So Much for the Naysayers
In the last few months the efforts to locate a NASCAR facility in the Northwest has met with financial and environmental concerns. Many have said the ISC would never succeed after their proposed track north of Seattle, Washington was turned down.
Port Orchard, Washington - located on the Southern side of
Puget Sound from Seattle - has won this round of racetrack sweepstakes and unlike Rusty Wallace’s recent ground breaking in Iowa this track, with ISC money, will get a NASCAR sanctioned event very early in it’s lifespan.
A team leader for the International Speedway Corporation, Grant Lynch, has announced it has chosen a 950-acre site near the Bremerton airport for a Northwest NASCAR race track.Lynch told a news conference Thursday at Port Orchard that the $250 million project can be funded with no new taxes. He says the track would generate tax dollars from the economic impact of fans.
He says, “This project carries its own water.” Lynch says the biggest race at the track would have the economic impact of the Super Bowl. Lynch says the track would be built in a bowl configuration with seating for 80,000.
An earlier plan by the Daytona, Florida, company for a $250 million track near Marysville was canceled because of financing problems. ISC owns or operates eleven tracks around the country with more than 100 events a year
The ISC’s desire for a Washington State location is obvious. Just last September their proposal included promising to spend $50 million of the $250 million cost and cover any overruns in exchange for $200 million of public financing.
Now that that a financing solution is found work will commence on lingering transportation issues. They must also gain acceptance from the Legislature and go through the permitting process in Kitsap County before construction can start in 2007 or 2008.
The first NASCAR event for the 7/8ths to 1.2 mile facility is projected as 2010.
Does anyone actually think Washington State’s legislature is going to fork over the 3/4 to 4/5 of funding that ISC wants for this track?
Nothing is for sure when dealing with politicians and State legislature’s. In this case the funding will be via an issue of bonds for that portion ISC isn’t paying for. Something you would have realized with a little research.
May I suggest the Seattle Post Intelligencer or the local Kitsap newpaper, both have the details. Bonds will be paid back via revenue generated from track operations.
The State legislature will meet in Jan. ‘06 to discuss the outstanding tranportation issues, the bond issue and other details. The proposed area is currently zoned as industrial which includes the track so that is not an issue.
One other note, as a result of the bond issue, the track will be owned by the public. So those that are so quick to be critical of ISC and their alleged “monopoly” won’t have that to whine about.
Bonds sounds like how Ontario Motor Speedway was built - and it failed in large part because it wasn’t built with private money.
Once the local government realizes that it’s basically being hosed to build a speedway that should be built entirely with private money - if built at all, because no one has made a valid case for this track to begin with - there’s going to be controversy, and it’s going to make NASCAR look bad.
Your correct Ontario was financed via a bond issue, $25.5 million dollars to be exact. Ground was broken in 1968. The first race was held in 1970 and through piss poor management and lack of promotion it closed in 1980. A fact unrelated to how it was financed.
The operators insisted for a number of years to only promote Indy cars, then later relented and a few NASCAR events were held. By that time such luminaries and investors as Paul Newman, Kirk Douglas and Dick Smothers and then speedway president of the board Dick B. Lockton got done with their plaything the track was bankrupt.
The track was torn down and the land sits vacant to this day.
25 years later race track management has evolved and how they are used has also. The Washington facility won’t be a one race a year boondoggle like the idiots of another era produced.
Ontario went bankrupt in 1973 because the public money spent was greater than the revenues the track earned. The government of Ontario tried to keep it going and in fact it kept racing until the end of 1980, but it ultimately went under - something that would not have happened had it been built entirely with private money.
One more thing about Ontario - it was not a one-race-a-year boondoggle - it was built for Indycars, NASCAR, drag racing, and road racing.
And we still have not seen a believable argument for building a speedway in the Pacific Northwest, perhaps the weakest sports market in the country, to start with.
Whatever Mike… you’re the expert. And BTW:
And we still have not seen a believable argument for building a speedway in the Pacific Northwest,
Just who is “We?” Have you been privy to all the meetings betwenn NASCAR and the Washington State officials?
Just whop is “we?” It’s WE - the racing world. You ask the wrong question - the right question is this: Why do we need a NASCAR track in Washington State? What is served by building a new track that isn’t better served by instead working to better improve the tracks the sport already has?
It’s all about marketing and audience reach. The pacific northwest is the only geographic area in the country witout a Mother NASCAR presence. The same reason the France family is in active consideration of international markets (Canada, Mexico, China, etc. etc….). They have created a cash generating animal, but have to continue feeding it. Sooner or later it will turn into a self consuming monster and eat itself into extinction.
I agree whole heartedly that public money should be kept out. Without their own money on the line what keeps NASCAR in the market if the potential revenue isn’t generated? Nothing, they can walk and go wherever they think they can do better. And it’s not like the France’s don’t have the dough!
there is no doubt NASCAR is a money making machine and like everything it has the potential for oversaturation.
At present leaving the Northwest without NASCAR events doesn’t make sense. As planned, whatever that’s worth, they will lease the track to NASCAR for 2-3 events a year. Plus whatever other events they can attract.
One of the big advantages over years ago are the number of racing related events a track can hold. Two decades ago a track was lucky to have 3-5 events a year, now that number reaches high double digits for some.
But if the stands aren’t full what happens at the end of the lease? Adios Seattle, let’s see where we can go next. It happened in Chicago once, it can happen in the PacWest. Are there local short tracks in the area that have a fan base? That would be something to build on.
But in any case, why publicly subsidize a profit making muti million dollar enterprise? Because they bring the perception of stimulus to the local economy? Sure races generate jobs, but not the kind that contribute to the long term tax base of a local community. They would be better off investing in office parks and other long term development schemes.
And you can bet that the “lingering transportation issues” they mention will turn into another 50 million bucks or more. The rich get richer at our expense and the public gets taken again!
Marc, it does make sense to not run NASCAR in the Pacific Northwest because it is not a great sports market and never has been.