Emmert talks about construction of husky stadium creating 7000 jobs. Those are short term jobs. Funding the core goal of the university, education, will create many more longterm jobs between now and 2014 date he mentions.

No, now is not the time to cut funding for education and efforts should be to provide opportuniites to everone that applies and qualifies acedemicall.

Let's see if I've got this right. The question is; should the UW continue with its plans to spend tax payer money while we tax payers cut back expenditures and get second jobs to meet our own financial obligations? What kind of school is this again..... I heard it was an institution of higher learning? Seems to me it thinks more like the government than an institution of learning. Neither believes they have to cut back, do without or just work a little harder and save. Instead, they believe they can just take whatever they want from those of us that do. It's time they both learned that lesson.

Why should taxpayers pay for renovating Husky Stadium? WSU students and alumni paid for their stadium renovation. If WSU can do it why can't the U? They have many more students and alumni so they ought to be able to afford to do it, too. Maybe they should have spent more money maintaining the stadium instead of paying it's football staff such outrageous salaries.

The mandate of a public university is to EDUCATE the students. It is NOT to assuage juvenile fantasies, no matter how fanatic they may be, Public money given to a public university MUST be for educating the students, who MUST be chosen on the merits of their ACADEMIC abilities rather than their athletic abilities.
Squandering public money on building another monument that encourages standards that eschew the academic (the REASON for a university, by the way) is squandering the future of our country.
Mental ability is how we advanced, Many animals have more athletic ability that humans. It has been our MENTAL ability that made us dominant.
That our state university would even consider asking for public money to fund a SPORTS facility is a measure of the greed that has pervaded our nation.
It also teaches our children that developing sports is much more important than developing minds.

Let's see, what's better? 7000 additional short term jobs during a recession, or zero additional short term jobs during a recession? There is absolutely zero chance of devoting any of the hotel, restaurant, and rental car taxes that have paid for Safeco Field and Qwest field going to what Louis calls "Funding the core goal of the university, education". The state has an entirely separate revenue stream for that. Any money that the university gets would not result in any tax hike to any person anywhere around here. The plan would merely authorize King County to continue collecting an existing tax that is paid by people that visit this area and eat, sleep, and drive around in their rental cars. Not one of us would feel any pinch whatsoever by authorizing an extension of this tax. And it would not take a penny away from any valuable state or local program anywhere. That is an absolute fact. If we let the existing tax structure for sports complexes expire, the money will simply stay out of state and help other economies elsewhere. Is that what we really want? In addition, Husky football attracts tens of thousands of tourists every year. Far more than either Safeco Field or Qwest Field. Husky stadium given the opportunity would truly be paying its own way. And finally, Husky stadium is a revenue producer owned by the state. In other words, you and me. It is falling apart and is unsafe. So here is our choice. We can have our house completely remodeled using private donations for half the cost and out of state money for the other half. We will get a boost in our local economy during a really bad recession, or if we do nothing, all that money will be totally lost to us and our house will fall down. When you look at the facts, there is only one intelligent thing to do. And it isn't to sit here and thumb our noses at free money and jobs just because it funds a sport that we don't think should be so important. The simple fact is that it is about the biggest and most effective thing that anyone has come up with yet to get us through this rough time at other people's expense no less.

Yes, Yes, Yes..the tax in question is already being collected. People visiting the area are helping fund this as they are paying for goods and services that this tax is collected. Husky stadium also generates a fair amount of tax revenue for the city with each event as well.
People need to remember this is not adding new taxes that will come out of our local pockets. For those totally against funding sporting projects, this isn't that.

WSU students only paid a small fraction of the total cost of their stadium renovation. And WSU already receives public funding for their athletic department. That money goes towards paying staff, coaches, and scholarships for athletes. If they didn't get the funding, WSU likely wouldn't have athletics. UW's athletic department is completely self-supporting, they receive no money from the state. So if WSU is already receiving state money for athletics, why can't UW get funding for athletics to apply to their stadium? To say that UW can't have the same money WSU gets is setting a double standard.

Absolutely not. The husky stadium should not be funded by public funds in any additional way. Poor management does not account a need on the back of the voters to support or fund the poor maintenance efforts of the school. It should be leveled and made into a parking lot and if the huskies need a stadium there are two in existence in Seattle that i am sure can be scheduled appropriately. UW management including the president running affairs has done a poor job and wasted a lot of funds the way the government does in the state. This state needs to start listening to the voters and not the special interests of developers.

The UW president and other officials need to get the picture that voters and the message they have conveyed.

Respectfully,
randy

i guess they will be asking for a bailout from the government and the tax payers have to pay that too?

randy

I dont know why these guys are even considering renovating the stadium. The UW has had to reject so many aspiring students just because of their foolish budget cuts. There are kids busting their tales off in highschool and community college just to go to this school, for them its a dream. Now they cant get in because UW can't afford it? UW has to get their mind straight. They can't afford to admit kids into their school because they are too busy spending money on a stadium where a football team can't even win one game in a season and making the state of Washington look bad on national TV and ESPN. C'mon UW, lets not make any more economic mistakes. That's the last thing we need.

abdul, you're confusing educational money with athletic money. They are completely different accounts. The cannot be mixed, so no matter what UW spends or doesn't spend on athletics, it has no effect on how many students get admitted or anything else educational related.

It doesnt matter what accounts it comes from. Its the UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGINGTON!! Screw this stupid stadium deal for now, OK? All this is going to do is create, down the not to distant road, another plea for "supplemental" funding (taxes) because of an unforseen shortfall during the original budget process. How many times are we taxpayers going to let "STUPID" be stamped on our foreheads?? Let it go. This is an educational facility first and a sports venue second..

Okay, I'm really tired of a few things that were mentioned by UW president which is just copying what other people are saying which by the way makes no sense.

First argument, ticket costs may be higher. But guess what, that taxes the people who want to go to the game instead of the entire city/state. This also saves tax payers hundreds of millions of dollars immediately.

Next argument, transportation is further. So what? Catch the bus. Work with transportation companies/agencies to shuttle people. If distance is a factor, we should build a football/baseball/soccer stadium in every city around us.

Next argument, this creates jobs immediately. You think so? I hope 300M creates jobs and doesn't just go into your ppocket as a bonus for making bogus decisions. If you gave my company 300M today, I'll promise to create more jobs than you will.

How can you complain that there is a shortage of funds in this economy when you are asking for 300M?? What if the 300M were put into the University for more professors and buildings for students?? Don't you think this would be better use of funds??

I also don't want to hear "oh this fund was already allocated to sports" BS. So reallocate the money elsewhere!!

I'm sure you can work out a deal with Paul Allen for discounted use/donations. It's a tax write-off for the guy!!! I just don't think this option has been evaluated properly and they are just renovating just because.

Come on people, think!!

This has been a disturbing story from day 1. They have assets, but want taxpayers to pay for their lousy stadium instead. The University of Washington is the second largest owner of property in the state, behind the state itself. Sell some property and build it yourself! Their teams suck anyways, and everyone already knows the cougs are a better team ;)

Like many residents of eastern Washington, I resent paying the hotel tax every time I travel to Seattle to visit family or for other reasons. Sports venues should be financed by ticket sales. The hotel tax disproportunately shifts costs to eastern Washington residents for the benefit of Seattle residents.

In a recession like this short term jobs are what is needed. FDR did the same thing to ease the country out of the great depression by creating short term jobs and building public facilities like roads and STADIUMS. Husky Stadium brings together the University of Washington. Having an unsafe place for thousands to gather is a problem waiting to happen. Husky stadium has crumbling foundations and has never been retrofitted for an earthquake. The stadium that WSU constructed is not nearly of the scale a first class university should have.
The oldest football stadium west of the Mississippi River is in need of help. Fix Husky Stadium. Go Dawgs!

Come on Seattle! Have a little pride in your city!

Your taxes are not going to be increased.

The students deserve a new stadium.

If you live in Eastern Washington, stop complaining about hotel and car rental taxes. It is your choice to live over there and visit over here. We pay hotel taxes when we visit your side of the state too!

If the Huskies are forced to play in Qwest Field, all the same idiots that are opposed to renovating the stadium will be complaining about the traffic situation caused in the SoDo district!

FIX THE STADIUM!!!

Revenue in King County helps the ENTIRE state. This is not an east vs. west or Husky vs. Cougs issue. Football is a cash cow for Universities. Look around the nation and you will see that many of the top Universities have an outstanding football program. Nothing brings in more revenue. Having a healthy Athletic Dept. is good for everyone. Nor do I want to die at the next game when the stadium comes crashing down. Please read up on this as some of you sound very misinformed. The University, Alumni and boosters will foot a large part of this tab.

I'm in huge support of this stadium being built, & here's why. New stadium attracts better players = gives our school more attention, which makes it a more attractive place for people to attend school, which means more educated, smart people settling down in Seattle, means more tax revenues & better quality of living for Seattle....there ya go!

I'm in huge support of this stadium being built, & here's why. New stadium attracts better players = gives our school more attention, which makes it a more attractive place for people to attend school, which means more educated, smart people settling down in Seattle, means more tax revenues & better quality of living for Seattle....there ya go!

The Cost of renovating Martin Stadium was around $58 million. Husky Stadium will cost around $300 million. Big difference. The University can't eat all the costs.

And too bad for the Cougs- Clarence Martin of Martin Stadium in Pullman was a UW grad. Just another example of us westerners helping you folks from the east.

university student,
you are wrong, wsu did not pay for martin stadium with it's own funding. wsu uses it's general fund to finance it's athletic department. this general fund is fed from washington tax payers and martin stadium only serves whitman county. wsu even went so far as to classify bohler gymnasium, where it's mens and womens basketball teams train and play, as a CLASSROOM in order to fund 80% of it's construction. wsu athletics has drawn from state tax payers every year for decades to fund it's athletics and then finally even started to take from student tuition to help thier athletics.

uw's athletic department is self funded. period. it relies on zero state funds for any athletics at uw. the coaches salaries are paid from tickets, merchandise, and tv contracts. husky football played in husky stadium pays for nearly all other student athletes oportunities for the entire athletic department. everything except for mens basketball. all other coaches salaries, all travel, all scholarships, all equip are paid for from football. itis important to draw the best coaching talent that can be had in order to produce a product on the field that will continue to allow the football program to fund nearly all other sports at uw, and not become a burden to the tax payers as wsu is.

husky stadium is the centerpiece of husky athletics and an economic engine which generates $12 million annually to local and state governments. so, let me make this clear; wsu, in whitman county, takes from the entire state in taxes every single year. uw relies on zero from the state and pumps $12m back into king co, and the state. the state then uses these profits from uw athletics to fund education, further infrastructure projects and other social services. in addition to taxes, uw football draws more out of state sports fans than the mariners and seahawks. last year for the oklahoma game alone, 8,000 fans from out of state visited. each fan stayed between 2-3 days and spent an average of $140 a day, not including thier game tickets. this money was spread all throughout king county. husky stadium is a vital economic engine for king co and the state in numerous ways. get out of here with those wsu lies of self funding. it is flat out NOT TRUE. wsu atletics are a burden to the state tax payer, bottom line. always has been, always will be. that is a fact.

Those of you who are outraged by the idea of renovating Husky Stadium are misinterpreting the situation. The tax money that would be used to fix the stadium is already in place. THERE WOULD BE NO NEW TAX. Second of all, the tax is a King County tax paid on tourist things like rental cars, hotels, etc., and I'll go out on a limb and say most of you who are opposing this supposed burden on your wallet are from places reasonably close to Seattle and therefore will not rent a car or stay in a hotel in King Co and therefore not pay a DIME of the renovation. Out-of-towners will pay for it. Husky games generate more tourist revenue than the M's or 'Hawks games. For the Oklahoma game roughly 8000 OU fans came to town and stayed for 2-3 days spending on average $140 a day not including tickets. Seems like a worth-while investment to me, not to mention a necessary investment in an unsafe structure.

For all you cougs who cry "we paid for our stadium renovation, so UW has to pay for theirs! boo hoo wahh wahh!!" your stadium renovation, according to martinstadium.org had nothing to do with safety, but rather was a project to add luxery to Martin Stadium. Guess what! The portion of the Husky Stadium project that would be considered "extras" will be paid for by private money, just like yours. If Martin Stadium was unsafe I would agree the state (owner) should make it safe because it is their liability, as is the reasoning I believe the owner of Husky Stadium, the state, should be responsible for making a state-owned stadium safe.

Become informed before you cry foul and jump to conclusions.

What so many people are forgetting is that Husky Stadium, though a sports facility, is an income generating state asset. We must invest in such entities, or they end up costing more money later. Look at the viaduct, the West Seattle Bridge, KeyArena, Highway 2, the Pike Place Market--these are all examples of infrastructure that must be maintained, just as your car or your home or your teeth must be maintained. Neglect costs money. The only reason that people lose sight of this fact is that Husky Stadium is affiliated with sports.

Far too many have a knee-jerk reaction citing use of "taxpayer money." Look at the facts: Thousands of people come into town seven weekends a year to visit Seattle because of this attraction. It is currently unsafe, and if we don't want a Minneapolis Bridge-type debacle we need to get it fixed! This could be a public safety nightmare with lawsuits galore (for which the state would be liable ). The current proposal would only continue a rental car and hotel tax (which the car rental companies and hotels support!) beyond 2014. This is paid for predominantly by people coming into the area from outside, and is designed for just this kind of purpose.

Why does the argument have to denigrate into anti-UW sentiment? Look at it objectively. You can't fill a stadium with people who will watch an English or Math professor do their work. To say that we should instead use this money for education is moronic. It won't ever happen. This is a different pool of money. This is the "front porch" of the University. Allow them to repair the front porch before it collapses.

The interesting thing about most people who oppose this is that they fail to realize that 1) This is a King County tax that is levied by car rentals, hotels, and restaraunts in King County, 2) The taxes won't be collected until 2013-2014, 3) All other state schools have consistantly used STATE taxes to support their athletics programs, with only UW has not to date and is completely self sufficient and pays for others sports as well, 4) Husky Stadium is a tax generating facility and produces $12 Million in taxes/year for the state, 5) and will actually create short term jobs to put people back to work quickly and with no initial cost to the taxpayers. The WSU AD has not spoken out against this for two reasons... 1) They cannot win the argument that they have never taken taxpayers money (and maybe they don't want the state to realize how exactly they fund their sports programs), and 2) to see if it is possible to fund capital improvments of their facilities by way of a tourism tax. And honestly, they should have no say in it anyways as they are not in King County. Actually only people in King County should really be discussing this.

CE,
it is the athletic departments of many great educating facilities that attract a great many students. the athletic department is the marketing arm of these universities. the athletic department also provides a great many students with an opportunity to get an education. husky football played in husky stadium pays for nearly every other student athletes opportunity at uw.
and dont forget the taxes the local and state governments enjoy in the $12m annually from uw athletics as well as the local businesses that gain from traveling football fans. no sport draws a traveling fan base better than the ncaa and the huskies pull more than the hawks or m's whose stadiums are already being paied for from these taxes the uw is asking for. uw gives more and is aking for less from the public than the hawks, m's or sonics proposed and/or received

Yes, King County should support Husky Stadium. This is a community asset, and has been a feature of the Seattle area for more than 70 years. The taxes for this project are not new, they are designed to take a slice of the money that was generated to build stadiums for private ownership groups. This is a public facility that generates enough revenue to make UW athletics self sustaining. This is unique to UW- every other university in the state takes money from general funds provided by the state and uses it for its athletic program- WSU included. That takes money from academics. This does not. Its an investment, one that prevents a competition between academic and sports funding.

No new taxes. Local residents will pay a fraction of the tax. Jobs created immediately. Increased tax revenues for county and state. Brand new world-class facility for Seattle.

What's not to like?

I believe when taxes are collected they should go to fund the thing they're collected from. For example the gas tax should help fund roads. That's why this use of the current Qwest Field tax makes sense. It's collected from people who visit the area (visiting fans for example).

For the people who hate to use public funds to support university athletics taxpayers pay for WSU athletics every year and no one complains about that? No taxpayer has EVER paid for a penny of UW sports. Why isn't this an issue?

randy,
husky stadium is a state facility. any poor management in maintanance is the responsibility of the state. husky stadium pours $12m annually in taxes to the state and king co. and has not before asked for help from state tax payers. if a chunk of concrete were to fall on someones head, its the state they will go after, not uw.

uw is asking for the $150m from the existing taxes to pay off safeco and quest to become siesmically sound and americans with dissabilities compliant. any fan comfort funds will be generated privately.

Seattle Public Library

$165 Million with a $45 million operating budget (library system budget) to be paid by local residents and taxes.

Husky Stadium

$150 million to be paid by tourism tax (mostly burdensome to out of towners (not within driving distance) and will generate $12 million in tax revenues from mostly out of state residents spending money to go to games/events.

So this project that will be mostly paid for by out of state residents could cover 1/4 the operating budget for the Seattle Pulic Library. How is this not in the best interest of the state/county again?

people against husky stadium renovation,
your first admission of ignorance are the dollars;
uw is asking for $150m. this is half the total cost and will go for seismic and americans with dissabilities compliance. second on the number is this is LESS than what the hawks and m's got or what the sonics proposed. it is not only less, but a smaller % of the total cost the other stadiums received or proposed.

re ticket costs;
you're asking the cash strapped students to pay more for tix. you're also asking the fans to pay more which will decrease attendance and also put the burden on those who have always funded the program which goes to nearly every other student athletes opportunity at uw, which football funds currently. so then the uw becomes reliant on the state through it's general fund... which is fed by taxpayers. thats a lose/lose deal you are suggesting. that is how wsu currently opperates.

transportation;
catch a bus. this will not work. many of the students walk, as the stadium is on campus. the current bus system would have to be entirely changed. that is unrealistic and far too simple of suggestion and really is just ideallistic.

immediate jobs;
this is exactly what fdr did... and it worked. then next thing is that these jobs will keep the economic engine that husky stadium is, a safe place to hold fans and continue to pump tax dollars into state and local govts. as well as draw out of state fans to drop cash all over seattle. giving your company cash does not guarantee it will provide return. husky stadium is a sure bet and as solid an investment for this economy that there is. it's proven.

renovating "just because"?? are you serious? that is an absolutely rediculous thing to say. tell that to the americans with dissabilities, and ehn you're done talk to the siesmic evaluators.
yes, there is a strong, well thought out evaluation. please see:
be sure to not miss the 5 links at the bottom of the page

http://www.washington.edu/research/industry/newsletter/0908insidestory.html

"come on people think" flat out embarrassing

niel,
what is disturbing to me is that you think selling assets is the way to fund a state facility in order to keep it from falling down and allowing americans with dissabilities to attend.

why didnt we tell paul allen to sell a jet or house to fund quest?

why would the huskies not ask for tax payers assistance for the first time for a state structure that generates millions in taxes and tourism for the local economy? which also funds the rest of the athletic department to pump educated people into the community?

greg,
ok, so we'll use our ticket sales for the renovation. and we'll keep our taxes, too. so then those funds don't go where they are currently, here's how that looks; education, infrastructure, and social services have an annual $12m shortfall. where does that now come from? all scholarships, all coaches salaries, all travel, all equip fr every student athlete at uw, except for mens basketball... ENDS. where does that money come from now? YOU, still. or most likely they simply go away. becasue you dont want to add a dollar to yer hundred dollar hotel bill. hey, yer a genius.
i don't mind my tax dollars, every year for decades, going to wsu. and i gain zero from them and they are in my pocket all the way from pullman.

2/3 (About 4 million people) of the state’s population lives within a 40 mile radius of Husky Stadium. Much of that other 1/3 lives nowhere near Pullman (population 24,675). So when we talk about fair use of public funds, let’s try to avoid the argument that the two schools deserve even funding. If you want to get into detail Western Washington has been funding WSU since the school was established.

2/3 (About 4 million people) of the state’s population lives within a 40 mile radius of Husky Stadium. Much of that other 1/3 lives nowhere near Pullman (population 24,675). So when we talk about fair use of public funds, let’s try to avoid the argument that the two schools deserve even funding. If you want to get into detail Western Washington has been funding WSU since the school was established.

Build it and they will come...

There are no new taxes - Check
Jobs will be created at a time when jobs are needed more then ever - Check
The stadium has run it's useful life (90 years) and is becoming unsafe for those in attendance - Check

At least as taxpayers we actually know how this money is being spent -

I am sure that our Gov down in Olympia will waste more money in one year the this project will cost! Yes you heard me correct WASTE - our School administration costs are some of the highest in the nation, but yet they need more money for schools, WHY? - how about cut back the administration and re-direct that money to more teachers! schools! and books! Why is it we always cut teachers and not administration - should be the other way around in the end...just my two cents to spend MY money better!

ALL AHEAD BUILD IT AND THEY WILL COME - GO DAWGS!

UW will get the money. It will come from the general fund over time if it doesn't get done another way. Wazzu has been freeloading from the general fund for its entire existence, and then doesn't want UW to get any state funds when it NEVER has before? Pathetic. Tax payers are gonna pay for this PUBLIC FACILITY one way or another...it's only a matter of whe

UW will get the money. It will come from the general fund over time if it doesn't get done another way. Wazzu has been freeloading from the general fund for its entire existence, and then doesn't want UW to get any state funds when it NEVER has before? Pathetic. Tax payers are gonna pay for this PUBLIC FACILITY one way or another...it's only a matter of when.

This PUBLIC FACILITY will get funded one way or another. Wazzu has been pilfering and freeloading from the general fund its whole existence. UW will simply do the same, if needed.

I can scarcely believe some of the arguments in opposition to this project.

If my car is unsafe and in disrepair, who should pay for it? I should, of course, because I OWN the car.

Likewise, the public should bear the costs of needed safety repairs at Husky Stadium, because the public OWNS Husky Stadium.

Comments to comments above:

This is just absolutely rediculous to say "no new taxes." Yes there may be no new taxes but the fact is that this is still money that will be spent. There are a lot more things that need to be done in Seattle with $150 million than to renovate the stadium.

There is also talk about how "unsafe" the stadium is. Well guess what, the viaduct is ALSO unsafe! I think there are a lot more people who travel over this bridge than go to the UW stadium. The viaduct which our great state has spent so much money on thus far and haven't dug a single hole still needs to be paid. And this too will promote jobs and attract visitors whom of which are mostly out of state to spend will use.

Also, how can a school complain about shortage of money when they are willing to spend $150 million of their own money to renovate a stadium? Use this money to increase enrollment in the school.

With respect to the bus issue, it's not true that "busses are inconvenient" for students. The school already has contracts with King County Metro to bus people in for games! In fact, riding the bus is FREE to anyone with a ticket on game day. http://gohuskies.cstv.com/ot/transportation-alt-travel.html

I don't think anyone is complaining about traffic in Seattle if the venue moved to Seahawk Stadium. There is either going to be traffic at the Husky Stadium or at the Seahawk Stadium. In fact, I'd rather have it at the Seahawk Stadium because it handles traffic better in addition to major renovations of the freeway on and off ramps to ease traffic that has and is continuing to go underway.

With respect to ticket increases, has anyone spoke with Paul Allen around this? I'm sure Mr Seattle would help out to make sure ticket prices could stay the same.

Tax revenue ... mo matter if the venue stays at Husky Stadium or moves to Seahawk Stadium, the tax revenues will still be the same. I'm not even sure why this is being debated here. No one is debating that the team just disappear. In fact, tax revenue may increase if it moves to Seahawk Stadium because there are more things to spend money on within walking distance than at Husky Stadium.

How do you justify two new stadiums within miles of one another?

We are in a time of economic crisis. Our state has the largest deficit ever. We need to think about where our money should go and evaluate if there are existing alternatives available.

In this economy, we don't need gay projects! Stop this immediately. The money could be spent on better things. But I guess someome high up is receiving some perks making the contract "worth it"?

Seriously is a dog going to lick your wounds because you approve this project? Why not rebuild another nuclear plant in the center of Capitol Hill instead? Some scum could benefit from that type of project, and you would save money. Money for real huskies, not for a stupid stadium.

The University of Washington's stadium is iconic, and the fact that Seattle residents are lightly brushing this SAFETY measure aside is baffling to me. UW donors ARE funding the rebuilding of the stadium but just asking for a little help from city residents by using a tax measure that is already in effect and will cost no extra money from taxpayers. The condition of the stadium is rather lackluster to say the least. Compare this stadium to the others of Div. I schools. It is not outrageously overdone like some schools. Yes, I believe alumni and donors should aide in this renovation, especially for anything cosmetic, and they will. But using a city tax could insure that the renovation does not get delayed until the stadium becomes extremely unsafe and causes harm is far from absurd. Husky stadium pours millions of dollars in taxes back to the state, why not support this revenue.

Unsafe stadium = good things, will get rid of a bunch of retards when it collapses! Save the money for people with higher IQs.

How about this for a proposal:

Move Husky football to Seahawk Stadium for one year and see if it works. If it doesn't work, go rebuild your stadium. If it does, Huskies stay at Seahawk Stadium.

And since the debate is mostly around how much revenue the team brings in, this should be purely measured based on the revenue generated.

I have been observing comments on the Husky Stadium renovation debate for quite some time. While people make statements that sometimes make sense on their own (i.e “the economy is a disaster”, “education budgets are being cut”), they are typically IRRELEVANT to this debate.

If you want to complain about the use of YOUR tax money then you should check out the state and county’s websites to see how the property, sales, and other excise taxes YOU pay are being used. You will not find Husky stadium on this list. If you make extensive use of king county hotels and car rental services then perhaps your voice should be heard, but I think the voice of those that operate such businesses should be the primary ones with influence.

If you don’t use husky stadium then tough, many others do. So, even if it was your tax dollar (which it’s not), then you have no right to complain. I don’t go around bitching about tax dollars being spent on public libraries or ferry systems which I never use.

If you think that money should not be spent on these types of projects during tough economic times then your point of view only hurts the economy further. It’s this type of thinking that sends consumer and business confidence down and does not allow the economy to recover.

There is one degenerate who keeps posting the same comments / arguments in favor of the renovation under different names. I know you are a fan of the Huskies, but that gives you no right to brainwash us, dude!

How can the economy be irrelevant to this? If we don't have enough money to do something, we need to find money from other places that are not nessecary and move those funds to those critical areas. Just because we have money somewhere doesn't mean we should spend it on stuff that is less critical. And that includes reallocating budget from one area to another.

Even if you don't buy the argument that funds should be reallocated between areas, there are OTHER tourist areas that need fixing that are more important. Pikes place needs a renovation and is a lot more famous than the Husky Stadium. It is also a tourist attaction that is paid for by the tourism tax. Why not spend the money there instead? So your argument on "if you don't use the stadium, you should not have a vote" doesn't make sense.

I'm not saying the money should not be spent. It should be spent on more significant projects. So how does that make consumer and business confidence go down? The money will still be spent elsewhere, jobs will still be created, money will still be spent.

Bottom line...5000 Microsoft employees just got pink slips, 10,000 Boeing Employees will have them coming, CAT is laying off thousands and Starbucks is right behind them....this is not the time or place for a school that is supposed to be dedicated to education to be asking for 150 million in tax dollars.
I don't care if it is tax money that is already being generated...guess what - there are some other things this community is going to have address and unless the unemployeed and homeless get to live and work out of the stadium...we need to toss this idea into the trash and call it OVER!
I have already written my reps - if they like their positions as 'reps' for me they best vote no or else I will be voting NO next time.

I know that it is easy to dismiss something like the Husky Stadium remodel project in times like these. In fact, I can understand how just the prospect of this can cause feelings of actual outrage. However, when you look at this objectively, it really does make sense. Here is a quick list of myths and facts that may help to shed some light on the subject:

MYTH: Funding the Husky Stadium remodel project takes money away from schools, roads and "more important things".

FACT: The money for this project would come from an extension of the Safeco Field/Qwest Field tourism taxes. It does not take ANY money out of the pockets of struggling families. Furthermore, if the revenue stream from the tourism taxes is allowed to expire, that money will cease to exist. Think of it this way: When you travel to places like Hawaii, Las Vegas or Florida, you are most definitely paying taxes that fund projects such as these in their communities.

MYTH: Giving money to the Husky Stadium project takes away from academics.

FACT: The revenue stream that will be used for the Husky Stadium project is completely different than the ones used for academic purposes. Students would feel no impact in the classroom.

MYTH: It's not fair to the Cougars that the Huskies should get money from the state.

FACT: The University of Washington Department of Intercollegiate Athletics is the only athletic department in the state, and is one of only 14 in the ENTIRE NATION, that is entirely self-sufficient. Washington State, on the other hand, gets 4.5 million dollars annually from state taxpayer dollars for their athletic department. Despite this, the University of Washington has never raised a "fairness" issue over this subject. Furthermore, the region-wide revenue generated from a refurbished Husky Stadium will benefit all residents, regardless of University affiliation.

MYTH: This project will have no benefit to me.

FACT: Yes, it will. It will immediately create new jobs at a time when we desperately need them. In addition, Husky Stadium currently generates over 12.5 million dollars annually in revenue to the state and region. Most of that money comes from out of state. This creates jobs and bolsters our region's economy, something that helps out every Washingtonian, UW Alumni or not.

In summary, the state would be foolish NOT to invest in this project. The money raised for this project would put people to work right now at a time when we desperately need it. This is not like Safeco Field, Qwest Field or even KeyArena. The university is not asking for a handout to benefit "millionaire athletes and billionaire owners". It's asking for the state to put forth its fair share for a project that will more than pay for itself in the years to come. It would be irresponsible for us as a community to let this opportunity slip away.

huskiesforeconomy are you also "Robbie" from the facebook profile "WAZZU fans against UW's proposed money grab". My guess is you might be because your chatter has stopped there about the same time it started here....

Wow, all of the people that are against the rennovation of Husky Stadium obviouslly has not been there because if you have been there you know how much Husky Stadium needs to be fixed up. Fixing Husky Stadium may be a big task but it is very important and badly needed.

Just to remind you John, we just approved money for renovation/repairs to Pike Place. The other leading candidate for this tax stream is the Washington State Convention and Trade Center, which wants to expand but has also seen declining demand with the recession.

I would understand if the WSCTC got the tax stream, but wouldn't it make more sense to use it to repair a crumbling (literally) 88 year old STATE building and bring it up to ADA code, instead of expanding a building 20 years old which has no earthquake or ADA concerns?

ALSO: one point that has not been fully mentioned so far is that an approval of funds now means that the renovation can take place at the same time as Sound Transit is setting up the light-rail station next to the stadium. An ideal situation would mean that the 520 bridge replacement would also take place around the same time.
This would mean decreased disruption in the area surrounding Husky Stadium over a long period of time. Area residents and businesses would benefit, and the cost of these projects would also decrease, saving EVERYONE money! especially taxpayers.

I believe the #1 reason not to move UW Football games to Qwest Field is that it is a huge detriment to the #1 fans of UW Football -- the students. It may be a good temporary solution, but forcing students to drive/bike/bus across town is not the best solution.
A smaller but still interesting argument would be the lesser experience Husky Football would bring. Sharing a stadium with the Seahawks and Sounders would mean that the experience would never truly be fully about UW and would just be purely football. Some would argue that we should separate the two, but the fact is that national sports is one of the primary advertising tools school use to attract top students (we've all seen the competing commercials schools run during football/basketball/etc on TV). Moving games away from Husky Stadium would mean visitors would have minor if any exposure to UW's campus, and would have no experience of a traditional college atmosphere while attending the games. It is likely there would be less visitors from out of state as a result. Moving to Qwest Field permanently is an option, but not nearly an optimal one.

All said, the renovation of Husky Stadium makes sense for King County, especially for UW (which is absorbing a funding cut of over 10%). I believe the decision should be made at the County level since the tax is exclusively a King County tax. This could make for an interesting first decision for Ron Sims's successor.

Husky Stadium has long been an icon of our beautiful city and has brought in a lot of commerce and tourism over the years. Let's keep some traditions alive and not let the naysayers ruin yet another proud Washington sports tradition.

I'm all for renovating the stadium. It will create short term jobs, increase patronage in the U-District and bring more publicity to the school. While many won't agree, the sports programs help bring good students to the schools through the popularity of the programs, coverage in TV and more.

Let's build a new stadium!

John, your argument of reallocating tax funds between designated tax pools is one of far reaching implications. There is a reason that certain types of taxes are designated for certain purposes and if you mess with that you will trigger a raging debate that will make this husky stadium debate seem like an afternoon tea party.

Your point about looking at other tourist areas is actually a good one and is one of very few intelligent comments I've read thus far - this is EXACTLY what the debate should be about. I don't know much about what renovations are needed to Pike Place market or other attractions, but if a well thought out plan, justification, and budget was created then it should be considered.

Renovate the Stadium: Get people the jobs, attract the students to the university who can keep our economy sound for the future, improve revenue streams across the puget sound region. There are many, many good things that this project will directly impact in our state, starting immediately. Are there other uses for the money? Yes there are. Those causes need support also. But for now, lets do the right thing. Renovate, renovate, renovate.

Sean, I agree that reallocating between tax pools is a difficult idea to sell and is a bigger and separate topic to discuss. If this ever were to pass, earmarks would fail and the government would collapse since this is how the government is run.

I think there are really two points that need to be vetted and debated:

1) Are there any other tourist areas that we can better spend to improve? We need to investigate where the top visits are in Seattle and determine a cost/benefit ratio for each of these attractions. This includes Pikes, Convention Center, Seattle Center, Husky, etc. From reading some older articles, the stats are that for the entire Washington State, half are out of state and the other half of visitors are in state.

2) Can we do a trial Husky season or some set of games in Seahawk Stadium to see if this will work out. This can't possibly hurt too much. In fact, if anything, this should prove the viability of whether or not this would work. I think we can all speculate on how this will impact revenues, traffic, etc but at the end of the day, we don't really know.

Did I read 7000 jobs created with this project? Construction costs are generally less than 25% of total construction dollars. Figure 45.00/hour (prevailing wage estimate which may be conservative) and 18 month construction schedule and it figures to be the equivelant of 550 full time employees.

The $150M for safety/repairs and $150M for upgrades sounds a little fishy to me as well. If I am going to asked to finance this stadium I'd like someone a little more objective than a UW hired architect to come up with the cost breakdown.

I am also reading a lot of claims the UW athletic department is self funding. They get state money for women's athletics (about 1.8M/year) just like everyone else.

I think the main issue here is safety. On any given day a shallow earthquake could hit the Seattle Fault running under South Seattle. With Husky Stadium as old and in as poor of shape as it is on top of landfill, we need to fix it asap. Think of 72500 people there during this event. Just like Alaskan Way, it is a saftey issue that should be moved to the front of this list and create jobs at the same time.

Preventative maintenance would have kept this place from being a safety issue now. Where did the self-sustaining monies from the stadium go for the past few decades? I hope their accountants are not UW grads - that does not fare well for that program.
So, now we are supposed to believe that we need to fund 'safety' while they fund 'luxury'.
How about they fund safety, raise ticket prices to cover luxury and if that is not enough take the idea of adding another cost to the students and see how they feel about it.
WSU takes things to the students for a vote. That is how the rec building for students/staff was built...we voted yes and paid extra fees to cover the costs.
Of course, an even easier way to decide this whole thing...put it on the ballot. If the voters of the state (yes, state because the state visits King Co) votes yes then you are good to go!

WHY? There worse than the SEAHAWKS and a new stadium did not help them win.

Renovate Husky Stadium? YES!!

Most of the main points in favor of renovating the stadium have already been discussed amply in this set of posts. I would, however, like to add a few more thoughts on the reasons why Qwest Field would not suffice as a replacement for Husky Stadium.

Husky Football is about more than just the game. It's about the Experience. Fans and out-of-town visitors alike come to Saturdays in Montlake for more than just the sport of football. They come to congregate with friends and family at pre-game and post-game tailgate parties; they come to watch a game in a stadium that is consistently ranked among the most beautiful places for football in the country; they come to tour our impressive campus and experience the friendly and welcoming Husky Community.

All of this would change drastically if we moved to Qwest Field - no more boating to the game, no more walks from the tailgate party up the hill to the campus, no more enjoying the view of Lake Washington and Mount Rainier.

You may think that these are irrelevant points, but they aren't. Community and tradition are important - in good times but almost especially in bad. There would be a ripple effect from a move to Qwest Stadium, beyond the loss of a pretty view and the spot where your family has tailgated for three generations.

+ Fewer people would come to games (locally and from afar) - a one year test of "living" at Qwest Field wouldn't adequately represent that impact

+ Fewer people would tailgate and that tradition and community would be broken

+ The broader community would suffer - a lot of people depend on game day for income: University District businesses, school-aged children and charities who get donations and "thon" sponsors and sell an awful lot of candy bars among tailgaters and fans, and many groups who raise funds through manning concession stands and ushering during the game

And let's not forget that Husky Stadium is home to dozens of community events in addition to football games every year, despite having Qwest Field as an option.

In a day and age where more and more of our time is being spent behind a computer screen and "changing," there is something to be said for holding on to tradition and things that bring us together. Husky Stadium is an important part of history and community in Seattle and in Washington State - no more OR LESS important than a lot of things that make Seattle such a special place (the waterfront, SAM, downtown, Shilshole Bay, our floating bridges, the Burke-Gilman Trail, Pike Place Market, SODO, local businesses, hiking trails, parks, the arts, local culture, great restaurants, the list goes on and on....).

Husky Stadium desparately needs help. All we have to do is AGREE to it (not evey pay for it! Except for boosters who will pitch in $150M of private money).

Just like any other core piece of the Seattle and Washington Community, it deserves that much from us.

This renovation makes sense from all angles.

A great debate -with one side having a lot of passion and misinformation -and the other knowing more of the facts-the taxes being discussed are currently directed for the pro stadiums,art groups -play fields- and other uses till 20013 and 2021 --Playing at Quest Field would lower the UW's athletic budget by between 3.5 and 6 million $ and since it is self funded force the UW to have less sports --The Cougars recieve upper campus support [of about 4.4 million$] each year and did take state $$ when fixing their basketball facility- the Husky athletic facilities are Washington State public facilities, and have over 250,000 visitors a year that attend other events than a football game [graduation has about 40,000 each year alone]-This year over 22,000 fans came from out of state to watch a game--This is a king County issue-these are not state $$ and --finally 700 full time jobs for this budget cycle over 2000 jobs for some period with 1/2 of the total cost being paid with private dollars -- the King County tourism tax dollars will not come on line till 2014 -- finally all the other discussion on how to use taxes are worthy discussions --remember we are a sale tax goverment and we all know the impact of this type of tax in this economy- and looking forward , people will be buying less retail -- this means we need to rethink the whole system for all of our social needs -- let's rebuild the stadium

If tax payers money is used, then we should have a right to use it for events other than Husky football games.

If tax payer's money is used, then we should have a right to use the stadium for events other than Husky football games.

iam a husky fan and i would love for husky stadium to get funding , but is this the same street the former seattle sonics went thru? uw is barking up the wrong tree during a time when the economy is bad

Too many people are all posting under the name "john"!! I can't keep all of you straight.

UW funds it's entire athletic department with Husky Football. It does not rely on Tax Payer money to do this like other state schools such as WSU already does. Husky Stadium, and Husky football generate revenue and tax income to the state, that can be used for the most important priorities of the state. If we don't renovate, we will start to loose this revenue, and have to dip into tax payer money to make up for it. All UW is asking is to use out of state tax revenue, that will not be used for education anyway you slice it, and puts no extra burden on tax payers. This isn't about sports, it is economics, and it is the right thing to do for the state. If you disagree for solid reasons, fine, but don't let your emotions about the importance of athletics in our society impact your opinion, or your like/dislike of UW Football. Look at the economic facts of how much revenue UW Football has put into, and this renovation can put into, our economy. Money that can then be used to improve other issues that most feel are more important than sports (but don't generate income for the state.)

Everyone keeps talking about how the football team brings in X amount of money. No one has any numbers around how this number will change if it moves to Safeco Field. In fact, I believe the numbers may go up because there are more things to spend money on around Safeco versus UW.

It's interesting to note, Emmert says Husky Stadium is not one of his top priorities. He said this on Up Front and House Speaker Chopp also has said this is the message he has received. Looks like the UW administration sees the writing on the wall given the current economy. It's hard to imagine anything is going to happen this session as far as securing funding for the renovation.

I remember when Husky Stadium was the ONLY sports venue we had to gather as a community. The stadium is used for more than FOOTBALL. We need to support the renovation at the state level. It is part of our HISTORY and should continue to be part of our FUTURE.

Some facts:

-- The stadium is old and needs to be fixed.

-- Construction can start in December 2009 and will create 800 living wage jobs and 2,000 other jobs in this budget period.

-- The taxes are King County Only taxes, which are currently being used to pay for pro-stadiums, arts group causes, playfields and other things until 2013 and 2021.

-- These taxes cannot be used for any other purpose and cannot be used to help with the budget deficit.

-- Husky Athletic Facilities are used by over 250,000 people per year for non-athletic events [over 40,000 per year attend graduation and over 22,000 visiting fans traveled from outside our state to watch a football game this year.]

-- Cougar athletics organizations receive over $4.4 million from their upper campus every year -- we are self-funded.

University of Washington is the premiere University in the whole state of Washington. The stadium is unsafe, and long overdue for an upgrade.

Our elected officials seem to never be able to make anything "happen." Look at the Sonics for example, we watched them threaten to leave for three years, and then all of a sudden they left, and at no point did officials ever have anything decent on the negotiating table. Although we know the Husky's aren't going anywhere, it is very important to the program, and to the University that they take care of their facilities. The better the football team gets, the better recruits will get in the future. The better the recruits and team are the more highly recognized University of Washington becomes nationally. Regardless if you want to believe it or not, athletic programs are a large part of a schools recognition. It's essential for a nationally recognized school such as University of Washington to have success on and off the field.

A renovated Husky Stadium must become a priority for our elected officials!

Money Man: Just because there are more things to spend money on does not mean people will necessarily spend more money. If I have sales-persons come to my door every day, that doesn't mean I'll be buying something from someone every day. Many businesses in the U-District rely on the influx of visitors from Husky Games, and many places have established traditions from the 100+ years of games at HS. Taking away those opportunities would not necessarily be made up by gains around Qwest.

So as a Seattle resident I pay a lot of taxes which go to a lot of different city funded projects including concert, opera, and symphony halls, benoroya hall just to mention a specific example. I do support such funding because we need to be a cultural center which includes the arts, sports, sciences, museums, etc. This specific venue generates money through the attraction of people to functions which provides additional revenue to local restaurants and stores and adds to the culture of our city. Now we take Husky stadium which adds a tremendous amount of revenue to local stores and restaurants and basically supports the entire athletic department at the university which again adds to the great culture we have in our city. To be against the public funding of a public venue because you happen to not support athletics is ludicrous. Everyone likes to point out the public funding of sports related venues, while not acknowledging that our city, regional, and state governments are providing the identical financial assistance to other not sport facilities. Its not like supporting the stadium improvments means paying some rich owner. All revenue generated goes to maintaining the university and supporting the many other things we like about our community including the arts and sciences. No one likes to acknowledge that sports such as college ncaa football generates million and millions of dollars and is a business that does one thing and one thing only. Generate $$$$$$. Don't a tree hugging gomer, that cannot look at a financial situation in an unbaised manner and realize that you have to spend money to make money. Most people who are against taxes are the ones who are barely paying any! Give me a break.

WSU is funding the renovation of Martin Stadium through private donations and student fees (voted on by the students themselves).

UW is twice as big and can do the exact same.

The athletic department at WSU is subsidized by the state to cover small sports that don't make money through ticket revenue (golf, swimming, tennis), most of which is required by Title IX - requiring equal athletic scholarships for women. Football and basketball make enough money to pay the high salaries of coaches and stadium renovations. So, the argument of "WSU is subsidized, why shouldn't UW be too" is lame.

WSU pays their coach $550k per year while UW pays a freshman coach $2 million per year. There is the start to your problem.