Cincinnati and Kentucky were among the four teams in the local bracket, so the Cincinnati sports media invaded the city en masse. Most reporters had been to Columbus many times, for Ohio State events, state high school tournaments and maybe even a few Clippers games. But they hadn't been Downtown in years, and many of them were stunned by what they saw.

Many of us ended up at an Arena District restaurant table afterward, and the primary topic of conversation was of a Columbus they had never seen.

"I had no idea," a Cincinnati writer told me. "I always thought Columbus was kind of boring. I didn't know this area even existed. I might bring my wife up here for the weekend sometime."

That memory popped into my head while reading comments from people angry that Blue Jackets officials want the arena sold to Franklin County, which would likely have to pay for it with sin taxes on alcohol and cigarettes. The critics don't think it's fair that taxpayers get stuck with a bill for an arena they voted against funding in 1997, and they're right. I don't blame them for being unhappy. But at the same time, it's hard for me to believe that after 12 years, these critics can't see the positive impact both the arena and the NHL team have had on the city. It's hard for me to believe they can't see now that both are worth the few bucks in taxes they might have to pay.

Full disclosure:

I voted to raise taxes to pay for an arena when the issue was put before the voters in 1997. It wasn't because I worked for The Dispatch, which now owns both a 10 percent stake in the arena and the team, or because I was a sports columnist.

I didn't want to pay more taxes, but to me this was a no-brainer. It would be a lie to say I envisioned the Arena District blossoming the way it did; I did think that both a civic arena and the NHL hockey team it brought would help Columbus realize its potential as a city.

And they have. After seeing the major events that have come to Nationwide -- sports, entertainment, politics, religion, etc. -- considerably more than 44 percent would probably vote to fund the arena if they were faced with the same choice now. It's doubtful a majority of voters would willingly raise taxes to help a pro sports team -- essentially the issue this time -- and given the salaries, excesses, ticket prices, etc., it's not hard to see why. But again, the issue is deeper than that and deserves more than a knee-jerk reaction.

Team officials say the Blue Jackets have lost $80 million the past seven years and that their lease with Nationwide Arena is a big cause of that. Are we really prepared to let this continue and eventually see the team move to Kansas City? And if it did, what kind of economic impact would that have on the city? How would it affect restaurants, hotels, bars, stores, etc., and those who work there? What would happen to the Arena District if the arena didn't have a major tenant?

Those aren't pleasant questions, and they aren't about hockey. This is a problem that has to be solved.

To me, the most disturbing thing about this isn't the extra 28 cents in tax the county might collect on a 12-pack of beer to pay for the building -- most people won't bend over to pick up a penny, and we're talking less than three cents a beer -- but the process. It bothers me that team, county and Nationwide officials are talking about levying such a tax without taxpayer input.

The plan is legal. I have even heard it described as ingenious. But even if the request is reasonable, there is also this:

This is not a good way for a young, growing franchise to make friends.

Bob Hunter is a sports columnist for The Dispatch.

bhunter@dispatch.com