...
Scripps Interactive Newspapers Group
February 23rd, 2006 at 12:26 pm
Why Nascar and not Rollergirls?
I plan on putting together a proposal package to use $ +170 Mil of the state taxpayers money to bring the Rat City Rollergirl roller derby league ( http://ratcityrollergirls.com/ ) to Kitsap County.
All female roller derby is the fasting growing sport in reality TV today.
The right wing cultural elitist NIMBY radicals are against us Roller Derby fans and they don’t support our local roller skating related businesses.
They just don’t like us Pabst Blue Ribbon drinking progressives like me that enjoy a good all American all female roller derby.
Back The Roller Derby Track!
Support our Rollergirls!
February 27th, 2006 at 5:35 pm
As you attempt to explain the financing and legislative proposal, it seems you need to press for an answer on the question whether the bonds issued by the public speedway authority — as proposed in the draft legislation — would have any impact at all on the state’s bonding capacity.
I e-mailed the state treasurer’s communications director, who asked the deputy treasurer for debt management. The answer, in pertinent part, was:
“[A]s you said, the public speedway authority would sell the bonds…it’s not clear at this point whether that would be considered local debt or state debt or some other kind of debt entirely….”
It seems that someone needs to get the treasurer to decide, based on the draft legislation’s wording, whether it would be state debt or not. (If it would be state debt, of course it would impact the state’s bonding capacity.)
February 28th, 2006 at 1:05 pm
The legislators that I talked to did believe that the bonds issued by the public speedway authority would affect the state’s bonding capacity and rating. NASCAR can control if the proposed Kitsap track gets a race they can deny a race and put the public speedway authority into default and then they can offer to buy the track from the state since they would have the state over a barrel since they are the only real corporation that would be interested in buying out the state interest in the PSA. So not only would be out the money, we would be left with an eyesore of a track and they could really screw up the state bond rating.
It is a horrible idea on so many different levels.
February 28th, 2006 at 4:34 pm
It is, of course, important to know what individual legislators believe about the specific proposal in the draft legislation and its effect on the state’s bonding capacity.
I suggested asking the state treasurer for the simple reason that it is his job to answer this exact question. See RCW 39.42.060 and RCW 39.42.070.
The state finance committee consists of the treasurer, lieutenant governor and governor — and it is that committee’s legal responsibility to determine the answer to the question.
The legislators, if they are reasonable people, would turn to the treasurer for the answer; so why shouldn’t we?