Arena Lawsuit

LPKingsFan

LPKingsFan

All-Star
#61
#61
Gary said:
One thing I always wanted to know is why do people always complain (STOP) about specific projects like this and then turn around and don't say a peep when there was a 500,000 court building built when the one we had was just fine? It's not like the court is going to leave town if they don't have a new courthouse..
Click to expand...
Well, the courthouse construction is indefinitely delayed, and it appears that funding comes from the state and not the city. From a very simplistic perspective, it also makes sense to people for government "to be in the business of building courthouses," if you will, but not so much arenas.
 
Gary

Gary

All-Star
#62
#62
LPKingsFan said:
Well, the courthouse construction is indefinitely delayed, and it appears that funding comes from the state and not the city. From a very simplistic perspective, it also makes sense to people for government "to be in the business of building courthouses," if you will, but not so much arenas.
Click to expand...

Meant to say $500,000,000 not $500,000 lol

I guess the funding has everything to do with it.
 
Gary

Gary

All-Star
#65
#65
On Grants show on Thurs of Friday (don't remember), I think it was Sam Amick who said that the arena has 0.00000000001% chance at not being built, and that it would "take an act from god" to stop this project.
 
Mike0476

Mike0476

Starter
#66
#66
Gary said:
On Grants show on Thurs of Friday (don't remember), I think it was Sam Amick who said that the arena has 0.00000000001% chance at not being built, and that it would "take an act from god" to stop this project.
Click to expand...
That was Aaron Bruski and not Sam Amick.

I've been saying since 2011 the Kings would not relocate and when this is all over the arena would be built as 100%. So far, so good. But what do I know? :)
 
Warhawk

Warhawk

Give blood and save a life!
Staff member
#68
#68
Series of tweets - sounds positive:



Carmichael Dave‏@CarmichaelDave 10:17 AM - 19 Feb 2014
:)

coyote ‏@coyote95667 · 23m
@carmichaeldave could only mean positive arena ruling has leaked

Carmichael Dave ‏@CarmichaelDave · 14m
@coyote95667 ;)
 
whozit

whozit

Starter
#69
#69
Capt. Factorial

Capt. Factorial

ceterum censeo delendum esse Argentum
Staff member
#72
#72
PurpleHaze said:
Marcos Breton really hits it on the head, heck he hits it out of the ballpark with this one on Kings new arena opposing two sides - and he agrees with us not them.

http://www.sacbee.com/2014/02/19/6169434/why-arenavote-isntrequired.html
Click to expand...
I think Breton actually whiffed pretty hard on one point:

Chief among them is why the city is seeking to invest $258 million in a $448 million arena. Why not investigate other uses for that money? I hear this question all the time and it still boggles the mind.

The point was to keep the Kings from relocating to Seattle. Period.
Click to expand...
Even Breton misses the fact that this $258M is not in-pocket money that the city can spend elsewhere. The $258M is being repaid (OK, technically $212.5M if I recall correctly) by entirely arena-related revenue streams. This is revenue that won't exist - and therefore can't be spent on anything else - if the downtown arena is not built. We can't investigate other uses for the money, because there is no money (yet).
 
Gary

Gary

All-Star
#80
#80
Yah, looks like the Judge is basically throwing the lawsuit in STOPS face saying they didn't comply with regulations. Their excuse was "You would be living under a rock is you didn't know who was donating to STOP" or whatever.

Sorry STOP, RULES ARE RULES!
 
Gary

Gary

All-Star
#82
#82
Looks like STOP is pretty much done.

Judge: no "substantial compliance" by omitting names from legal ad. "The names of the proponents is required".

Can someone summarize the court hearing for me when it's over? I cannot watch it.
 
VF21

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#83
#83
And just as damning for STOP is their failure to include the proper enactment clause on the majority of the petitions. That's hard-coded into the election code. If you ask someone to sign a petition, said petition MUST contain information about what will happen if the petition is successful. IIRC at least three versions of the circulated petitions did not, in fact, include that clause. That's poison pill #2.
 
VF21

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#85
#85
Ryan Lillis ‏@Ryan_Lillis 14m

That charter amendment issue was reason Mayor KJ's first strong mayor measure was tossed off the ballot by a judge in 2010.

Ryan Lillis ‏@Ryan_Lillis 15m

City has argued taking power of issuing bonds for arena away from Council is charter amendment. That change can't come via petition drive

Sonseeahray Tonsall ‏@tonsalltv 15m

Back on the bench...Frawley says "leaning against" STOP on the charter issue. City objects to a separate hearing on that matter.
 
VF21

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#86
#86
Sonseeahray Tonsall ‏@tonsalltv 8m

Frawley says STOP had the resources to put out a better product to the voters "and that just didn't happen."

Ryan Lillis ‏@Ryan_Lillis 9m

Judge: these petitions are defective in a multitude of ways.
 
VF21

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#87
#87
Ryan Lillis ‏@Ryan_Lillis 5m

STOP attorney said it would have been "malpractice" for him to have written and filed these petitions. Still says errors due to sloppyness.

Ben van der Meer ‏@benvsacbiz 8m

Judge indicates in aggregate, he feels petitions have too many flaws even if individually they're small. @sacbiz
 
VF21

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#90
#90
I would have loved to be in the room for that hearing. This is an education in law and due process AND the importance of following the rule of law. STOP continuing to try to argue the minor nature of the myriad of mistakes on those petitions and how they were handled is a textbook example of how not to impress the judiciary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.