It’s hard to imagine a more prescient political stance than Seattle City Council President Nick Licata’s staunch opposition to using public money for a new pro basketball arena at Seattle Center. For Licata, disputing such subsidies is old hat: Before joining the council, he was the co-chair of Citizens for More Important Things, and consistently opposed using taxpayer funds to build new playgrounds for pro sports franchises—a battle he lost in the cases of Safeco and Qwest fields.
But with the Sonics, Licata and his cohorts hit the jackpot. Not only did the team’s former ownership group come up well short in its 2006 bid to persuade state legislators to fund a new arena, but Seattle voters piled on, passing Initiative 91 by a 3-to-1 margin this past November. (I-91 effectively bans the city from entering into any future deals with pro sports teams.)
Considering Licata’s legislative jurisdiction does not extend outside the Seattle city limits, one would think he’d simply declare victory and move on to more pressing municipal issues. But St. Nick can’t seem to get enough of an easy target: On Jan. 4, Licata released the results of a privately commissioned Elway poll of 401 registered King County voters that showed tepid support for a publicly subsidized Sonics arena countywide. (The Sonics are hoping to build an arena in either Bellevue or Renton, and are currently appealing to the state Legislature for funding.)
“I had the poll conducted of all King County residents to determine if the results of the I-91 vote in Seattle would be reflective of voters outside the city,” wrote Licata. “And it was.”
The poll was paid for by Citizens for More Important Things, SEIU Local 775 (the long-term care workers’ union), and Licata’s 2009 campaign fund, which contributed $1,000. And that’s where things get thorny. According to state law, politicians aren’t allowed to use active campaign donations on anything besides activities “directly related” to their re-election effort, according to Tony Perkins, a political finance specialist with the state Public Disclosure Commission. (Of the $27,590 currently on hand in Licata’s 2009 campaign coffers, $26,775 is carry-over surplus from his 2005 campaign. But since these moneys have been commingled in the 2009 re-election account, they are considered to be active, says Perkins.)
Sonic fans and foes alike agree that—thanks in no small part to I-91—a new Sonics arena will not be located anywhere inside the Seattle city limits. So how can it be construed as a legitimate use of a Seattle City Council member’s re-election funds to poll voters outside Seattle on an issue where a verdict’s already been rendered by Seattle voters?
“If the Sonics leave and someone says, ‘Hey, Nick, you got rid of the Sonics and they’re now in Bellevue or Renton—it’s your fault,'” says Licata, “I need to respond by saying, ‘Hey, people in Belle-vue think just like Seattle.'”
Translation: Licata feels the poll provides him with evidence that it wasn’t just him—or Seattleites, for that matter—who felt that the Sonics shouldn’t get a piece of the public pie to build a new arena.
“It sounds plausible to me,” says Seattle Ethics and Elections Executive Director Wayne Barnett, when presented with Licata’s rationale. “I can appreciate Nick’s concern that he can be faulted for driving these guys away, and I can perceive that as a legitimate campaign concern of Nick’s.”
But when 74 percent of Seattleites have already said they agree with Licata’s stance on the Sonics and pro sports subsidies, why would Licata need to tell Seattle voters that Bellevue and Renton voters feel the same way? “That’s a fair point,” concedes Barnett.
Legal or not, Licata’s willingness to dip into his own campaign coffers to dog the team outside of Seattle has Sonics envoys puzzled.
“I agree with Councilman Licata that there are more important things in life, yet he seems to be making a vendetta of trying to run the Sonics out of town,” says public affairs consultant Jim Kneeland, who is assisting with the Sonics’ legislative effort in Olympia. “If the people of Renton or Bellevue decide they want a facility, that should be their right. And I don’t think they appreciate being advised by a Seattle city councilman on that.”
