Incomplete protection of public’s interest

Dwight Dively painted a pretty rosy picture on financing the proposed arena [“Innovative arena financing protects public’s interest,” Special to The Times, Opinion, June 19]. However, he sneaked in a couple of disquieting phrases that gives one pause:

1) “We are shifting most of the risk to private participants”;

2) “With very minor exceptions, this proposal does not rely on tax revenue from other entertainment expenses”; and

3) “The investors bring the land, the cash, most of the financing, the teams …..”

Why not all the risk? How about without exception? Why not all the financing?

Seems to me these three items give the arena team quite a bit of wiggle room.

— Mike Wayte, Seattle

Port and fishing industries are more important

You are giving much coverage to promoting the desire of rich people, sports fans and politicians to build another arena in Sodo, with plans for hotels and condos.

Representatives of Seattle’s port and fishing industries have pointed out that the arena proposal would impede their ability to function, and their own plans for growth. Sports traffic and highway construction are clogging port traffic now, illustrating that the port is due some relief.

Marine industries are part of what made Seattle, and what sustains us. Taxpayers support the port because it is a proven economic engine for the state; it doesn’t make sense to undermine the port and put money into it at the same time.

Expansion of the entertainment complex in Sodo will eventually push out other existing industries. Seattle doesn’t have any more industrial land — what we have is all there is. Well-paying union jobs will be lost forever, replaced by low-paying services jobs and million-dollar athletes.

For the sake of Seattle’s history and character, as well as thousands of existing jobs, let us put our marine and other industries first.

— Kate Anthony, Seattle