Published July 2004

Let’s take into account airport’s importance
in racetrack debate

There’s no doubt the attraction of siting a multimillion-dollar International Raceway Corp. track for NASCAR races in Snohomish County is exciting. It’s a seemingly spectacular opportunity for developing a master-planned entertainment project north of Marysville.

The benefits of that kind of development are obvious, from national recognition as a racing center to landing a major financial boost for the county’s economy. The negatives are also obvious, from periodic traffic congestion on race days to the need to finance improved roads to handle the vehicles.

At the same time, the project would provide revenues to solve those road problems, create facilities for nonprofit groups to hold fund-raising events and provide a major tourism attraction that supporters say would rival Super Bowl games.

Yet one of its biggest potential drawbacks could be a negative impact on flying operations at the Arlington Airport, just to the north of the site.

It would be a shame for the racetrack to have a negative impact on an existing economic asset that generates more than $79 million a year in direct and indirect revenues, maintains a flight base for more than 400 aircraft, employs more than 350 people and draws 50,000 visitors to each year’s NWEAA Fly-In.

Granted, the NASCAR races would be infrequent — three events a year as supporters are reporting — and they would presumably affect mainly flight operations on race days, not every economic activity at the airfield and its industrial park.

Yet the airport is a major economic attraction itself, with a potential for adding additional flying operations — such as a new “sport pilot” air park planned for the site — and a west-side business park development that would bring dozens of new enterprises and hundreds of new jobs to the area with year-around payrolls.

The Arlington Airport Commission has already passed a resolution to oppose the track at its proposed site because it would “change the role of the airport” and ignore state-recommended zoning guidelines to prohibit encroaching development near the airport.

As for the Washington State Transportation Department’s Aviation Division, Director John Sibold said he and FAA officials also are concerned about the negative impact the proposed site for the racetrack could have on the airport.

If the site is chosen as a finalist, WSDOT plans to conduct an analysis of how aviation operations at the airfield would be affected and how negative impacts could be mitigated or prevented.

Even while the racetrack debate goes on, however, there is always the chance that Snohomish County won’t win the nod from the ISC in the end, which would leave the space for more piece-meal development of the property by homes, businesses and light-industrial firms.

Though there is much excitement and rhetoric locally about the Marysville/Arlington site, other contenders for the ISC facility feel they already have their site on the inside track, racing for the finish line with the others far behind.

In Kitsap County, the regional economic development council is promoting its own site in conjunction with a private developer, with the concept of attracting an ISC track also winning a supportive resolution from the Bremerton City Council.

In Thurston County, Economic Development Council President Michael Cade, formerly the vice president of the Snohomish County EDC, is promoting four sites for the NASCAR track — at Hawks Prairie, Tenino, Grand Mound and Yelm, all areas with plenty of land for the opportunity. The south Puget Sound supporters envision doubling the county’s tourism revenues if the track were built there.

In Oregon, the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde, the same group that built the Spirit Mountain Casino in 1995, owns multiple properties in Portland and has invested in real estate developments as distant as Idaho and Montana, has expressed interest in funding the ISC raceway near Portland. As for state officials, they’re interested, too, but face the same familiar ISC criteria as other sites: finding enough space in the right place, a minimum of 600 acres.

One thing is sure. The ISC wants to build a Pacific Northwest racetrack for NASCAR races to reach an audience that has been virtually untapped by the nearest ISC facility in California.

Another thing that’s also a sure bet is that the state Legislature will play a major role next January in the ISC’s decision about coming to Washington state at all. ISC officials have said they’re interested in financial enticements and tax breaks, and that issue will be a major one in 2005 if the ISC selects a finalist in this state — a finalist no doubt pitched against an Oregon alternative.

Back to the top/July 2004 Main Menu