Seattle Sonics Trial:
I hadn't realized that a lawsuit just started between the city of Seattle and the Sonics (no longer "Super," right?). I don't know much about the case, but it looks like there are some interesting contract law issues in the case so I flag it for those who are interested. The Sports Economist has a number of posts on the developments in the trial and The Sports Law blog provides an overview of the theory of the case here.
However it turns out, this may be a good subject for a law review note topic.
And what if your breaching anchor tenant's principals stand to profit immensely in direct proportion to the landlord's (Seattle's) losses when their vast other property holdings (in Ok.C.)appreciate as Seattle's feeder properties depreciate?
Initially, Seattle did not think it necessary to provide a new basketball arena after it had just funded new football and baseball facilities. Now that the horse is out of the barn, it wishes it had built a better barn.
Some cities are suing mortgage banks for damages from dilapidated neighborhoods caused by massive fallouts from the mortgage crisis.
Are cities becoming foreseeably damaged directly or as third parties whenever they are damaged by disagreeable private contracts?
One of the obligations of the Sonics is to play ALL of their HOME GAMES in Seattle through 2010. The City and State combined to put up $85M to redo the Seattle Center arena to the new Key Arena in 1995, and wanted a 15 year commitment by the Sonics to play their home games there. The Ackerly's, the then owners with NBA support requested a specific arena design that would PRECLUDE NHL teams, and they got it. One of the effects of that design is a relative dearth of luxury boxes and specialty seating. This is the crux of the 'issue' with Key Arena. However, the Ackerly Group was able to be profitable with the Sonics in this location and make money when they fielded a team that went deep into the playoffs, in otherwords a winner.
Clay Bennett bought the team, knew the lease, knew the Sonics were losing money, knew the team would continue to lose money while he traded away all of their experienced players, has alternatively clamied that NBA teams either provide value to their communities or not depending on who he is speaking to, and is now claiming financial hardship if he has to stay.
If the City loses the case the economics of public financed arenas for every sport will change. Why should any city pay when any owner can move the team at any time for any reason, even if the lease he or she signs says exactly the opposite?
[Important Note to Helpful Readers: If we have confusing typos and especially ugly formatting errors, such as an unclosed underline or bold tag, we'd love to hear from you about them -- but please e-mail the author about this, rather than leaving a comment. We often won't read the comments for a while after the post, and if there's a glaring formatting error, we'd see it quickly when we revisit the post, even without the comment; and in any event the comment likely isn't going to be that helpful to your fellow comment readers. So please e-mail us directly about glitches like this. Thanks!]
Comment Policy: We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like), but we're also hoping that people try to be as calm, reasoned, and substantive as possible. So please, also avoid rants, invective, substantial and repeated exaggeration, and radical departures from the topic of the thread. Sticking with substance -- and staying on-topic -- will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant.
As editors, we reserve the right to delete posts, and even to kick out posters, though we hope that both of these will be exceptional events. (We also reserve the right to be busy with other things, and therefore (1) not remove all the posts that might merit removal, and (2) ignore demands such as "You should remove A's posts, because they're just as bad as B's!")
Here's a tip: Reread your post, and think of what people would think if you said this over dinner. If you think people would view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who vastly overdoes it on the hyperbole, rewrite your post before hitting enter.
And if you think this is the other people's fault -- you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, but fools wrongly view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who overdoes it on the hyperbole -- then you should still rewrite your post before hitting enter. After all, if you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, then surely it's especially important that you frame your arguments in a way that is persuasive and as unalienating as possible, even to fools.
Our goal is to provide an interesting and pleasant environment that can help inform readers. To do that, we'll occasionally have to exercise our editorial discretion. Think of this as an in-person discussion group, where having different voices is critical to a great conversation -- but where sometimes the leader has to deal with cranks who sour the conversation more than they enliven it.
Naturally, there's always a risk that this discretion will be used erroneously, no matter how well-intentioned the editor. But discussion groups (especially on the Internet, but also off it) generally need an editor who'll occasionally make such judgments.
And, remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.