This is an archived version of a Field of Schemes article. Comments on this page are closed. To find the current version of the article with updated comments, click here.
November 02, 2006
New Sonics owner: Voting, schmoting
Oklahoma investment tycoon Clay Bennett, who officially took possession of the Seattle Sonics yesterday, has made clear his position on any public referendum on a new publicly funded basketball arena: He's agin' it. Elected officials need to show "leadership" and approve arena funding on their lonesome, Bennett told a group of local leaders yesterday, calling a potential public vote a "very difficult proposition and a very difficult achievement."
As for Initiative 91, the referendum to prohibit taxpayer funds for sports facilities that don't make back the public's investment, here's how the Seattle Times reported Bennett's remarks:
If approved by voters, I-91 "could be the fatal flaw" for a new arena at Seattle Center, Bennett said, and the team is taking the measure into account as it identifies potential arena sites around the county.Bennett said the initiative is "bad policy" because "you have to have latitude to look at deals one-by-one."
And by "you," he means politicians, not actual voters. Because that wouldn't be leadership.
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer endorsed a No vote on I-91, because "so far, city officials have shown a keen understanding of public skepticism. ... they should be expected to exercise sound judgment without I-91."
Maybe if Seattle voters actually could trust elected officials to exercise sound judgment, they wouldn't feel like a public vote were such a necessity. I'll be voting for I-91, but I'm afraid that even with its passage the battle will be far from over.
Posted by Matthew on November 2, 2006 02:15 PM
Not that I am for an arena like this or public support of any stadium or arena (Mr. deMause has done everything he needs to do to convince me), but, you do need to ask this question: Do we live in a democracy, or do we live in a representative republic? I think anyone who really studies our governmental system, at least on the Federal level, would have to conclude that it is the latter. Our role as citizens is to hold our leaders accountable on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. (By the way, please vote.) However, funding plans for stadia are not approved on the Federal level. So, this may actually be a state-by-state question. For a state such as Indiana, the Federal system applies; whereas Florida has a much more "democratic" system, though solely through state constitutional amendments.
Posted by JS on November 3, 2006 12:03 PM
The problem with "holding our leaders accountable in November" is that: 1) voters seldom vote on a single issue, so it's hard to punish an elected official for a single position they took, and 2) oftentimes the only choice you have in November is between two candidates who are both in favor of a policy that you oppose. Add in the power of campaign money and the fact that local races seldom get even a cursory mention in the news media, and the notion of making people pay at the ballot box for flouting the public will is not something that's put into practice all that often.
Posted by Neil on November 3, 2006 04:24 PM
In response to JS, I would like to point out that the Washington State Constitution and the Charter of the City of Seattle both reserve the power of initiative to the people, as the "first right of the people" and in both instances, set it above or before the power of the legislature to make laws. Before we are a republic, we are a government of the people, and we sponsored Inititative 91 because, when it comes to tax subsidies for professional sports, our elected officials seem hell bent on ignoring the people. If ever there was a proper use of the initiative process to correct the wrongs of government, this is it.
Posted by Chris Van Dyk on November 5, 2006 12:26 AM