11 PM news on Channel 10

[kennadog]

There's a video here: http://www.news10.net/

Two things I was encouraged by. The City Council was briefed by Moag today:

1) Not asking for tax money. The suggestion is that the city could contribute money from the sale of the city-owned land in Natomas.

2) If the Cal Expo plan doesn't work, Moag has a plan B ready.

On a side note: channel 10 did a survey and Cal Expo was the least favorite site. Natomas was the favorite, even oveer the railyards. I swear Sacramentans want everything, while giving nothing. Don't want to pay a dime, but want to have it where they want it. These polls are usually suspect, though. Samll numbers and hardly a true random sampling.

 

[Warhawk]

On a side note: channel 10 did a survey and Cal Expo was the least favorite site. Natomas was the favorite, even oveer the railyards. I swear Sacramentans want everything, while giving nothing. Don't want to pay a dime, but want to have it where they want it. These polls are usually suspect, though. Samll numbers and hardly a true random sampling.

Well, I don't know about the poll questions, etc, but Natomas would be my favorite site as well....

Plentiful freeway access, lots of Maloof-owned parking, full-scale development nearby with places to eat and shopping, and when light rail goes to the airport they will probably run it near the arena somewhere. Oh yeah, and they already own the land.

Contrast that with the problems with the other two sites and why wouldn't it be the favorite?

 

[BRad1055]

Cal Expo would be the best spot because I live over in the Arden area. So for me it is great.

 

[kupman]

On a side note: channel 10 did a survey and Cal Expo was the least favorite site. Natomas was the favorite, even oveer the railyards. I swear Sacramentans want everything, while giving nothing. Don't want to pay a dime, but want to have it where they want it. These polls are usually suspect, though. Samll numbers and hardly a true random sampling.

I think that I saw the same thing. However, I believe the poll was conducted by a SacState professor and was conducted via telephone interview last March. The results are just now being made public.

The disturbing thing I saw in the poll results (as well as SacBee reader comments) is that many, if not most people think that there is nothing wrong with Arco. You know, "nothing wrong with Arco - Maloofs just want more money," or "why don't they just renovate Arco?" It is just misinformation at a mass level. Arco is nearing its end and it cannot be renovated for significant improvements...not my opinion, but rather fact.

 

[kennadog]

I think that I saw the same thing. However, I believe the poll was conducted by a SacState professor and was conducted via telephone interview last March. The results are just now being made public.

The disturbing thing I saw in the poll results (as well as SacBee reader comments) is that many, if not most people think that there is nothing wrong with Arco. You know, "nothing wrong with Arco - Maloofs just want more money," or "why don't they just renovate Arco?" It is just misinformation at a mass level. Arco is nearing its end and it cannot be renovated for significant improvements...not my opinion, but rather fact.

That misinformation bothers me, too. The report done by the city's own consultant came up with that conclusion. But it must be just the Maloofs.

My bad on assuming it was a News10 poll. Cal Expo is not my favorite site either, by the way. However, if that's where it can get done, then I'm for it. The city's had years to come up with something and failed miserably. Thank goodness, the NBA does care enough to make a serious effort to get something done. I'll give them credit for that, successful (hopefully) or not.

 

[kupman]

So again on the News 10 report there is all this talk about traffic. It is reported that there are 18,000 cars that pass through the bottleneck during rush hour, which is defined as 4 pm - 7 pm. Let's just say that 8,000 cars arrive for each Kings game that starts at 7:30 pm. Most of those cars will arrive after 6:45 pm.

It seems to me that there would not be much overlap between game traffic and regular commute traffic. When is someone in the media going to point this out. It may not be that bad.

Second, when traffic becomes really bad, that is when people begin to look at alternatives. Maybe some people leave work a little earlier on game nights to get home before traffic gets bad. Or people that are going to the game may also look for alternatives. If you expand the freeway, it encourages more traffic on the freeway, thereby not making things any easier.

 

[Purple Reign]

There was a poll last night on KCRA-3 that said almost 60 percent would not support an arena project at Cal Expo. Maybe it's because the information is sketchy, but I love what I am hearing so far. It is amazing what people with vision (i.e. David Stern and John Moag) can do compared to people without vision (community of Sacramento and it's government).

SIDE NOTE: I am sorry, I have been a resident and an employee in (not of)the City of Sacramento for 20 years. I have worked within the communities of the City of Sacramento doing non-profit, social service type work for 10 years, I AM VERY CRITICAL OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE MAYOR!!!! If they are intimately involved with this deal or any other arena project deal, it will fail, PERIOD!!!! And the residents of Sacramento for the most part have inherited that small time, small thinking mentally that festers down in City Hall. My hope is that Cal Expo, The NBA, The Maloofs, and the State can work around City Hall (outside of the infrastructure).

 

[VF21]

I agree, Purple Reign. The city and county of Sacramento is governed by egomaniacal bozos, with a couple of exceptions. The idea that Cal Expo, the NBA, the Maloofs and whomever are working around them delights me to no end.

The traffic situation is, in a word, "overblown" when you really think about it. Anyone who has come from anywhere to go to a Kings game knows they're going to encounter virtually gridlock conditions at some point.

Right now, I don't care if there are traffic problems they'll have to solve. I want to see a commitment towards getting the new arena - I'll worry about where to park or how to actually get into the arena later down the road.

 

[cfechter]

I agree, Purple Reign. The city and county of Sacramento is governed by egomaniacal bozos, with a couple of exceptions. The idea that Cal Expo, the NBA, the Maloofs and whomever are working around them delights me to no end.

I disagree. I know Kevin McCarty who sits on the city council, he is one of the most humble people I know. No ego problems there, isn't a "bozo", etc. - I may disagree with him politically on some issues but I trust him to make good decisions for the city.

I realizing you're generalizing here in making that statement, but politicians have a lot more to worry about than a privately held enterprise that wants a stadium built.

 

[VF21]

I said "with a couple of exceptions."

AND it's not just about the Sacramento Kings. It's about a state-of-the-art venue that will enable Sacramento to draw premiere events to the area. The idea that it's solely about "a privately-held enterprise that wants a stadium built" is a big part of the problem...and it's one most politicians have done NOTHING to correct.

 

[Diabeticwonder]

The traffic situation is, in a word, "overblown" when you really think about it. Anyone who has come from anywhere to go to a Kings game knows they're going to encounter virtually gridlock conditions at some point.

I completely disagree. The Cap City freeway is horrible near Exposition and Arden and so too are the "shortcuts" via Howe and other side streets. I have been going to Kings games since they arrived in town and very rarely do I ever encounter gridlock and I'm coming from the Fair Oaks/Gold River area. The onramps to the Cap City from 50 is a joke right now and it will only get worse with the arena there.

With that said, I am not against the arena going in at Cal Expo. Rather, I just want to see it get built, no matter where it is, BUT the traffic situation is not "overblown" at all and it needs to be remedied if an arena is going in there.

 

[Purple Reign]

I disagree. I know Kevin McCarty who sits on the city council, he is one of the most humble people I know. No ego problems there, isn't a "bozo", etc. - I may disagree with him politically on some issues but I trust him to make good decisions for the city.

I realizing you're generalizing here in making that statement, but politicians have a lot more to worry about than a privately held enterprise that wants a stadium built.

Literally a "couple" of exceptions, I will give you that.....

Kevin McCarty - Fairly new, young, I do not know him well.
Rob Fong - I like him a lot, progressive, contemporary politics
Sandy Sheedy - small time
Steve Cohn - small time, has own agenda. idiot
Bonnie Pannell - small time
Lauren Hammond - good, one of the exceptions
Ray Trethway - good
Robbie Waters - small time of the small time and borderline (fill in the blank)

last but not least Heather Fargo.....'nough said. Then add to the pot Roger Dickerson (on and off), Dave Jones , a new City Manager, Darrell Steinberg (who is OK but a career politician).....and you come up with a


GREAT BIG PILE OF HOT STINKING BURACRACY, AND GET NOTHING DONE!!!!

 

[VF21]

I know it's very tempting to let this drift into a political discussion, but...

The main point is that apparently the politicians (the good, the bad, the indifferent) are not going to be the focus of interest this time around. Take politics and taxes out of the equation and you have a much better chance of actually getting something done.

 

[VF21]

I completely disagree. The Cap City freeway is horrible near Exposition and Arden and so too are the "shortcuts" via Howe and other side streets. I have been going to Kings games since they arrived in town and very rarely do I ever encounter gridlock and I'm coming from the Fair Oaks/Gold River area. The onramps to the Cap City from 50 is a joke right now and it will only get worse with the arena there.

With that said, I am not against the arena going in at Cal Expo. Rather, I just want to see it get built, no matter where it is, BUT the traffic situation is not "overblown" at all and it needs to be remedied if an arena is going in there.

When I say "overblown" I refer to the focus by at least two news crews last night on TRAFFIC! as though it was something they had just realized was a problem.

I probably shouldn't have used the term "gridlock." But traffic is HORRIBLE around Sacramento at various times of the day, and the traffic around Natomas, Truxel, etc. certainly isn't clear sailing before and after the games.

Bottom line is I agree about just getting the arena built. I have every confidence the EIR and related studies will point out what needs to be done to manage traffic increases.

 

[cfechter]

I said "with a couple of exceptions."

AND it's not just about the Sacramento Kings. It's about a state-of-the-art venue that will enable Sacramento to draw premiere events to the area. The idea that it's solely about "a privately-held enterprise that wants a stadium built" is a big part of the problem...and it's one most politicians have done NOTHING to correct.

I agree with you on some levels here, but I'm still of the opinion that government shouldn't be in the business of interfering in its citizens lives regardless. Building a $500,000,000 arena for a privately held enterprise which could theoretically fund its own project would constitute just that.

 

[VF21]

Government interfers in the lives of its citizens every single minute of every single day.

 

[fansinceday1]

While I agree that we need a new arena in a bad way I really hope that the traffic problem is addressed first. Cap city between exposition and C st. can be a complete mess at all hours of the day. I drive that stretch 5-6 times a day and if there is breakdown/accident, or u happen to hit it at the wrong time of the day it is complete gridlock. It's such a bottleneck because of the Cst railroad overpass. 5 lanes drops to 2 lanes on east bound cap city. That is gonna NEED to be addressed. If they fix that then there is no reason why an arena couldnt go at Cal Expo.

 

[kennadog]

While I agree that we need a new arena in a bad way I really hope that the traffic problem is addressed first. Cap city between exposition and C st. can be a complete mess at all hours of the day. I drive that stretch 5-6 times a day and if there is breakdown/accident, or u happen to hit it at the wrong time of the day it is complete gridlock. It's such a bottleneck because of the Cst railroad overpass. 5 lanes drops to 2 lanes on east bound cap city. That is gonna NEED to be addressed. If they fix that then there is no reason why an arena couldnt go at Cal Expo.

They need to address regardless of an arena. I coldn't believe Caltrans said there was nothing planned for that freeway.

 

[cfechter]

Government interfers in the lives of its citizens every single minute of every single day.

I already posted something quoting this sentence, I'm not sure if it was removed or if it somehow didn't make it up here, but I'll say it again - just because government interferes with all aspects of our lives now doesn't mean it needs to interfere even further, especially on behalf of a private enterprise that could fund the project itself.

Again, I love the kings and I'm willing to pay extra to see them play and to see other events at any arena, but I don't feel I should impose my viewpoints and beliefs on anyone else, which would be done through paying for this with public money.

 

[VF21]

I already posted something quoting this sentence, I'm not sure if it was removed or if it somehow didn't make it up here, but I'll say it again - just because government interferes with all aspects of our lives now doesn't mean it needs to interfere even further, especially on behalf of a private enterprise that could fund the project itself.

Again, I love the kings and I'm willing to pay extra to see them play and to see other events at any arena, but I don't feel I should impose my viewpoints and beliefs on anyone else, which would be done through paying for this with public money.

First, there isn't any sign of a previous post by you quoting me, so it never made it to the board...

As to the rest, you're beating a dead horse, which has been my underlying point all along. The public money thing is no longer a primary component so arguing it about it is no longer germane IMHO.

A lot of us have argued the public good point for a long time, however. I don't have any school-age children, I don't go to a public library and I don't use public transportation. Does that mean those who do are imposing their viewpoints and beliefs on me?

Living in a society requires balance, give and take, and the realization that sometimes what's good for someone else might not necessarily benefit you but that it might benefit enough people to make it worthwhile.

Once again, this has never been JUST about the Kings.

 

[cfechter]

First, there isn't any sign of a previous post by you quoting me, so it never made it to the board...

As to the rest, you're beating a dead horse, which has been my underlying point all along. The public money thing is no longer a primary component so arguing it about it is no longer germane IMHO.

A lot of us have argued the public good point for a long time, however. I don't have any school-age children, I don't go to a public library and I don't use public transportation. Does that mean those who do are imposing their viewpoints and beliefs on me?

Living in a society requires balance, give and take, and the realization that sometimes what's good for someone else might not necessarily benefit you but that it might benefit enough people to make it worthwhile.

Once again, this has never been JUST about the Kings.

I agree - living in a society does require balance, give and take - however, this is no excuse for the government to pay for something that private individuals choose to use.

Even if taxes aren't raised in this circumstance, if the state pays for any portion of the project public funds are still being used and thus being diverted from the private citizens who pay some other form of tax, whether it be income, property, sales tax, etc. Edit - Kennadog's original post says this: "1) Not asking for tax money. The suggestion is that the city could contribute money from the sale of the city-owned land in Natomas." - i.e., public money is probably still the catalyst in this circumstance.

I don't wish to evole the discussion into what my semi-libertarian viewpoints are, but it could be argued we would be better off if the government didn't provide some of the services that were out there - if there is a demand for a library and citizens willing to pay for one, why have the government subsidize it?

 

[VF21]

You and I are diametrically opposed in our political philosophies. We are, however, united in one thing...

GO KINGS!!!

 

[Circa_1985_Fan]

Wow...2 whole pages about an new arena plan and nothing from everyone's favorite lurker 'Arena Skeptic'. He must be using his Robbie Waters 8-Ball to drum up some negativity on why this plan will NEVER work and its all another ploy from the greedy Maloofs to move the team to Las Vegas.

 

[cfechter]

You and I are diametrically opposed in our political philosophies. We are, however, united in one thing...

GO KINGS!!!

ha - yep, I love our team!! From the larry Drew days, to the Duane Causwell days, up through our current team, I have always been a fan!

 

[Bricklayer]

I already posted something quoting this sentence, I'm not sure if it was removed or if it somehow didn't make it up here, but I'll say it again - just because government interferes with all aspects of our lives now doesn't mean it needs to interfere even further, especially on behalf of a private enterprise that could fund the project itself.

Again, I love the kings and I'm willing to pay extra to see them play and to see other events at any arena, but I don't feel I should impose my viewpoints and beliefs on anyone else, which would be done through paying for this with public money.

That's called living in society.

We make thousands of decisions for everybody else every year. We take money and build roads, schools, support museums, build courthouses, prisons. We zone areas, grant licenses and permits, put up stop and no parking signs, and grant tax breaks to favored enterprises. We make decisions about public morality. For instance you are born naked, but you flash a breast in public and you can be arrested (on this side of the pond at least). We also build interestate freeways that most of us will never use, spend disaster relief money in places most of us will never visit, and yes publicly underwrite "U.S" sports teams that claim to represent us.

This is no different. The Sacramento Kings are a private enterprise, but in name only. From a societal perspective they are a public good or service. And a far reaching one. A far higher percentage of the greater Sacramento area's residents have taken pleasure in watching a Kings game (on TV if nothing else) than have visited the Crocker Art Museum (if that's still there) or been to McKinley Park, and yet we do not have this hesitation in deciding for others (or ourselves) that public money will go to support them. Not everybody directly benefits from every expenditure of public money. But when you are dealing with an enterprise with widespread impact the money is often well spent from a community persepctive anyway.

P.S. I noticed your edit regarding your libertarianism. I had resisted the urge to directly confront that while it was merely implicit to avoid the obvious politics.

 

[cfechter]

That's called living in society.

We make thousands of decisions for everybody else every year. We take money and build roads, schools, support museums, build courthouses, prisons. We zone areas, grant licenses and permits, put up stop and no parking signs, and grant tax breaks to favored enterprises. We make decisions about public morality. For instance you are born naked, but you flash a breast in public and you can be arrested (on this side of the pond at least). We also build interestate freeways that most of us will never use, spend disaster relief money in places most of us will never visit, and yes publicly underwrite "U.S" sports teams that claim to represent us.

This is no different. The Sacramento Kings are a private enterprise, but in name only. From a societal perspective they are a public good or service. And a far reaching one. A far higher percentage of the greater Sacramento area's residents have taken pleasure in watching a Kings game (on TV if nothing else) than have visited the Crocker Art Museum (if that's still there) or been to McKinley Park, and yet we do not have this hesitation in deciding for others (or ourselves) that public money will go to support them. Not everybody directly benefits from every expenditure of public money. But when you are dealing with an enterprise with widespread impact the money is often well spent from a community persepctive anyway.

P.S. I noticed your edit regarding your libertarianism. I had resisted the urge to directly confront that while it was merely implicit to avoid the obvious politics.

I'm not full on libertarian, some of their ideas are a bit....far out. Fiscally though (on my most issues), I really agree with their philosophy.