http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/story/14299348p-15161123c.html
Daniel Weintraub: Why Dave Jones opposes the Kings' arena deal
By Daniel Weintraub -- Bee Columnist
Published 12:01 am PDT Thursday, August 17, 2006
Story appeared in Editorials section, Page B7
Dave Jones seems an unlikely choice to lead the opposition to a sales tax measure on the November ballot that would underwrite a new downtown arena for the NBA's Sacramento Kings.
A former Sacramento city councilman now serving in the state Assembly, Jones represents the downtown area and has been a big supporter of its recent resurgence. A Democrat, he has never shied away from raising taxes.
So why not raise the sales tax by a quarter-cent on the dollar to give downtown a shot in the arm, with enough money left over to pay for $600 million in programs and improvements throughout the county over the next 15 years?
Jones is glad you asked. He has at least eight reasons to explain his position -- and his decision to lead the fight against the new arena.
"I think the game is rigged," Jones told me the other day. "The NBA is a monopoly. They purposefully limit the number of franchises. By reducing supply, they drive up their profits. And they pit local governments against each other to fund sports arenas.
"When the market is rigged like that, there is no point in playing. Sports is supposed to be fair, it's supposed to be about letting the best person or the best team win based on a fair competition. This isn't fair. It's a rigged game. And I think you walk off the court when the game is rigged like that."
Some of his other reasons:
• The Maloof family, owners of the Kings, are wealthy businessmen who can afford to pay for a new arena without reaching into taxpayers' pockets.
• It's a bad deal. Although promoters have said the Maloofs would be paying as much as 30 percent of the cost of the arena, their contribution, coming through rent paid over 30 years, is really closer to 10 percent or 12 percent.
• Cost overruns. The arena is supposed to cost no more than $540 million, but if it does cost more, the public will be on the hook for the extra money. That's not supposed to come out of the portion of the sales tax that would be distributed back to the county and cities to spend as they please. But someone is going to have to pay it. If it doesn't come out of the sales tax, it would come out of other local government revenues that are now being spent providing essential services.
• There's very little economic value from the project. Modern arenas are built to "suck in" as many entertainment dollars as possible, with shops, restaurants and other amenities built into the structure. Even the parking garage would be designed to funnel customers straight into the arena without going outside.
• The sales tax is regressive, hitting the poor and near-poor the hardest, as a percentage of their income.
"There are a lot of seniors and ordinary Sacramentans who are going to be hit by this who are struggling to make ends meet now and are going to be asked to pay for something that they will never be able to afford to go to," Jones says.
• Other needs will go unmet, beginning with flood control, a top priority for Jones. Although the state is poised to pour billions of tax dollars into shoring up Central Valley levees, Jones says the region will have to raise taxes within the next few years to pay its share.
"How in the world are we going to go back to the voters and convince them to assess themselves for flood control if they've just been told that this sales tax increase is going to solve all their problems and provide money to address all these public needs?" he asks.
• A top-down deal. Jones says local leaders should have gone to the community and started a conversation about all the needs of the region and the best way to pay for them. Instead, they went to a Las Vegas casino and cut a deal in private with the Maloofs, and then presented it as an all-or-nothing proposition.
All of these are solid arguments. But the one topic the outspoken Jones does not want to address directly is what will happen with the team if the voters defeat the tax. Would the community be better off without the Kings than with an arena built through a bad deal negotiated with a gun to our heads?
"The Kings are going to make their own decision," he says. "It's their decision. So far they have said, 'We love this community, we want to stay in this community, we have an economic interest in this community.' They have never threatened to leave."
That's disingenuous. Despite this deal's many flaws, it's the only deal now on the table. Either accept it or be prepared for life without the NBA.
As Jones says, the game is rigged. He is taking a political risk in leading the opposition. But he shouldn't be coy about the consequences of his campaign.
A Yes vote on Measures Q and R keeps the team in town with a huge public subsidy. A No vote tells them to start looking elsewhere.
Daniel Weintraub: Why Dave Jones opposes the Kings' arena deal
By Daniel Weintraub -- Bee Columnist
Published 12:01 am PDT Thursday, August 17, 2006
Story appeared in Editorials section, Page B7
Dave Jones seems an unlikely choice to lead the opposition to a sales tax measure on the November ballot that would underwrite a new downtown arena for the NBA's Sacramento Kings.
A former Sacramento city councilman now serving in the state Assembly, Jones represents the downtown area and has been a big supporter of its recent resurgence. A Democrat, he has never shied away from raising taxes.
So why not raise the sales tax by a quarter-cent on the dollar to give downtown a shot in the arm, with enough money left over to pay for $600 million in programs and improvements throughout the county over the next 15 years?
Jones is glad you asked. He has at least eight reasons to explain his position -- and his decision to lead the fight against the new arena.
"I think the game is rigged," Jones told me the other day. "The NBA is a monopoly. They purposefully limit the number of franchises. By reducing supply, they drive up their profits. And they pit local governments against each other to fund sports arenas.
"When the market is rigged like that, there is no point in playing. Sports is supposed to be fair, it's supposed to be about letting the best person or the best team win based on a fair competition. This isn't fair. It's a rigged game. And I think you walk off the court when the game is rigged like that."
Some of his other reasons:
• The Maloof family, owners of the Kings, are wealthy businessmen who can afford to pay for a new arena without reaching into taxpayers' pockets.
• It's a bad deal. Although promoters have said the Maloofs would be paying as much as 30 percent of the cost of the arena, their contribution, coming through rent paid over 30 years, is really closer to 10 percent or 12 percent.
• Cost overruns. The arena is supposed to cost no more than $540 million, but if it does cost more, the public will be on the hook for the extra money. That's not supposed to come out of the portion of the sales tax that would be distributed back to the county and cities to spend as they please. But someone is going to have to pay it. If it doesn't come out of the sales tax, it would come out of other local government revenues that are now being spent providing essential services.
• There's very little economic value from the project. Modern arenas are built to "suck in" as many entertainment dollars as possible, with shops, restaurants and other amenities built into the structure. Even the parking garage would be designed to funnel customers straight into the arena without going outside.
• The sales tax is regressive, hitting the poor and near-poor the hardest, as a percentage of their income.
"There are a lot of seniors and ordinary Sacramentans who are going to be hit by this who are struggling to make ends meet now and are going to be asked to pay for something that they will never be able to afford to go to," Jones says.
• Other needs will go unmet, beginning with flood control, a top priority for Jones. Although the state is poised to pour billions of tax dollars into shoring up Central Valley levees, Jones says the region will have to raise taxes within the next few years to pay its share.
"How in the world are we going to go back to the voters and convince them to assess themselves for flood control if they've just been told that this sales tax increase is going to solve all their problems and provide money to address all these public needs?" he asks.
• A top-down deal. Jones says local leaders should have gone to the community and started a conversation about all the needs of the region and the best way to pay for them. Instead, they went to a Las Vegas casino and cut a deal in private with the Maloofs, and then presented it as an all-or-nothing proposition.
All of these are solid arguments. But the one topic the outspoken Jones does not want to address directly is what will happen with the team if the voters defeat the tax. Would the community be better off without the Kings than with an arena built through a bad deal negotiated with a gun to our heads?
"The Kings are going to make their own decision," he says. "It's their decision. So far they have said, 'We love this community, we want to stay in this community, we have an economic interest in this community.' They have never threatened to leave."
That's disingenuous. Despite this deal's many flaws, it's the only deal now on the table. Either accept it or be prepared for life without the NBA.
As Jones says, the game is rigged. He is taking a political risk in leading the opposition. But he shouldn't be coy about the consequences of his campaign.
A Yes vote on Measures Q and R keeps the team in town with a huge public subsidy. A No vote tells them to start looking elsewhere.