SCHOOL OF

7
August 1-. 2018 A 

 

Members. King County Council
King County Courthouse
Seattle. WA 98104

Re: Renewal of Safeco Field Lease

Dear ouncilmembers:

I write with reference to the pending consideration of a proposed renewal of a lease
between the Public Facilities District (PFD) and the Seattle Mariners Baseball Club. I

respectfully suggest that the council refer the matter back to the PFD for further negotiation.

My perspective is that of a 17-year former member and chair of the PFD. I am proud to
have participated in the design. building and oversight of a beautiful baseball park. Further. I am
a lifelong resident of Seattle. have shared season tickets since the team came to our city more
than 40 years ago, and have played senior league baseball in my sixties. I believe there are many
like myself who love the game and support its continued presence in our community. but have

strong reservations about the proposed lease.

History matters here. I start with the recognition that the Mariners are a well-run.
?nancially successful sports franchise and have made efforts to be a good corporate citizen in the
community. Yet. a good portion of that success is a product of the current lease that has been in
effect for two decades. I was dismayed in joining the PFD in 1997 to learn that the lease had
such favorable terms for the ballclub. The modest lease payment for both the right to play
ballgames (as well as ?rst class of?ce space). including all concession and parking. naming

rights, and ticket and broadcast revenue seemed surprising even with the knowledge that

FACULTY OFFICES
901 12th Avenue. Sullivan Hall PO. Box 222000 Seattle. WA 98122?1090 

previous owners had threatened to move the franchise. My concerns grew over the years as I

read of the huge growth in the value of the franchise and net revenues notwithstanding those

many years where the team was not winning.

When weighing this proposed lease, keep in mind that the public contribution goes way
beyond the initial land acquisition and cost of the ballpark. There is interest on the bonds that
were issued, signi?cant infrastructure improvements surrounding the ballpark as well as the very
favorable lease provisions as described above. This is in the context of signi?cant tax money on
tickets and parking revenues which are mandated to continue to be paid through the PFD to the
team for maintenance under the terms of the proposed lease. Common sense suggests that
further public subsidy should be looked at very cautiously. First. in view of a franchise that was
fairly close to the list of the 50 wealthiest sports franchises in the world, it would be fair to ask
about the need for further public money. At a minimum, this should require a thorough review
of their books, including spending and revenue sources. It is not uncommon in commercial
leases to have a ?reopener? where, for example, if the ballclub is facing some ?nancial jeopardy
relating to maintenance or improvements, it could come back with a request according to an
agreed-upon protocol. Second, in addition to a showing of need, my personal view is that it only
seems fair that, on an ongoing basis, some portion of revenue from a source like concessions be
distributed for the community bene?t. I suspect fans paying $12 - $14 for a beverage and $6 for
a bag of peanuts might feel better about it if a portion went back to the community. Related to
that concept is the fact that I have always thought it inconsistent with public ownership of the
facility that both the naming rights and any revenue related thereto were not under the control of
and for the bene?t of the owner. the public. Third. keep in mind and acknowledging it to be
an unknown at this time, there is a likelihood that the potential for intemet gaming will result in
signi?cant. additional revenue for professional sports franchises beyond what revenue sources
are now available. Fourth, it is noteworthy that the total request of additional public
monies approaches this year?s total team payroll as well as the irony with the club having money

available as needed for large, long-term, player contracts in recent years.

All in all, given the history, it is incomprehensible how more public money can be
justi?ed without detailed information as to the ?nances of this very successful enterprise. In
fact, serious consideration should be given to a ?return on the public investment? by a sharing of
revenues as part of a fair lease payment. I think it is a tribute to them that the Mariners (with
public assistance) have created and maintained a lucrative franchise. It is only fair that they
share that success with the public and not, yet again, ask for a public subsidy when the needs of
the community (not represented by a stable of lawyers, lobbyists. et.al) are so critical. The

practical answer is to reopen negotiations.

Thank you for the opportunity to express my views.

Yours truly,

Judge Terrence A. Carroll. ret.
Distinguished Jurist in Residence