With "about" 95% of the votes counted, Referendum 48,
to build a new stadium for the Seahawks, is leading 51-49%
with 746,169 in favor and 718,578 opposed. Final election
results "are to be tabulated Tuesday" (SEATTLE TIMES, 6/20).
GO VOTE: NEWSWEEK examines the Seahawks vote and looks
at other publicly-backed stadium deals under the header,
"Playing Stadium Games." NEWSWEEK's John McCormick, on WA
state voters: "[T]hey didn't believe every promise of the
deal on the table. But they did believe one thing: if they
refused to subsidize a new, $425 million stadium, their
Seattle Seahawks would leave town." McCormick: "Giving
welfare to team owners is America's newest civic sport. ...
But what's really driving the stadium game is civic vanity.
[Paul] Allen didn't force a deal down Seattle's throat. In
fact, the city went begging to him." McCormick concludes
that the "stadium binge could topple of its own weight.
Voters are wary, as tighter elections in Seattle, San
Francisco and other cities attest" (NEWSWEEK, 6/30 issue).
MORE NATIONAL REAX: In Chicago, Don Pierson: "Whether
the incentive is fear of losing a team or the promise of
Super Bowl riches, voters have decided to help rich owners
build stadiums designed primarily to accommodate more and
more rich fans in order to attract more and more high-priced
players" (CHICAGO TRIBUNE, 6/22). In Boston, Will
McDonough: "Message to the Red Sox and Patriots: Get the new
stadiums for Boston on the ballot. ... Politicians and polls
say fans are opposed, but when the issue goes to a vote, the
teams win" (BOSTON GLOBE, 6/22). In Ft. Worth, David
Markiewicz: "[C]ritics of public financing of sports
facilities appear to be losing their cases. All around the
country, politicians and voters are making sports stadiums a
top development priority, the rising cost notwithstanding
... increasingly, voters are deciding to support new
stadiums" (FT. WORTH STAR-TELEGRAM, 6/21).
