5-4 to keep arena off ballot at City Council tonight
- Thread starter nebs
- Start date
I don't think this is as bad as people think. I just watched.
Also two huge meetings. 2/14 is whether to move forward for on an RFP. 2/28 will be the outlines of the plan and whether to do a RFP. To that end, the 2/14 is big ... but 2/28 will be the superbowl of arena meetings. Probably whether to do it and the terms - two possible deal killers.
To me McCarty might go no on either, but he seems like he's got a fair amount of voters that don't like this project and he wants cover. I don't know that they can win him over, but I don't think he's out of reach. Plus, he seems like he's for leasing the parking - but might want to spend it on other stuff / other stuff as well. We'll see if he votes yes on 2/14, but no on 2/28.
Pannel seemed concerned about a procedural issue and timeline. She seemd to be saying "I don't know what the deal is. If this is a no brainer, then no, the city shouldn't vote on it. But if it's a so-so deal, then we might need to vote." The problem is that 2/21 is the deadline to put something on the ballot and 2/28 is when she'll get the outline of the plan. Thus, the "Can we put it on the ballot tonight and vote to take it off later." She's clearly not a fan of being rushed, Sacramento going first, or all in. So she's a real wild card, but I think she's better on 2/14 but no lock on 2/28.
Anybody banking on Cohn as a yes, watch his speach. He gets it, but he could say no. He'll vote for a deal that works for Sacramento. But he's the biggest risk to water this down to the point where it doesn't work or vote no on a deal that's viable but not to his liking. If the details aren't firm on everything, I don't think you can bank on him. What happens to the Kings loan could turn him to a "no" in a heartbeat.
Also two huge meetings. 2/14 is whether to move forward for on an RFP. 2/28 will be the outlines of the plan and whether to do a RFP. To that end, the 2/14 is big ... but 2/28 will be the superbowl of arena meetings. Probably whether to do it and the terms - two possible deal killers.
To me McCarty might go no on either, but he seems like he's got a fair amount of voters that don't like this project and he wants cover. I don't know that they can win him over, but I don't think he's out of reach. Plus, he seems like he's for leasing the parking - but might want to spend it on other stuff / other stuff as well. We'll see if he votes yes on 2/14, but no on 2/28.
Pannel seemed concerned about a procedural issue and timeline. She seemd to be saying "I don't know what the deal is. If this is a no brainer, then no, the city shouldn't vote on it. But if it's a so-so deal, then we might need to vote." The problem is that 2/21 is the deadline to put something on the ballot and 2/28 is when she'll get the outline of the plan. Thus, the "Can we put it on the ballot tonight and vote to take it off later." She's clearly not a fan of being rushed, Sacramento going first, or all in. So she's a real wild card, but I think she's better on 2/14 but no lock on 2/28.
Anybody banking on Cohn as a yes, watch his speach. He gets it, but he could say no. He'll vote for a deal that works for Sacramento. But he's the biggest risk to water this down to the point where it doesn't work or vote no on a deal that's viable but not to his liking. If the details aren't firm on everything, I don't think you can bank on him. What happens to the Kings loan could turn him to a "no" in a heartbeat.
Pannell is the key to getting this deal done. Cohn is shifty and McCarty is probably a lost cause. KJ would be wise to send Bonnie ALOT of roses on Valentines day! 2/14 could be a 6-3 yes vote to move forward..
KJ needs to get Pannell to insure 2/28 passes 5-4. He's got Rob Fong, Ashby and Shinerer locked in for sure, Pannell needs to be wooed to make sure its a done deal on 2/28.
KJ needs to get Pannell to insure 2/28 passes 5-4. He's got Rob Fong, Ashby and Shinerer locked in for sure, Pannell needs to be wooed to make sure its a done deal on 2/28.
Crap, I didn't know there would be another vote on the 28th. I need to stop stressing about this. Now I have to plan for that meeting, geez. I guess no rest for the weary until March 1st.
If parking lease is lowered to 30 years, it could kill the deal. It would significantly reduce the upfront money and would mean more borrowing, which might kill the deal is there's not enough potential arena revenue to pay for more debt.
I wrote an e-mail to Sheedy before the vote. They have gone through reams of reports, hours of public comments and consultant reports to the council. No voter is going to devote days of time going through it all, even assuming most of them could understand the complexities of financing large civic projects.
That's why we elect representatives. They get to wade through months of consultant reports, city staff reports and public comments. Then we expect them to use that knowledge to vote in the manner they think is best for their district. (KJ is the only city-wide representive.)
I told her that after months of information/knowledge gatherering, that asking for a public vote on this project (and no other funds-to-private-businesses projects) was shirking the job she was elected to do and was cowardly. I said vote no, if you think this isn't good for your district or even for the city and let the chips fall where they may.
There was an article in the Bee a day or so ago, supporing the idea that's it long past time for Sacramento to have a strong mayor system, instead of the parichial wek-mayor system we have now. Sacramento is one of the largest municipalities in the USA to still use a weak-mayor system. As far as I'm concerned, it's the main reason for lack of progress in the city.
Even if they don't like the particulars of either of KJ's strong-mayor proposals so far, they ought to be making proposals themselves. Now apparently they want it put on a ballot to decide if there should be a citizen group to come up with a strong-mayor proposal. What a bunch of wimps. Many just don't seem to want to do the job they were elected to do. Infuriating.
If parking lease is lowered to 30 years, it could kill the deal. It would significantly reduce the upfront money and would mean more borrowing, which might kill the deal is there's not enough potential arena revenue to pay for more debt.
I wrote an e-mail to Sheedy before the vote. They have gone through reams of reports, hours of public comments and consultant reports to the council. No voter is going to devote days of time going through it all, even assuming most of them could understand the complexities of financing large civic projects.
That's why we elect representatives. They get to wade through months of consultant reports, city staff reports and public comments. Then we expect them to use that knowledge to vote in the manner they think is best for their district. (KJ is the only city-wide representive.)
I told her that after months of information/knowledge gatherering, that asking for a public vote on this project (and no other funds-to-private-businesses projects) was shirking the job she was elected to do and was cowardly. I said vote no, if you think this isn't good for your district or even for the city and let the chips fall where they may.
There was an article in the Bee a day or so ago, supporing the idea that's it long past time for Sacramento to have a strong mayor system, instead of the parichial wek-mayor system we have now. Sacramento is one of the largest municipalities in the USA to still use a weak-mayor system. As far as I'm concerned, it's the main reason for lack of progress in the city.
Even if they don't like the particulars of either of KJ's strong-mayor proposals so far, they ought to be making proposals themselves. Now apparently they want it put on a ballot to decide if there should be a citizen group to come up with a strong-mayor proposal. What a bunch of wimps. Many just don't seem to want to do the job they were elected to do. Infuriating.
I don't have much more to add on what others have said. Right now it's about taking steps and making it to the next decision. Each time we survive and move on, the chances grow better. I'm a little concerned about the growing feeling among the council about stepping out there without much word from the NBA or AEG. I'm hoping this gets addressed before too long. I think if their loan offer to the Maloofs is true, it would still take one more commitment move to hit this one out of the park. I think Stern needs to promise an All Star game sometime within a very few years after the new ESC opens. I've heard all the reasons about not enough hotels, but that can be worked out if really needed. I think if he comes with that, most anyone can see a lot of money pouring into the city from the event. I wouldn't be too concerned about setting a precedent because not too many current NBA cities (Milwaukee & Minny?) have arena replacement issues.