Will we say goodbye to our Sacramento Kings?

Purple Reign · Aug 15, 2006

I am sorry for being so negative. But in my heart of hearts I do not believe this measure is going to pass. I am hoping beyond hopes that i am wrong, but the negative press and sentiments of this town is seeming to come to the surface more and more. Somebody help me and give me something to be positive about.

I can not believe what I am hearing from the citizens of this community. Trippin over what will amount to pennies per day as a cost, compared to what we will lose if the deal does not pass.

Very discouraging.

kupman · Aug 15, 2006

Purple Reign said:

I wish that I could offer you some hope, but I have been feeling the same way. I really do not get the reactions of so many people when such a great opportunity exists before them. It is my feeling right now that it will not pass and the residents of Sacramento will rue the day for many years to come. Sad indeed

RoyalDiva · Aug 15, 2006

I hear you, PR. Unfortunately, not everyone in this town is a sports fan. The concept of the Kings and their significant part in Sacramento is completely foreign to them.

Rockmeister · Aug 15, 2006

For crying out loud, what a depressing thread. Why don't you wait UNTIL it doesn't pass before creating this thread because you are only depressing yourself even more as well as others.

Purple Reign · Aug 15, 2006

Sorry. I am always looking at the positive in everything in life. But I read the newspapaers and listen to the radio and when I hear even the paid MS and E talking heads say that this thing is looking at a Mt. Everest of a climb to pass.....they know better than I do.

Ryle · Aug 15, 2006

Am I the only person who believes this measure will pass handily???

Once the actual details are out on the table and the PR machine is in motion I think this will not even be an issue.

1kingzfan · Aug 15, 2006

Ryle said:

I'm one of the chosen few in your camp, Ryle...

...AS LONG AS the PR campaign addresses all of the major issues that are sticking points for folks right now on how this deal came about and why it is fair and good for individuals and the community.

However, if it focuses primarily on the "for-crying-out-loud-people-this-is-only-pennies-on-every-$100-of-goods-purchased", then we might see a different outcome. We have already seen that many, many folks are blowing right past this and focusing on other aspects of this tax increase and the arena deal cut with the Maloofs.

I believe that since we have such a stellar PR team that has been assembled, they are wise enough to diverisfy their PR activities to cover all that needs to be addressed and bring this thing home.

Purple Reign · Aug 15, 2006

1kingzfan said:

The question that sticks in my mind is can a majority of common folk who live in a govermental buraucratic town that depend on their city council people as gods, who can't get past tax increase, public subsity and corporate welfare focus on the real major issues.

Maybe I am selling my county short, but i don't think we are savvy enough in Sacramento city and county to get beyond what the Dave Jones', the Steve Cohns, the Robbie Waters and the Sandy Sheedys think. If I'm not mistaken the City Council has not formally endorsed this deal.

VF21 · Aug 15, 2006

Wow. We might as well all just throw away our jerseys, our bobbleheads, our other Kings memorabilia, etc. and just admit defeat.

Right now, we're trying to rally support to get people to realize the benefits of this ballot measure. If people on the fence come here and read this stuff, their first thought is going to be "Why should I vote for it if even Kings fans don't think it will pass?"

Instead of admitting defeat so soon, why not actually fight the battle first?

kupman · Aug 15, 2006

I never said that I was giving-up on the deal. I will continue to discuss the pros with people I know and encounter. All I am saying is that the anti-tax, cooperate welfare crowd is strong in numbers and we are up against a very tough battle. I think that I am just being realistic. The offensive side of these things is always a tougher road than the defensive side. I am hopeful that the campaign will be strong and perhaps that will begin to sway the tide.

VF21 · Aug 15, 2006

I think we're all going through moments of panic about the possible loss of the Kings. I spent a lot of time reading the old stuff from the SaveOurRockets campaign, and they, too, had a lot of doubts.

The main thing, IMHO, is to have faith AND for each of us to do whatever we can to help educate the public to get them to understand how important this is. Yes, it's about the Kings but it's about a lot more.

I think we have a force to be reckoned with in all the Kings fans. Combine them with people who want to see the railyards turned into something productive instead of wasteland and we're stronger. Add in those who want the state-of-the-arts venue for the concerts, etc. it will bring and we're even stronger.

I had originally deleted this thread, to be honest, because it was so disheartening at first. But, as a couple of you pointed out, it's what some of you may be feeling. Keep the faith. We have not yet begun to fight!

NoBonus · Aug 15, 2006

Just be patient. The election is not for another couple months and the advertising has not begun to heat up... just remember, not statistical analysis, survey or poll (even exit polls as seen in 2004) can accurately predict the outcome of an election. Just keep pushing for it and make sure you get everyone you can to vote and vote yes.

LilMissDiva · Aug 15, 2006

Purple Reign said:

and if you really think about it, it really isn't even that. You will never even feel the increase because as a rule, the 7.75% already in effect always rounds up to a quarter cent anyway.

uolj · Aug 15, 2006

SKFFL said:

That would be nice, but unfortunately anything over $4 means that the extra .25% will actually add to the total more than the rounding would.

Gary · Aug 15, 2006

This is why we have to as a group of people get out there and support our Kings! We need to get out in front of grocery stores and set up shop to get people to notice the positives BESIDES keeping the Kings in town. Who's with me?

6th · Aug 15, 2006

It is true that not everyone is a sports fan or a fan of the Kings. That is why, I think it is so important, that we talk to everyone we know about the fact that ARCO has numbered days. If we want a first class sports and entertainment complex in Sacramento, we have that opportunity by voting for these measures.

So, we must talk about the future of the railyard, more than emphasizing the Kings or the Maloofs. We, the citizens, will own this top notch entertainment comlex. The Maloofs will only be managing it for us. We both (public and Maloofs) stand to gain.

kupman · Aug 15, 2006

VF21 said:

Thanks for keeping the thread open. Honestly though, after I thought about it for awhile I decided that maybe I should discussing my fears of losing the Kings and not having a major entertainment venue with a therapist rather than on a message board.

1kingzfan · Aug 15, 2006

6th said:

I would LOVE to be able to do that, but I can't, because I do not have the facts in hand.

I can say "the NBA says so" (yet the building still operates).

I can say there are unsafe clearances at the corners in the upper level concourse and there would be trouble evacuating quickly in an emergency or terrorist threat due to the narrowness of even the main concourse (yet the building still operates).

I can say that Arco has the smallest kitchen space amongst NBA arenas (yet the building still operates).

I can talk about niceties, like better seats, more concession stands, more open main concourse space (safer and better experience to navigate), and hopefully more urinals/toilets (yet the building still operates).

To my knowledge, Arco is not falling down, nor have I heard that maintenance costs on this aging building are astronomically out of control.

So someone tell me how to counter the argument that Arco may be old but is good enough, since it is still being used and will be used this coming NBA season? Why does it HAVE to be replaced? IS this merely about comfort of attendees? Is it merely about keeping up with the NBA Joneses? Is it ONLY cuz Stern said so? Is it ONLY because the Maloofs will split without added suite revenues so their business can turn a nickel? Is it about getting better entertainment that we cannot get here with Arco (if so, what can we NOT get aside from the NBA all star game which has nothing to do with the arena but rather hotel rooms; I've seen a lot of stellar high-profile concerts and shows this past year come in to Arco)? Is it just to keep the Kings?

I can cover some of these talking points with someone when the points are based in fact, but I don't think that I have enough facts in hand to convince the majority. This is one of the Education Points that needs to be addressed.

VF21 · Aug 15, 2006

No one, to my knowledge, is saying Arco has to be shut down today or tomorrow. I think it HAS been addressed numerous times, however, that it is antiquated, it's getting older, and it simply is not going to continue to meet the needs of a growing Sacramento community.

Good enough is a relative term. It's not good enough for an NHL franchise, for example, because of the horrible turnaround time from ice back to hardwood. There is NO upper level concourse by any real definition of the term. There's a narrow walkway with a couple of breaks for the cantina, the lounge, etc. That's not a concourse.

Arco, in its present location, is rapidly becoming inferior for a great number of events and it's not going to get better. It cannot be retrofitted.

A new state-of-the-art facility will be safer, it will be better suited for multiple purposes, etc.

I think those answers are being pretty well documented in various threads already.

VF21 · Aug 15, 2006

6th said:

Excellent point, IMHO, 6th - and one that I think is going to be featured prominently in the campaign to get these measures passed.

kennadog · Aug 15, 2006

What I try and remind myself, is that during a campaign its is the extreme ends that tend make the most noise. The undecided aren't all over organizing and getting themselves in the paper, They are reading and listening.

So that's why the Bee bothers me some, because they do reach large numbers. However, since the pro-arena campaign really hasn't gotten off the ground yet, its hard to say what is happening.

Of course, no tax is easy to pass in California. One reason deals are easier to do elsewhere is that California voters have put so many restrictions on revenue and budget matters that government is almost totally inflexible and has little ability to respond to real and/or changing needs.

I always tend to be pessismistic, but I'm trying to keep my hope up until the elections over. Even if it loses, I'll still hope until they announce the Kings are moving. (Please, no!)

VF21 · Aug 15, 2006

Just remember - it took two times for the Houston measures to pass.

kennadog · Aug 15, 2006

Actully, the City has paid for studies in which consultants have confirmed that Arco is reaching economic obsolescence. This was long before Stern said anything. The Bee published an article a while back about the fact that more and more major events are passing on an appearance at Arco.

The physical plant is in need of major repairs, including a new roof. But how much money would any owner put into a building that can't be substantially remodeled and isn't going to be economically viable in the near future.

In other words, declining numbers of big-draw events and ever-increasing maintenance and operating costs means pretty soon, no one will be able to operate Arco at a profit. That point is in the not-too-distant future, according to the city's own consultants.

There is no reason for the Maloofs to operate it or throw more money down the toilet after they leave. And the City sure doesn't have the money to maintian or operate it. Heck, the City is having trouble maintaining Memorial Auditorium.

Warhawk · Aug 15, 2006

1kingzfan said:

You can point them to this:

http://www.ceo.saccounty.net/pio/information/docs/Quality-of-Life-Staff-Report.pdf

Page 6

”Updating” Arco Arena is not an option. An independent study performed by the City of
Sacramento concluded that retrofitting Arco to meet NBA standards cannot be done. Its basic
construction is not suited for the demands of the modern NBA nor was it designed for rapid
turnover of events or to accommodate the amenities that many patrons demand.

Should the Kings and Monarchs relocate, Arco Arena will have little value for MSE. Instead, it
is more likely, given the demand for land for housing in Natomas, that MSE would conclude that
Arco should be demolished and the land used for a higher and better use. Should that occur, this
region will be left with no entertainment venue in the 15,000 to 20,000 seat size to host events.

Warhawk · Aug 15, 2006

And this:

http://www.cityofsacramento.org/SED/Economic_Impact_Analysis.pdf

The study team evaluated the potential economic impacts of
three development scenarios: (1) Railyards redevelopment with
a SED and reuse and redevelopment of the North Natomas
property; (2) Railyards redevelopment without a SED and
development of a new arena in North Natomas; and (3)
Railyards redevelopment without a SED and continued use of
the existing ARCO Arena in North Natomas.

The scenario involving redeveloping the Railyards with a SED,
combined with adaptive reuse of the North Natomas land,
delivers the most significant overall economic impact of the
scenarios evaluated. This scenario produces 3 times more
economic impact annually; 5 times more total output annually;
3 times more earnings annually, and; 3 times as many jobs
annually as the other scenarios evaluated.

Redeveloping the Railyards with a SED, combined with
adaptive reuse of the North Natomas property, produces more
than $1 billion in construction period impacts to the greater
Sacramento region (including approximately 19,500 jobs); and
more than $383 million in regional economic impact
(approximately 12,700 jobs) annually.

One role of government is to provide cultural, civic, and entertainment goods and services that citizens
enjoy, but that no private firm is willing to provide because the goods or services are “public goods.”16
Major professional sports teams and entertainment districts add to the quality of life in a region in a
manner similar to that of zoos, museums, aquariums, parks, the arts, and other public goods, but in
significantly different ways. Professional sporting events provide an entertainment option for some,
especially those who value attending or viewing spectator sports.

One shortcoming of standard economic impact analysis is that most measurements only account for the
current new spending because of an event, team, etc., but ignore the possibility that an event might cause
an increase in the number of future visitors to the community. One way in, which this occurs, is through
the media coverage of an event.
During the NBA Playoffs, for instance, television viewers see many images of people enjoying
themselves in the host city, creating an enhanced image of the city. Further, the announcers mention the
name of the city, often increasing awareness about the city. Moreover, other media such as newspapers,
radio, and the Internet provide free coverage of the host city. It is extremely difficult to measure the
translation of media coverage into actual new visitor expenditures. Notwithstanding, it is possible to
calculate the cost that the local convention and visitors bureau would have to incur to get a similar amount
of media coverage based on standard advertising rates.

kennadog · Aug 15, 2006

You are good Warhawk!

1kingzfan · Aug 15, 2006

Thanx, all, for the replies to my query.

However, there is some mumbo-jumbo in what the County has put out in its Discussion and Analysis of the Quality of Life Measure:

What is NBA economics? Is it that a team owner needs a certain minimum number of arena suites/special seating to make any serious coin? If that is the case, they need to say it clearly in the PR campaign. Or is there more? Are the Maloofs limited revenue/profit-wise by anything else at Arco vs a new arena, aside from the number of suites? The proposed arena's seating capacity is about the same as Arco's, so capacity turnstile action will not be any different than it is now.

This says the arena is "necessary for (the Maloofs) to be competitive in this market." Competition with whom and in what market? Or again is the only point here that they need more suites?

Here's one more fuzzy statement...

The rapid turnover thing is solid. And as VF21 said, getting another pro sports franchise that would overlap playing dates with the Kings/Monarchs just can't be done now due to Arco's physical limits.

But what are the "demands of the modern NBA"? Is it locker rooms 10 times larger than Arco's so each player can have his own personal bowling alley behind his locker? Or is it something that is critical to the operation and success of the franchise?

Thanx, Kennadog. Is there a link to this study or a summary of it somewhere on line? Why is Arco reaching economic obsolescence? I have not read anywhere that maintenance costs are through the roof (pardon the pun). Why is it becoming impossible to make money from operating the building?

I don't doubt that in the least, but it's tough to push this one as a part of the new arena "need" when the current building is still very much in operation. What else in the physical plant aside from the roof is in need of major repair?

If there are solid answers to these questions, it creates an almost unassailable position that a new arena is a NEED. And if so, then the voters only can haggle about the price (which, as we know, is minute for 99.9% of the population).

Any additional information that folks here can shed on these topics is much appreciated.

JB_kings · Aug 15, 2006

I have some connections that are very familiar with the floor of Arco and it's ability to make ice. There were a great number of issues from design to poor installation. I won't go into boring detail about how a slab floor turns into an ice surface. What I can tell you is that to correct these flaws, the floor and all the piping would have to be jack hammered out and re-installed.

Many of the other issues were already mentioned, but it should be noted that quite a bit of equipment was taken from the original Arco building and moved in 1988. And lets not forget that the stands are just plywood sheathing over steel supports. While it makes for a noisy and loud arena, it doesn't last as long as concrete.

But I guess all this really doesn't matter since Arco is going to meet with a wrecking ball within 2-5 years. The Arco condition arguments are just a side track. That's just reality.

VF21 · Aug 15, 2006

One more thing to consider? Arco has not been selected as the site for the All-Star game. Why? Because it doesn't meet the needs of the NBA. It doesn't matter exactly what those needs are; Arco is substandard. And the fact an All-Star cannot come to Sacramento is a black eye, IMHO.

Kingsgurl · Aug 16, 2006

(yet the building still operates)

It still operates now, this is true, with it's leaky roof needing to be replaced, with it's seats falling into disrepair, with the water running cold in the visitors locker room (insert evil giggle here), with it's dangerously narrow concourses (pray there is never a fire) etc. Oh, it still operates, not much choice in that, but it's like the car, the 20+ year old beater with the duct-taped radiator hose, the dented fender, the persistant oil drip, the nice knock in the engine and 375,000+ on the odometer, the one without the classic body style that would make it worth investing in restoring to like new (impossible here) It's not a matter of IF it will fail, but when, AND it doesn't pass smog (the NBA) Plain and simple, it's outlived it's usefull existance. Sure, it still gets you from point A to point B, but you know it's going to strand you, probably on that day you have the really important meeting you can't be late to. (the fact that you are rather embarrassed to have your friends see you driving this is secondary)
Is ARCO going to fall on our heads at a game? Not likely, and you know why? Because it won't come to that. The team will either move to a new city and ARCO will be demolished, or the team will move to the new Arena that Sacramento has provided for them (with their help) and ARCO will be demolished. Either way, ARCO is going.

Will we say goodbye to our Sacramento Kings?

Starter

Starter

Starter

All-Star

Starter

Starter

Bench

Starter

Super Moderator Emeritus

Starter

Super Moderator Emeritus

Starter

Bench

Starter

All-Star

Homer Fan Since 1985

Starter

Bench

Super Moderator Emeritus

Super Moderator Emeritus

Dog On It!

Super Moderator Emeritus

Dog On It!

Give blood and save a life!

Give blood and save a life!

Dog On It!

Bench

Starter

Super Moderator Emeritus

Starter