Voisin: Defeat won't lead to doom

[VF21]

http://www.sacbee.com/100/story/71623.html

Ailene Voisin: Defeat won't lead to doom
Last Updated 12:03 am PST Saturday, November 4, 2006
Story appeared in SPORTS section, Page C1

So let's assume Measures Q and R bomb at the ballot box Tuesday. What happens next?

Everyone goes home angry. Then everyone realizes the sun still rises, the Kings are still here, and the Maloofs and the NBA are refusing to abandon Sacramento for a variety of reasons, among them unwavering support, lack of competition and, at the moment, no superior alternatives elsewhere. Then, finally, the parties will cease their whining, submerge their egos and return to the table.

"The Maloofs are absolutely, positively committed to staying in Sacramento," an irritated NBA Commissioner David Stern said Friday in a brief telephone conversation. "I don't know how to say it more strongly than that. After the election, we have to see if this deal can be salvaged, and if not, look at something else."

Count Stern among the mad. The Maloofs feel duped by city/county officials. City/county officials feel strong-armed by the Maloofs. Kings fans feel caught in the vise between the dueling parties. And the commissioner -- asked on several occasions by city/county officials to intervene and break the frequent impasses -- believes these same politicians failed to fulfill their promise and assist in the Maloofs' attempts to acquire adequate parking spaces and additional concessions from Stan Thomas, the developer with the option to purchase the land and renovate the railyard.

Additionally, Stern contends Joe Maloof was unjustifiably castigated when he abruptly announced that there was no deal, and that other significant issues for a downtown site remained unresolved, among them toxic waste problems and infrastrucure funding.

"Joe was just being straight with voters," Stern insisted, concurring with Joe Maloof's suggestion that Natomas remains a viable option. "He didn't deserve the beating he took."

But this isn't over.

See you at the polls in 2008.

Meantime, it's back to the negotiations, though before any future deal can be consummated, a few things have to occur. First, the acrimony among the principals must abate, with the element of trust and a legitimate sense of partnership emerging. Secondly, Joe Maloof, who remains arguably the most important figure here, must move back into his home off Garden Highway and re-establish roots (and goodwill) within the community. His personal investment during the family's first years of ownership was worth millions. Heck, back then, those burger ads would have been praised around here as the junk food that binds the rich and the poor.

The Maloofs, by my account, made two gaffes. They failed to hire an effective personal adviser, and they did a terrible job articulating their very legitimate need for a modern facility and a private/public partnership. They virtually ignored their biggest ally -- NBA economics.

Sacramento is not Los Angeles, Chicago or New York, where corporations and huge regional television contracts essentially pay the bills and ensure profits. The NBA small-market landscape, frankly, has become a financial mess. Owners are jumping ship, if not off bridges, primarily because their arena lease agreements fail to provide adequate profits from parking, food, club seats, and the other amenities and revenue streams so plentiful in the larger cities.

Seattle SuperSonics owner Howard Schultz of Starbucks fame bailed after five seasons. Memphis Grizzlies owner Michael Heisley is selling after a similarly short tenure. Portland owner Paul Allen is threatening to sell unless the Trail Blazers' lease is revised. Milwaukee owner Herb Kohl, a U.S. senator, is rumored to be selling the Bucks after his expected re-election next week. Bradley Center was built the same year as Arco (1988), and as the league's second-oldest facility, is plagued by several of the same issues and an even more problematic lease.

Glen Taylor, whose Timberwolves compete in an ideally located Target Center in downtown Minneapolis, says his club is losing substantial sums because the more modern NHL arena in St. Paul is luring away corporate sponsorships, concerts and other acts.

"In these older buildings," Taylor said recently, "it's getting very hard."

Then there is Orlando. After years of frustration, Magic officials recently agreed to relinquish operation of a new arena to be built as part of a downtown renovation. As one league official said, "In a smaller market, if the owners operate the building, they better control most of the parking and other revenue, or it's a losing proposition."

In that respect, the Maloofs' demands regarding a downtown facility -- which they would operate rather than own, make immense business sense. Whether a deal in the railyard is workable in light of the other issues is another matter.

But back to the future.

The Kings belong here.

Everyone seems in agreement on that.

About the writer: Reach Ailene Voisin at (916) 321-1208 or avoisin@sacbee.com.

 

[VF21]

"The Maloofs are absolutely, positively committed to staying in Sacramento," an irritated NBA Commissioner David Stern said Friday in a brief telephone conversation. "I don't know how to say it more strongly than that. After the election, we have to see if this deal can be salvaged, and if not, look at something else."

The Maloofs have done everything they can to convince people they want to stay. David Stern says they want to stay.

I know this is going to really disappoint R.E. Graswich and his little band of "chicken littles" but I'm going to believe them.

 

[BMiller52]

I think they want to stay, I hope they want to stay. And the guy I'm going to blame for this failing is Stan Thomas the developer guy.

 

[kennadog]

Honestly? What I'm going to blame the failure on is the fact that it was put together far too late, with too little time to try and make something work. At least they have started negotiations. We had no negotiations at all before.

 

[VF21]

Honestly? What I'm going to blame the failure on is the fact that it was put together far too late, with too little time to try and make something work. At least they have started negotiations. We had no negotiations at all before.

Yep. And it's a step in the right direction. Human beings learn from their mistakes. I think all parties concerned have probably learned a lot from this experience, assuming of course something really bizarre doesn't happen and Q & R actually pass.

 

[kennadog]

Yep. And it's a step in the right direction. Human beings learn from their mistakes. I think all parties concerned have probably learned a lot from this experience, assuming of course something really bizarre doesn't happen and Q & R don't actually pass.

ummm, did you mean do pass?

 

[VF21]

Fixed.

 

[Arena Skeptic]

Ailene misses a HUGE point.

The main, huge point that Ailene misses in this article: No politician will touch this issue now. The next date possible to do this is June 2008; that also happens to be the next mayoral election, just by coincidence. And the leading candidate up until about last June was Rob Fong.

Note my verb tense, "was." He is no longer the front-runner. And frankly, if R loses by as large a margin as I think it will, it's entirely possible that is as it should be.

Look who signed on as endorsing the forces against Q&R: The Democratic party; the Republican party. Both of 'em.

So what politician in his or her right mind will both run hard for mayor AND ALSO spearhead the next shot at this? I'm thinking zero here.

That really is the major point Ailene misses here. Let's say this loses 80-20 (a larger margin than I expect, by the way). In the next election, would YOU run for mayor with arena planks on your platform? That's called insanity, in my book.

And then, it gets even worse: If we had passed something this year, they'd have been looking at 2010 as opening day, if everything had run like a Swiss watch. Let's face it, this was NEVER going to run like a Swiss watch, not when this land has been in escrow for over 2 years, and not when this is a Superfund site. So right now, IF it passed in 2008 (IF any politician is willing to get within 100 feet of this issue), and IF it ran like a Swiss watch (doubtful), they'd be looking at 2012 AT THE EARLIEST for opening.

Why would the Maloofs wait that long?

I think all you can blame this on is the local politicians and the Maloofs waiting until May to start, then stopping and starting several times, then the disputes, and basing it all on a sales tax, and on and on. It has a LOT of problems to overcome, and no politician motivated to address the, oh, remaining 20 or 30 major issues.

That's all Ailene missed. That's all.

I'll say it again (and probably in the future, too): If this is based entirely on increased sales tax, it will fail. Every. Single. Time. It will never happen any other way. There simply MUST be a ticket surcharge associated with this. Heck, I pay a $3 surcharge to see plays at STC; why should this be different? (My Friday night tickets cost $29, including the surcharge; it's over 10% of face value)

The pols can either take this advice, or watch the 2008 proposal go down in flames a second time, taking a few careers along with it.

 

[kennadog]

There are already surcharges on tickets at Arco. Have been for years. The ceiling proce on tickets has almost been reached already. If you sell fewer tickets at a higher price, you don't gain anything.

If all politicans would be afraid to touch this, no matter how good the deal, then shame on them. Anyone should stand up for what they believe in, for their vision of the future. If they don't have the guts to do that, they shoouldn't be elected to office anyway. Sacramento seems to be home to enough political weaklings as it is.

If wasn't the Maloofs who waited until May, it was the city/county. The Maloofs have been pleading for face to face negotiations for years. May was the first time the city and/or county have been willing to do that.

Joe's statments indicate to me that they are willing to look to the 2008 elections. But that's probably the last shot.

 

[Arena Skeptic]

There are already surcharges on tickets at Arco. Have been for years. The ceiling proce on tickets has almost been reached already. If you sell fewer tickets at a higher price, you don't gain anything.

If all politicans would be afraid to touch this, no matter how good the deal, then shame on them. Anyone should stand up for what they believe in, for their vision of the future. If they don't have the guts to do that, they shoouldn't be elected to office anyway. Sacramento seems to be home to enough political weaklings as it is.

If wasn't the Maloofs who waited until May, it was the city/county. The Maloofs have been pleading for face to face negotiations for years. May was the first time the city and/or county have been willing to do that.

Joe's statments indicate to me that they are willing to look to the 2008 elections. But that's probably the last shot.

The fact that they currently have a surcharge simply proves that it'd work again. If it works once, it'll work twice. With the lease payment they negotiated, it is 100% clear that a 10% surcharge would work a second time. You print on the ticket: "$45 + 10% surcharge = $49.50".

It's not preventing sellouts now, is it? Once they pay off the $70 million or so they currently own...

And as I said, no mayoral candidate will want to put an arena plank on his or her platform. The fact that the next chance we have to do this coincides with the next mayoral election drives several stakes through this thing's heart. If they started negotiating on November 8, they'd never have an agreement put together by June 2008, because no politician alive will touch it. It's a hot potato now.

I doubt that Fong can be mayor now. That might be all you need to know right there.

If they're to put together a new proposal, much more public input will be essential. Last time, the debate period was poorly scheduled. It was in the middle of a workday, and there was only one session. They needed to have the key details worked out and debated several times, with input from regular people, to at least get a sense of what the public would accept or reject. Funding this through a sales tax is simply not an option; no amount of educating the public will change that.

 

[Arena Skeptic]

Voison is also naive.

By the way, I think the rift between the various supporters of this deal (the Chamber of Commerce, the Maloofs, the City, the County, Thomas Enterprises, and the Q&R campaign) may be so deep and so serious that it could take several months before anyone even talks to anyone else again.

The City's position was so far from the Maloofs' that I just don't see how you close that wound. And yet, it's essential that this wound be fixed by the end of November, at the latest. These sides were very far apart on an agreement, and if they build this in Natomas, you suddenly lose a lot of players, and it would need a much larger input from the Maloofs since it wouldn't redevelop the railyards, and so forth.

In short, the picture Ailene painted in her article is so optimistic as to be naive.

 

[Warhawk]

The fact that they currently have a surcharge simply proves that it'd work again. If it works once, it'll work twice. With the lease payment they negotiated, it is 100% clear that a 10% surcharge would work a second time. You print on the ticket: "$45 + 10% surcharge = $49.50".

It's not preventing sellouts now, is it? Once they pay off the $70 million or so they currently own...

Uh, no. You can't just raise prices and expect more people to show. It's at the tipping point right now. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see the sellout streak broken. You are already seeing more empty seats at the beginning of last year and this preseason.

At what point do YOU think prices start chasing folks away? 30% more? 50%? Where's your magic #? Why do you think folks will pony up another 10% for what are already some of the most expensive tickets in the league?

 

[kennadog]

As I said, if no politician will touch it, no matter what, then I'm ashamed of all of them. They don't deserve to be in office.

Naive? No. Realistic, yes. The history of arena deals in other cities proves that these are very difficult and seem to fail a few times before they succeed. This was Sacramento's first try. No reason to declare the idea dead, only this permutation of it.

I also, would not totally rule out sales tax as a source. How can you totally rule it out, unless you can judge it in the context of a deal? Maybe it will just be a redirection of some of the current sales tax. At this point we have zero to debate, because there is nothing on the table.

I do agree, that they need to start negotiations again. By the end of November? Not necessarily. The next financing deal may not even require a ballot vote. We have no idea yet. I really can't see how you can argue against it at this point, with absolutley zero information to debate. At least wait until we have a new proposal.

BTW: I don't think a 10% surcharge will still give them enough of a cash flow to borrow as much money as they'd need, by a long shot. Even worse, if it reduces your ticket sales. You may gain very little.

 

[bringbackbobby]

The main, huge point that Ailene misses in this article: No politician will touch this issue now.

And a main point that I think you are missing is that my "no" vote is in no way an opposition to a tax for a new arena. My "no" vote is such, simply because the deal never came together. Otherwise, I along with countless numbers of others, would happily vote yes on this deal.

Just because this thing goes down in flames tomorrow, don't make the mistake of believing that the citizens of Sacramento, banded together and sent some kind of message to the Maloofs.

Q & R will fail drastically, and appearantly decisively, but it will be the most divided one-sided vote in the history of public elections.

The media however will undoubtadly report that voters replied in unison against a arena tax. This is absurd. There are many reasons people will vote "no" tomorrow - least of which is some insignificant 1/4 of-a-cent sales tax.

Your "no" vote will not mean the same as mine. I hope there is a politician out there, with hopes of running in 08', that does a bit more research than watching the misleading percentages roll on "Election Coverage 2006."