Bee: Cal Expo arena talks requested

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#1
http://www.sacbee.com/kings/story/363391.html

Cal Expo arena talks requested
Money and traffic are seen as key problems in putting a new Kings facility at the fairgrounds.
By Mary Lynne Vellinga - Bee Staff Writer
Published 12:00 am PDT Thursday, September 6, 2007
Story appeared in METRO section, Page B1


A National Basketball Association consultant Wednesday sent a letter to Cal Expo asking to start talks aimed at locating a new Kings arena at the fairgrounds.

John Moag wrote to Cal Expo management that his firm has "been authorized by (NBA) Commissioner David Stern to enter into more formal discussions and negotiations. If the Cal Expo Board is interested in entertaining such discussions, we stand prepared to do so immediately."

Moag has been soliciting information from Cal Expo for months as part of his quest to come up with a new arena plan for Sacramento. Stern hired Moag after Sacramento voters in November trounced a city-county plan to raise sales taxes and build an arena in the downtown railyard.

Brian May, deputy general manager for state-owned Cal Expo, said Wednesday he thinks the board will likely authorize the negotiations at its Sept. 28 meeting.

"I believe there would be interest on the board's part to pursue discussions with the NBA," May said.

Cal Expo has been looking for a way to revamp its aging state fairgrounds and tackle a list of deferred maintenance items that totals about $40 million. The facility's horse racing operations, which occupy about 100 acres, also face an uncertain future as the racing industry wanes.

"There's no harm in pursuing this to see if it's a viable alternative, one that's compatible with Cal Expo and could provide money to redevelop the fairgrounds or deal with the deferred maintenance issues," May said.

Two of the biggest hurdles to building an arena in Cal Expo are money and traffic. May stressed that Cal Expo, which gets no money from the state general fund, has nothing to contribute to building an arena. It remains to be seen whether Moag can devise a financing plan that could both pay for a new Kings arena -- likely to cost half a billion dollars -- and help revamp the fairgrounds.

"We don't have the details of what Mr. Moag is proposing, so I couldn't comment on whether it would pencil out or not," May said.

Moag is keeping his plan under tight wraps until it is ready for Stern to unveil publicly. He said the commissioner hopes to make an announcement in early November.

One idea long bandied about would be to develop part of the 360-acre fairgrounds and use the proceeds to pay for the arena.

But Sacramento County Supervisor Roger Dickinson said he wonders if such a development could produce the kind of money needed. "You'd have to have somebody with some very big pockets come in and finance that, and it's not the NBA," he said. "To my knowledge, the NBA is not bringing any money to the party."

Traffic is another issue looming over any discussion of the Cal Expo site.

During any given rush hour, about 6,000 vehicles a day squeeze into the Capital City Freeway lanes that pass by Exposition Boulevard, said Mark Dinger, spokesman for the California Department of Transportation.

"Could it handle it? Yes, but not very well," Dinger said. "It moves slow through there now."

In a phone interview Wednesday, Moag acknowledged that traffic is a significant problem.

"I myself have been in that traffic at rush hour, and there's nothing fun about it," he said. "If things were to get serious with the NBA and Cal Expo, I think the neighbors would find a very strong ally marching arm and arm with them to try to address that problem."

The city and county recently completed a $2.4 million project to better monitor traffic and regulate traffic lights on Arden Way, said Linda Tucker, a city spokeswoman. The draft Metropolitan Transportation Plan now under consideration by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments also includes a new northbound offramp from Exposition Boulevard to the Capital City Freeway, said SACOG Executive Director Mike McKeever.

But any widening of the freeway itself would be expensive, Dinger said, since the elevated structure crosses the city landfill, two sets of railroad tracks and the American River.

Still, McKeever, head of the region's transportation planning agency, said he doesn't think the traffic problem is impossible to solve.

Like many local leaders, McKeever favored the railyard site because of its proximity to thousands of downtown office workers, and its location next to light rail. But if the railyard doesn't work out, McKeever said he thinks Cal Expo could be a viable alternative.

"We would have to design a much better transit connection to that area than we currently have, and there would have to be some improvements to the interchanges with the Capital City Freeway," he said.

Moag said the NBA looked to the railyard as its first choice for an area location but couldn't come up with a viable proposal.

"There's no getting around the fact that a lot of challenges remain on that site," he said.

About the writer: The Bee's Mary Lynne Vellinga can be reached at (916) 321-1094 or mlvellinga@sacbee.com.
 

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#2
John Moag wrote to Cal Expo management that his firm has "been authorized by (NBA) Commissioner David Stern to enter into more formal discussions and negotiations. If the Cal Expo Board is interested in entertaining such discussions, we stand prepared to do so immediately."

Moag has been soliciting information from Cal Expo for months as part of his quest to come up with a new arena plan for Sacramento. Stern hired Moag after Sacramento voters in November trounced a city-county plan to raise sales taxes and build an arena in the downtown railyard.

Brian May, deputy general manager for state-owned Cal Expo, said Wednesday he thinks the board will likely authorize the negotiations at its Sept. 28 meeting.

"I believe there would be interest on the board's part to pursue discussions with the NBA," May said.
Hrmmm... Apparently May simply isn't in the loops since he didn't know a thing yesterday.

:p

Two of the biggest hurdles to building an arena in Cal Expo are money and traffic. May stressed that Cal Expo, which gets no money from the state general fund, has nothing to contribute to building an arena. It remains to be seen whether Moag can devise a financing plan that could both pay for a new Kings arena -- likely to cost half a billion dollars -- and help revamp the fairgrounds.

"We don't have the details of what Mr. Moag is proposing, so I couldn't comment on whether it would pencil out or not," May said.

Moag is keeping his plan under tight wraps until it is ready for Stern to unveil publicly. He said the commissioner hopes to make an announcement in early November.
I have the strong feeling Stern isn't going to leave any t's uncrossed or i's undotted. My guess is it will be a pretty definitive proposal.

But Sacramento County Supervisor Roger Dickinson said he wonders if such a development could produce the kind of money needed. "You'd have to have somebody with some very big pockets come in and finance that, and it's not the NBA," he said. "To my knowledge, the NBA is not bringing any money to the party."
I like Roger, but I think he's a bit premature in making a comment like that.

Like many local leaders, McKeever favored the railyard site because of its proximity to thousands of downtown office workers, and its location next to light rail. But if the railyard doesn't work out, McKeever said he thinks Cal Expo could be a viable alternative.
Um, what? They favored the railyard site because of its proximity to thousands of downtown office workers? Why? Do those people attend a lot of Kings games? Are they season ticket holders? Are they liable to leave work and head straight to an arena for entertainment?

Sorry, but that's just silly. People working downtown usually have families living elsewhere and, for the most part, I would think they would be heading home first before attending various activities at a new facility.

"We would have to design a much better transit connection to that area than we currently have, and there would have to be some improvements to the interchanges with the Capital City Freeway," he said.
Good. Then design a much better transit connection. Extend the light rail. Do whatever it takes - but don't let this chance get away to not only build a new arena but bring Sacramento into line with other major metropolitan areas as far as public transit go.

Get er done!!!
 
#3
AT&T Park in downtown SF occasionally holds those daygames in the middle of the work week. I am guessing a lot of office workers take a long "lunch break" and attend those games...
 

CruzDude

Senior Member sharing a brew with bajaden
#4
I too favored the railyard site and agree with McKeevers view of attracting downtown workers. A 7pm game leaves an hour or so to have a spouse/friend meet downtown (using public transport!), have dinner and walk to arena leaving car in parking structure. Plus us out-of-towners can take Amtrak (don't choke!!) and walk to a game. Plus the feed-in down town of light rail from Folsom area and from the I-80 corridor (whoops, forgot. it stops before Madison. sorry :eek: ) and local trans could have game night busses from outlying areas. It's done in LA, San Diego, even San Fran to PacBell park. Why not in SacTown?
 

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#5
Dude - I think the whole railyard proposal is dead. And, considering the complete bungling of the idea by the city council, I'm relieved. In fact, I'm favoring Cal-Expo even MORE knowing that Heather Fargo won't be able to take credit for it or muck it up.

;)
 
#6
Sometimes Kings fans forget that the majority of Sacramento residents (city & county) don't give a spit about the Kings. My own wife feels that way. I suspect Stern & Co sees it, and the Cal Expo plan is a way around having to ask the citizens to vote for higher taxes that will make millionaires (even) richer.
 

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#7
I think Kings fans are all too aware that not everyone shares their enthusiasm for the Kings. But this isn't just about the Kings. Never has been. The fact the city council and board of supervisors made it appear that way is pathetic.

If I'm reading this stuff correctly, the whole idea is to avoid having to use public funds or ask the local registered voters to raise taxes.

The whole "make millionaires even richer" concept is also incorrect and misleading. The Maloofs are continually being painted as greedy, money-grubbing scabs who do nothing for the community. That is completely untrue. They are very involved in a number of charities around the region - and not all of them are known to the public. Businesses have to make some money or there's no reason for them to exist.

I do agree that Stern knows the political climate in Sacramento is such that there would most likely never be a meeting of the minds between the city council and the Maloofs. That IMHO is why he (Stern) is seeking alternative solutions. He doesn't want to deal with Heather Fargo or her cronies any more than anyone else does.
 
#8
I wanted to sleep on this one

Like everyone else, I want to see the Kings stay in town. Whether the arena's in the railyard (I think infrastructure costs eliminate that site), near the current arena, or in Cal Expo, I don't really care.

I also want to see it privately funded. The biggest flaw in Q&R, in my opinion, is that it was a "publicly owned facility", but the Maloofs had 100% control of it, 100% of the time... For 30 years. Then they could sell it. But just look at the number of 30 year old arenas in this country. Are there any? I can sort-of think of two: Oracle (kinda-sorta) and MSG.

The biggest flaw I see in the Cal Expo plan is that the State will require each of these venues to pay for itself. To me, a 20,000 seat arena will cost roughly $500 million (and this amount is growing). The Maloofs already have stated that they think they should not pay for 100% such a facility, and many rationalize this by saying that the Maloofs would not own all the events in that arena, even though Q&R said they would. They said increased tax revenues would more than cover the difference between the rent they pay and the arena expenses.

The problem is that the State will REQUIRE payments sufficient to service the debt on such a structure. I don't think the Maloofs will be willing to do that.

I'm speculating when I say that, but I think their behavior on this issue in the past extremely strongly indicates that. They got pretty mad over the parking issue in Q&R, for example.

As for where such an arena would go, I think it almost has to go where the horse track currently is. I think that's a reasonable location, except for the traffic.

As far as getting light rail there, I think you can forget that. The mile of track RT built downtown to get to Amtrak cost over $200 million. I bet a spur line from the current station near Del Paso/Arden to Cal Expo would cost at least that much. Where does that money come from? How many riders would use it?

Widening 80 in that area is extremely expensive. It needs to be done, but with rail crossings and river crossings in that area, I think you'll be shocked when you see that bill. I bet it would exceed $500 million.

My honest assessment of this: We're looking at $1.2 billion and massive local resistance. I think they need to reconsider building near the current arena, where the freeways and infrastructure are already in place. They're already saying light rail will eventually go past the current arena, so even that is "free."

I also can't see this happening without an election. Let's say the rent is $30 million a year, and the Maloofs only want to pay $20 million (before you argue with that, they were willing to pay less than $10 million/year with Q&R). Where do they get the other $10 million? Perhaps a county-wide sales-tax increase? I think the voters would reject that.

Unfortunately, I think we're at pretty close to the last at-bat, and we're trailing by more than 2, and the bases are empty. Sorry.

Once again, the missing ingredient is: Corporate presence. Sad but true.

Is anyone else following the story in San Antonio?

http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/...s/MYSA083007.01A.Spurs_Venue_Tax.34406d3.html

People are hopping mad.
 
Last edited:
#9
I also want to see it privately funded. The biggest flaw in Q&R, in my opinion, is that it was a "publicly owned facility", but the Maloofs had 100% control of it, 100% of the time... For 30 years. Then they could sell it. But just look at the number of 30 year old arenas in this country. Are there any? I can sort-of think of two: Oracle (kinda-sorta) and MSG.
No, they could not have sold the arena. They would have been lessees only. Renters can't sell their landlord's property. The city would have had ultimate control of that prime downtown property. If nothing else, someday they could've sold the property and reaped the equity. (Likely quite substantial after 50 years.)

The problem is that the State will REQUIRE payments sufficient to service the debt on such a structure.

I also can't see this happening without an election. Let's say the rent is $30 million a year, and the Maloofs only want to pay $20 million (before you argue with that, they were willing to pay less than $10 million/year with Q&R). Where do they get the other $10 million? Perhaps a county-wide sales-tax increase? I think the voters would reject that.
If it's bond financing, yes there will be debt service. How feasible it is depends on the actual amount of bond financing. However, it won't be the MSE's debt. If the set-up is as hinted at, it would be a debt of a joint powers authority who would sell the bonds to raise money for whatever they decide to do at Cal Expo. If it's State bonds, there will be no local vote, period. Dependent upon the type of bonds, may not be a state-wide vote either. I'm not sure, but the JPA might only need to apply for bond authority from the CA Debt Limit Allocation Committee (State Treasurer).

Of course, we know very little about what is even being considered, so it's all speculation.

They need to fix the bottleneck of business 80 at that point, regardless of if there is an arena built there. It's hideous.
 
Last edited:

hrdboild

Moloch in whom I dream Angels!
Staff member
#10
In a phone interview Wednesday, Moag acknowledged that traffic is a significant problem.

"I myself have been in that traffic at rush hour, and there's nothing fun about it," he said. "If things were to get serious with the NBA and Cal Expo, I think the neighbors would find a very strong ally marching arm and arm with them to try to address that problem."
I think he makes a good point here -- rather than looking at a new arena as making existing traffic problems worse, it may actually be the case that a new arena is the catalyst towards actually getting something done about traffic problems which need fixing (of which there are a lot in Sacramento).

I think the best strategy for the NBA at this point is finding the best plan for getting this arena built, wherever that may be. Explore all options, generate some budgets, and then pick the most feasible scenario. I was hoping Sacramento would get more than just an arena, but rather a whole entertainment district and gathering place that takes advantage of all the natural beauty and history in the region -- but let's be real here. That's not going to happen. Not in Sacramento, not right now. I've seen the wonderful developments taking place around new sports arenas in Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, and Pheonix (the ones I've seen first hand) and it makes me sad Sacramento can't find a way to build something similarly iconic. The railyard, downtown, somewhere along the waterfront, maybe even Cal Expo -- these are all dramatic locations where someone creative can turn a sports arena into a unique Sacramento experience. But if plopping an arena down in another vacant field out in Natomas is what it takes to keep the Kings in Sacramento, just do it. And for god's sake do it soon.
 
Last edited:

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#11
I lived in Sacramento when Orangevale still had orange groves and Watt Avenue ended at U street in the north and Folsom Blvd. in the south. Sacramento has grown significantly in the past 20+ years but it's still got some growing up to do. I believe the time will come when Sacramento more fully embraces its unique history and beauty, but for now it's going to be a slow, arduous process.

I agree with the idea of using the arena plan as a catalyst to get something done about traffic and even public transportation. Everything has to start somewhere.

At least they're going to be talking again. That fact alone is enough for me to be excited about right now.

:)
 
#12
The whole "make millionaires even richer" concept is also incorrect and misleading. The Maloofs are continually being painted as greedy, money-grubbing scabs who do nothing for the community. That is completely untrue. They are very involved in a number of charities around the region - and not all of them are known to the public. Businesses have to make some money or there's no reason for them to exist.
Note that when I made the comment about 'making millionaires (even) richer,' I was referring to how (I think) most voters feel, and not to my own beliefs. I'm a capitalist, and I think it's damn important that businesses make money, including the Kings organization. With that said, I also think the Maloofs created a PR disaster with the way they handled Q&R. Might even say they burned a bridge with local voters who might have been willing to meet them halfway (from their POV).
 

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#13
Note that when I made the comment about 'making millionaires (even) richer,' I was referring to how (I think) most voters feel, and not to my own beliefs. I'm a capitalist, and I think it's damn important that businesses make money, including the Kings organization. With that said, I also think the Maloofs created a PR disaster with the way they handled Q&R. Might even say they burned a bridge with local voters who might have been willing to meet them halfway (from their POV).
Ah. Thanks for the clarification. I pretty much agree down the line that the Maloofs were part of the PR disaster. I don't think they alone created it. I think the city council deserves more than a bit of the blame since they're the ones who apparently lied about the availability of the railyards, how they would fund infrastructure changes, etc.

The whole thing has been a fiasco from beginning until now.

I do think there are parts of MSE that aren't exactly playing with a full deck. I'm reminded of it every time I go to Arco and see the large formerly gold and now some yucky color numeral in front. Not too surprisingly I think the same person originally in charge of negotiations with the city and county may have been the genius behind the stunning gold lamé and obscene "statue"...
 
#14
I do think there are parts of MSE that aren't exactly playing with a full deck. I'm reminded of it every time I go to Arco and see the large formerly gold and now some yucky color numeral in front. Not too surprisingly I think the same person originally in charge of negotiations with the city and county may have been the genius behind the stunning gold lamé and obscene "statue"...
Gotta be a 'group think' thing... or else somebody hired somebody's niece who just got her marketing degree...
 
#15
If it's bond financing, yes there will be debt service. How feasible it is depends on the actual amount of bond financing. However, it won't be the MSE's debt. If the set-up is as hinted at, it would be a debt of a joint powers authority who would sell the bonds to raise money for whatever they decide to do at Cal Expo.
Yes, I'm quoting myself. Sorry, I worked about 10 hours yesterday and was tired when I wrote this. Whose debt it is could depend on the structure of the deal. Whether the JPA build the arena and leases it to MSE or just leases the land to MSE and loans some amount of money to construction of the arena, with a security interest in the arena. If a loan to MSE is involved, then it would be MSE's debt. However, if MSE were to default(which no one would want), the JPA would be guaranteeing payback of the bond + interest.
 
#16
Two of the biggest hurdles to building an arena in Cal Expo are money and traffic. May stressed that Cal Expo, which gets no money from the state general fund, has nothing to contribute to building an arena. It remains to be seen whether Moag can devise a financing plan that could both pay for a new Kings arena -- likely to cost half a billion dollars -- and help revamp the fairgrounds.

"Traffic is another issue looming over any discussion of the Cal Expo site.

During any given rush hour, about 6,000 vehicles a day squeeze into the Capital City Freeway lanes that pass by Exposition Boulevard, said Mark Dinger, spokesman for the California Department of Transportation.

"Could it handle it? Yes, but not very well," Dinger said. "It moves slow through there now."

In a phone interview Wednesday, Moag acknowledged that traffic is a significant problem.

"I myself have been in that traffic at rush hour, and there's nothing fun about it," he said. "If things were to get serious with the NBA and Cal Expo, I think the neighbors would find a very strong ally marching arm and arm with them to try to address that problem."
Why is it when it comes to building an arena, that traffic is always the first roadblock that the public brings up? Last time I looked, Cal Expo services anywhere from 25-45,000 people per day, all day long for the State Fair for a two to three week period, for the last ump-teen thousand years, and I have never not once heard anybody canceling the State Fair because of traffic.

I understand that there will be some 200 plus dates per year, but I would think the the revenue brought into the Arden Fair area from those 200 plus dates would be well worth some traffic issues that more than likely would happen between the hours of 6pm and 11pm.

I think this is a wonderful ideal that I hope turns into a lock down proposal that will skirt all of the City Hall leaders and get this done.
 
#17
Like everyone else, I want to see the Kings stay in town. Whether the arena's in the railyard (I think infrastructure costs eliminate that site), near the current arena, or in Cal Expo, I don't really care.

I also want to see it privately funded. The biggest flaw in Q&R, in my opinion, is that it was a "publicly owned facility", but the Maloofs had 100% control of it, 100% of the time... For 30 years. Then they could sell it. But just look at the number of 30 year old arenas in this country. Are there any? I can sort-of think of two: Oracle (kinda-sorta) and MSG.

The biggest flaw I see in the Cal Expo plan is that the State will require each of these venues to pay for itself. To me, a 20,000 seat arena will cost roughly $500 million (and this amount is growing). The Maloofs already have stated that they think they should not pay for 100% such a facility, and many rationalize this by saying that the Maloofs would not own all the events in that arena, even though Q&R said they would. They said increased tax revenues would more than cover the difference between the rent they pay and the arena expenses.

The problem is that the State will REQUIRE payments sufficient to service the debt on such a structure. I don't think the Maloofs will be willing to do that.

I'm speculating when I say that, but I think their behavior on this issue in the past extremely strongly indicates that. They got pretty mad over the parking issue in Q&R, for example.

As for where such an arena would go, I think it almost has to go where the horse track currently is. I think that's a reasonable location, except for the traffic.

As far as getting light rail there, I think you can forget that. The mile of track RT built downtown to get to Amtrak cost over $200 million. I bet a spur line from the current station near Del Paso/Arden to Cal Expo would cost at least that much. Where does that money come from? How many riders would use it?

Widening 80 in that area is extremely expensive. It needs to be done, but with rail crossings and river crossings in that area, I think you'll be shocked when you see that bill. I bet it would exceed $500 million.

My honest assessment of this: We're looking at $1.2 billion and massive local resistance. I think they need to reconsider building near the current arena, where the freeways and infrastructure are already in place. They're already saying light rail will eventually go past the current arena, so even that is "free."

I also can't see this happening without an election. Let's say the rent is $30 million a year, and the Maloofs only want to pay $20 million (before you argue with that, they were willing to pay less than $10 million/year with Q&R). Where do they get the other $10 million? Perhaps a county-wide sales-tax increase? I think the voters would reject that.

Unfortunately, I think we're at pretty close to the last at-bat, and we're trailing by more than 2, and the bases are empty. Sorry.

Once again, the missing ingredient is: Corporate presence. Sad but true.

Is anyone else following the story in San Antonio?

http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/...s/MYSA083007.01A.Spurs_Venue_Tax.34406d3.html

People are hopping mad.
I'm beginning to seriously wonder if Arenaskeptic is RE graswich....

Again, my opinion is the government shouldn't fund this. The NBA sholuld never complain about any type of taxes or regulation put upon it if it's willing to accept a multi-billion dollar subsidy (add up all the subsidies received from each local jurisdiction - and yes, this is a subsidy since they're receiving something for nothing).

They have the financial means to fund arenas, they just choose not to. It stinks.
 
#18
Why is it when it comes to building an arena, that traffic is always the first roadblock that the public brings up? Last time I looked, Cal Expo services anywhere from 25-45,000 people per day, all day long for the State Fair for a two to three week period, for the last ump-teen thousand years, and I have never not once heard anybody canceling the State Fair because of traffic.

I understand that there will be some 200 plus dates per year, but I would think the the revenue brought into the Arden Fair area from those 200 plus dates would be well worth some traffic issues that more than likely would happen between the hours of 6pm and 11pm.

I think this is a wonderful ideal that I hope turns into a lock down proposal that will skirt all of the City Hall leaders and get this done.
The traffic at the state fair is spread out over 12+ hours with relatively small spikes at certain times of the day. For a Kings game, you're going to have 10,000 cars arriving at almost exactly the same time. Big difference.
 
#19
As far as getting light rail there, I think you can forget that. The mile of track RT built downtown to get to Amtrak cost over $200 million. I bet a spur line from the current station near Del Paso/Arden to Cal Expo would cost at least that much. Where does that money come from? How many riders would use it?
The light rail expansion to Amtrak actually cost around 40 million dollars, not over $200 million. The expansion was also in a much more urban area, where costs tend to be higher, than Arden/Cal Expo.

As for light rail anywhere near Cal Expo, it is in desperate need of alternative transportation, but it is unlikely residents in the area will favor that any time in the near future.
 
#20
I'm beginning to seriously wonder if Arenaskeptic is RE graswich....

Again, my opinion is the government shouldn't fund this. The NBA sholuld never complain about any type of taxes or regulation put upon it if it's willing to accept a multi-billion dollar subsidy (add up all the subsidies received from each local jurisdiction - and yes, this is a subsidy since they're receiving something for nothing).

They have the financial means to fund arenas, they just choose not to. It stinks.
Who is they? The "NBA" is the owners of the teams. Not sure it would be so easy to convince owners they should cough up money for some other owner's new arena. I made some suggestions about possible ways to do it in another thread, but it would not be an easy sell.
 
#21
Who is they? The "NBA" is the owners of the teams. Not sure it would be so easy to convince owners they should cough up money for some other owner's new arena. I made some suggestions about possible ways to do it in another thread, but it would not be an easy sell.
That is exactly who I meant when I said they - with the kind of money "they" bring in, "they" could easily fund an arena - they just choose not to. The players are a part in this as well - I couldn't see them reducing salaries in order to fund arenas - Instead of the salary cap being 58 whatever million, drop it down to 40 and stick the additional 18 into an arena fund.

This will never, ever happen since these owners have been trained that they can get local governments (meaning the local citizenry) to cough up the money to build their arenas.

It'd be interesting to see a study/breakdown of the different types of arena deals that have been struck over the past 15 years or so and how many of them have been privately funded.
 
Last edited:
#22
Again, I'm not opposed to paying for an arena - I would certainly use it if it were put in. I attend my 4-5 games per year, the circus, and just about every "Disney on Ice" event that comes to town. I would pay an extra fee on top of my tickets in order to help fund the project; I just don't think that those who aren't going to use it should fund it.

If the state/CalExpo were to do a bond issue with the Kings paying the annual debt service, I wouldn't mind it since the cost of those using it would be passed onto the consumer who did use it. Just can't see this scenario though.
 

HndsmCelt

Hall of Famer
#23
The beauty of useing a site like Cal Expo is that much of the infrastructure needed for an arean are already in plcae, parking, industrial electric, pluming etc. No doubt the trafic on those older roads will be a problem but the community CAN use this as a lever to get some improvements on the roads bring in mass transit. There is no PERFECT location but aside from building on the curent Arco site this would seem to one of best ideas.

Starting from scratch on virgin land or wose yet trying to clean up the old rail yeard THEN starting from scratch should be a lot more money. I come up for 5-15 games a year and I am not sure that it will make much difference to me although before Fresno got an REI it would have been nice to be in the neighborhood of the Sac store.
 
#24
No, they could not have sold the arena. They would have been lessees only. Renters can't sell their landlord's property. The city would have had ultimate control of that prime downtown property. If nothing else, someday they could've sold the property and reaped the equity. (Likely quite substantial after 50 years.)

If it's bond financing, yes there will be debt service. How feasible it is depends on the actual amount of bond financing. However, it won't be the MSE's debt. If the set-up is as hinted at, it would be a debt of a joint powers authority who would sell the bonds to raise money for whatever they decide to do at Cal Expo. If it's State bonds, there will be no local vote, period. Dependent upon the type of bonds, may not be a state-wide vote either. I'm not sure, but the JPA might only need to apply for bond authority from the CA Debt Limit Allocation Committee (State Treasurer).

Of course, we know very little about what is even being considered, so it's all speculation.

They need to fix the bottleneck of business 80 at that point, regardless of if there is an arena built there. It's hideous.
When I said, "They", I meant the City. It was ambiguous. Sorry.

Yes, the State will require that whoever occupies that building will cover the debt. If it's the City, then the City will be on the hook; it's up to them to ensure that the revenues match or exceed the expenses.

By the way, I get to vote on bond issues all the time. In virtually every election, there are bond issues. Sometimes bond issues require a vote, sometimes they don't. It is extremely likely that, in this case, it would require a vote.

The other aspect: This opens Pandora's Box. Won't every other pro sports team in this state want help from the state if the Kings get help? I would think so. What's to stop the 49ers, Chargers and Warriors from citing precedence, even if they already have an arena? "Well, in order to remain competitive with the Kings, we feel we must have some assistance from the State in order to pay off our debt at Oracle/Staples/Whatever arena."

And they would have an outstanding point.

I absolutely assure people I am not, nor have I ever been, employed by anyone in the field of journalism. Not TV, not newspaper, not radio, nothing.

I work for the State in IT. ColdFusion.
 
#25
Who is they? The "NBA" is the owners of the teams. Not sure it would be so easy to convince owners they should cough up money for some other owner's new arena. I made some suggestions about possible ways to do it in another thread, but it would not be an easy sell.
I am in complete agreement. "They" -- the NBA -- is simply the teams. Each of these members has the same ongoing issue of arena funding.

So, fine, you make each of the teams pay $2 million into the Kings arena fund, and the Kings get their arena. Five years later, San Antonio wants $160 million in improvements to their arena; $2 million for that, from each team (let's be fair here; if any of the members get money, then all must be eligible to get money). Then, Orlando wants one. Another $2 million a year from each team.

You're going to have to do the math on this one for yourselves, but this is IDENTICAL to EACH team funding their OWN arena. And we're back to: Why shouldn't the Maloofs pay 100% of their building if they own 100% of the events for it?

My favorite racing bike shop in town is on Freeport Blvd. I would be crestfallen if they failed. Now, who among you think taxpayers should fund them if things get shaky for them?

We should absolutely not be in that business.

Now, if the Maloofs were willing to pay their fair share in rent for whatever events they own, that's fine, ask me about a tax hike. But if they want 100% control of it for all events, plus a sphere of influence, plus 100% of parking revenue, and only want to pay for, say, half of it (Q&R specified something around 20%), I probably won't like it. And I'm typical. I'm not some weird screaming radical; I'm perfectly normal when I say that. There's your in-the-mainstream reaction.
 

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#28
Here's a bit of the story from the link PurpleHaze posted:

Plans for a new Kings stadium may be released Tuesday when Cal Expo publishes its next agenda.

Getting a new arena built by everyone's admission is going to require a lot of investors. No plan has been revealed yet. The NBA will have to make the information public since they're courting the state-run Cal Expo Fairgrounds.
As you can see, the NBA will be making the info public, not Cal Expo.
 
#30
This is the link to the Cal Expo site. Whether to enter into talks with the NBA is on the agenda for the 28th. There is a link to the agenda. There is also a link that shows the letter from the NBA to CAl Expo.

http://www.calexpo.com/

I'm not sure why the Bee seemed to think there would be anything much to be made public at this point. All the Cal Expo Board of Directors is going to vote on is whether to enter into formal talks with Moag & Companies. Likely won't be much to be made public until those talks are concluded, resulting in a proposal or no proposal.
 
Last edited: