Under a Sonics proposal, temporary taxes would become permanent to finance the expansion of KeyArena and raise money for future renovation of Safeco and Qwest fields.

We asked readers if they support such a proposal. Here's a sample of the responses.

Live Q&A Reporters Jim Brunner and Bob Young answered your questions on the stadium tax proposal. Read the Q&A

It is absolutely ridiculous that our city leaders would entertain the idea of tax payers footing the bill. AGAIN! Tax dollars are much better spent on areas of concern vs. entertainment. If I have to pay higher taxes then I want the money spent on education, the homeless or mass transit. Things that will help our community grow. Our leaders should be focused on the greater good not another sports arena. How is spending the money this way going to better our community? I want my tax dollars spent on improving our city and its people.

— Michael Wilson, Issaquah

---

The Sonics proposal could put the region's vibrant cultural community at-risk. When the county earmarked funds from the Hotel/Motel tax fund to retire the Kingdome debt, the hundreds of arts, heritage and other cultural organizations in King County took hit. I write grants for a living, and I've seen the good that King County funding can do. I've seen at-risk kids find inspiration. I've seen nationally acclaimed plays that draw audiences from throughout the U.S. And I have watched county support dwindle in the last ten years. For smaller organizations, the funding pool has virtually dried up. Now the big boys want to take away the funding entirely. The State of Washington is already among the lowest rated states in supported the arts. With this proposal, King County would follow -- and the theatres, museums, dance companies, music festivals and other attractions that make King County so vital would wither.

— John George, Seattle

---

This is the year Mayor Nickels wants to charge us a dollar to park at Greenlake, the year Seattle Schools threaten bankruptcy, the year Seattle Library almost cancelled the bookmobile. What kind of year would it be without a pro sports franchise asking for a handout from the citizens? I remember Seattle before pro sports and you know what? It was a better city then.

— Greg Swanson, Renton

---

Public handouts to sports venues are inherently flawed. For public money to be used to fix/update continually depreciating buildings is a never-ending cycle. And if the buildings were turned over to teams, they would simply be abandoned when teams relocate. It's a horribly expensive symbiosis. Sports teams are a bottomless pit of public money.

— Paul Rogers, Des Moines, WA

---

I'm generally in favor of public/private partnerships for such endeavors. There is tremendous economic benefit for areas surrounding sports facilities. But both sides have to give. The Sonics' current ownership does not have a track record of investing in their team. When the franchise was first purchased the owners decided not to include a newer team plane, which had been very popular with players because of the taxing travel schedule. They now fly cheaper chartered crafts at expense of the players. The team has shown no interest in retaining their one bona fide all-star, Ray Allen, presumably because of the high cost involved. If the Sonics continue to run the team on the cheap by allowing star players to leave (in essence becoming the Los Angeles Clippers) or otherwise continue to operate under an incredibly frugal business model, then I see no reason for us to reach out to help them. Each ownership group deserves unique considerations; under its current ownership, I don't trust the Sonics to be an equitable partner with the City. Sign Ray Allen. Extend Nate McMillan. Then I'd be more favorable.

— Zane Wilson, Seattle

---

I support the proposal. It will keep ticket prices down and allow the entire community to support something that brings revenue to the city.

— Gayle Charlesworth, Seattle

---

I'm bothered by the details of the Key Arena expansion. It sounds like they mainly benefit those who can afford either the new club seats or the courtside seats. That's a select wealthy few. How do us middle-class fans benefit? The proposal won't add enough seats for Key Arena to be able to host an NBA All-Star game or an NCAA Final Four, nor would it allow us to pursue an NHL team at some point in the future. If we're going to pour hundreds of millions of tax dollars into the arena, those should be requirements for the project.

— Brian Harper, Kirkland

---

Here is another example that a tax, once enacted, NEVER goes away. Professional sports should be self-supporting. Why should I have to pay for someone else's entertainment?

— Dan Covey, North Bend

---

The hotel and motel taxes were supposed to fund arts and cultural activities. They have been repurposed by our elected officials, and now the arts and culture, which generate far more in terms of jobs and public wealth, are going underfunded. This is a major wealth redistribution to the richest in our community. Not only should this proposal be defeated, but we should encourage the Sonics to leave the city until we have the transportation infrastructure in place to move people to a from these games. And we should hold accountable any elected officials that support this proposal and work vigorously to defeat them at the polls.

Portland, faced with similar extortion attempts, made a very different decision. The city refused Paul Allen's attempt to extort funds for his Rose Garden and the Convention Center next door, and they proposed to finance their baseball stadium with an income tax on the players. Now that is what we should be doing!

— Mike Weisman, Seattle

---

As a former resident of the Seattle area, I would hate to see it fall under the extortion racket that currently pervades professional sports. With all of the money made by sports franchises and their owners, let THEM pay for any upgrades or new facilities. Maybe they would even have to cut ridiculously high player salaries to do so. No, the Seattle area has too many other needs in education, health care, housing, etc., for the taxpayers to be left "holding the bag" for overpriced ballplayers.

— George Elrod, Starkville, Miss.

---

I was a supporter of Safeco and I see the benefits of the Seahawks Stadium, but I also realize that we have well over-extended the tax burden in Seattle and King County with luxuries such as stadiums and the monorail. The Sonics have a new stadium. We haven't yet even paid 1/4 of the cost of the last renovation. If Howard Schultz and the Sonics really "need" a new stadium, they can build it. The Kingdome was a bad idea from the beginning and we are paying for it now. Key Arena is nice enough and new enough. We don't need to do anything more to it.

I look at the Sonics going to the taxpayers for support as I look at a spoiled child going to his parents to demand a new Mercedes because is 5-year-old one is not good enough anymore. In both cases, they have more than most everyone else, and in both cases, they should keep quiet and be happy with what they have been given. Let's spend our money on schools and education so that we can raise a generation of kids that will be able to afford $500 tickets to see a basketball game to watch players with a high-school education make $50 million a year in an arena that is not paid for with tax money.

— Jay See, Medina

---

I have lived here all of my life and I have seen a lot of dumb things happen in Seattle (the convention center quagmire comes to mind, new slogan: been there recently?) but this whole stadium fiasco trumps everything. Despite having voted Safeco down three times and having it rammed down our throats anyway we are now expected to pay for the boondoggle tax they established to pay for it and punish us here in King County indefinitely? While our teachers are leaving due to lack of pay? While our streets are falling apart? While our libraries are closing earlier and earlier? I say we have paid far more than our share and indeed more than we offered to when they came at us with their coffers, thank you. This constitutes a mugging that will never end as far as I'm concerned.

— Lance Hayes, Seattle

---

Like the majority of Washington voters, I NEVER approved of all the stadium funding. Our politicians publicly funded those stadiums anyway. Calling it temporary was just a semantic device to appease us. It seems that our elected officials stand and take their oaths of office to serve the people and then sit and govern to serve the special interests. To suggest those taxes were temporary in the first place is ridiculous.

— Thomas Humphrey, Seattle

---

I am fed up with public financing of professional sports venues. I would like someone to "show me the money" that these venues actually generate a positive income in the form of jobs, salaries and tax revenues. Professional sports are businesses that should be responsible for financing their own facilities, as most other companies do in this country. Why should I finance some kid and his team to make millions upon millions of dollars to swing a stick at a ball or kick and throw a ball or shoot a ball in a basket?

— William Lang, Seattle

---

If you don't want stadiums, move to Tacoma. Or vote this down and have Seattle turn into another Tacoma. It just depends on what kind of city Seattle wants to be.

— Bill Olson, Federal Way

---

I don't support such a proposal since it needs accountability, like any other project. For example, is it clear that these renovations will definitely result in improved financial performance, to somehow make this type of entertainment more viable?

Also, there's the major question of who uses these resources: In short, if I or others don't use these facilities, should we have to pay taxes for them? In comparison, if I go to a state park and pay a day use fee, that's my choice and more effectively places the financial burden directly on the consumer.

Since the typical family's already going to be strapped when it comes to the average cost of attending a sporting event, I hope the sports team owners, the city, and the county apply more creative thinking to financing. I think it would be difficult to bump up ticket prices to cover even more costs. The hotel/motel tax was one example of such creative thinking.

I'd like to see reporters, council members, et al ask some fundamental questions, just for the sake of sanity checking. I think it's worthwhile if funding options are diminishing -- questions such as:

• What other ways of funding are available (short of a taxpayer bailout)?
• Does this market have one (or more) too many arenas?
• Does this market have one (or more) too many sports franchises?

In bringing these up, I don't want to be an anti-sports crank, of course. But, if the marketplace isn't supporting these organizations to a practical extent, isn't this like any other product or service — you have to question whether one or more of them is needed in the marketplace?

— Brian Benson, Seattle