|
It’s hard to believe that this is still a topic of conversation. Given the state of our national and local economy, it is somewhat incredible that the UW continues to push for a Husky Stadium bailout. Today we see an actual bill up for debate in the House Ways and Means Committee. Of course, the bailout is buried along with other public works projects in the bill to make it easier to disguise to the public as a bundle that will benefit King County taxpayers. Don’t be fooled. This is truly a litmus test as to whether our State representatives are capable of good government and responsible spending. As I’ve said before, I’m in consumer marketing and I often view these issues through that lens. So, today I’ve decided to craft what we would call a Rude Q&A. Basically it’s a set of questions you are likely to get when interviewing with press on a certain topic and what the suggested response should be. We’ll look at the major talking points that UW continues to try and pound home in press and provide what the response should be. In this situation, it’s very easy because of the flimsy argument they present and the foolish logic they try to leverage. UW Comment: This project will create jobs! The construction of Husky Stadium will create jobs in a time of need for many families and laid-off workers. Response: It doesn’t take a very smart person to see that spending $150 million dollars of taxpayer money to create temporary construction jobs is incredibly inefficient and a wasteful allocation of tax dollars. The purpose of government funded job creation is to build jobs that are longer in duration and that help create work in new industries such as biofuels OR jobs that are shorter in duration but contribute to projects that will benefit the greater public good such as transportation. Spending $150 million dollars on temporary construction jobs for a sports stadium is probably the worst example of public funding to help create jobs. UW Comment: This is a public safety issue! The UW football stadium is no longer safe for our fans and the state should pay for these basic upgrades since we are a State University. Response: There is absolutely no requirement or precedent for the state to pay for maintenance of a University recreational building. However, there are fantastic examples across the country and even in the Pac-10 of schools taking advantage of state-of-the-art local facilities when close to campus. Given the fact that Qwest Field is a tremendous football stadium and less than six miles from campus it seems a great opportunity to take advantage of what is already built and to gain some economies of scale for the current tax we are all paying to finance that building. Further, if the concern is for UW alumni safety then we suggest that you re-allocate the money you’ve earmarked for lavish suites and club seats that the vast majority of average fans will never experience and direct those dollars towards securing the safety of your fan base first. Finally, the UW has a 1.6 billion dollar endowment. There is significant national momentum to require schools to allocate portions of the endowment principal to contribute to annual University budgets. This is an opportunity for the UW to act as a leader that it believes it is by thinking through how to use this massive endowment to unburden the taxpayer rather than hiding those dollars. UW Comment: This is not a new tax! This is simply an extension of a local tax that is already in place to help pay for Qwest Field and Safeco Field. Response: There is absolutely no requirement for this tax to be extended or the money acquired to be allocated to sports stadium construction. We suggest two options here: 1) Let the tax die and spare our King County residents and their friends, families, and co-workers the additional dollars spent. 2) Re-allocate the dollars from the tax to areas that will truly benefit King County residents by expanding the Washington State Convention Center or increasing police presence in the University District to prevent the now frequent violent crimes against students on or near campus. UW Comment: We are a self-sustaining athletic department! We are entitled to this money because we haven’t asked for anything before. Response: This is a circular argument. By nature of making this $150 million dollar bailout request you are no longer self-sustaining. If you want to be commended (and you should) for independence then you need not ask for state funds to help upgrade your stadium. Additionally, there is a massive difference between asking for a dedicated local tax to cover $150 million dollars in expenses for a shiny new stadium versus a few million dollars annually to help sustain an entire athletic department. So, there you have it. Feel free to use this when talking to your State Representative or just the moron UW fan that’s trying to convince you that this stadium bailout is a good idea for local residents.
|
It's absurd that in this economy this is even under discussion-- especially with the current sentiment against all these corporate bailouts. Washington's legislators need to realize the "corporation" of UW is begging for this bailout with a $1.6B bill hanging out their back pocket.
Plus this would set a precedent for all state schools looking for funds.