Bee: Maloof demands for arena unusual

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#1
http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/29290.html

Maloofs' demands for arena unusual
No other NBA teams have similar deals, a sports economist says.
By Mary Lynne Vellinga and Terri Hardy - Bee Staff Writers
Last Updated 12:32 am PDT Tuesday, September 26, 2006


Kings owners Joe and Gavin Maloof are seeking concessions from Sacramento that appear unprecedented in the world of NBA arena construction.

The Maloofs walked out of negotiations earlier this month, saying local officials reneged on giving them 8,000 parking spaces and a final say on what new restaurants or businesses would open next to the arena proposed for the downtown railyard.

Andrew Zimbalist, a sports economist at Smith College in Northampton, Mass., said he could think of no new NBA arena deal anywhere in the country that has anywhere near 8,000 spaces, an assertion supported by Bee visits to new arenas in Memphis, Tenn., and Indianapolis. "That seems excessive," Zimbalist said.

He also said he knew of arena owners who were able to prevent snack carts from operating outside the front doors but not restaurants.

Sacramento officials deny they made such promises, pointing out that there's no mention of them in the term sheet signed by the Maloofs and city and county negotiators.

In response to the Maloofs' angry exit, officials have gone back to the drawing board with railyard developer Thomas Enterprises to address some of the family's concerns. But 8,000 parking spaces aren't likely to be forthcoming.

Sacramento Assistant City Manager John Dangberg said he has been in contact with Kings President John Thomas, signaling a thawing of relations. Dangberg said a revised site plan from arena architect Ellerbe Beckett should be ready for delivery to the Maloofs by midweek.

On Monday, Joe Maloof reiterated his version of events. "We're truthful people; we don't lie," he said.

He insisted local officials went back on a promise on the parking issue, and said they also promised his family the right to approve businesses that could end up competing with those they want to open on the arena/entertainment center's ground floor.

Yet the concessions the family seeks would be highly unusual in the NBA today. The parking deal far surpasses the number of spaces that normally come with a publicly financed arena and could boost the cost of a $500 million arena by $135 million.

"It would be unprecedented, certainly for a downtown location," said Sacramento County Supervisor Roger Dickinson, who represented the county in the negotiations.

One of the people responsible for bringing the Vancouver Grizzlies to Memphis said the Maloofs' insistence on 8,000 paid parking spaces would have been unthinkable to leaders there, where a $250 million arena opened in 2004. "I don't know how the city and county could ever agree to those terms," said Tom Jones, former senior adviser to the Shelby County mayor.

Joe Maloof said Monday that his team needs the money from 8,000 spaces -- the same number that regularly fill for events at Arco Arena in Natomas. Today, the team controls more than 11,000 surface parking spaces around Arco Arena, which was built with private money.

"We thought we had an agreement with the city and county that all the parking revenue would stay with the team, which is what we need," Maloof said.

Thomas, team president, said the Kings would be taking a big chance in moving to the railyard and need to protect their revenue and have some control over what moves in next door. "There's a huge difference between this project and virtually any other," he said. "We're moving a thriving business into an open field that today is a toxic wasteland."

Parking is worth millions of dollars annually to the Maloofs. It costs $10 to park at Arco Arena today. If the new arena hosted 200 events a year, a conservative figure, and filled 5,000 spaces each time, the Kings would earn $10 million a year from parking.

The figure would go much higher if the team controlled the parking during the day, renting it to downtown office workers.

Dickinson said event parking rates probably would go up to at least $15 as well.

Most new downtown sports venues control few parking spaces compared with the number of people attending events.

The San Francisco Giants get the revenue from 5,000 spaces, Dickinson said, but they have a seating capacity of 41,503, compared with about 18,000 seats planned for the new Kings arena.

The new arena built in Charlotte, N.C., contains no on-site parking. In Memphis, the 2-year-old FedExForum, cited by the Maloofs as a model for their arena, includes 1,300 VIP parking spaces in a garage next door.

The Indianapolis Pacers have a right to use 1,400 parking spaces in a city garage adjacent to Conseco Fieldhouse but don't get the money from them, said Rick Fuson, executive vice president.

Local officials said surrounding a downtown arena with parking defeats one of its main purposes -- to help enliven the area around it. If the Kings relocate downtown, officials hope that at least some patrons will take light rail rather than driving.

A report released Monday by Sacramento Regional Transit found that a significant portion of fans -- up to 41 percent in the case of AT&T Park in San Francisco -- take public transit to new downtown sports facilities.

City and county negotiators say they told the Kings that if voters approved a quarter-cent sales tax in November, about $45 million of the money raised would go to pay for a new garage next to the arena with about 2,000 parking spaces. The team would get the money from those spaces.

Even 2,000 parking spaces is generous compared with the parking provided for owners of other NBA teams, such as those in Memphis and Indianapolis. In those cities, owners have tapped other revenue streams, seemingly finding corporate sponsors for every inch of their space.

The Memphis arena's parking garage is sponsored by Ford Motor Co. FedEx not only holds the naming rights to the arena in Memphis, it also sponsors a level of luxury suites in Indianapolis. Meanwhile, patrons park in spots vacated by daytime commuters.

Memphis has a "car culture" like California's, and most fans drive to games, said Andy Dolich, the Grizzlies' president of business operations. Workers at corporations such as AutoZone Inc. and First Tennessee Bank often leave their cars at work and walk to the arena.

The Maloofs' demand that they control which businesses locate outside their front door is also unusual.

On Beale Street in Memphis, the restaurants are part of the draw. "Other (team) owners would love to have their own Beale Street," Dolich said.

The Pacers' Fuson said his team also benefits from being in the heart of a lively, restaurant-filled downtown. But he did not cast judgment on the Maloofs for trying to extract every dollar of revenue they can.

A new arena is no guarantee of economic success, he said. When it opened in 1999, Conseco Fieldhouse attracted sellout crowds. But attendance has fallen in recent years. Memphis, too, has seen crowds dwindle.

"I would advise anyone in our business to get whatever they can," Fuson said.

About the writer: The Bee's Mary Lynne Vellinga can be reached at (916) 321-1094 or mlvellinga@sacbee.com.
 
#3
It worries me when I agree with something written in the Bee. However, I remain unhappy with the Maloofs and continue to strongly support Q&R without their support. It would be a shame if the arena ends-up on the outer limits of the city and can only be reached by car in the name of more parking.
 
#4
Send the Maloofs packing. Good riddance. The Maloofs are out to screw the city! Time to kick the snake oil salesman back to Las Vegas.
Comon GreenKing, thats really not nesscary.. Share your viewpoint, but lets not go completly crazy. I understand you disagree with the maloofs, and you apparently want them to go, but its childish to revert to name calling.
 
#5
It would be interesting to find out why the Maloofs need the 8K parking facilities, when other teams with "state of the art" facilities have no where near that many. If its because those other teams are able to recoup the dollars elsewhere then perhaps those avenues should be explored as an alternative to having the 8K parking spots. Also, the part of the article that talks about outside vendor control sounds worriesome to me. It doesn't sound like they want any compition from outside/community buisnesses. I was hoping the arena project could be a win/win for sacramento and the kings. I'm hoping it still can be, but I'm becoming more skeptical about that scenario.

Personally, I'm all for having a smaller footprint for the arena. I like the way SF handles parking and transit for the Giants. It is integrated well with the surroundings. I was hoping we could put something similar to that in place here. Too many times we build things with no thought to estetics or how things will integrate with the community. Those projects tend to end up being sources of problems later on down the road. I hope this project can avoid those pitfalls and become a magnet for community rather than just a place that holds people for a few hours a week.
 
#6
If 8,000 spaces is what the Maloofs really insist on, I do think that is too much. I also, am not very happy with the idea of a "no competition" distance of 1000 feet. The idea is to have an arena connected to the downtown area.

However, I'm waiting to see what the revised plan looks like and then see if we get any signed agreement.

As to SF has long had much better mass transit than Sacramento. Maybe we'll get there eventually, but its not there now and has a long way to go.
 
#7
...more arena

I say leave the arena measure on the ballot, but change it so the citizens of Sacramento actually get what they are paying for. I think most people would agree to paying an increased sales tax in exchange for ownership and control of a facility that would greatly enhance the downtown area in particular, but the entire region as a whole. There seems to be lack of candor on both sides of the issue, but the demands made by the Maloofs seem unreasonable by any stretch. Most important to the citizens of the area should be making the downtown area more attractive and magnet for new businesses and affordable residences. Another Arco Arena surrounded by a wasteland of parking spaces is not my idea of "attractive", or practical.
 
#8
If 8,000 spaces is what the Maloofs really insist on, I do think that is too much. I also, am not very happy with the idea of a "no competition" distance of 1000 feet. The idea is to have an arena connected to the downtown area.

However, I'm waiting to see what the revised plan looks like and then see if we get any signed agreement.

As to SF has long had much better mass transit than Sacramento. Maybe we'll get there eventually, but its not there now and has a long way to go.

SF has better transit because demand is higher. When you place 8,000 parking spots around the arena you give people very little reason to use mass transit once again. Most people will continue to drive their cars downtown adding to congestion and air pollution, not to mention it subtracts from the area where people feel they can walk without competing with cars. I am tired of cars always winning while mass transit and pedestarians are given a back seat.
 
#9
I say leave the arena measure on the ballot, but change it so the citizens of Sacramento actually get what they are paying for. I think most people would agree to paying an increased sales tax in exchange for ownership and control of a facility that would greatly enhance the downtown area in particular, but the entire region as a whole. There seems to be lack of candor on both sides of the issue, but the demands made by the Maloofs seem unreasonable by any stretch. Most important to the citizens of the area should be making the downtown area more attractive and magnet for new businesses and affordable residences. Another Arco Arena surrounded by a wasteland of parking spaces is not my idea of "attractive", or practical.
Even if the Maloofs are part of the deal, the City owns and controls the arena and the land it sits on, just like any other landlord. MSE will be a business leasee. So your point is? As currently agreed, the City gets design control, which is rare, too.
 
#10
SF has better transit because demand is higher. When you place 8,000 parking spots around the arena you give people very little reason to use mass transit once again. Most people will continue to drive their cars downtown adding to congestion and air pollution, not to mention it subtracts from the area where people feel they can walk without competing with cars. I am tired of cars always winning while mass transit and pedestarians are given a back seat.
Oh, I agree with you. I would use light rail. Sacramento's mass transit system just leaves a lot to be desired at this point. There were folks in the bay area that didn't want BART initially.
 
#11
If its because those other teams are able to recoup the dollars elsewhere then perhaps those avenues should be explored as an alternative to having the 8K parking spots.
This makes sense. They feel they need the revenue. We all know that they have lost $$ 3 out of 5 years of operation. I for one trust that they are simply attempting to make a deal that will not leave them consistantly losing money. Parking is an issue and I would hope that 3-4 thousand spaces can be worked out. It is the revenue loss that would have to be addressed. Owning an NBA team is like any other business, why bother if you are loosing money?
 
#12
One small element was left out of the Bee story (only one?).

Yes, the Giants get parking revenues from 5,000 parking spaces while the Maloofs want 8,000. But a recent trip to the City reveals that on gamedays, parking near AT&T Park is $25! So do the math. It's not a one-to-one comparision.
 
#13
One small element was left out of the Bee story (only one?).

Yes, the Giants get parking revenues from 5,000 parking spaces while the Maloofs want 8,000. But a recent trip to the City reveals that on gamedays, parking near AT&T Park is $25! So do the math. It's not a one-to-one comparision.
One factor we also are kind of forgetting is.. Whats the seating capacity of Pac Bell ? 41,000!!! ? New arena, 18,000? Wow.. and the maloofs want more parking for 18,000 then 41,000?? Unreasonable, I think we can agree on this.

This is beginning to really sound like they are asking for crazy terms to deep six the deal.. Im almost leaning towards torpedoing this one and trying again next year with something more well planned.

-C
 
#14
Yes, the Giants get parking revenues from 5,000 parking spaces while the Maloofs want 8,000. But a recent trip to the City reveals that on gamedays, parking near AT&T Park is $25! So do the math. It's not a one-to-one comparision.
Yeah, I should have thought of that. Parking is SF is atrociously expensive. The $10 bucks at Arco is actually cheap compared to a lot of big cities. I personally think they shoud raise parking prices at the new arena and have fewer spaces. Besides having light rail and Amtrak, it would encourage more people to carpool to the game.
 
#15
One factor we also are kind of forgetting is.. Whats the seating capacity of Pac Bell ? 41,000!!! ? New arena, 18,000? Wow.. and the maloofs want more parking for 18,000 then 41,000?? Unreasonable, I think we can agree on this.

This is beginning to really sound like they are asking for crazy terms to deep six the deal.. Im almost leaning towards torpedoing this one and trying again next year with something more well planned.

-C
As pointed out above, people in the bay area are a LOT less wedded to cars than Sacramentans. And mass transit is much better. I can go from Walnut Creek or Richmaond (or even farther away) to SF on BART. People in Placer County or El Dorado County have no good mass transit way to get to downtown Sacramento.
 

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#16
One factor we also are kind of forgetting is.. Whats the seating capacity of Pac Bell ? 41,000!!! ? New arena, 18,000? Wow.. and the maloofs want more parking for 18,000 then 41,000?? Unreasonable, I think we can agree on this.

This is beginning to really sound like they are asking for crazy terms to deep six the deal.. Im almost leaning towards torpedoing this one and trying again next year with something more well planned.

-C
You can't try next year. The next time it could appear on a ballot would be 2008.

And, once again, I have to question why you think the Maloofs would deep six the deal. I'd really like to hear your rationale behind your comments.

Why would the Maloofs do this? What possible benefit could it get them?

If they want to move the team, they have to get the approval of the league. If the league thinks Sacramento won't support the Kings, they'll approve the move. If, on the other hand, they think Sacramento WILL support the Kings, they won't.

The idea that the Maloofs would have to sink this proposal just makes no sense. There are a lot of other ways they could go if they were dead-set on moving.
 

Warhawk

Give blood and save a life!
Staff member
#17
As pointed out above, people in the bay area are a LOT less wedded to cars than Sacramentans. And mass transit is much better. I can go from Walnut Creek or Richmaond (or even farther away) to SF on BART. People in Placer County or El Dorado County have no good mass transit way to get to downtown Sacramento.
Or Galt, Elk Grove, West Sacramento, Davis, Woodland, Yuba City, etc, etc.
 
#21
As pointed out above, people in the bay area are a LOT less wedded to cars than Sacramentans. And mass transit is much better. I can go from Walnut Creek or Richmaond (or even farther away) to SF on BART. People in Placer County or El Dorado County have no good mass transit way to get to downtown Sacramento.
I think you keep missing the point though. Mass transit will get better once there is a higher demand for it. If you place the arena in the middle of 8,000 parking spots (1 space for every 2.25 people attending the game) and charge a mere $10/car, there is little reason for people to seek an alternative to their cars and thereby little reason for mass transit to improve.

However, if you drive to the game and cannot find a parking spot or if you need to pay $25 to park you may be more likely to park away from downtown and jump on light rail. The more that people like you and me ride light rail, the more it seems acceptable and safe. As it it seems more acceptable and safe, the more demand will increase.

In the end, restricting parking spaces is one of the best ways to develop the type of downtown arena district that we desire.
 

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#22
I think you keep missing the point though. Mass transit will get better once there is a higher demand for it. If you place the arena in the middle of 8,000 parking spots (1 space for every 2.25 people attending the game) and charge a mere $10/car, there is little reason for people to seek an alternative to their cars and thereby little reason for mass transit to improve.

However, if you drive to the game and cannot find a parking spot or if you need to pay $25 to park you may be more likely to park away from downtown and jump on light rail. The more that people like you and me ride light rail, the more it seems acceptable and safe. As it it seems more acceptable and safe, the more demand will increase.

In the end, restricting parking spaces is one of the best ways to develop the type of downtown arena district that we desire.
I am NOT going to drive all the way to Sacramento and then abandon my car in some light rail parking lot and jump onto light rail to get to the game. It's just not gonna happen. And just wanting light rail to be more acceptable and safe isn't going to make it more acceptable and safe.
 
#23
YoloBus connects Woodland, Davis, West Sacramento and Downtown Sacrameto with the 42 Bus Line.

It would be interesting if they can get a train that does the same and covers the same areas (Woodland, Davis, Airport/Natomas, Downtown Sac).

Not sure if they can environmentally do this and without great "concern" from residents...
 
#24
I think you keep missing the point though. Mass transit will get better once there is a higher demand for it. If you place the arena in the middle of 8,000 parking spots (1 space for every 2.25 people attending the game) and charge a mere $10/car, there is little reason for people to seek an alternative to their cars and thereby little reason for mass transit to improve.

However, if you drive to the game and cannot find a parking spot or if you need to pay $25 to park you may be more likely to park away from downtown and jump on light rail. The more that people like you and me ride light rail, the more it seems acceptable and safe. As it it seems more acceptable and safe, the more demand will increase.

In the end, restricting parking spaces is one of the best ways to develop the type of downtown arena district that we desire.
No I understand the theory and would like to see much better mass transit and more users. Its just a chicken or egg problem. Merely restricting parking availability doesn't mean people will then use mass transit. And they can't choose to use safe, economical and more desirable mass transit, if it isn't available. It goes hand-in-hand.

Believe me, good mass transit is not very available in Sacramento, as I discovered quickly and maddeningly when my mother could no longer drive. There are plenty of cities I could imagine living in without a car. Right now, Sacramento is not one of them.

Actually VF, light rail isn't bad in some areas of Sacramento. When I worked close to a stop, I had no problems driving my car to a station and leaving my car and I went to some events downtown that way. But it isn't very safe in many areas and I've ridden on systems where I felt more secure. Washington DC and Chicago come to mind, believe it or not. At least in the areas I traveled to in those cities. My experience on BART has been okay, on the few occassions I've used it.
 
Last edited:

Warhawk

Give blood and save a life!
Staff member
#25
YoloBus connects Woodland, Davis, West Sacramento and Downtown Sacrameto with the 42 Bus Line.

It would be interesting if they can get a train that does the same and covers the same areas (Woodland, Davis, Airport/Natomas, Downtown Sac).

Not sure if they can environmentally do this and without great "concern" from residents...
Every time I have tried to use a bus for public transportation (which, admittedly, has been rare and predominantly limited to San Francisco visits with school groups, etc) it has been slow and just downright nasty compared to travelling on BART. Unknown pills rolling around on the floor, some pretty, shall we say, undesirable folks hanging out on them, etc. Yech.
 
#26
I've taken the approach to dismiss all the posturing articles in Bee from either side. I just want to see the revised plan presented to me and then I'll make up my mind. Because right now we aren't seeing anything of the revised plan that has yet to be shown to MSE. That is supposed to happen today. It's just too much of my energy trying to chase what is true and what isn't at this point. Just show me some plans and concept art that isn't rough and fuzzy.
 
#27
I am NOT going to drive all the way to Sacramento and then abandon my car in some light rail parking lot and jump onto light rail to get to the game. It's just not gonna happen. And just wanting light rail to be more acceptable and safe isn't going to make it more acceptable and safe.
This is such a Sacramento mindset. Let me tell a little story if you do not mind.

About 12 years ago I was staying in the Rocky mountains about 90 minutes out of Denver. My family and I wanted to see the newly established Rockies play at Mile High (before Coors Field was around). Not knowing the city all that well I looked for alternative forms of transportation.

I discovered that there was a bus line that picked people up specifically for the games about 45-60 minutes from downtown in a parking lot of a grocery store. When I got to the parking lot I was there with about 50-70 other people. I started talking to some of these people and they were almost all locals. Several of the people told me that they were season ticket holders to the Broncos and went to 20-30 Rocky games per year and they always used the bus. It was faster, cost less than parking and much less of a hassle. If you wanted to leave the game early, 1 bus left back out to the burbs at the end of every inning beginning after the 5th.

Keep in mind that this was Denver. It was not New York, LA, Chicago or Atlanta. Also keep in mind that inthe late 70s and early 80s Denver had some of the worst air pollution in the nation. Since the mid to late 80's they have had some of the cleanest air. Using a bus is not a bad way to reduce air pollution. It is time that we in Sacramento changed our attitudes.
 
#28
And just wanting light rail to be more acceptable and safe isn't going to make it more acceptable and safe.
In order for light rail to become more acceptable, people like you and I need to ride it more often. People perceive it as being unacceptable when you get on light rail and 90% of the occupants look poor. If you and I and the rest of middle class Sacramento do not use light rail because we can easily use our cars, then light rail will never be acceptable.

The issue of saftey: This is also perception. Someone would have to provide some kind of statistic showing me that riding light rail to downtown is actually more dangerous that risking your life on the freeways downtown. I think it has more to do with fear than reality, i.e. people who are unshaven and unbathed scare us.
 
#29
The issue of saftey: This is also perception. Someone would have to provide some kind of statistic showing me that riding light rail to downtown is actually more dangerous that risking your life on the freeways downtown. I think it has more to do with fear than reality, i.e. people who are unshaven and unbathed scare us.

No, people who are threatening scare us. If I wanted to ride in a traveling homeless shelter, then I would ride light rail. it's bad enouhg when I go to the ATM an get threatened..I don't want to be in something that I'm enclosed in and get the same treatment. I've tried it....for the last time. I'll take my chances on the streets in my Jeep..thank you.
 

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#30
No, people who are threatening scare us. If I wanted to ride in a traveling homeless shelter, then I would ride light rail. it's bad enouhg when I go to the ATM an get threatened..I don't want to be in something that I'm enclosed in and get the same treatment. I've tried it....for the last time. I'll take my chances on the streets in my Jeep..thank you.
Exactly.

kupman - If I'm going to travel 2 hours to attend a Kings game, I do not want to be at the mercy of public transportation. I want to have my own vehicle available should I get ill, should I decide to go somewhere else, etc. And as a single woman, I am not going to leave my car in some strange spot and board light rail. I simply would not feel safe and I would be very concerned about getting back to my car afterwards.

People use public transportation when it is advantageous for them to do so. There is no advantage for me to use public transportation and there are a variety of reasons why I choose not to.