NASCAR foes say taxpayers get short end of the stick

Financing is a common theme among critics of a proposal to build a $300 million, 75,000-seat NASCAR racetrack north of Marysville.

More than 1,000 people, mostly from Marysville, Arlington and Lakewood, have signed a petition against the proposal that is being circulated by Snohomish County Citizens Against a Racetrack, or SCAR.

The group’s members say rosy economic studies cited by track boosters give short shrift to the costs to taxpayers.

And based on what has happened elsewhere in the country, International Speedway Corp. and NASCAR will get off the hook for a lot of those costs, they said.

Those corporations would not pay to build the estimated $300 million track – local taxpayers would. Then racing fans would pay them back via the track’s sales taxes over the years, assuming the state Legislature approves such a deal.

That would delay much of the local benefit until after the track is paid off. And the delay could be longer than advertised, depending on how sweet a deal lawmakers offer the companies to come here.

At some tracks, the biggest moneymaker, ticket prices (up to $150), cannot be taxed because of political deals made to land the project. Other tracks have given even bigger tax breaks.

The benefits get pushed further into the future when multimillion-dollar taxpayer costs for widening roads, building a new I-5 interchange, building a storm-water retention facility and other things are factored in.

“And other people assume that ISC is going to pay for it,” said Eyleen Shouman of Arlington.

“That’s the biggest misconception,” added Gail Whittington of Marysville.

Such costs were not included in a recent economic impact study commissioned by a coalition of track proponents. SCAR’s organizers would like to see an independent economic study that isn’t paid for by track boosters.

Economy

Studies elsewhere have shown conflicting results.

One commissioned by racing companies in 1998 and done by Northern Illinois University said a proposed track near Joliet, Ill., would generate $90 million a year for the regional economy.

A different study done by Indiana University’s Center for Urban Policy and the Environment claimed the annual boost would be more like $4 million. That study was commissioned by a nearby small town concerned about the track.

Even if the rosier scenario comes true here, opponents say the regional benefits would come at the expense of communities closest to the track, which could be so gridlocked they would fail to fully cash in.

A lot of the spending at a track goes to corporate souvenirs, not local businesses, so sales tax revenues at the track might only be a six-figure sum, California economist John Husing said in a 2001 newspaper article.

Traffic

Traffic control costs could cancel out much of that. A state transportation engineer in Kansas told SCAR that traffic control at the Kansas Speedway cost $630,000 in 2001 alone.

Traffic is funneled one way in and out of the track, causing many fans to make their first stops to eat, shop and lodge farther away, the equivalent of Everett or Seattle instead of in Marysville, Ernie Fosse of Lakewood and SCAR said.

Those regional benefits are a gamble in the long run, according to SCAR, because NASCAR eventually could decide to move a track’s big Nextel Cup race to a different location. Historic tracks in Rockingham, N.C., and others are losing races to newer tracks. The same thing could happen here if the company sees a better opportunity elsewhere, critics say.

Environment

The optimistic economic reports also do not account for environmental concerns, SCAR says. Construction of the Kansas Speedway required removal of 11 million cubic yards of soil. At the proposed site in Marysville, the water table is sometimes less than a foot below ground. Building on such a wet site could easily contaminate the underlying aquifer, Fosse said.

“That’s like mitigating a lake,” he said.

Development

Given the uncertainties of costs and the track’s long-term viability, it makes more sense to proceed with plans to expand commercial development nearby, such as at Arlington Airport, SCAR said.

The city-run airport has a proven, stable revenue base and generates almost $25 million for the local economy, according to a state Department of Transportation study.

Local pilots worry about flight restrictions and traffic tie-ups that could limit access to the airport.

Housing or commercial development would at least generate mitigation fees that could offset taxpayer costs for road improvements, Jerry Whittington of SCAR said.

Noise

Noise concerns have less priority for SCAR, mainly because the group doesn’t think noise would have much political traction outside their neighborhoods. On a personal level, though, many are still concerned and say the hilly terrain could make a track here echo louder than at flatland tracks.

Reporter Scott Morris: 425-339-3292 or smorris@heraldnet.com.