I just received it yesterday. It was a mailing asking for help in supporting the arena plan. I haven't gotten a chance to take a real good look at it, but it seems to be asking for help in either monetary donations, displaying supportive signs/banners in your yard, or physically helping with the campaign. Basically, it was just like any other political campaign asking for help. Has anyone else received this?
Anyone else got this mailing yet?
- Thread starter RoyalDiva
- Start date
Yes, I received one also.
The envelope contains a short message and signatures from political and business leaders supporting the plan, a pamphlet with some info and sketches, and a business reply mail, for support and contributions. Everything in the mailing can be found at the website http://www.sharethevisionsacramento.com. You can sign up for yard banners there by clicking the link "Join the Team".
The envelope contains a short message and signatures from political and business leaders supporting the plan, a pamphlet with some info and sketches, and a business reply mail, for support and contributions. Everything in the mailing can be found at the website http://www.sharethevisionsacramento.com. You can sign up for yard banners there by clicking the link "Join the Team".
This is totally off-topic... Sort of. One of my biggest concerns with our proposed deal in Sacramento is cost overruns. To me, I seriously doubt they can build the arena and parking lot for $542 million ($600 million after interest). So this is what's happening in Washington, DC:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/04/AR2006100401984.html
That is not good.
What do you folks think we should do if we're hit with an additional, say, $50 million in costs? Where should that money come from? Perhaps the 1/4 cent tax hike? Would that be legal, given that Q seems to be worded such that only 50% of R's revenues can go to the arena?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/04/AR2006100401984.html
That is not good.
What do you folks think we should do if we're hit with an additional, say, $50 million in costs? Where should that money come from? Perhaps the 1/4 cent tax hike? Would that be legal, given that Q seems to be worded such that only 50% of R's revenues can go to the arena?
The numbers on cost have been interesting to me. In June and July people were throwing around the number 450 million, which quickly became 450-500 million. As time has gone on, it became just 500 million which then became 500-550 million and is now 550 million. You are now suggesting that 550 is not enough.
I am not criticizing you. It is just an obeservation. The numbers just keep drifting up and up. I suspect that by Nov. 7th we will be at 650 million and by Nov. 2008 we will be at 1.5 billion.
I am not criticizing you. It is just an obeservation. The numbers just keep drifting up and up. I suspect that by Nov. 7th we will be at 650 million and by Nov. 2008 we will be at 1.5 billion.
The estimated revenue from this proposal is VERY conservative. I bet they make at least 10% or more than projections show because they would rather come in low than high on these things.
And, whether the Maloofs are involved or they leave and we build an arena anyways (because we need one), the overruns would still be there and still paid by the tax. The design and oversight is controlled by the city, why should the Maloofs pay for cost overruns????
And, whether the Maloofs are involved or they leave and we build an arena anyways (because we need one), the overruns would still be there and still paid by the tax. The design and oversight is controlled by the city, why should the Maloofs pay for cost overruns????
No, the original estimate for the construction costs were $470-$542 million. When they then factor in the bond interest they'll need to pay, their high-end estimate is $600 million. I'm basing this on the estimates they made when they introduced this plan to the public in late July. Honestly; I haven't changed a single number.
Go to saccounty's quality of life website, and you'll see what I mean.
Besides, that's not really the point. My point is, let's just say this comes in at the high end, and then there are cost overruns during the project that bump up the cost $X million dollars. Since the wording in the bills says that only 50% of the revenues raised can go to the arena (with the rest going to community projects), where do you think the powers-that-be should get the additional $X million? Remember: They can't get it from the new sales tax; those are already in reserve, waiting to be distributed to projects that are not an arena.
(I suppose local jurisdictions could volunteer to give up those funds, but let's be realistic here; that will not happen. Galt will not give up a project to help Sacramento with cost overruns.)
I do know that DC is grippin' mighty hard on this. If I was on that council, I'd tell the Nats, "Look, $611 million is more than enough; we've been very generous. If you want a garage, you know how to contact the contractor. Thank you for your time."
Go to saccounty's quality of life website, and you'll see what I mean.
Besides, that's not really the point. My point is, let's just say this comes in at the high end, and then there are cost overruns during the project that bump up the cost $X million dollars. Since the wording in the bills says that only 50% of the revenues raised can go to the arena (with the rest going to community projects), where do you think the powers-that-be should get the additional $X million? Remember: They can't get it from the new sales tax; those are already in reserve, waiting to be distributed to projects that are not an arena.
(I suppose local jurisdictions could volunteer to give up those funds, but let's be realistic here; that will not happen. Galt will not give up a project to help Sacramento with cost overruns.)
I do know that DC is grippin' mighty hard on this. If I was on that council, I'd tell the Nats, "Look, $611 million is more than enough; we've been very generous. If you want a garage, you know how to contact the contractor. Thank you for your time."
No I trust you on this AS. Your attention to detail and accuracy rivals wikipedia. I am just remarking about the numbers that I have heard/read during the past few months on the radio, newpaper, internet etc.
Honestly, $600 million is a bit expensive even for my zealous tastes. How many other venues have cost $600 million or more? Are we trying to build the most expensive b-ball venue to date?
Honestly, $600 million is a bit expensive even for my zealous tastes. How many other venues have cost $600 million or more? Are we trying to build the most expensive b-ball venue to date?
The city is supposed to manage the construction and the Maloofs are just involved in the design approval process. I have yet to see documents that break down the cost from the design, purchase of land, etc. I think a good chunk might be for infrastructure since this is pretty much undeveloped land. I see that details like who pays for moving the tracks near the depot is open for debate and there are tracks located in the current arena site(s).
The latest built is usually the highest. But its been awhile since a b-ball arena has been built in as high a cost market as California. Phoenix, Indiana, Memphis, Charlotte, San Antonio. Costs in those areas no where near California land and construction costs.
And Katrina will affect constcution costs all over the country for the forseeable future. Anyway, if its a high estimate, all the better, Costs generally do nothing but go higher. If its a high estimate = lower cost overruns. Altho its amazing how much costs can go up in a matter of months.
But its been awhile since a b-ball arena has been built in as high a cost market as California. Phoenix, Indiana, Memphis, Charlotte, San Antonio. Costs in those areas no where near California land and construction costs.And Katrina will affect constcution costs all over the country for the forseeable future. Anyway, if its a high estimate, all the better, Costs generally do nothing but go higher. If its a high estimate = lower cost overruns. Altho its amazing how much costs can go up in a matter of months.
^^^ what you say is certainly true. However, it looks like our arena will cost 2-3x what many other arenas have cost. Take a look at ballparks.com for some of the costs on b-ball arenas and also football arenas. Be sure to look at recently constructed arenas in expensive markets. 600 million is a really, really big number relative to all these factors. It should freak us all out.
kupman, I noticed that too. San Antonio stands out. I really, really can't see why it should cost almost three times as much for Arco II than it did for at&t (gotta remember to keep at&t lowercase now...) in San Antonio. Okay, I understand you got your inflation (maybe 20%, tops), and our labor costs will be higher... So how does that get you from well under $200 million to almost $600 million? (Spurs covered the overruns on that one, too, by the way.)
I know it's going to get you part of the way, but that far??
I think it's Thomas Enterprises, deciding that land in the railyard is worth $5.5 million/acre. I wonder how many offers they had for land in there at that price. That's what determines land value; if you ask a price and no one offers, you either sit on the land or lower your price. Maybe the City needs to pull back completely until Thomas actually closes escrow?
Anyway, I think the Maloofs will announce they're back on board, today. Just a WAG. I have no inside information on this.
I really cannot see how even the most strident supporters can vote for this if there's no mutually-acceptable MOU. I strongly resist the idea of building an arena there if you don't have a team fully committed. This is like building a mall without Sears, Macy's and Penny's signed-on; you just don't do it. Otherwise, you end up in the same boat as Kansas City.
This may not be all about the Kings (that's debatable), but they are certainly the anchor at Arco Mall right now. Without the Kings, there probably is no arena in this town. That view may make some Monarchs' fans mad, but really, it's still true.
I know it's going to get you part of the way, but that far??
I think it's Thomas Enterprises, deciding that land in the railyard is worth $5.5 million/acre. I wonder how many offers they had for land in there at that price. That's what determines land value; if you ask a price and no one offers, you either sit on the land or lower your price. Maybe the City needs to pull back completely until Thomas actually closes escrow?
Anyway, I think the Maloofs will announce they're back on board, today. Just a WAG. I have no inside information on this.
I really cannot see how even the most strident supporters can vote for this if there's no mutually-acceptable MOU. I strongly resist the idea of building an arena there if you don't have a team fully committed. This is like building a mall without Sears, Macy's and Penny's signed-on; you just don't do it. Otherwise, you end up in the same boat as Kansas City.
This may not be all about the Kings (that's debatable), but they are certainly the anchor at Arco Mall right now. Without the Kings, there probably is no arena in this town. That view may make some Monarchs' fans mad, but really, it's still true.
The Citrust Heights Chamber of Commerce has come out against Q&R, I think for some very compelling reasons:
http://www.sacbee.com/190/story/33575.html
I don't want to cutnpaste the whole article, and I don't want to mangle their words. I simply suggest you read it. The point on the 50% limit is very interesting; since Q is non-binding, so is "up to 50%," meaning that the sales tax will pay for the arena until all the bills are paid. So, if that means $750 million, then that's that. IF that's true, I think it's kind of sneaky.
http://www.sacbee.com/190/story/33575.html
I don't want to cutnpaste the whole article, and I don't want to mangle their words. I simply suggest you read it. The point on the 50% limit is very interesting; since Q is non-binding, so is "up to 50%," meaning that the sales tax will pay for the arena until all the bills are paid. So, if that means $750 million, then that's that. IF that's true, I think it's kind of sneaky.
They got the land for free in San Antonio, so that helped. While it is a nice arena, it isn't in the class of others recently completed. The AAC in Dallas is pretty high end. It cost 420 million and opened 5 years ago. Staples Center opened in 1999 and was just under 400 million. So I don't think 500 million for a first class facility built in today's dollars is a lot.
That payback of the arena first has been known since the beginning. Nobody has been sneaky. I think 750 million is pure fantasy here. You inflated that to exaggerate your point about cost overruns. As for Citrus Heights and the county, you need to go do some background work on their relationship. They have been fighting with each other since CH voted to become a city. So I'm sure this has more to do with them fighting over other revenues than the actual arena. This is more like the Sac Police officers association situation than anything. The county has it's share of battles just like the city does. So I don't doubt that this vote of non-support comes after some heated negotiations for a bigger chunk than CH was due. And don't think for a second if Q&R pass that CH will refuse any of the tax revenue.
You have to know the situation deeper than what was fed to the public in that letter.
You have to know the situation deeper than what was fed to the public in that letter.
Just to show how this started between the county and CH:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE5D61031F93AA25755C0A96E948260
And more:
http://www.ci.citrus-heights.ca.us/home/index.asp?page=895
During the next several years, CHIP fought an uphill battle with the County of Sacramento to place the incorporation on the ballot. The County Board of Supervisors sued the County Local Agency Formation Commission and CHIP, arguing that all County residents, rather than Citrus Heights residents alone, should be allowed to vote on incorporation. Opponents argued that all residents of the County would be affected by possible tax revenue losses from a Citrus Heights incorporation. In 1993, the matter was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, who declined to hear the case. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the State Supreme Court ruling that only residents of the proposed City should vote on incorporation.
In 1994, after agreement with the County was reached, the effort gained momentum and took on the challenge to raise funds to pay for the mandated Environmental Impact report. Once accomplished, the County Board of Supervisors approved the measure for the November 1996 ballot and a full campaign was initiated.
Finally, after a 12-year battle with the County of Sacramento, the Citrus Heights residents voted on the issue. The voters approved the measure to incorporate the City on November 5, 1996, effective January 1, 1997. The measure won handily, with 62.5% of the votes.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE5D61031F93AA25755C0A96E948260
And more:
http://www.ci.citrus-heights.ca.us/home/index.asp?page=895
During the next several years, CHIP fought an uphill battle with the County of Sacramento to place the incorporation on the ballot. The County Board of Supervisors sued the County Local Agency Formation Commission and CHIP, arguing that all County residents, rather than Citrus Heights residents alone, should be allowed to vote on incorporation. Opponents argued that all residents of the County would be affected by possible tax revenue losses from a Citrus Heights incorporation. In 1993, the matter was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, who declined to hear the case. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the State Supreme Court ruling that only residents of the proposed City should vote on incorporation.
In 1994, after agreement with the County was reached, the effort gained momentum and took on the challenge to raise funds to pay for the mandated Environmental Impact report. Once accomplished, the County Board of Supervisors approved the measure for the November 1996 ballot and a full campaign was initiated.
Finally, after a 12-year battle with the County of Sacramento, the Citrus Heights residents voted on the issue. The voters approved the measure to incorporate the City on November 5, 1996, effective January 1, 1997. The measure won handily, with 62.5% of the votes.
Last edited: