Kings May File for Relocation Before Deadline

[kennadog]

Right, the city has a lot of ways to pay for this without tapping into the city's coffers and they've just chose not to do it for 10 years ... right.

They State and Feds are cutting off cash, not handing it out. Heck, redevelopment might go away all together. Most of the rental cars are at the county airport and beyond the city's control. They can raise some taxes to help offset a lower number.

And again, that's my point. Once this gets over 100 million the rubber hits the road. This cannot get done without the city reaching for it's wallet. They just can't put a nickle on a beer or $10 on a hotel room. Not enough volume in Sac.

Whether by bonds or the general fund, there is a number where they city has to pass on Taylor's offer. I'd say it's 150 million. That is what Fargo's board put on the table in 2004, when the Maloofs walked out. KJ wants it more, but the city is now broke.

That's your opinion regarding the various taxes. The State has already comitted tens of millions of dollars to the rail yards. They could pull it back, but it's not dependent on an arena. We'll see if redevelopment agencies are eliminated. If the city commits redevelopment funds to the arena in the next several months, then the State can't uncommit it. That's why RDAs all over the State are trying to get as much RDA money committed as fast as they can.

You dismiss the possibility of bonds as though not having been willing to do it in the past is a sure-fire reason to believe they won't opt for that now. If they impose some types of taxes, they will be issuing a bond to be repaid wholly or in part from those taxes (food and beverage, hotel, etc). That's how you get the upfront money needed.

There is a ticket tax at Arco right know that goes toward paying of the current loan (raised with bonds).

Rental cars may be at the airport, but nothing prevents the county from voting to join with the city and splitting any taxes from that or other sources. The county would just need to get something out of it.

The four developers were pretty clear that the gap was going to be in the neighborhood of $200 million. Maybe Taylor/ICON can reduce that, but I won't hold my breathe. However, they estimate the cost of an arena at $300 to $350 million. Definitely not $500million.

I think the city was playing hard ball for a while and then none of the politicians wanted to touch the issue for an awful long time.

One thing is pretty clear. The business folks in Sacramento definitely do not want to lose the Kings. They know its good for business. Heck, the Natomas folks are fighting tooth and nail to keep an arena in Natomas, talking about the devastation it will cause businesses in their area. That's why Taylor/ICON also have to address the re-use of the Natomas site in their feasibility study, if they propose moving the arena elsewhere.

Don't underestimate the political clout of business owners in Sacramento. I'm kind of wondering who is paying for the billboards. Business owner(s) would be my guess.

It is a long way from being a real deal, but I'm tired of hearing from people all the reasons it can't ever happen. What a lazy, deafetist attitude. If people want to get something done, its almost always possible. Its just that it takes a lot more energy, commitment and creativity to come up with solutions than it does to shoot every idea down.

 

[JB_kings]

And it's thinking like yours that made Sacramento broke.

They city spent like drunken sailors for a decade. During that time, they should have got an arena done. Like the Maloofs, they looked for the best deal ... not just to make a deal. Now we're too broke to make any deal.

It's not pot shots. It's logic, math, and a sound fiscal policy. If you don't like my stuff, you can skip it.

Don't agree with you and your thoughts on the topic. I think you are part of the problem. So I will take your advice and skip reading your stuff because you have nothing to offer.

 

[kennadog]

This is one theory. The other is that a lot of people here are broke. Top acts know it, and it gives them another reason to skip a city that often gets skipped. The Killers are a big act, who used to sell the place out. They had to slash prices to get the place 3/4 full. I doubt they are coming back. They will play Tahoe and SF instead.

When you know that: (1) a lot of people in a city can't afford to go; and (2) a lof of the people with money who want to go, will drive to see the show anyhow, you can skip the city because it doesn't cost you any money.

When Arco was in much better shape and this city was flush with housing bubble cash, a lot of big acts still skipped Sac. Unless things get a lot better here, the bump for a new arena won't be enough to get a lot of top acts.

Big acts aren't just saying away due to Arco. Many have never came here. A lot more know its hard to sell tickets in a mid-sized market that has money problems. A new arena will give us a bump, but doesn't fix a huge underlying problem.

That is not what the city's own consultant reports said. Of course with no arena, Stockton should be happy. They'll get folks to their nice little arena. They'll still have the circus, ice shows, Sesame Street, etc.

 

[Larry David]

That is not what the city's own consultant reports said. Of course with no arena, Stockton should be happy. They'll get folks to their nice little arena. They'll still have the circus, ice shows, Sesame Street, etc.

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/03/03/3445271_a3445228/even-if-kings-leave-music-events.html

I was wrong. The Killers got the place no where near 3/4 full. Nor did Beyonce, Disney on ice, cage fighting, ect. Acts see these numbers, and unless you can sell out anywhere - ie Bieber, Swift, ect ... they skip Sacramento. No money here.

 

[kennadog]

And it's thinking like yours that made Sacramento broke.

They city spent like drunken sailors for a decade. During that time, they should have got an arena done. Like the Maloofs, they looked for the best deal ... not just to make a deal. Now we're too broke to make any deal.

It's not pot shots. It's logic, math, and a sound fiscal policy. If you don't like my stuff, you can skip it.

First the city has never spent a dime on any aena or the failed baseball stadium. Secondly, not selling bonds to help raise money does not create even one cent of money to go for anything else that Sacramento thinks needs money. So, eventually, not right away, we will end up with no arena and still no money for everything various parties think is needed.

Brilliant. All you've done is tear down every suggested possibility without coming up with anything creative that could help any of the city problems you're talking about or help build an arena. What ever problems there in Sacramento, you are certainly not going to be the one to come up with solutions. Visionaries take calculated risks (still usually a big risk) and that includes political leaders. Always have, always will. Sacramento's minimal vision has been its most prominent characteristic for the 40+ years I've lived in the area.

 

[Larry David]

It’s vision – its called sound fiscal policy and political realties. The city leaders cannot raise taxes to fund an arena – politically it’s not going to happen. So called tourists taxes would be insufficient to pay the approximately 200 million gap Kings fans are pleading the city to fill. Thus, if the city takes the calculated risk of funding the arena to promote growth downtown, the arena becomes an unfunded liability for the city.


Currently, the city is having a very hard time supporting basic services. The city is broke and is both papering over gaps with short term fixes and relying on federal funds that will soon go away. Moreover, the city already has a massive unfunded liability because they got behind and are falling further behind on retirement funding.


You think they should add another unfunded multi-million liability and the people who oppose your position lack vision??? (You assume the city can simply sell/afford 200 million in bonds. If it were that easy, it would have happened by now.)


If there was a way for the city to actually pay for $150 million or so, I’d be down with this. That isn’t going to happen. Just putting another $150-200 million onto the city’s credit card would be a horrible idea, and would eventually lead to services being cut.


Kings will leave in six weeks. In 5 years the city will give up on bringing pro sports back and fund a much smaller Stockton sized arena (which cost closer to 40-50 million total) and put in the rail yards.

 

[rainmaker]

It’s vision – its called sound fiscal policy and political realties. The city leaders cannot raise taxes to fund an arena – politically it’s not going to happen. So called tourists taxes would be insufficient to pay the approximately 200 million gap Kings fans are pleading the city to fill. Thus, if the city takes the calculated risk of funding the arena to promote growth downtown, the arena becomes an unfunded liability for the city.


Currently, the city is having a very hard time supporting basic services. The city is broke and is both papering over gaps with short term fixes and relying on federal funds that will soon go away. Moreover, the city already has a massive unfunded liability because they got behind and are falling further behind on retirement funding.


You think they should add another unfunded multi-million liability and the people who oppose your position lack vision??? (You assume the city can simply sell/afford 200 million in bonds. If it were that easy, it would have happened by now.)


If there was a way for the city to actually pay for $150 million or so, I’d be down with this. That isn’t going to happen. Just putting another $150-200 million onto the city’s credit card would be a horrible idea, and would eventually lead to services being cut.


Kings will leave in six weeks. In 5 years the city will give up on bringing pro sports back and fund a much smaller Stockton sized arena (which cost closer to 40-50 million total) and put in the rail yards.

Of course they should take the risk!

It's their damn fault they waited until the economy was in the toilet. They could have done this when the economy was booming, and the Kings were contenders. But no, they ignored the problem year after year, when the economy was doing much better. That was the risk the city took, to ignore this arena situation while everything economically was in better standing.

The city was the one who created the larger risk for itself. Funny how you think Sac will build a 40-50M arena in the railyards, when they haven't shown they have the capability to build anything so far. Wishful thinking at best. And how would building a 40-50M arena without a tenant be less risky then funding an arena which will have an nba team as a tenant?

 

[JB_kings]

It’s vision – its called sound fiscal policy and political realties. The city leaders cannot raise taxes to fund an arena – politically it’s not going to happen. So called tourists taxes would be insufficient to pay the approximately 200 million gap Kings fans are pleading the city to fill. Thus, if the city takes the calculated risk of funding the arena to promote growth downtown, the arena becomes an unfunded liability for the city.


Currently, the city is having a very hard time supporting basic services. The city is broke and is both papering over gaps with short term fixes and relying on federal funds that will soon go away. Moreover, the city already has a massive unfunded liability because they got behind and are falling further behind on retirement funding.


You think they should add another unfunded multi-million liability and the people who oppose your position lack vision??? (You assume the city can simply sell/afford 200 million in bonds. If it were that easy, it would have happened by now.)


If there was a way for the city to actually pay for $150 million or so, I’d be down with this. That isn’t going to happen. Just putting another $150-200 million onto the city’s credit card would be a horrible idea, and would eventually lead to services being cut.


Kings will leave in six weeks. In 5 years the city will give up on bringing pro sports back and fund a much smaller Stockton sized arena (which cost closer to 40-50 million total) and put in the rail yards.

Yeah and your do nothing approach adds to unemployment and loss of revenue for the city once the team is gone. The ride down will be much worse than you are thinking. But then again, do you even live here and care?

 

[Larry David]

Of course they should take the risk!

It's their damn fault they waited until the economy was in the toilet. They could have done this when the economy was booming, and the Kings were contenders. But no, they ignored the problem year after year, when the economy was doing much better. That was the risk the city took, to ignore this arena situation while everything economically was in better standing.

The city was the one who created the larger risk for itself. Funny how you think Sac will build a 40-50M arena in the railyards, when they haven't shown they have the capability to build anything so far. Wishful thinking at best. And how would building a 40-50M arena without a tenant be less risky then funding an arena which will have an nba team as a tenant?

40 > 200. When the Maloofs fold up Arco, there will enough demand to get something done to keep concerts, ice shows, ect. The Bee says it might not happen right away, but I doubt it stays an arena for more than 3-4 years. They can't even fund all of the 40 million with tourist taxes, but it will pay for a portion of a modest 10,000 seat facility. Sac will end up with minor league hockey to go with minor league baseball on the other side of the river and football if the USFL hangs on.

If Bakersfield and Stockton can make a modst 10,000 seat place work (with small losses)... I'm guessing they can make it work here.

It's sad. I wish they had another 100-150 million to keep pro sports in town ... but the city cannot get that done at this point. The numbers don't work, thus too much risk this project is the straw that makes the city go completely broke. Even if you think it's a good idea, it has neither the public or political support to make it happen.

Your are right they should have pushed harder in 01-02 and the Maloofs shouldn't have demanded as much (they wanted State of the Art like Orlando, but could have lived with something more modest like Fed Ex, see Sunday's Bee and clippings from 03-06.) But blame doesn't fix the fact that its not going to happen.

 

[Larry David]

Yeah and your do nothing approach adds to unemployment and loss of revenue for the city once the team is gone. The ride down will be much worse than you are thinking. But then again, do you even live here and care?

I don't dispute that losing the Kings will cause a loss in revenue and more unemployment. Only that adding at 100-150 million unfunded liability to the city's budget would be much worse.

At this point, unless you can raise taxes, unemployment and damage to the city's budget happen whether they fund the arena or let them go.

And yes, I live here and care.

 

[cstorm]

Good point and it's always the same 6-10 people with multiple user names....

Sigh, if that were only the case. It is like a disease that has spread throughout the city. Some of my own friends and family members even. Somehow, everyone is convinced that getting rid of the Kings is going to 'help' the city recover. These are passionately held feelings. So much so, I may just loose a few friends and family members.

 

[Glenn]

Sigh, if that were only the case. It is like a disease that has spread throughout the city. Some of my own friends and family members even. Somehow, everyone is convinced that getting rid of the Kings is going to 'help' the city recover. These are passionately held feelings. So much so, I may just loose a few friends and family members.

Ah yes, eliminate the 25th largest employer, the taxes they create, and lower the population by 50 and wonderful things will happen.

 

[Glenn]

The city has made the choice that having MMA and ice shows is just as good for the city as having a facility that could house the 2012 Democratic National Convention and the $200 mil Orlando expects the city to get from that. They no longer care if they have a facility that could house an NBA All Star weekend. I would bet large chunks of money that after all that Stern put into trying to make this work, he would see to it that Sacramento got an All Star game if they had a new arena. What's that worth? What's having the NCAA come back worth? Really, anybody know how much income comes into a city from these events? Subtract that number from the cost of the arena because that's what it would earn.

A bond issue is not a tax. Targeting taxes to get outsiders is not a tax on the citizens.

Small minded and it will always be so.