By
Sarah Greenleaf,
Sarah Jeglum,
Vicky Yan,
Will Mari
January 30, 2008
The state Legislature essentially killed a $300 million plan to renovate Husky Stadium last Thursday. House Speaker Frank Chopp (D-Seattle) said that the plan lacked support among his colleagues.
Good work.
About $150 million of the plan would have come from taxes on King County restaurant bills, rental cars, sales tax credits and lottery proceeds. The rest was supposed to have come from the UW, which, in turn, would have been forced to rely on private donors — the “boosters” who fund a big chunk of our school’s private scholarships and sports programs.
The nearly 90-year-old stadium should be renovated. It’s a UW institution that needs a major facelift for the sake of both school pride and safety. And it’s going to take quite a bit of money to fix it.
Former Gov. Dan Evans, the chair of the stadium renovation committee, said the UW will have to spend up to $100 million on critical maintenance with or without a plan.
Then there’s the timing: The 520 Bridge replacement project, if and when it happens in the next few years, will be a big mess. Construction on the Sound Transit light-rail station on Montlake Boulevard, slated to begin next year, is another consideration. So work on the on the stadium should start fairly soon.
But why haven’t corporate donors been asked for funding help? Yes, it might mean renaming the stadium something like Microsoft or Boeing Stadium, but it would save the state and the UW’s boosters a lot of money that could be used for other programs. Another option would be to use an existing facility such as Quest Field, at least as a temporary solution.
To put it another way, using public money is a serious thing and should be pursued only after other options have been fully explored.
What we don’t want is “booster burnout” at the expense of scholarships and other sports programs besides football.
Speaking of football, coach Tyrone Willingham needs to lead us to a bowl game before we can justify the $300 million-plus cost of a stadium rebuild. A bowl spot would bring in money that could be used to help fund a renovation project.
As it stands now, the UW has not explored the alternatives, and even if the plan can be resurrected this legislative session, passing it would be an exercise in frustration; we can be smarter about this.
Let’s go back to the drawing board.
2 Comments
#1 Jack
on January 30, 2008 at 8:13 a.m.(Los Angeles, CA | Unverified Name)
I was following your logic until you intimated that the Huskies should start playing at Qwest field, "at least on a temporary basis." Clearly, you two don't care the least about the University and its football program and don't know the first thing about where the stadium expansion project should go. The Huskies have a proud history in that stadium, and to suggest moving venues for no other reason than cost is absurd. Obviously, you don't care however, as you've probably never watched a game. Good luck, go write for the Times, and continue to undercut Husky football!
#2 John
on January 30, 2008 at 6:51 p.m.(Pullman, WA | Unverified Name)
This is an excellent article. Jack apparently loved Todd Turner's idea of imitating Oregon, as this proposal is just like their basketball stadium proposal. Come back to earth and raise the funds from private donors like every other university in the state.
Post a comment