Yes to Q&R without Maloofs?

[VF21]

According to the city/county (per the recent "breaking news" from Channel 13), if Q&R pass, they build an arena in the railyards with or without the Kings. As of now, the Maloof's are saying without. If that's true then won't the kings be forced to leave town? There's no way we're going to put an "entertainment" arena in the railyards and "Arco 2" somewhere else like Natomas. Not possible.

Unless someone can explain to me how this is an invalid argument I find myself suddenly on the "vote no" side of Q&R, which makes me feel very much like a traitor somehow.

It's not so much an invalid argument as an argument based on an invalid assumption.

You're assuming that the Maloofs will not come to terms with the city/county should Q & R pass. What you're missing is what I've pointed out above. The measures do NOT specify the railyards in any way, shape or form.

Now, let's assume they do go forward with the railyard arena. The city/county is going to do whatever they can to ensure a long-term professional sports franchise for that arena. That pretty much means they'll find a way to come to terms with the Maloofs, who will - in turn - be pushed strongly by David Stern to find a way to make it work.

 

[JB_kings]

Look at it as voting leverage to the city on making a deal. Money in hand is a strong motivator. I wouldn't worry about them taking the money and doing something else entirely. That would be suicide for the city and county.

 

[bringbackbobby]

It's not so much an invalid argument as an argument based on an invalid assumption.

You're assuming that the Maloofs will not come to terms with the city/county should Q & R pass. What you're missing is what I've pointed out above. The measures do NOT specify the railyards in any way, shape or form.

Now, let's assume they do go forward with the railyard arena. The city/county is going to do whatever they can to ensure a long-term professional sports franchise for that arena. That pretty much means they'll find a way to come to terms with the Maloofs, who will - in turn - be pushed strongly by David Stern to find a way to make it work.

Maybe...

But, let's say I'm a Kings fan and vote yes on Q&R to "save the kings"... and it passes, and neither side budges - the arena gets built and kings have no part in it. I'm pissed.

Or, let's say I'm a railyard redevelopment supporter and I vote yes on Q&R to support that cause and the money is spent to build an arena in Natomas, I'd be pissed.

As of now, whether or not it states so in the measure, city/county is dead set on a downtown arena and the Kings are dead set about not being a part of it. Maybe it's an invalid assumption, but it's the only conclusion that either side is offering at the moment.

They need to come to some kind of understanding. I know the nitty gritty details won't be hashed out in time, but they've got to agree on some of the high level items... or this vote is useless... it's a crap shoot.

I'd even go so far as to say that Q&R opponents might be a bit confused also... this whole time they've been very anti Maloofs... Now the Maloofs seem to be no on Q&R or at least no oppinion on Q&R. So that takes the steam out of the "greedy billion dollar playboys" campaign - is that strategy, maybe... but now the pro kings contingent is baffled as to which way to go... the lines are all distorted.

I know what I want, yet don't know which way to vote to get what I want. I'm pro kings... I'm pro railyard revitilization... am I yes or no on Q&R? I think nobody knows right now.

 

[BMiller52]

So if the Kings won't use the arena why do we need it???

 

[kennadog]

A person who wants an arena only if it will be in the railyard, should vote no. The proposition says nothing about location and the "deal" that did expire didn't guarantee a downtown arena either. To me, its pretty clear the Maloofs don't want a downtown arena. Its not impossible, but it sure seems to be the big problem in inking a deal.

 

[BMiller52]

But isn't the whole selling part of the arena half of the deal that they will revitalize the railyards and it will have an arena in it? I mean how can you tell voters the whole "it's going to be in the rail yard, we're going to revitalize that area with a new arena" and then put it right by arco or wherever. I don't think that would go over too well. And it seems like the city wants the arena to be in the railyards pretty badly to me. And it seems like the Maloofs won't budge on the parking/1000 foot barrier issue, but the city won't either, and the city wants it in the rail yard but the Maloofs dont. So IMO the way I see it, either something's gotta give or the Kings won't get a new arena with Q and R.

 

[kennadog]

The city can say it has to be in the railyards, but they never had a firm agreement for that. Period. And they likely couldn't have guaranteed that by the election, because they had no deal with Thomas Enterprises and Thomas Enterprises only has an "option" to purchase the land. If TE can't finalize a deal with Union Pacific, nothing can be built there, by anybody involved in arena discussions to this point.

Its the city who decided to emphasize revitalization, not the Maloofs. (I'd like it downtown, by the way.) However, if it can't be built downtown in a way that makes economic sense for the Maloofs, I have never had a problem with building by the current Arco. A whole lot less hurdles there and despite what they've said, I think it has to be cheaper.

 

[Warhawk]

However, if it can't be built downtown in a way that makes economic sense for the Maloofs, I have never had a problem with building by the current Arco. A whole lot less hurdles there and despite what they've said, I think it has to be cheaper.

As long as they get light rail to go near there someday, I don't mind where it is now. It's probably going to be 2058 before light rail goes anywhere useful in this city....

 

[kupman]

As long as they get light rail to go near there someday, I don't mind where it is now. It's probably going to be 2058 before light rail goes anywhere useful in this city....

It goes downtown - that is a pretty useful place. Although, it would be more useful with an arena.

 

[Arena Skeptic]

But isn't the whole selling part of the arena half of the deal that they will revitalize the railyards and it will have an arena in it? I mean how can you tell voters the whole "it's going to be in the rail yard, we're going to revitalize that area with a new arena" and then put it right by arco or wherever. I don't think that would go over too well. And it seems like the city wants the arena to be in the railyards pretty badly to me. And it seems like the Maloofs won't budge on the parking/1000 foot barrier issue, but the city won't either, and the city wants it in the rail yard but the Maloofs dont. So IMO the way I see it, either something's gotta give or the Kings won't get a new arena with Q and R.

Bingo.

The motto of the Q&R campaign is, "Renew, Rebuild, Revitalize." If the arena is not in the railyard, but instead is on the 100 acres of City-owned land adjacent to the current arena, then exactly WHAT have we renewed, rebuilt and revitalized?

Viewed another way, if it's in the railyard, it is a valid way to jumpstart development, and thus is worthy of some public funding. But if it's adjacent to the current arena, it's just a subsidy.

You have to guarantee the location.

You have to guarantee the location.

And, while you're at it, you have to guarantee the location.

If you don't, it's just a subsidy.

 

[JB_kings]

Bingo.

The motto of the Q&R campaign is, "Renew, Rebuild, Revitalize." If the arena is not in the railyard, but instead is on the 100 acres of City-owned land adjacent to the current arena, then exactly WHAT have we renewed, rebuilt and revitalized?

Viewed another way, if it's in the railyard, it is a valid way to jumpstart development, and thus is worthy of some public funding. But if it's adjacent to the current arena, it's just a subsidy.

You have to guarantee the location.

You have to guarantee the location.

And, while you're at it, you have to guarantee the location.

If you don't, it's just a subsidy.

Ok, we put it on a legal document that you must buy my house and no other house. Very cool, the asking price for my house just tripled. Why bother to negotiate because you are forced into buying my house. Thank you!

 

[Arena Skeptic]

Ok, we put it on a legal document that you must buy my house and no other house. Very cool, the asking price for my house just tripled. Why bother to negotiate because you are forced into buying my house. Thank you!

We're not buying a house; we're buying an arena. Besides, you put in poison pills in the thing; if it costs too much, you quit on the deal.

And the current owner of the house is not you; it belongs to someone else, and you have been in escrow with them for over 2 years. You've decided that the $400,000 price really should have been $1.2 million, before you even hit the open market. You've ordered your real estate agent to sell it for that price, and you just might be wrong.

Translated, the City/County should not negotiate with someone who ain't the owner.

But that evades my question: If it's not in the railyard, how is it "Renew, Rebuild, Revitalize"?

 

[JB_kings]

We're not buying a house; we're buying an arena. Besides, you put in poison pills in the thing; if it costs too much, you quit on the deal.

"We" aren't buying anything. Just because you pay a tax on gasoline, doesn't mean you own the station or the refinery. You either agree to the tax or not.
The poison pills were in the original agreement in the form of exploring other sites if it becomes too difficult to build on the railyard site. And in fact, the land where the transit depot is supposed to go, went from nearly free a few years ago to over 5 million an acre. The city has no negotiating leverage as they pretty much have to build there.

And the current owner of the house is not you; it belongs to someone else, and you have been in escrow with them for over 2 years. You've decided that the $400,000 price really should have been $1.2 million, before you even hit the open market. You've ordered your real estate agent to sell it for that price, and you just might be wrong.

Translated, the City/County should not negotiate with someone who ain't the owner.

Agreed that Thomas does not own anything yet. But that didn't stop them from saying there will be bump up in the projected cost per an acre fro the depot land. This isn't an open market at all if you put wording in an agreement that says this project must be developed on this land. They would have all the pressure on them to do the deal there or cancel the whole deal with your approach. That is what they call a motivated buyer. You have to have an option to explore other sites just like I would if I were buying a house.

But that evades my question: If it's not in the railyard, how is it "Renew, Rebuild, Revitalize"?

No evasion at all. The full intent by the city and county is to build in the railyards. After all the fighting over the semi-obvious desire of the Maloofs to build next to Arco, isn't that enough evidence that the city REALLY intends to build in the railyards? I don't know how more clear the intent is in this case. If anyone is trying to worm out of the railyards it is the Maloofs - not the city. They were the turd in the punch bowl.

 

[JB_kings]

Just a followup, when I say city, I mean those who have worked on and supported Q&R. I imagine that Steve Cohn is going to be involved in plan B which will involve the land next to Arco as he has publicly stated in print and on radio. The Maloofs get everything they want and Cohn is the hero and next mayor. Everyone is happy and the railyards are doomed for another decade or two.

Politics and strange bedfellows if you've followed this as long as I have...

 

[voteno]

reasonable vote

the only reasonable vote at this point is NO. There are no details, there is no interest from the Maloofs. They dont want it to pass. They dont even want an arena downtown. That is where the city thought they couldget funding..

just vote NO...

 

[kennadog]

the only reasonable vote at this point is NO. There are no details, there is no interest from the Maloofs. They dont want it to pass. They dont even want an arena downtown. That is where the city thought they couldget funding..

just vote NO...

That is the sheerest speculation, based on no actual facts. I suspect the Maloofs do not want it downtown given the current conditions they be given. However, I have absolutley no certain knowledge of that. And why would they want Q & R to fail? If it miraculously passed, it would still provide potential arena funding, without requiring it to be downtown.


I don't have a problem with people who want to vote no, because they want to see more detail. And NO is not the only reasonable vote. It is unreasonable to you. It likely is unreasonable to the majority of voters, but that does not invalidate reasons that people might have to vote YES. Things are almost never perfectly black and white. There can be valid points on all sides.

 

[voteno]

For those of us who dont sign blank checks

NO is the only reasonable vote. For them to say trust us, is their downfall. Do I really think that if they magically come to an agreement in the next few days that ther will not be deals made after the vote, if a arena was to somehow pass? I for one, and I am not alone, do not trust the County supervisors who crafted this deal. As they say, if an arena is such a good deal fro the area, then there should be no reason to not give us the details. I realize that there is nothing agreed to and that means simply that a NO vote is necessary. Shady business deals..is what this looks like and smells like.

 

[bringbackbobby]

And why would they want Q & R to fail? If it miraculously passed, it would still provide potential arena funding, without requiring it to be downtown.

This is part of the question that originally started the thread. My vote goes to what I perceive is the best case scenario for the Kings. That is what I most care about, and so that is where my vote is going. I have asked this forum a question that is a reversal of an argument we'd be hearing all along. The standard question is "will the kings leave if we don't pass Q&R and build an arena?" I've reversed this question and am asking if it's possible that by passing Q&R, and builiding an arena that the Maloofs can't agree to (as it seems to stand right now) will they be forced to leave. We certainly aren't going to get two arenas.

If the Maloofs really do want to stay in Sacramento, and absolutely can't agree to the terms that the city/county have laid down, then I can see a scenario - that I honestly don't believe is that unrealistic - in which they would want Q&R to fail.

People who have put a lot of thought and time into this forum have made the argument that if Q&R passes and the money is there, they will get the deal worked out. If that were to come to pass, I'd be extremely relieved. However I don't know that "if you build it, they will come" is a foregone conclusion. If it were true, you'd think that the Maloofs would be behind Q&R. If it were simply a matter of getting the money in the bank, and the details worked out later, then they should be campaigning for it heavily. The fact that they are not, leads me to believe that they are hoping it fails. So, if you are a kings fan, as I am, which side of this issue do you know find yourself on?

 

[kennadog]

I simply see no reason why the Maloofs would want it to fail. You are right, there won't be two arenas. I believe IF (huge assumption) the propositions were to pass and the city were to proceed with an arena the Maloofs could not agree to, for financial viability issues for the franchise, then the Kings would have to move.

I'm not gong to tell anyone they have to vote one way or the other. As I've said repeatedly, I can understand why someone would vote no, because they want more details and some kind of assurances. That's a reasonable opinion to have. I'm leaning more to that side, at this point.

But to say it is the only reasonable opinion to have is, in my opinion, just not true. I'm sure there will be intelligent, informed voters who will vote yes, because they feel they have "reasonable" reasons to do so. I would argue that their feelings about what is reasonable have as much validity as anyone voting no.

Reasonable people disagree. Some people aren't satisfied with winning an election, they think everyone should think and feel exactly as they do. Thank goodness we live where people aren't forced to have the same opinion.

 

[bringbackbobby]

I simply see no reason why the Maloofs would want it to fail.

I believe IF (huge assumption) the propositions were to pass and the city were to proceed with an arena the Maloofs could not agree to, for financial viability issues for the franchise, then the Kings would have to move.

Was this a typo? These seem like contradicting statements to me, unless you are of the oppinion that the Maloofs want to leave.

 

[VF21]

No, she's not saying the Maloofs want to leave.

What she's saying, is that if the proposition passes, there's no way there would be TWO new arenas built. IF the city/county designs an arena, odds are pretty high they would court the Maloofs to become the long-term tenant and the odds are pretty good the Maloofs and the NBA would do everything possible to find a way to make it work.

In the worst-case scenario, if the city/county and the Maloofs couldn't come to any kind of an agreement, the Kings would most likely be moved since this region definitely couldn't support two arenas. But the chances of that actually happening are probably about as close to nil as you could possibly imagine.

 

[kennadog]

Probably bad wording. Scenario:

Q & R pass

City refuses to build an arena anywhere but downtown

MSE says a downtown arena deal just won't work for them financially

City builds new arena downtown anyway.

MSE knows that there's no point in staying anymore, because they are not going to get the arena they believe they need to remain financially viable. A second arena would not work.

MSE moves

VF beat me to it. I think this a highly unlikely scenario as well. This would be basically kicking MSE out of town. The arena becomes a much bigger financial risk for the City, because they would have lost an anchor tenant.

 

[kupman]

I think that it is unlikely because I do not think any owner in the history of sports has ever screwed a city that bad - nor would the NBA stand for it.

Could you imagine? "Here is your 1/2 billion dollar, state-of the art facility built by the community that has supported your team for years. What? You do not want any part of it because of parking and 1,000 foot control zone?"

I have said it before. We build it anyway and we build it where we want it because it is the best for our city. The Maloofs will come along.

 

[kennadog]

Neither would the league force an owner to keep a team in a city where they are never going to be able to cash flow, because the financing just doesn't work. He's already got that headache with other teams and you can see he's softening on letting teams move.

Most teams aren't money makers thru operations, but the NBA is not going to require them to lose money, just to stay in one city.

Having said all that, I too think the above scenario won't happen. Why? Because I seriously doubt Q & R are going to pass.

 

[kupman]

I totally agree that Q&R has very little chance of passing (and I am being generous).

Hypothetically though, if we were to build a 1/2 billion dollar state of the facility (the most expensive in all the land) on the backs of taxpayers and then the Maloofs left anyway?......well the NBA would have a BIG, BIG problem on their hands...I think that it would cause a national outcry in the sports world.

It would not just be another case of a team moving for financial reasons.

 

[bringbackbobby]

I think that it is unlikely because I do not think any owner in the history of sports has ever screwed a city that bad - nor would the NBA stand for it.

Could you imagine? "Here is your 1/2 billion dollar, state-of the art facility built by the community that has supported your team for years. What? You do not want any part of it because of parking and 1,000 foot control zone?"

I have said it before. We build it anyway and we build it where we want it because it is the best for our city. The Maloofs will come along.

Ok... I guess I'm beating a dead horse... as you all seem to be of a like mind, "we build it to our specifications and they (MSE) just take it on the chin and make it work".

However, it seems to me, that that argument flies directly into the face of what I've been preaching since this thing began. This site is called "save our kings" afterall and now we are talking about supporting a deal that the kings (MSE) doesn't support themselves.

You guys/gals don't see this as a "if you're not with us, you're against us" type situation at all?

 

[kennadog]

I totally agree that Q&R has very little chance of passing (and I am being generous).

Hypothetically though, if we were to build a 1/2 billion dollar state of the facility (the most expensive in all the land) on the backs of taxpayers and then the Maloofs left anyway?......well the NBA would have a BIG, BIG problem on their hands...I think that it would cause a national outcry in the sports world.

It would not just be another case of a team moving for financial reasons.

Well bottom line to me is, the city/county would be stupid to go forward without the Maloof's too, at this point. They'd have to consider very, very carefully before investing in an arena without having the anchor tenant. And a tenant who takes the risk of losses every year, instead of the city/county.

 

[kennadog]

Ok... I guess I'm beating a dead horse... as you all seem to be of a like mind, "we build it to our specifications and they (MSE) just take it on the chin and make it work".

However, it seems to me, that that argument flies directly into the face of what I've been preaching since this thing began. This site is called "save our kings" afterall and now we are talking about supporting a deal that the kings (MSE) doesn't support themselves.

You guys/gals don't see this as a "if you're not with us, you're against us" type situation at all?

I personally want the Kings to stay. I personally think my beloved Sacramento needs a new sports entertainment venue with or without the Kings. As it stands now, if Q & R pass, I have no gurantee either of those things will happen. Its a reason to lean a bit to the no side.

On the other hand, if the money was made available, I believe the city and MSE would manage to work out a mutually acceptable deal. That's the side that leans toward, yes.

Quandry, no?

 

[kupman]

Well bottom line to me is, the city/county would be stupid to go forward without the Maloof's too, at this point. They'd have to consider very, very carefully before investing in an arena without having the anchor tenant. And a tenant who takes the risk of losses every year, instead of the city/county.

It would certainly be a risk, but I would not go so far as to say that it would be stupid. There are cities building arenas soley on speculation that they will someday land a tenant. We would not be in that precarious of a position.

It would be a hard sell to the public but these are the reasons I would move forward and build it downtown with or without them.

1) I think the Maloofs would eventually jump on board.

2) with or without the Kings we need a new venue.

3) I think that it would give te city a more negotiating power with the Maloofs; i.e. "here is the arena - now I dare you to leave and start a national firestorm."

4) I am jealous of K.C. and Ok. City. They were able to build arenas without owners telling them how to do it.

5) On principle, we are paying for most of it so we should be deciding how and where it is built. As soon as the Kings pay for 51% of it, then they can start making the big decisions.

 

[kennadog]

Well stupid is a strong word. I too want the city to have a new sports/entertainment venue. But if people think the Maloofs are going top take bigger losses just to stay in Sacramento, they're dreaming.

I can't see how that would start a firestorm. If an arena is here and there's no way the team can make it financially at said arena, nobody should have a peep of criticism if the Kings leave. A pro franchise is not a charity, despite the fact that some people around Sacramento think it should be.