4 of 5

Write now Article Tools

Franchises, whatever league - NBA, NHL, NFL etc., belong to the city. Ergo, "Seattle" Sonics, "Houston" Texans and so forth. I feel the city does have some responsibility for the facilities in which they play.

Back in 1995, what was then called the Seattle Center Coliseum went throught a major renovation. According to Wikipedia.com, "the renovation cost the city of Seattle $74.5 million." The Coliseum took a completely different look - luxury suites, a new scoreboard, new lighting - the whole nine yards.

Seattle is now pushing for a new arena. Reports have them possibly looking to the nearby town of Renton to build a new one.

Why? What happened to the 1995 renovation? Was that not enough?

Maybe not. Since the renovation in 1995, the NBA has not gone to Seattle for the All-Star Weekend. Even though the NBA likes to showcase "new" buildings during it's All-Star Weekend. Heck, the NBA even went to the renovated Oakland Coliseum (now called Oracle Arena) in 2000.

I can understand why Seattle is hesitant to put up the money. They did alot back in 1995 to renovate the Coliseum - I am pretty sure the Washington Legislature is wondering, "why do they want a new one again?"

It is not only Seattle. Sacramento is getting pushed to build a replacement to the ARCO Arena, home of the NBA Kings. ARCO is not even 20 years old. Orlando is also building a replacement to the 18 year old Amway Arena.

Eighteen years old; and, by 2010, it will be at the mercy of the wrecking ball.

It is becoming hard for some teams because they are demanding replacements that are so "new," governments wonder why they need a new building. How about the Silverdome for the Detroit Lions (NFL)? Since 1975, they played in the Silverdome in Pontiac. Just recently, they realized they did not want to be there anymore, got Ford Field built in downtown Detroit, and the Silverdome sits vacant.

The Silverdome was not a bad place to watch football I've been told.

Same goes for the RCA Dome in Indianapolis. Built in 1984 for the relocated Baltimore Colts, the 2007 season will be its last. In 2008, we will see the Indianapolis Colts playing in the brand-spanking-new Lucas Oil Stadium; fit with a retractable roof and all.

Twenty four years that place lasted. It will be razed next year.

The reason these franchises are having such trouble is because they are demanding new facilities to replace buildings that have barely seen the light of day. In Seattle's case, technically, the Coliseum opened in the 1960s. But, because of the renovation, the NBA considers it to have been built in 1995.

And, a little more than ten years later, the Sonics want a replacement, or they are going to bail to Oklahoma City (the latest rumored relocation site).

I personally don't think the Legislature in Washington wants to pay more for a newer building, that might be considered obsolete in another 20 years.

I don't think the taxpayers want to put up with it either.

I am not a Washington state taxpayer, but, I think many of them are thinking, "not again." As far as the Sonics and the Storm are concerned, I think many taxpayers in Washington state are saying, "good riddance."

Learn more about this author, Luke Rasmussen.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about The complexities of basketball franchises demanding local governments build stadiums: Seattle's NBA Supersonics and WNBA Storm?
We want to hear your view. Write now!