http://www.sacbee.com/content/sports/story/14273502p-15083584c.html
Marcos Bretón: Latest arena talks offer sign of hope
By Marcos Bretón -- Bee Columnist
Published 12:01 am PDT Friday, June 30, 2006
Another deal to build an arena in Sacramento failed Thursday, a community quest seemingly as hopeless as hoisting a Kings championship banner at Arco Arena.
The Kings' people and the City and County of Sacramento negotiated hard for 40 days until quitting. For now.
So, of course, that must mean the Kings are leaving Sacramento. It must mean we'll soon see the Las Vegas Kings.
It must mean that Sacramento is a hick place of half-wits who don't get that the Kings are Sacramento.
After all, the Kings are the reason people move to Sacramento, the economic engine driving this rickety bus.
Without the Kings, Sacramento is worthless!
OK, OK, OK. It's time to stop shouting all these untruths in the streets, from a ledge on the Tower Bridge and on talk radio.
Because despite a lack of a deal, there is still reason for optimism.
Indeed, this particular negotiation to fund a new home for the Kings -- and concerts and events for Sacramento -- was unlike any other before it.
This one was legitimate.
There were actual negotiations, for the first time. There were parties involved who knew what they were doing, people who have built stadiums and arenas, such as River Cats owner Art Savage.
There were serious people representing Kings owners Joe and Gavin Maloof, such as former state Assemblyman Darrell Steinberg.
And there was meaningful consensus that an arena could work in downtown Sacramento, agreement that everyone involved wants to see this work, unity that no one wants to see the Kings leave Sacramento.
Steinberg, who seems a cinch to win election to the state Senate in November, said he believes an arena deal can still happen.
"Sacramento has too much of an upside for anyone to give up," he said Thursday.
And the Kings owners agreed: "Yeah, I still think it can happen. We're optimistic," Joe Maloof said Thursday.
So what happened?
The two sides -- the Kings and government officials -- ran out of time to draft an agreement that could have gone to voters on the November ballot.
They were simply too far apart on key issues such as how much the arena would cost, ownership of the arena and myriad details on how arena revenues would be split.
Of course, those are critical issues -- the whole ball of wax, really. And it's hard not to wonder if two diverse cultures at work here can ever get together.
The Maloofs are products of an NBA system in which some owners -- in Indiana, for example -- are used to having their arenas largely subsidized by taxpayers while keeping all the profits, even from concerts.
Meanwhile, elected officials such as County Supervisor Roger Dickinson -- and Sacramento Vice Mayor Rob Fong -- have to worry about voters hostile to public funds used for private arenas.
Why? Because this issue is like immigration in that people feel vehemently one way or the other.
Listen to KHTK 1140 today and you'll likely hear callers screaming about how stupid we are in Sacramento, implying that the city and county should bow and kiss the Maloofs' feet.
But outside public forums whose life's blood flows from the Kings, it's a different story.
Many feel that there shouldn't be a penny of public money spent on arenas for "billionaire" basketball owners.
After years of writing about this, and sometimes being hostile to previous arena proposals that were deeply flawed, I have changed my thoughts.
They've been shaped by the countless Kings fans who love the team, buy season tickets and live and die with their guys -- but still want a fair deal for Sacramento.
I'm with them.
No, the city and county should not assume all the risks of a new arena while the Maloofs reap all the benefits at the same time their casino empire expands in Las Vegas.
But yes, some public money can and should be used for an arena because the Kings are a positive force for this city, a rallying point, a joyful diversion.
Keeping the Kings is obviously not the most important issue facing the Sacramento region, but it's important.
For now, the two sides in the arena issue simply haven't agreed on where the financial intersection should be for public-private arena partnership.
But you know what? In other cities across America, such questions took years to answer. We've had only 40 days of real negotiations.
It's time for at least 40 more because 312 consecutive Arco Arena sellouts demand it. And because Sacramento and the Maloofs would rue the day they ever walked away from each other.
About the writer: Reach Marcos Bretón at (916) 321-1096 or mbreton@sacbee.com.
Marcos Bretón: Latest arena talks offer sign of hope
By Marcos Bretón -- Bee Columnist
Published 12:01 am PDT Friday, June 30, 2006
Another deal to build an arena in Sacramento failed Thursday, a community quest seemingly as hopeless as hoisting a Kings championship banner at Arco Arena.
The Kings' people and the City and County of Sacramento negotiated hard for 40 days until quitting. For now.
So, of course, that must mean the Kings are leaving Sacramento. It must mean we'll soon see the Las Vegas Kings.
It must mean that Sacramento is a hick place of half-wits who don't get that the Kings are Sacramento.
After all, the Kings are the reason people move to Sacramento, the economic engine driving this rickety bus.
Without the Kings, Sacramento is worthless!
OK, OK, OK. It's time to stop shouting all these untruths in the streets, from a ledge on the Tower Bridge and on talk radio.
Because despite a lack of a deal, there is still reason for optimism.
Indeed, this particular negotiation to fund a new home for the Kings -- and concerts and events for Sacramento -- was unlike any other before it.
This one was legitimate.
There were actual negotiations, for the first time. There were parties involved who knew what they were doing, people who have built stadiums and arenas, such as River Cats owner Art Savage.
There were serious people representing Kings owners Joe and Gavin Maloof, such as former state Assemblyman Darrell Steinberg.
And there was meaningful consensus that an arena could work in downtown Sacramento, agreement that everyone involved wants to see this work, unity that no one wants to see the Kings leave Sacramento.
Steinberg, who seems a cinch to win election to the state Senate in November, said he believes an arena deal can still happen.
"Sacramento has too much of an upside for anyone to give up," he said Thursday.
And the Kings owners agreed: "Yeah, I still think it can happen. We're optimistic," Joe Maloof said Thursday.
So what happened?
The two sides -- the Kings and government officials -- ran out of time to draft an agreement that could have gone to voters on the November ballot.
They were simply too far apart on key issues such as how much the arena would cost, ownership of the arena and myriad details on how arena revenues would be split.
Of course, those are critical issues -- the whole ball of wax, really. And it's hard not to wonder if two diverse cultures at work here can ever get together.
The Maloofs are products of an NBA system in which some owners -- in Indiana, for example -- are used to having their arenas largely subsidized by taxpayers while keeping all the profits, even from concerts.
Meanwhile, elected officials such as County Supervisor Roger Dickinson -- and Sacramento Vice Mayor Rob Fong -- have to worry about voters hostile to public funds used for private arenas.
Why? Because this issue is like immigration in that people feel vehemently one way or the other.
Listen to KHTK 1140 today and you'll likely hear callers screaming about how stupid we are in Sacramento, implying that the city and county should bow and kiss the Maloofs' feet.
But outside public forums whose life's blood flows from the Kings, it's a different story.
Many feel that there shouldn't be a penny of public money spent on arenas for "billionaire" basketball owners.
After years of writing about this, and sometimes being hostile to previous arena proposals that were deeply flawed, I have changed my thoughts.
They've been shaped by the countless Kings fans who love the team, buy season tickets and live and die with their guys -- but still want a fair deal for Sacramento.
I'm with them.
No, the city and county should not assume all the risks of a new arena while the Maloofs reap all the benefits at the same time their casino empire expands in Las Vegas.
But yes, some public money can and should be used for an arena because the Kings are a positive force for this city, a rallying point, a joyful diversion.
Keeping the Kings is obviously not the most important issue facing the Sacramento region, but it's important.
For now, the two sides in the arena issue simply haven't agreed on where the financial intersection should be for public-private arena partnership.
But you know what? In other cities across America, such questions took years to answer. We've had only 40 days of real negotiations.
It's time for at least 40 more because 312 consecutive Arco Arena sellouts demand it. And because Sacramento and the Maloofs would rue the day they ever walked away from each other.
About the writer: Reach Marcos Bretón at (916) 321-1096 or mbreton@sacbee.com.
