El Paljasso
Bench
Ailene Voisin: Sacramento has an identity crisis
By Ailene Voisin -- Bee Columnist
Published 12:01 am PDT Saturday, July 15, 2006
It's about popcorn, peanuts, parking.
It's about the Eagles.
It's about competition.
It's all about the building.
Just so we're clear on the situation: If the worst-case scenario occurs and the Kings leave for more modern digs elsewhere because city/county officials and the Maloofs fail to agree on a private/public financing plan for a downtown facility, prospective tenants will not rush to fill out the rental forms for 18-year-old Arco Arena.
Why buy used?
Why would owners in Orlando, Seattle, Milwaukee -- in the other counties currently wrestling with arena issues under threat of relocation -- leave one obsolete building for another when they can sit back and play the field?
Anaheim's officials are eager, and its state-of-the-art Pond is available. St. Louis continues to tout the charms of its spiffy Savvis Center. Oklahoma City has proven capable of housing the Hornets or a future NBA team in its functional Ford Center. Kansas City, Mo. -- another community in the process of constructing an arena before securing a primary occupant -- remains intent on luring an NHL or NBA franchise and, perhaps most important, improving its prospects for reclaiming the Big 12 basketball tournament that was being lured away by the modern facilities in Dallas and Oklahoma City.
Several other cities presently without modern facilities also are aggressively pursuing franchises -- among them Las Vegas and San Diego -- while awaiting an opportunity to poach and to promise. Most are television markets smaller than 19th-ranked Sacramento, which, should it lose the Kings, would become the only top-20 market without at least one major sports franchise. (All of the 18 larger markets boast at least two pro teams.)
So what does this suggest?
Sac is big league or it's not.
Sac gets a new building or gets out of the game.
City/county leaders, and ultimately its voters, will have to pay now or pay later because, as new City Manager Ray Kerridge suggested during a recent conversation, the arena is outdated and the issue transcends sports. For further clarification: This isn't strictly about keeping the Kings or acquiring another franchise -- again, an absolute non-starter without a new facility -- but rather about enhancing the cultural and entertainment prospects for the region. This is about quality of life and, in a visceral sense, about nurturing a common thread that connects a community.
The Capitol is the dot on the map, but the Kings are the pulse of the community.
"One of the first things I'm asked when I talk to other businesses about relocating here is, 'Why is Sacramento a good place to live?' " related Kerridge, a London native who is credited with facilitating the downtown renaissance in Portland, Ore., "and the Kings, of course, are a huge asset. When I was in Rome not long ago, when I was asked where I lived, and I said, 'Sacramento,' everyone said, 'Oh, the Kings.'
"But those interested in moving here also want to know about concerts and activities, and my concern is that Arco Arena will not be able to compete for other acts because of its age. For example, I went to see the Eagles not long ago, and while the Eagles were great, the acoustics were terrible ... I sense we are in jeopardy of losing the Eagles and other entertainment to other places. And do we want to have to go to San Francisco all the time for concerts and such?"
Undeniably, all of these private/public partnerships that have become so common in professional sports are exceedingly difficult, even unseemly undertakings. In an ideal world, millionaire owners would pay all the bills, tickets would be affordable and player salaries would be reasonable.
Of course, Arco II would have been built for generations instead of a few decades (see similarly aging and problematic structures in Milwaukee and Orlando), and city/county officials wouldn't be spending the weekend attempting to finalize an agreement to submit to the voters in November. We wouldn't be talking about revenue streams and luxury suites and the fact that Sacramento, one of the NBA's smaller markets, has a reasonable population but few corporations, the very lifeblood of pro sports.
We wouldn't be talking politics and certainly not potential relocation, but it's where we are.
Today, tomorrow. Next month, next year.
It's all about the building.
By Ailene Voisin -- Bee Columnist
Published 12:01 am PDT Saturday, July 15, 2006
It's about popcorn, peanuts, parking.
It's about the Eagles.
It's about competition.
It's all about the building.
Just so we're clear on the situation: If the worst-case scenario occurs and the Kings leave for more modern digs elsewhere because city/county officials and the Maloofs fail to agree on a private/public financing plan for a downtown facility, prospective tenants will not rush to fill out the rental forms for 18-year-old Arco Arena.
Why buy used?
Why would owners in Orlando, Seattle, Milwaukee -- in the other counties currently wrestling with arena issues under threat of relocation -- leave one obsolete building for another when they can sit back and play the field?
Anaheim's officials are eager, and its state-of-the-art Pond is available. St. Louis continues to tout the charms of its spiffy Savvis Center. Oklahoma City has proven capable of housing the Hornets or a future NBA team in its functional Ford Center. Kansas City, Mo. -- another community in the process of constructing an arena before securing a primary occupant -- remains intent on luring an NHL or NBA franchise and, perhaps most important, improving its prospects for reclaiming the Big 12 basketball tournament that was being lured away by the modern facilities in Dallas and Oklahoma City.
Several other cities presently without modern facilities also are aggressively pursuing franchises -- among them Las Vegas and San Diego -- while awaiting an opportunity to poach and to promise. Most are television markets smaller than 19th-ranked Sacramento, which, should it lose the Kings, would become the only top-20 market without at least one major sports franchise. (All of the 18 larger markets boast at least two pro teams.)
So what does this suggest?
Sac is big league or it's not.
Sac gets a new building or gets out of the game.
City/county leaders, and ultimately its voters, will have to pay now or pay later because, as new City Manager Ray Kerridge suggested during a recent conversation, the arena is outdated and the issue transcends sports. For further clarification: This isn't strictly about keeping the Kings or acquiring another franchise -- again, an absolute non-starter without a new facility -- but rather about enhancing the cultural and entertainment prospects for the region. This is about quality of life and, in a visceral sense, about nurturing a common thread that connects a community.
The Capitol is the dot on the map, but the Kings are the pulse of the community.
"One of the first things I'm asked when I talk to other businesses about relocating here is, 'Why is Sacramento a good place to live?' " related Kerridge, a London native who is credited with facilitating the downtown renaissance in Portland, Ore., "and the Kings, of course, are a huge asset. When I was in Rome not long ago, when I was asked where I lived, and I said, 'Sacramento,' everyone said, 'Oh, the Kings.'
"But those interested in moving here also want to know about concerts and activities, and my concern is that Arco Arena will not be able to compete for other acts because of its age. For example, I went to see the Eagles not long ago, and while the Eagles were great, the acoustics were terrible ... I sense we are in jeopardy of losing the Eagles and other entertainment to other places. And do we want to have to go to San Francisco all the time for concerts and such?"
Undeniably, all of these private/public partnerships that have become so common in professional sports are exceedingly difficult, even unseemly undertakings. In an ideal world, millionaire owners would pay all the bills, tickets would be affordable and player salaries would be reasonable.
Of course, Arco II would have been built for generations instead of a few decades (see similarly aging and problematic structures in Milwaukee and Orlando), and city/county officials wouldn't be spending the weekend attempting to finalize an agreement to submit to the voters in November. We wouldn't be talking about revenue streams and luxury suites and the fact that Sacramento, one of the NBA's smaller markets, has a reasonable population but few corporations, the very lifeblood of pro sports.
We wouldn't be talking politics and certainly not potential relocation, but it's where we are.
Today, tomorrow. Next month, next year.
It's all about the building.
About the writer:
- Ailene Voisin can be reached at (916) 321-1208 or avoisin@sacbee.com. Back columns: www.sacbee.com/voisin.
