The Sacramento City Council today voted on a motion put forth by Councilwoman Sandy Sheedy that would have left the decision on whether to use the leasing of parking assets to partially fund an Entertainment & Sports Complex to the voters. The measure would have appeared on the June 5th ballot and would have essentially killed the Arena plan.
The Council voted 5 to 4, a much closer vote than most anticipated, as Councilmembers Sandy Sheedy and Darrell Fong have been the only consistent detractors of a new downtown arena. Joining them in votes to put the measure on the ballot were Kevin McCarty and Bonnie Pannell. Mayor Kevin Johnson, Angelique Ashby, Steve Cohn, Robert Fong, and Jay Schenirer all voted to keep the parking lease off the ballot.
This vote was too close for comfort, but we move on. The next City Council meeting will take place on February 14th, where parking will be discussed. I encourage you all to come and speak your mind. We need to show the City Council our support. This battle will not be over until shovels are in the ground.
0 recs | 301 comments
Like I said in the other thread
Too close of a vote. It really is time to get out there and show up. Tuesday just got that much bigger.
Be there… speak up… and let’s finish the job!
edm7 - February 7, 2012
Jesus how the hell did this happen?
It still failed, which is good of course but that is too close.
ResetSmith - February 7, 2012
It's Tyreke's fault
section214 - February 7, 2012
The team really should send Jimmer as some sort of ambassador.
Once the city council looks in to his puppy dog eyes they’ll be too smitten not to support an ESC.
ResetSmith - February 7, 2012
Oy vey :)
ExPFCWintergreen - February 7, 2012
Actually it's Jimmer's fault for not defending good enough
deadenddude - February 8, 2012
A real PG would have delivered.
misterbrister - February 8, 2012
Nostradamus!
otis29 - February 8, 2012
I have a feeling McCartney is changing his vote
Because a Kj supporter is now running against him. It’s shameful and I’d recomend emailing all four and tell them you don’t approve of them skirting their jobs for political cover. I’m very disappointed in Pannell and McCartney
KingsFanInPortland - February 8, 2012 via mobile
Disappointed in McCarty too
I’ve done work for him a few times but never really talked about the Arena deal because I always thought he was pro. Damn I should of brought it up & let him know how much it means.
Allbenji - February 8, 2012 via mobile
The margin of this vote concerns me
In that it appears that the yes votes were hoping to deflect the negative reaction by citizens of a failed ESC proposal.
kangsfan - February 7, 2012 via mobile
Yeah, Way too close
I really urge everyone to do everything they can to get to speak at each of these council meetings anytime an ESC topic is on the agenda.
We need to stay consistently vocal in our push. There are so many detractors there, that may be influencing council members the other way. We don’t know for sure, but it all helps. We’re on the home stretch, but we definitely need to step up.
Also, Sheedy, you suck.
chenp22 - February 7, 2012
A win is a win.
A one point win is the same as a blowout.
betweentheeyes - February 7, 2012
But the game isn't over yet.
Aykis16 - February 7, 2012
We have a 1 point lead in the fourth quarter
Time to blow them out
HeuristicLineup - February 7, 2012
Put IT in
ElRonToro - February 7, 2012
I think its much more than that
chenp22 - February 7, 2012
If we lost this vote tonight, we could potentially have lost this entire deal, meaning no more Kings.
chenp22 - February 7, 2012
And there's still more votes to come
The fact that people who were seemingly in the bag for the arena like Pannell voted this way is worrying.
Aykis16 - February 7, 2012
even if it all goes through you're going to see a petition for a referendum and don;t be shocked if the ACLU jumps in
but no clue if that would have legs at this time
wallywagon11 - February 7, 2012
My point isn't what could have been, but what is. A win today.
As edm7 states: Let’s “bring it” on Valentine’s Day.
betweentheeyes - February 7, 2012
okay
but I wasn’t responding to you so not sure what to say
wallywagon11 - February 7, 2012
my reply fail
betweentheeyes - February 7, 2012
The unions are the key, in my opinion. If the building and trades didn’t support this (as well as the operating engineers?), then KJ would have been the only vote against sending this to the ballot for a certain death. You’re probably right about a lawsuit or referendum vote.
ExPFCWintergreen - February 7, 2012
What are we lawsuiting or referenduming?
ElRonToro - February 7, 2012
You make a good point. In the abstract, the city council should have the right to vote whatever program it wants to, provided it doesn’t raise taxes or fees, which is now required to go before the voters after Prop 216 (?).
But everybody sues on just about anything these days, and the courts seem to relish the spotlight, so they don’t dismiss these cases, and often pull a ruling out of thin air and it becomes the order of the court.
ExPFCWintergreen - February 7, 2012
Agree there is a lawsuit filed if someone cuts their fingernails
but as it is currently I do not see a winnable lawsuit
ElRonToro - February 7, 2012
I think this is probably the accurate view.
ExPFCWintergreen - February 7, 2012
if they end up having to issue municipal bonds they leave themselves vulnerable to a referendum
wallywagon11 - February 7, 2012
If they need to issue bonds I think they just give it up
They are determined to not get it to that point
ElRonToro - February 7, 2012
that might be the case
wallywagon11 - February 7, 2012
sorry I was a little loopy last night
sick, couldn’t sleep but dumb enough to take NQuil.
And yes would agree and have said previously, sure as hell seems like they are trying to avoid a bond sale at all costs. I tend to have a habit of talking about any and all contingencies.
wallywagon11 - February 8, 2012
there's a war coming
wallywagon11 - February 7, 2012
If that's true
remember a pen is mightier than a sword. Start flooding the council with emails…..but not rants….facts
ElRonToro - February 7, 2012
this arena is basically now KJ's legacy
so if anyone is going to finally decide to run against him (believe they only have 4 more weeks to decide) they are going to use the arena as a wedge issue (along with the strong mayor initiative).
Basically, this summer can get nasty if there are any loopholes not covered. And you can see from that poll last week how they are going to campaign against KJ.
wallywagon11 - February 8, 2012
They want the money
Unions always support big projects cause it means work
bignerd - February 7, 2012
right. And we are lucky that the trades are supportive, because they neutralize the otherwise vehement opposition by the AFSCME, SEIU types, who are muting their opposition because of the support from building trades…
ExPFCWintergreen - February 7, 2012
A constitutional issue?????
Why the ACLU??
ElRonToro - February 7, 2012
No idea
bignerd - February 7, 2012
This isn’t a foreign concept
wallywagon11 - February 7, 2012
No
Its a bit of strange story. Based on the details on the ground its a non-issue. Certain papers with an agenda to keep the 49ers in SF make it sound like a legit legal challenge.
bignerd - February 7, 2012
Okay two things
I have to tell you, it’s not a done deal in Santa Clara. That really is something where nobody has a clue whether the judge will issue a prilimary injunction.
Whether or not it is a non-issue, the ACLU does tend to get involved at times with voter’s rights issues.
wallywagon11 - February 7, 2012
you are totally right. And judges like interfering with the legislative actions of legislatures, county boards of supervisors and city councils.
ExPFCWintergreen - February 7, 2012
The issue is the voters approved $150M in funds for infrastructure upgrades to put in the stadium. That is still the pot of money Santa Clara is paying.
The problem was in order for the 49ers to finance the other $850M to build the stadium the lenders insisted the city of Santa Clara must be some sort of co-signer on the loans. The City Council agreed but think its a tough legal battle to say it violated the initial public vote.
bignerd - February 7, 2012
wasn't just co-signing and the jump was actually smaller than that given it wasn't just infrastructure
no need to get too deep into it but wouldn’t consider it just a formality
wallywagon11 - February 8, 2012
One guess might be, the city can’t act in a manner that is in fact a gift of public funds to a private person, and by doing so, they have violated the civil rights of the folks who are entitled to handouts. Of course it would be more artfully stated.
ExPFCWintergreen - February 7, 2012
The only cause for concern I have heard is they may not
be able to include the meters in the deal legally. Everything else I have seen mentioned about the deal has been done 100s of times with cities in their typical course of business
ElRonToro - February 7, 2012
You are right. In fact, liberal old San Francisco does this at all of its lots. The fact is that neither state or local governments should be operating parking lots. Private vendors can and do operate them in a much superior fashion. For example, I have parked at privately run city lots in towns where the vendor has dry cleaning services at the lot, shoe repair, etc. Very cool.
ExPFCWintergreen - February 7, 2012
I could see referendum attempt
But ACLU? On what grounds? I don’t see it
KingsFanInPortland - February 8, 2012 via mobile
Absolutely
Whats stopping Sheedy from doing the same thing when more details are known about the deal?
What happens then? We really need to be there every step of the way.
There were a few kids from Jesuit High School who were about the only ones spitting knowledge about the effects of revitalizing the downtown area.
Everyone else was on and on about , we could do so many other things with the parking money. We don’t need an arena. What they fail to realize is that there is no parking money without an ESC.
chenp22 - February 7, 2012
go
marauders.
wake180 - February 8, 2012
and Broncos!
:)
wallywagon11 - February 8, 2012
TWSS
darooster - February 8, 2012
Just curious, but how often was the 50 years brought up and by whom if you recall?
wallywagon11 - February 7, 2012
Brought up quite a bit
Fong and Cohn I can remember talking about it specifically.
Aykis16 - February 7, 2012
D Fong that is.
Aykis16 - February 7, 2012
that's a problem then
wallywagon11 - February 7, 2012
Yes, 50 years is a very long time
It makes the proposal rather weak, in my opinion. Too bad that is all that they could come up with. I am sorry that the redevelopment agencies were killed off last year by the Legislature.
ExPFCWintergreen - February 7, 2012
Cohn brough it up once I believe
Honestly can’t remember another mention. Missed most of McCarthy’s speech. Maybe Pannel mentioned too
edm7 - February 7, 2012
Who knew what the hell Pannell was saying
She was all over the place.
Aykis16 - February 7, 2012
That's an understatement LOL
HeuristicLineup - February 7, 2012
Pannell looked like she missed her meds.
I think she got ticked off over KJ’s strong mayor proposal. Even though it was shot down, she still had it on her mind and spoke of it during the parking ballot vote.
Jb_Kings - February 7, 2012
Yeah
It sounded like she didn’t want to go to a ballot with her “I can make my own decisions” comment, but then she brought up the strong mayor and I think she knew her vote wasn’t going to kill it, so she voted against Mayor Johnson just to reinforce how much she doesn’t want Strong Mayor.
Aykis16 - February 7, 2012
It was bad timing
and politics at its best. Wouldn’t be surprised if Sheedy was banking on that
edm7 - February 7, 2012
Pannell being off her meds?
Or that KJ had the strong mayor on the Table? Either way savvy political move by SS.
ElRonToro - February 7, 2012
Bad timing with strong mayor
edm7 - February 7, 2012
Nobody has said that KJ is a smart politician.
ExPFCWintergreen - February 7, 2012
Pannell acted very strange.
Almost incoherent. Mentioned something about losing her voice, but clearly looked upset talking about family in Chicago and Detroit that suffered under the strong mayor. Whatever the heck that meant, it was the most clear thing she could be heard. The rest was sort of incomplete sentences and mumbling.
Jb_Kings - February 7, 2012
Ya, she is not in the same league as Sam, RIP.
ExPFCWintergreen - February 7, 2012
a lot of them already had reservations about the 50
until they see the actual numbers. It may end up a 30. As long as they get enough cash out of it I am good.
ElRonToro - February 7, 2012
This is my worry. I fear that when KJ meets with Stern at the all star break that Stern will say, “this is your idea of coming up with a financing plan?”
ExPFCWintergreen - February 7, 2012
I'm pretty sure Stern knows what KJ's methods are and have been
kangsfan - February 7, 2012
Ailene's article today mentioned how there are murmurs Stern has something up his sleeve with Sacramento
Someone thought it was Burkle, but maybe it could be a big payment towards an arena? Who knows. We’ll find out more after KJ and Stern’s All-Star weekend meeting… that is if our city council doesn’t screw things up by then.
Aykis16 - February 7, 2012
Yea it sounds like the league might be willing to front a substancial amount to make ends meet on the ESC
But I have no idea how much. Damn, Burkle’s name sounds better and better everyday.
kangsfan - February 7, 2012
this is great to hear. It might just be a Burkle / AEG payment that would put the Maloofs in a minority position, especially if the money infusion also paid off the debt owing on the old Arco Arena.
ExPFCWintergreen - February 7, 2012
Still
they know they need at least 200 from parking to keep the deal alive…this may cause them to accept 40 years instead of 30 when push comes to shove. With some of Sacs largest business being bought out they will not be able to say no to revitalization and jobs.
220 from parking 60 from AEG 10 from hotels 50 from Maloofs gets to 340 add another 10 or so from misc
and that puts it about 50 million short, what the NBA will put in
ElRonToro - February 7, 2012
McCallister had hotels at $30 mill on Cowbell Kingdom today.
Aykis16 - February 7, 2012
Nice
I also forget to add $ from the “Private Investor” Burkle? C-Webb? Magic?
ElRonToro - February 7, 2012
Yes, yes, yes
kangsfan - February 7, 2012
I have a feeling the NBA could go as high as $100 million. But that’s just a hunch and a comparison to the NFL and the 49ers new stadium. McAllister’s article kind of hints towards a healthy sized loan.
kangsfan - February 7, 2012
Per McAllister
and
kangsfan - February 7, 2012
I esp like the first block quote
thanks
ElRonToro - February 7, 2012
His math doesn't make much sense
wallywagon11 - February 7, 2012
The Hotels are not going to poney up $30 million upfront
they might give that much over time but if that’s the case it’s purely financing.
wallywagon11 - February 8, 2012
That does seem like a high number
but I’m not sure where he’s getting his info from. He obviously has more knowledge on the subject than I do. (at least I hope)
kangsfan - February 8, 2012
Probably $1 million a year for 30 years
wallywagon11 - February 8, 2012
Sounds reasonable
I can’t imagine the local hotels bring in that much money to front that kind of money.
So, do we need to come up with $400 million +/- up front or just a substantial portion of that amount?
kangsfan - February 8, 2012
All (to be safe) but I think the NBA money can be a loan
paid for out of ticket surcharge
ElRonToro - February 8, 2012
The NBA funds will definitely be a loan
kangsfan - February 8, 2012
Nevermind, mis read your post
kangsfan - February 8, 2012
Correct
The ball park assessment was roughly high 6 figures or low 7 figure amount per year for the life of the ESC. Steve Hammond, CEO of the Visitors Tourist & Convention Dept. was trying to work with the hotels who would be impacted directly by a downtown redevelopment to dial in the exact amount.
Porter02 - February 8, 2012
Lowering the years
Lowers the money investors want to put in.
Aykis16 - February 7, 2012
Right
but what we don’t know is what the sliding scale is. It could be 200 for 30 years and 350 for 50 years. They need to pick a number of years that gets us into the mid or low 200s
ElRonToro - February 7, 2012
I know
but I was curious if any of the “Yes” votes were talking about it. Because if they need $200 million, this changes things and does does not leasing the parking meters and paying off the bond debt on the parking structures which if they don’t put the money toward that from the sale can be another issue that can force a referendum (honestly don’t know the answer to that one but I know if I were paid to look into holes that is where I would research second if they don’t issue any new bonds).
wallywagon11 - February 7, 2012
ug
*and does does not leasing the parking meters
(and yes this would be the second example of where there might be a chance to force a referendum)
wallywagon11 - February 7, 2012
Wally you are an intelligent person but sometimes I have no idea what your saying. :)
kangsfan - February 7, 2012
In his defense
I never know what I am saying
ElRonToro - February 8, 2012
I'm tired as hell
They likely can’t lease the parking meters and if they do they have to use that money to pay off the $40-$50 million in bonds used to pay for the parking garages they are leasing.
If they just lease the parking garages there is still a question of whether or not they have to spend the money from the lease on the bonds or if they cause use the “fees” from the arena to just cover it every year because technically it could invoke a Prop 13 petition for a referendum. This though is just a guess to be honest.
If they sell bonds for this particular project in general then yes there can be a petition for a referendum
wallywagon11 - February 8, 2012
Thanks ww11
That makes sense. And I appreciate your logic in these discussions as our community here can tend to run away with things.
kangsfan - February 8, 2012
agree
I think they will stay away from including the meters in the bid and either come up with the missing revenue from another stream or find a way to circumvent by including other areas or new structures or more lax rate increases
ElRonToro - February 8, 2012
the thing I don't know though (and probably didn't make clear in that second paragraph)
is ehther they can use those other revenues or “fees” (or “taxes” depending on how you want to argue it) to help pay off the bonds on the parking structures (and it’s somewhere in the $40-$50 million range) or whether that would trigger Prop 13.
wallywagon11 - February 8, 2012
*is whether they can
wallywagon11 - February 8, 2012
i don't have access to the figures but it seems to me the projected 185$ million
couldn’t possibly be for a 50 year lease. Seems like that would have to be the 30. I don’t know though so if anyone does, please fill me in.
deadenddude - February 8, 2012
Pretty sure that was the estimate for 50 years with just the garages.
wallywagon11 - February 8, 2012
seems a little low
i would have thought it generated more than that. Somewhere i read that parking generates about 9$ a year which would be about 270$ million over 30 years. if someone bid at 185$ million that’s 85$ million in profit over the next 30 years.
deadenddude - February 8, 2012
okay the 7 parkings lots and the metered parking won't generate $9 million a year for 50 years
they are generating $9 million a year today. Technically, the estimates on it’s worth project around $2 billion or so in revenue over 50 years (can’t keep doing 3% increase given there are a few quirks but it gives you a good idea).
wallywagon11 - February 8, 2012
if that's the case it seem like the projected revenue for 30 years
would still be enough to sell it for 200$ million, at least. With figures like that whoever leases this will make an absolute killing. I can see why so many folks are opposed to it now.
deadenddude - February 8, 2012
What those folks don't get is that no arena means no $2 billion in parking
They can’t have it both ways.
kangsfan - February 8, 2012
they could get that and still just think the city is selling low
Honestly, if I weren’t a Kings fans who desperately wants this team to stay, I wouldn’t like this deal either. Something that can generate 2$ billion should be worth more than 10% of its projected revenue.
deadenddude - February 8, 2012
could, it depends on the contract terms
trust me, whether there is an arena or not there will be private companies that would be willing to bid hundreds of millions depending on the terms and length of the deal.
wallywagon11 - February 8, 2012
Honestly I just don't see it Wally
These lots don’t hold nearly the same value without additional revenue from evening parking
kangsfan - February 8, 2012
Well considering historically parking use generally increases 3% annually
One scenario that can still generate a ton of money technically would be if they make the city sign a non compete clause which can be enforced to ensure that the city metered parking and still owned city parking garages cannot be at a lower rate than theirs hourly. They can also request to change the hours and include sundays and holidays and under a non compete clause the city would have to do the exact same rates so that there is no unfair competition under the clause. There can also be limited restrictions on the parking rates we allow them to do.
wallywagon11 - February 8, 2012
it doesn't really matter either way because they won't sell the parking here for anything but the arena
It’s just that you have to understand that the contract terms are a serious deal more than anything else when it comes to these deals. It alters everything. And it matters come February 28th.
wallywagon11 - February 8, 2012
Absolutely, but that doesn't put any more cars in the garages, which in the end is going to make up the biggest increase in revenue
kangsfan - February 8, 2012
agree to disagree
but doesn’t really matter either way because the city would pull out
wallywagon11 - February 8, 2012
You're right Wally
And as I’ve already stated, this forum is better off with your knowledge on these issues.
kangsfan - February 8, 2012
not necessarily at all
wallywagon11 - February 8, 2012
I think it was minimum bid on the 50
ElRonToro - February 8, 2012
Let me tell you ... parking is too expensive in Downtown Sacramento
I went out partying with friends Saturday night. That $2 all night parking garage ticket in a 3/4 empty facility killed my budget. I brought $200 with me and disappointed myself when I came home with still $100 after food, admission and drink. I’ll guess I’ll have to buy some extra Kona Coffee when I am on vacation in Hawaii next week.
bignerd - February 7, 2012
The truth is that perking in the city during actual working hours is not nearly the bargain it once was, and that is what makes plenty of folks uneasy about selling the rights to a vendor. Of course, many of these people hate the Kings and the Maloofs and the whole idea of “building an arena for rich guys”…
ExPFCWintergreen - February 7, 2012
True
But they loved the idea of building way to many parking facilities with the city’s money to commute to their state job.
bignerd - February 7, 2012
precisely
They also expect to have state-subsidized parking at those city lots. In fact they try to negotiate that in collective bargaining.
ExPFCWintergreen - February 7, 2012
time for those people to consider taking light rail
TheFifthMookie - February 8, 2012
Not getting why that's unreasonable
After all, most of the companies in the private sector that I’m aware provide free parking for their employees.
hozr - February 8, 2012
dang that was close
seems like everyone was expecting 8/1 or 7/2. Bottom line though, is it didn’t pass!
deadenddude - February 7, 2012
That was my expectations
and if I had to bet I would have gone with 7-2. I agree with those here who are speculating the strong mayor vote could have cost a vote or 2 on this tonight
ElRonToro - February 7, 2012
They really don’t like KJ. Plus, a strong mayor makes them……weaker
ExPFCWintergreen - February 7, 2012
as long as no one bails out on supporting the parking lease for spite
should still be all right
deadenddude - February 7, 2012
I hope you and others are right about the strong mayor proposal
kangsfan - February 7, 2012
but if they are does that mean it cost a few parking votes too?
I hate to think we’re now banking on a 5/4 vote to finish this thing.
deadenddude - February 7, 2012
We are hoping they are just symbolic no votes because of their
anger at the Sm vote. No one really knows .
ElRonToro - February 7, 2012
that would have been dangerous thing if the case
eff around like that to prove a point and they could have ended up with a 4/5 pass and we’d be kissing the Kings goodbye.
deadenddude - February 7, 2012
Agree
Hopefully they didn’t vote Aye until the 5 Nays were secure.
ElRonToro - February 7, 2012
this
the other obvious conclusion is that we are perilously close to getting shot down on next weeks vote.
kangsfan - February 7, 2012
anybody know if sale of city property is still on the table?
Also, this may be a separate issue but I believe the city will want the Maloofs to deed the Natomas land to them so that they may build the college? Hospital? Whatever there.
This would either reduce the loan that the Maloofs owe by some amount or monetize itself in some other way.
ElRonToro - February 7, 2012
Its not enough property to raise the funds
Of course the bigger problem is the property isn’t worth much until more attractions are downtown for developers to want to build there. I had to walk around the area for an entire month last May, the city owns a lot of property they simply need to unload. A lot of it is sitting there empty.
bignerd - February 7, 2012
Do you remember anything about that Foreign give us $ get a green card thing?
That was suppose to net a buttload of money but I don’t know if they dropped that idea completely.
ElRonToro - February 7, 2012
everyone's fighting for those now
unlikely to get much to invest in the valley now
wallywagon11 - February 8, 2012
ug brain is dead
off to bed
wallywagon11 - February 8, 2012
I don't know anything about that idea
I recall a story of the city getting a pot of money for “green project” funds. I figure someone is going to take the money for their own personal project, stick some solar panels on the roof and call it a “green project” eventually.
I do know the city is leasing some public parks for $1 to private operators in hopes they can keep the areas open for business.
bignerd - February 8, 2012
didn’t know that. This seems like a good thing. Does that mean that the loan from the city would also be excused?
ExPFCWintergreen - February 7, 2012
I think only part
since land is not worth that much and its bad pub to make it look like the city is excusing it
ElRonToro - February 8, 2012
Main differences between the Chicago deal and the deal here in Sac:
Chicago sold parking assets to balance a budget that was in the red. (A
temporary fix to a permanent problem, with no revenue stream)
Sacramento is using it to build infrastructure, which will generate revenue.
Chicago sold both meters and garages
Sac will only sell garages due to CA state law
Chicago did a 75 year lease
Sac is proposing a 50 year lease
Keep in mind Indy did this as well and just hosted a superbowl, how many millions of dollars was injected into their economy?
I understand everyone is saying this money could go to better uses, and a lot of people want the arena in Natomas refurb’ed for less cost and those are valid concerns. Using this money to pay for city overhead, as suggested by many people would replicate the Chicago situation. Paying for overhead without creating additional revenue. The Natomas refurbing is a sound idea however it only addresses a single issue of a entertainment complex.
However this project transcends just building an arena for the Kings it will redefine the railyards downtown and create a hub of
restaurants, hotels, entertainment, all generating taxable revenue while address other problems. People always complain about
downtown and the homeless/crime rate. Understand this is a double edged sword
by combating those issues (you don’t think a hotel/high end apartment
complex won’t have onsite security or that the owners of a Lawry’s Steakhouse won’t value their surroundings more than a Subway?). It will also creating a permenant
structure that can act as an entertainment hub for the whole valley
region (30 million+ people) and will convince popular events such as the Final Four tournament (including those teams wealthier alumni), possible Olympic Hockey and ice sports (Squaw Valley is making a bid for the 2020 winter Olympics) and more.
ahgraham - February 8, 2012
Rec'd for dedication of merit
convoy - February 8, 2012
The NBA sould and probably will guarantee an NBA All-Star game
any City that builds a new facility should get one
lietothegirls - February 8, 2012
I believe they have stated that in the past.
LOUiECOG - February 8, 2012
Great Post...
I have read these forums forever now and just never registered to comment but felt the need to here. What it all boils down to is that if you LOVE this town (and if you are living here you all should) then you NEED to support the construction of the ESC. This project has the chance to define this region for the next 50 years.
Way to stay informed and accurately portray the pros for getting this deal done.
Porter02 - February 8, 2012
Welcome, We all hope you continue to contribute.
lietothegirls - February 8, 2012
Seconded.
Aykis16 - February 8, 2012
AHGRAHAM
Can you contact me? mike0476@aol.com
SacTownMike - February 8, 2012
When I first read this headline, I was all like...
Yo gotta be effing kidding me, this means we’re losing the Kings! But then I realized the fail was a win and I chilled out…at least a little bit.
Still, way too close. More work needs to be done around the community for people to realize that the ESC will create job growth for the city. There’s a lot of haters out there nowadays who have contempt for the project but obviously aren’t thinking things through.
convoy - February 8, 2012
…thought the same thing when I saw the headline….
VirginiaKingsFan - February 8, 2012
guess I know who not to reelect
aizen07 - February 8, 2012
Jesus that is close
damn
JulyFishSB - February 8, 2012
I swear...
If all this hard work that we fans have put in to save the team is screwed up by the city council, I’m gonna be so mad. To think the community all banded together to save the team and then if that happens. I personally will move from Yuba City to Sacramento, just so I can vote against the people that vote against it.
WhiteChocolate55 - February 8, 2012
Council has put in a lot of hard work to
but I get your point
ElRonToro - February 8, 2012
Aaron Bruski brought this up
hope he’s right
Dub_TC - February 8, 2012
huh?
Schenirer was practically a shoe in.
And I’ll make this easy for everyone. There is only one council member you need to focus on now. Steve Cohen. That’s it.
wallywagon11 - February 8, 2012
I think Pannell is still targetable
because she looked so confused, irrational, and overly emotionally reactive to the SM issue. Cohn is going to vote on the deal if it makes fiscal sense for the city. If the deal doesn’t plug/backfill most of the general fund money lost in the parking lease, the arena is a lost cause to most of the council anyway.
After the hearing the council comments on the initial RFQ vote, and seeing last night’s politics in play, I’m VERY nervous about the upcoming votes. 3 of the council members (Sheedy, Pannell, DFong) don’t have articulate reasons for having a NO position on this arena. They seem motivated more by politics and have admitted lock of understanding on the whole issue. All 4 (including McCarty) seem to have some type of personal grudge against the mayor.
It seems the most reliable yes votes will be KJ, Ashby, and RFong – in that order. Then depending on how good the deal is Cohn and Schenirer. I think Pannell is swayable, maybe McCarty depending purely on the deal to be had. Sheedy and DFong are entrenched in the NO side.
I don’t see this being close to a slam dunk.
dampania - February 8, 2012
geez
*After hearing the council…
*admitted lack of understanding…
dampania - February 8, 2012
It took me a while to figure out why Ashby is so solid
but Natomas drops tons of business when the Kings leave and by getting the arena (and the deal with Natomas that goes with it) she is doing her district a valuable service.
I think it should be pointed out that districts 6 7 and 8 benefit immensely from the charity work done by the King’s and maybe this point should be made to the councilpersons who rep those districts
ElRonToro - February 8, 2012
Unfortunately, it’s those same people (in those districts) who are the most adamant against an arena – the ones who irrationally think we can/should put all public money into schools, police, parks, and welfare.
dampania - February 8, 2012
Everyone is motivated by politics here (and trust me, KJ can count on Schenirer very much for political reasons, the same with Ashby)
However, having said that you actually might be right on Pannel because after now listening to what she said last night, sure seems like she was covering her butt a little (“I am sorry dear constituents you do not approve of this what we did but I did vote to take it to the public however that didn’t work”)
Either way, this thing is passing on February 14. Might only be 5 votes but it’s most likely passing. The reason why I think Cohen is the key though is because as the swing vote he’s going to hold sway on the terms of the deal. Which then in turns alters how much the parking is worth. Which can lead to a shortfall. Which can lead to bonds.
This is a big reason why I was floored when it came out they were talking about a 50 year lease.
wallywagon11 - February 8, 2012
and as we saw in Los Angeles
the terms of a parking lease matter
wallywagon11 - February 8, 2012
I appreciate your confidence
This shit is stressing me out!
dampania - February 8, 2012
just talking about the February 14th vote
Zero clue after that because we have no idea of the terms they will be negotiating. We know that one of the current swing votes doesn’t seem to like a 50 year deal all that much. We know dropping to somewhere around 30 years (regardless of my or your personal opinion on it) will likely reduce the amount we can get for leasing the parking. The big question is whether it would drop it so much that it would require a bond sale in the end or just throw the whole plan off course. And we don’t know.
wallywagon11 - February 8, 2012
Right
It’s just depressing that these idiots are trying to derail this thing before the specifics of a deal are even available. It would still hurt, but I can accept a no vote if its reasoning based on something that looks like financial suicide for the city. What I can’t accept is that these people would let politics and ignorance get in the way of doing what’s right for the region.
dampania - February 8, 2012
This is a general comment, not really about the arena issue specifically
Getting them to study privatiging parking is very easy. Getting the city council to create $200 million by priviating parking gets difficult when you have NIMBY issues that have to be addressed and that can drop the value.
Basically, it’s not easy work to get city council members on board when it’s a tricky issue that can lose council members votes.
wallywagon11 - February 8, 2012
okay maybe it was arena specific
didn’t mean for it to be
wallywagon11 - February 8, 2012
I had a chance to spend time with Cohn, KJ and Ashby in NOLA...
for a Sacramento Chamber Study Mission event and the impression i got when speaking with Cohn was that he would support the ESC as long as all the i’s were dotted and t’s were crossed. Derell Steinberg was there as well and was definitely involved with the ESC discussions with those 3 council members.
As long as the city does its due diligence and KJ keeps being clutch I am definitely optimistic.
Porter02 - February 8, 2012
Yeah that's about my impression of him too
granted, haven’t talked to him in about 5 years about arena issues but sounds like him
wallywagon11 - February 8, 2012
Cohn seems the most practical of the bunch
One of the few who doesn’t seem to let their vote be influenced by political aspects but instead on improving the city. I think he sees the arena deal as a potential game changer for Sacramento, but wants to make sure that it’s not going to be a bad deal, which is what he should be doing. He was very succinct yesterday in saying that a vote for the advisory vote would effectively kill the deal.
The biggest headscratcher yesterday was Pannell. She seemed to be in Sheedy terms of just being sheer misinformed, saying she wanted to see the whole thing. She does realize that the NBA and AEG aren’t going to jump on board until they’re confident this thing is going to be funded right? Pannell was just super weird last night and that’s about all there is to it.
Aykis16 - February 8, 2012
Pannel could have just been playing the pander card perhaps
I highly doubt the arena is a very popular issue in her district
wallywagon11 - February 8, 2012
I think Cohn will come up with a whats best for the city vote
which will probably hard to argue with no matter which way it goes. In my mind, with what I see, that will be a yes. Schenirer I don’t know much about. I think Pannell is on the fence and could fall either way. Does StR have its own lobbyist?
ElRonToro - February 8, 2012
My feeling are these:
I suspect that KJ has an Ace or two up his sleeve.
Money from the NBA.
Money from downtown businesses
AEG
Greencard program (?)
Question to ponder: Could an investor./interested owner simply buy the debt the Maloofs have to the City and the debt the Maloofs have to the NBA? What would be the consequences of that? The City loan terms are spelled out fairly clearly I guess but what about the NBA?
Was the loan in any way colateralized with ownership shares?
lietothegirls - February 8, 2012
I suppose Burkle could buy it and make a deal to
forgive the loan in exchange for the percentage of ownership promised to the city and the Natomas land. The loan is about 70, the land worth about 30. I don’t remember what the the % of the Kings it is but if it was 10% that would be about 30 million. Possible not probable.
ElRonToro - February 8, 2012
$100 million loan the NBA gave (some says it's $125 mil)
would be a lot more than that, about 25% share in the Kings.
lietothegirls - February 8, 2012
I was thinking of the % that they would have given up
if they forfeited on the loan to the city
ElRonToro - February 8, 2012
Strangely I think the collateral was a flat $20 mil ownership and the Natomas site, something like that
lietothegirls - February 8, 2012
they upped it since then to $25 million (however the NBA jumped in front as primary creditor on somewhere around $70 million)
wallywagon11 - February 8, 2012
derp
$75 million
wallywagon11 - February 8, 2012
First and only email I have ever sent to anyone in any office..
To Mayor Kevin Johnson, and council members Angelique Ashby, Sandy Sheedy, Steve Cohn, Robert Fong, Jay Schenirer, Kevin McCarty, Darrell Fong, and Bonnie Pannell,
My name is Tony and I am a resident of Boston, Massachusetts. Do you know why I know who you are? Because I want to keep MY Kings in Sacramento.
I am 21 years old and I have lived in Massachusetts my entire life. I don’t know ONE person from Sacramento. I have never been to Sacramento, and I would have no desire to ever visit Sacramento if the plan to fund a new ESC falls through.
When I was 10 years old I remember going to a car dealership with the rest of my family. We are a big Greek family, who for one reason or another just loves basketball. My oldest cousin loves the Boston Celtics. Being the middle child I was somewhat forced to pick a different ‘favorite’ team. While waiting in the lobby of this car dealership I watched the most entertaining brand of basketball I had ever seen. It was the Sacramento Kings. It was a young Jason Williams making incredible passes, it was a fantastic shooting ‘young gun’ in Peja Stojakovic, it was an athletically dominant power forward in Chris Webber, and it was a family thanks to the father like figure in Vlade Divac. It was the loudest crowd I had ever heard. It was Arco Thunder! And I was 10 years old! I couldn’t tell you where Sacramento was on the map, but I knew that’s where I wanted to be.
What happened from that point? The rest of my life happened. As soon as league pass became available, I bought it because I wanted to watch MY Sacramento Kings. I haven’t missed a Kings game in, I don’t know, maybe 7 years? I have so many shirts and gear with "Sacramento" on the front. If you think that is because it is the capital of California, you would be wrong. If you think it is because of the Sacramento River Cats, you would be wrong, and if you think it is because I like the California State Fair, you would be wrong. It is because I love a basketball team. A basketball team some of you severely undervalue. There are 30 NBA teams on the planet and you have one. You don’t want to lose it.
I understand my options are limited. I cannot attend your council meetings, I cannot vote for or against any of you, all I can do is try to explain to you what you would be losing if this arena doesn’t get built. This is why I ask you to vote yes on P4.
I hope to attend a game at what is now called Power Balance Pavilion before either the Kings leave or they move into their new arena in Sacramento. I hope you give me that opportunity, because this is it. This team is gone if you do not vote yes on P4. Even though I have never stepped foot in Sacramento, this city has been as big a part of my life as any, and I would hate to have that change.
Thank you.
Xypteras - February 8, 2012
Right on! Rec'd
I’m thinking for the most part these council members have their minds made up before going into these weekly meetings. More of us need to do as you’ve done. If enough do, perhaps one of them comes into next weeks meeting more unsure. I think Pannell is the most swayable on an emotional level, because the economics of it are over her head.
dampania - February 8, 2012
This is a fantastic letter, very well done
I have met Kings fans all over the globe with similar stories (I love to wear my Kings garb when traveling abroad), and every time I hear one of these it always makes me glow with a bit of civic pride. I fear when you live in Sacramento, caught up in all the day-to-day minutiae of the Kings, the visibility and more intangible benefits that an NBA franchise provides (on a national and international level) is often hard to feel. I just can’t help but think the arena issue is really a choice between Sacramento becoming more like San Francisco or more like Stockton; I’ll probably never again live in the Sacramento area (there just aren’t jobs in Sac for what I do), but wherever I am, here or abroad, comments like yours remind me that I can always be proud of being a Sacramento Kings fan.
sj60615 - February 8, 2012
One of the most moving things I've ever read on this site...thanks!
convoy - February 9, 2012
Recd for a great message sent!
Widowwolf - February 8, 2012
I fail- This was supposed to be reply to Xypteras comment
Widowwolf - February 8, 2012
lol
I was going to say “wha?”
wallywagon11 - February 8, 2012
a simple theme needs to be repeated
Those four votes are a vote for the Kings to leave. You can qualify it, spin it, I know there are nuances to it.
But when it comes down to it, those four votes were a vote for the anaheim royals, the kc maloofbags, whatever.
Anyone represented by those politicians should work to remove them from office.
lchristmas - February 8, 2012 via mobile
Revenge can wait
we need to funnel our energies into how we can affext their vote next week.
1) a thousand people at the council meeting. I know we all sit on our asses and pound the keyboards, but this would be the one day to get off of them Maybe Str and Carmichael Dave can start a 1000 person march.
2) pound the keyboards and send persuavive arguments to any one who has influence on next weeks vote. Maybe a TV ad or billboard for those of you who have businesses
3) let them know how the charity of the Kings has touched your life or how a construction job will let you stay in your home
We need 1 week of energy and being vocal. Now is the time. 1 week of energy equals 30 years of Sac King basketball..
ElRonToro - February 8, 2012
Another thought on the vote
Maybe all parties knew that it was going to pass and for political reasons to show ones constituents that you took there views seriously you changed your vote?
As long as it passes (and yes we all need to turn up and support this measure) who cares what the vote was
Murf - February 8, 2012
In this case I think 3 of last nights YES votes, will always be NO votes when it comes to the Arena passing
In the case of the 4th YES vote last night, I think your scenario gives her too much credit for thinking anything that makes sense.
dampania - February 8, 2012
You got 4 yes votes
I know Schneider was doing the whole “fence” thing before but that’s just micro politics.
wallywagon11 - February 8, 2012
And I mean you got 4 likely yes votes most likely for the March 1st deadline
not the February 14th one
wallywagon11 - February 8, 2012
Last nights vote was a NO if you want to keep the Kings
YES if you want to send em packing by putting the parking question on the ballot.
dampania - February 8, 2012
oh sorry was talking about down the road
wallywagon11 - February 8, 2012
It seems to me we have 5 yes votes on arena
The 3 who voted with the Mayor on the Strong Mayor proposal, and Rob Fong, who voted against it. I would have counted Pannell in as for the arena as well, but I think the strong mayor proposal may have alienated her. Hopefully it was just a heat of the moment thing to show her displeasure in KJ, because I think she voted last knowing KJ would vote next and disapprove of the vote.
Aykis16 - February 8, 2012
My comment is about last nights YES voters, which are ultimately NO votes for the arena
Cohn as a PRO arena vote comes down to the deal to be had. Pannell’s vote comes down to appealing to her emotionally I think, because she has shown that she doesn’t understand this issue in economic terms at all.
dampania - February 8, 2012
I'd argue at least five for the February 14th vote
but highly doubt more than four are in the bag for the final vote on the parking
wallywagon11 - February 8, 2012
sorry
not saying they won’t get a fifth in the end, I am just saying I think it’s hard to know that right now considering we don’t know the terms yet.
My personal concern is that we get the 5 votes in the end but the money coming in isn’t enough to avoid bonds because of the terms of the deal.
wallywagon11 - February 8, 2012
Would be a violation of the Brown Act
but let’s not pretend that never happens.
Pannell could have been one of those actually.
wallywagon11 - February 8, 2012
That's my thought
She was the last one up before KJ. Down 4-3 and knowing KJ was another NO (on sending it to the ballot) she knew the outcome wouldn’t change. Especially when earlier she clearly said that “she could make her own decision” regarding the financing (unless I heard wrong).
edm7 - February 8, 2012
yeah I think Dampia has a point that that she is still a swing vote, would consider her Swing Vote B
technically speaking, her and Cohen should be the focus
wallywagon11 - February 8, 2012
Very much in agreement, Wally
I always hoped for the final vote to be 6-3 with Sheedy, Fong, and McCarty being the No’s. I had Cohn, Pannel, and Schenirer on the fence. If you believe Schenirer is good then we just need one out of cohn or Pannel.
edm7 - February 8, 2012
You heard right
I was just thinking that this scenario gives her to much credit for thinking clearly on this. She comes across as so confused and misinformed on the subject. I still think she is in play because of it though.
dampania - February 8, 2012
ElRonToro says, “But when it comes down to it, those four votes were a vote for the anaheim royals, the kc maloofbags, whatever.”
I’m sorry, but this is wrong. I know I am in the very small sliver of Sactown Royalty readers who oppose this plan, and am as such persona non grata, but I think the argument here is a bit sloppy. Whatever your view on the arena funding proposal, please consider that leasing our parking and putting a $10 million annual hole in our budget might be something that the public has a right to vote on. That is a whole lot of money, a deficit that supporters of the plans seem to gloss over with wishful thinking about the power of a new arena for the Kings (be real, folks; it’s for the Kings) to boost the economy and fill the budget gap. I don’t doubt that, as many of you suggest, there are base political calculations involved—that’s certainly true on either side—but please don’t use that to dismiss a concern that is of legitimate public interest.
thatjwfeeling - February 8, 2012
It's a zero sum game, somebody wins and somebody loses
I have a feeling that is the perspective ElRon was using when he made that comment.
wallywagon11 - February 8, 2012
Unless it was a flashback
I never made that comment….but I did read it.
Maloofbags is something I would never stoop to.
ElRonToro - February 8, 2012
PS emotions aside my official stance
is I am for the ESC as long as the numbers pencil out. Without access, but as far as i can tell, they do. So I am pro ESC.
ElRonToro - February 8, 2012
I would have double checked
but the site has been super buggy and terrified to do too much other than hit the z button.
wallywagon11 - February 8, 2012
your better off than me
my Z isn’t even working today
ElRonToro - February 8, 2012
on my new laptop, my z doesn't work on a page until after someone comments.
If it is a “dead page” i am reading through, I have to hunt and peck for new comments.
Wonderchild - February 8, 2012
same here except it's the same laptop I've had for over a year.
hozr - February 8, 2012
Yeah
This has been going on for a few days. Weird.
otis29 - February 8, 2012
SB Nation as a whole has been having trouble all over the place
I assume some sort of expansion or improvement is happening behind the scenes and this is everything getting wrinkled out. When “z” doesn’t work I basically give up though- I can’t deal with a thread of more than 30 or 40 comments without it!
lead_pipe - February 8, 2012
So sorry!
I misattributed that to you. It was lchristmas. I don’t know how I did that.
thatjwfeeling - February 9, 2012
$10M in the hole?
How do you figure this? Sacramento would no longer have to pay to operate those parking garages.
bignerd - February 8, 2012
$9 million (not $10) is after deducting operating expenses.
wallywagon11 - February 8, 2012
I think I get it
Trying to say they profit $10M a year operating those garages now. Well of course but that is for now. Those garages are still relatively new and maintenance is still cheap. It wouldn’t be $10M over 30 years, more likely 10 years before the tide turns and they are losing money.
Also as I mentioned above the City owns a lot of land it would like to unload but has no market value cause basically nothing is downtown to get developers excited. With an arena they could finally sell that land and actually start collecting taxes from actual economic activity going on at those properties. It is likely a dip in the budget in the short term but overall growth in the long term.
bignerd - February 8, 2012
That was my comment
And I realize it lacked nuance and intended it so.
But “at the end of the day” (a phrase I loathe), that is the practical effect of that vote.
That vote succeeding basically would have brought in the moving vans.
lchristmas - February 8, 2012 via mobile
If you have listened to the council meetings
they have as much as guaranteed they will not lessen the current parking revenue stream. No ifs ands or buts. So that part of your argument is invalid and uninformed. People have a right to vote if this includes bonds and such, as currently defined it does not. They have no more right to vote than they did in the second CC attempt, any hotel, or any art galary, all done without public vote. The public has a right to vote out the councilpeople whose vote they disagree with. A large % of the public has an emotional based argument and that I dismiss out of hand. Mine is strictly based on the numbers; if they pencil out I am on board, if not I am not.
To you I say if you want me to not dismiss you give me your financial argument without being remiss and including funding that is not in jeopardy
ElRonToro - February 8, 2012
This is exactly why public votes don't work
One piece of misinformation on a complicated project derails the whole process.
bignerd - February 8, 2012
Agree
at least 2 of the 9 council members don’t understand the financials and they have it a laid out in front of them with access to advisors.
ElRonToro - February 8, 2012
This
It’s also been shown that the same person will vote differently on the same issue simply by rewording the question.
Crocoduck - February 8, 2012
Yep, at least 3 I'd say
Sheedy, Pannell, and D Fong
dampania - February 8, 2012
Who the hell rec'd this? There isn't even a plan or deal yet or to vote against.
Last night was a purely political ploy. They essentially said “I don’t even care to see what can be worked” and goodbye Kings.
Look, the city has 13 suitors for leasing the parking who agree that the cities baseline numbers are an appropriate starting point. That is all we know. Of those suitors, a bidding war will ensue and negotiations for a deal with the city that works financially will begin.
dampania - February 8, 2012
If we're so worried
about the measure being put on the ballot, that should tell us that the majority of Sacramento residents would vote against the prospect of one way or another paying for the Kings new arena. Being as this isn’t a human rights issue, in which a minority needs to be protected from a suppressive majority, how can we justify this? Working so hard to silence the majority? Not even silence a minority, but a probable MAJORITY of Sacramento county citizens. I want the Kings to stay. Desperately. But not at the expense of what is right.
rory_sayer - February 8, 2012
What is right is having a representative democracy
I can’t understand why we even vote on half the crap that’s on the ballot every year. Most people can’t be bothered to research the people they put in office to make the decisions, but you expect them to read the pros and cons and detailed fiscal analysis on a bond measure to fund project X or Y?
Ridiculous.
otis29 - February 8, 2012
And protecting the minority isn't supposed to be restricted to just human rights issues
otis29 - February 8, 2012
How can you possibly
believe that you should be protected in your “right” to have other people pay for your entertainment? Are you ten and mommy pays for everything still?
rory_sayer - February 8, 2012
Tell me where the line is then
And your statement did nothing to refute mine. The intention of representative democracy isn’t meant to be restricted to “human rights issues” (as vague as that statement is). Do you disagree?
otis29 - February 8, 2012
No, I don't believe
that a representative democracy is only about human rights issues. Your statement included the phrase protecting the minority, so I assumed you felt that your priorities were and should be being protected in this instance.
Do I expect that people are going to understand anything in depth regarding politics? No, frankly, I do not. But if being worried about people understanding all the details is an important issue, then you simply don’t believe in the referendum system. And there is a very strong case to be made against the referendum system. But if your stance is that people shouldn’t be allowed to decide how to spend their money because they’re too ignorant and lazy to know what’s in their best interest, then you must by extension believe that citizens should have no part in law making. Is that what you believe?
As far as where the line is, I draw it very solidly at the point when a business is viable without government help. This business very obviously is viable without help, if they would simply lower their overhead, a completely reasonable idea given the exorbitant salaries involved.
rory_sayer - February 8, 2012
So just riffing here
If a successful, profitable company was looking to move to Northern California and Sacramento specifically as an option – and add a couple thousand jobs to the economy, but they wanted some subsidies (regardless of the amounts involved) from the city to help build their facilities…you would encourage your city council to vote no?
Regardless of all that, I assume you’ve analyzed the details here and come to the conclusion that the city is going to lose its shirt on the deal right? Even though this is a public/private partnership and the city isn’t footing the bill completely?
otis29 - February 9, 2012
Tell me why you want this one on a ballot
and not the Arts, community center or hotels and I will listen to your argument, otherwise the right to vote stuff i political crap from a side that fears losing.
ElRonToro - February 8, 2012
Why this and not the Arts?
For starters, we’re talking about the social subsidization of MILLIONAIRES playing a game. That’s insane. Professional sports are still booming in this country even while unemployment levels remain high and our country, state and city deficits are skyhigh. The Maloofs may be struggling, but they seem to be terrible businessmen who have squandered their inheritance. In addition to the fact that the intellectual value of arts far surpasses that of professional sports, you’d be quite hard pressed to find an art docent making $10mil a year, let alone 20 like some players.
This is a thriving business that would function just as well if the public stopped gifting money to millionaires and billionaires. Cut player salaries in half, keep door prices the same, and then owners can finance their own stadiums. Then it’s an actually viable business, not one that depends on state welfare, and we still get our sports entertainment.
rory_sayer - February 8, 2012
41 (maybe up to 50) days out of 365
14% of the time is only for basketball. What about the other 86% of the time. Is that really that hard of a concept to understand?
edm7 - February 8, 2012
Is it really that hard
of a concept that the ONLY reason this is being discussed is because of professional basketball, and all the other potential events are being discussed as an additive. If there were no Kings, there would be no Arena discussion.
rory_sayer - February 8, 2012
there could be
but yes on a much smaller scale and less money
wallywagon11 - February 8, 2012
Then perhaps if you don't like the potential outcome
You should make your voice heard to the people making the decision, and make sure they know they won’t be getting your vote in the future if they vote to subsidize a portion of the ESC.
You could also make sure you organize like minded people to do the same. And if they still vote against your wishes, you can walk the talk and withhold your vote. Or you can run against them and be part of the “solution”, rather than part of the “problem”.
Democracy at work…ain’t it grand?
otis29 - February 8, 2012
First
I don’t have a vote, because I’m a Placer County resident.
Second, I never stated that I don’t want the Kings to get a new arena. To tell the truth, I have completely mixed feelings. I’ve grown up loving the Kings just like most of you, and I don’t want them to go. But on the other side, I think subsidizing sports is a waste of government money.
rory_sayer - February 8, 2012
The intellectual value of arts far surpasses that of pro sports?
Is that a proven fact? Even if that was somehow quantifiable and proven true, is ‘intellectual value’ more important than economic value, entertainment, etc, etc?
By the way, we’re not helping the players. They’re getting paid no matter where the team is. The entertainment acts are going to perform somewhere else if not here. This isn’t about them or the Maloofs. No ESC, no entertainment in Sacramento. They’re getting their money, and if you can’t afford entertainment, then don’t attend. Just sit back and benefit from the increased revenue your city will bring in from those who do attend and from those who come to town and spend their money… all because of a new ESC.
You’re just complaining about the sports industry in general. Let’s just deal with reality. Maybe those deficits you pointed out will diminish in the long run due to this investment.
Steevo - February 8, 2012
Yeah
just dealing with reality is always how things are made better. Good job there, you’re a real progressive thinker.
America, as a whole, is helping athletes earn more than their value is worth on a true open market. Ticket prices and tv sales and advertisements should be the source of revenue for professional sports, not government subsidy. The sport CAN and SHOULD pay for their own arenas. Can you make an argument against that?
It really isn’t about whether or not you value art or sports more. Art NEEDS help; and yes, I do believe that intellectual activities should be supported and encouraged. We spend too much time in beta mode as it is. Intellectual stimulation enhances intellectual growth. Sports, on the other hand, as much as I wish it were different, is watched by most people as a simple escape that doesn’t involve a ton of brain activity. You know it, I know it, most people know it. The majority of fans are quite ignorant of the intricacies of the game they are watching. The people who watch to see the schemes and the execution of basketball are as spread out as chocolate chips in a sparse cookie.
rory_sayer - February 8, 2012
Mmmm sparse cookies
kangsfan - February 8, 2012
Wait so going to see a play is better then basketball..Ok lets see i am gonna go watch a play that was written by someone 200 years ago, the has its actors(the players), its director(coach), Its financiers (Maloofs), all skilled at their craft, putting on a performance for me and other people who want to see it..
Widowwolf - February 9, 2012
I beg to differ.
On every single word you wrote.
Being a progressive thinker is more productive than dealing with reality? Hmmm… You’re entitled to your opinion.
If you can argue that art needs help, then I there is certainly a similar argument about sports. I know, I know… You can deny that, but no one here is going to buy into a fairytale.
Your opinion is that art deserves my tax money. I don’t think so, but I’m not whining about it. If it means I can get an ESC (something that I think deserves my tax dollars), then I’ll be okay with it.
So, do you think that most people walking through an art gallery or whatever knows the intricacies of painting or weaving or whatever the hell is in there? I’ve been to plenty of art museums and displays, and I’m usually not all that stimulated. Not the way I am when I see incredible athleticism and split-second decision making in sports. I value seeing people who work hard at their sport by studying, practicing new skills, conditioning, etc. Those are important values to me and most of the world.
I could argue that there are a much larger number of people who understand sports than who understand the arts. So why do artsy folks get the tax dollars, and not sports people?
Not that this is all about sports. It’s truly about an ESC and revitalization of our city. That’s the big picture. I could go on, but I have this sneaky feeling that I’d be wasting my words trying to get you to see that.
Steevo - February 9, 2012
Beg to differ all you like
I really don’t care. I wouldn’t really expect somebody who uses a handle named after a Jackass member to be particularly interested in art.
The fact of the matter is, and I don’t believe it is debatable, professional sports do not need taxpayer money to prosper. Art, museums and the like do. If these things could financially survive at even half the strength of professional sports, I would be saying the same things about them. If professional sports could not survive without government subsidy, I would be far more open to the idea. The fact is that it simply wouldn’t be necessary to subsidize an ESC if there weren’t the threat of other cities providing one and taking it away.
Sports owners use our passion and attachment to needle us into poor business decisions. If we didn’t subsidize them, professional sports would still exist, because there’s a shit ton of money involved. And people would still “come to our city” and spend money and create tax revenue in exactly the same manner. It’s a pointless use of money. Money that could be used to provide better education for our children, or aid our overtaxed infrastructure, or any number of better uses that don’t amount to helping rich people get even richer. and the bottom line; you and I and we would still get to watch our Kings. Provide a decent argument against that. It’s all true.
rory_sayer - February 9, 2012
And yes
regardless of whether you agree, I do believe that the expression of people’s feelings, emotions, observations, and thoughts is more mentally stimulating than watching people play a game. And this is coming from somebody who prefers to observe sports over art 6 1/2 days a week. Just because you enjoy it more doesn’t mean it’s more stimulating.
Would you prefer to do flash cards for math or biology, or watch basketball? I would prefer to watch basketball, but exercising my brain is obviously more stimulating. Communication as well is more mentally stimulating, and art is a form of communication.
rory_sayer - February 10, 2012
The problem
is that if we don’t do it, some other stupid city will pay for an Arena for them to go elsewhere. America as a whole needs to put a stop to sports subsidization. There’s more than enough money in ticket and TV sales to run the business if we just lower the astronomical salaries of people fortunate enough to play a game for their income.
rory_sayer - February 8, 2012
Dude, the city of Sacramento will own the ESC, not the Maloofs
The Maloofs will be paying rent to play there. No one is gifting anything to the Maloofs.
kangsfan - February 8, 2012
Give this man a freaking applause becuase he just nailed, right on the freaking head the misconception i was talking about …
Widowwolf - February 8, 2012
to be honest didn't really counter rory's last statement
given the statement said nothing about the Maloofs owning the arena. Sports subsidization is about revenue not who owns the deed to the property. Heck technically there are situations where ownership by the sports franchise could be much better even.
wallywagon11 - February 8, 2012
I kinda think this would qualify as the "Maloofs owning the ESC"
It is from an earlier post by rory but his last comment is along the same sentiment
kangsfan - February 8, 2012
Pretty sure that statement wasn't made to say "The Maloofs will have ownership of the ESC"
that’s not even twisting words, that’s just making up shit.
Granted, I would let him know that what happens here in Sacramento ain’t really changing that and from a public policy perspective and it would absolutely have to be addressed at the federal level (have to attack when a city can use federal tax exempt bonds and most importantly reduce the amount of entertainement deductions for corporate luxury boxes).
wallywagon11 - February 8, 2012
and that was not even the statement you responded to
wallywagon11 - February 8, 2012
Tell me then, how are we gifting them money?
They will be paying rent to use the facility we as a community own. Yes, it is taylored their needs but it also fits the needs of many other entertainment ventures. I’m not really looking to argue semantics here but I just don’t see it as gifting them all this money when the city will gain a huge bulk of revenue from the ESC.
kangsfan - February 8, 2012
Okay
First, I have no idea how much the rent is nor how much they or the city will end up contributing to the arena so this isn’t exactly easy to nail down the specifics. And I would like to point out his comment you responded to was a blatant “America as a whole” comment. Now, having said that …
If the Maloofs don’t contribute $1 dollar and only pay rent and that’s it, say around $3 million a year and AEG keeps all of the profits of the concerns and the City doesn’t see any revenue somehow the city covered $300 million of the $400 million? Yeah, you can call that some serious subsizidation because the city up and spent the money for them to make money. In fact, the city would actually be more likely better off if they just gifting the arena to the Maloofs because if the arena is worth $4 million, they’d likely see way more annnually in property taxes than that cheap rent.
By the way, either way ownership of an arena doesn’t mean much. Control of the revenues means everything. People keep thinking of an arena like a house like it has equity or something. I have no idea why that’s the case but oh well.
wallywagon11 - February 8, 2012
These are all legit points and I'm not going to pretend to know it all or refuse to give on this topic
but where is the $7 billion over 30 years (stated by Taylor I believe) coming from? I honestly don’t know and its those numbers that I’m basing my position from.
kangsfan - February 8, 2012
if you don't know what those numbers represent I dunno if it's worth going down this rabbit hole
wallywagon11 - February 8, 2012
Honestly the specifics of where the numbers come from are not that important to me
But if that number is factual then the argument against the methods of building this ESC are inconsequential to me and I’ll leave it at that.
kangsfan - February 8, 2012
lol
This is where I like to submit my previous statement in the thread.
“Misinformation goes both ways.”
wallywagon11 - February 8, 2012
I'd love for you to elaborate
What about that figure (or my understanding of it) is misinformation? I don’t hold it as gospel. Fire away wally, I won’t be offended, just want to learn.
kangsfan - February 8, 2012
Here’s the Economic Engine Report. If you read it carefully you’ll notice quite quickly the $7 billion is the gross total of spending in the area. That’s not “new” spending, that’s gross.
The new net spending is $24,579,791 annually with approximately $1,726,390 in new Occupancy Tax and new Sales Tax revenue annually.
wallywagon11 - February 8, 2012
Thanks for the info and the link wally
kangsfan - February 8, 2012
no prob
wallywagon11 - February 8, 2012
Revised Version!
wallywagon11 - February 8, 2012
After briefly going over the numbers I see where you are coming from
But I still think the 157 million annually is a relevant number. While only 25 million comes from visitors, the rest of the 157 million is either not spent or potentially spent elsewhere such the Bay Area if there is no ESC. This seems like a worthy investment to me.
kangsfan - February 9, 2012
it's not $25 million from visitors, it's net
wallywagon11 - February 9, 2012
kangsfan - February 10, 2012
You're absolutely right Wally
This is something that does need to be addressed at the federal level. I wish I had their ear. I have every intent of writing an in depth article stating this case and trying to get it out in a public discussion, but one, I doubt it’ll stir hardly a thing up, and two, I’m busy with working and being a full time student. Someday. Obviously it’s far too late to make anything happen to protect Sacramento.
rory_sayer - February 8, 2012
I get where you are coming from
but to be honest this really might not be the best spot, especially given you are new. I don’t think this was your intent but it likely comes off like someone rolling in here to lash out at Kings fans for what’s going on here in Sac.
I’ll say this: If I were King of America (because King sounds so much cooler than President) I’d ban government subsidies for arenas built for professional sports teams … and then some asshole will find the loophole (curse you asshole in my imaginary world where I am King of America!)
wallywagon11 - February 8, 2012
I'm actually not new
but I don’t say a whole lot. Just come for the Ziller articles mainly. Struck up a few conversations in the past. Think I had one old and very naive fanpost in which I had hope that we could lure big free agents… Silly me. lol
rory_sayer - February 8, 2012
derp
sorry, brainfart
wallywagon11 - February 8, 2012
No worries
thanks for not jumping down my throat. gotta get to bed. goodnight.
rory_sayer - February 8, 2012
ug
meant to say most importantly for the first idea, darn
wallywagon11 - February 8, 2012
And, of course we'd prefer to have owners "gift us" a new building but that is not reality anymore especially in California
kangsfan - February 8, 2012
I have no idea what you are trying to say here
wallywagon11 - February 8, 2012
Actually wally I mispoke there a bit about California
the lack of an edit button is good and bad sometimes.
All I meant is that ideally the building would be entirely privately funded but its not going to happen obviously in this case, especially when there are other buildings ready to go for a team (KC/Anaheim).
kangsfan - February 8, 2012
kangsfan, you do realize something right?
wallywagon11 - February 8, 2012
I get it wally
What I don’t get still is how a potential influx of $7 billion is a problem. And I’d rather not let some other “stupid city” revitalize their community when we could do it right here.
kangsfan - February 8, 2012
What do you mean by influx of $7 billion?
be as specific as possible
wallywagon11 - February 8, 2012
I haven't read the entire proposal wally but I'm assuming the city would make some money from the use of the building itself
and all the flow of money into the community (hotels/restaurants/gas/etc…)
kangsfan - February 8, 2012
this isn't about the proposal though this is about the economic estimates and you were the one who brought it up and specifically said you are basing your opinion on "$7 billion over 30 years"
in a thread where there are a lot of complaints about how things are politically slanted, that reads kind of funny.
wallywagon11 - February 8, 2012
And also why I put the qualifier of "if factual" along with that number.
Clearly that number will slant it in the direction of the pro ESC camp, but I have yet to see anything that refutes them or their numbers.
kangsfan - February 8, 2012
it doesn't need refuting, it's often misused
wallywagon11 - February 8, 2012
To me, you're above statment does refute it a bit. Which is what I was looking for from you.
I’m not so oblivious to not realize that some political slanting is taking place from both camps. It can be quite frustrating to filter the slant in order to get the truth.
kangsfan - February 8, 2012
ugh it's too late
*your
kangsfan - February 8, 2012
After re-reading Rory's comments, I don't disagree with his statements from a philosophical perspective
but I just am not seeing the real sacrifice by Sacramento to get this thing done. It really appears to be a net gain for the community, regardless of whether the players are making too much money. This of course assumes that that information is factual.
kangsfan - February 8, 2012
To be honest widow
it’s getting a little frustrating. This ESC is just a microcosm of the entire country’s political structure these days.
kangsfan - February 8, 2012
No offense
but if you don’t think professional sports in America are publicly subsidized you are a crazy person.
wallywagon11 - February 8, 2012
Not offended and I don't disagree that there is some level of subsidization but the implication I took from it was that we are gifting a new building to them.
And I absolutely am a crazy person
kangsfan - February 8, 2012
And while I won't discuss other stadiums/arenas (because I have no knowledge of them to speak of),
In this case, the projected numbers provided by Taylor etc.. indicate that this will be mutually beneficial for the community and the Maloofs. I don’t see this “subsidization” as an issue.
kangsfan - February 8, 2012
This is why citizens should not be allowed to vote...
for measures that OBVIOUSLY help the city long term. Oh… While we are at it… why not let the the citizens of american vote on if we want to pay taxes. Why not? Oh cause many people would vote against it even though it is a necessity. Why not let us vote before each war too?… Or… How about we let the Generals of the military make those decisions for us.
These fucking politicians need to do what they were elected to do. Which is, making wise decisions for the future of Sacramento.
Do your fucking job.
ridingthebench - February 8, 2012
You're a bit naive
if you believe that politicians actually have the best interests of their constituents at heart.
rory_sayer - February 8, 2012
Because if it went to ballot, people are too swayed by smear campaigns, and by the Maloofs actions in the past, when this financing has nothing to do with them. People are saying we are buying the Maloofs a new arena, when we really aren’t. We are buying the city a new ESC, which the Maloofs will rent to put the Kings games there. Way to many people out there swayed by misinformation
Widowwolf - February 8, 2012
misinformation goes both ways
At the end of the day though, unless the financing creates a legal obligation for a public vote, it is what it is. And if the financing creates such an obligation, likewise.
wallywagon11 - February 8, 2012
Someone tweeted that the NBA/MAloof share will most likely be 80 million
If that turns out to be true and AEG is also 50-80, that with 20 million from misc sources leaves us 220-250 short (plus the $ to make up the city revenue stream from parking)…. I assume with a minimum 185 bid and 5 firms competing that the winning bid will be at least 20% over that , so 222. Very Very close.
ElRonToro - February 8, 2012
You are looking to have to cover anywhere from $406 million to somewhere north of $520 million at the very worst.
and the bidding isn’t going to be like an auction where, it will be a cost benefit analysis and we have no idea whether the terms of the deal will water down (and if Cohen won’t do 50 years that’s a problem) what we get back in return or whether we will be able to spend all of it on the arena or not. That’s what happened in Los Angeles.
Would be stunned if AEG goes north of $60 million and wouldn’t really expect more than somewhere in the 50s.
This is all a part of why I keep putting my hopes on a sale of the Kings being tied into this because there are still a lot of gaping holes here without someone who is really invested in throwing down some more cash.
wallywagon11 - February 8, 2012
Amen
please come to our rescue Mr. Burkle
rory_sayer - February 8, 2012
Does Sandy Shitty have a Twitter account?
I’d like to send her a nasty tweet.
PhutureKings - February 8, 2012
I doubt she know what twitter is
and she wouldn’t want you to talk about it because she doesn’t know what tweet means.
kangsfan - February 8, 2012
Sheedy has a twatter account
Twat her, and she’ll twat you right back.
section214 - February 9, 2012
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Sactown Royalty to post a comment.