AP: Kings' arena funding campaign going to long-shot vote

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2633492
SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- Any visitor to Arco Arena can see why the Sacramento Kings need a new home.

Built on the cheap in a sheep pasture and rushed open in 1988 as the home for the only major pro sports team in California's capital, Arco is now a drafty barn when compared to the NBA's state-of-the-art pleasure palaces.

Fans sit in uncomfortable seats on weathered wooden floors in the lower bowl. The concourses are sparse and a bit dingy, while the single tier of cramped luxury suites isn't exactly the most luxurious spot in town.

And fans don't even see the truly outmoded aspects, such as the visitors' locker room -- a comically spare dungeon with coat hooks for lockers, a cramped shower and absolutely none of the amenities common to the profession.

Yet the latest strategy to create a new home for the Kings seems doomed to failure. After months of contentious wrangling and bitter public debate, most polls suggest Measures Q and R -- ballot initiatives which propose a quarter-cent sales tax increase to help raise public funds for a downtown arena and other projects -- will be voted down Nov. 7 in Sacramento County.

Local business owners and taxpayers' groups complain about the iniquity of financing part of a proposed arena complex in the old downtown Sacramento railyard for the billionaire Maloof brothers' team. Meanwhile, the Kings' owners are still haggling with government officials over control of parking spaces and zoning around an arena that might never be built.

The Maloofs already walked out of negotiations last month, angry with the pace and tenor of the proceedings in a city they put on the international sports map -- and there's a chance they could walk out of Sacramento altogether.

Looming over the complex negotiations is the reality that the Kings must have a new arena to keep pace with the rest of the NBA, both in revenue and reputation -- and if they don't get it, other cities will come calling. The casino-owning Maloofs are virtual royalty in Las Vegas, while Anaheim, San Jose and Kansas City could be possibilities with the right public momentum.

"It definitely affects us as players, because we love it here, and we want to stay here," Kings guard Kevin Martin said. "This is a great building, because it's where I got the chance to play in the NBA. But when you go around the league, a whole lot of teams have fancier places."

As with anything regarding the Kings, the discussion of the arena proposal has consumed the public discourse in Sacramento during recent weeks. Not even the race for governor inspires as much talk-radio chatter or water-cooler discussion.

Critics of the measures, who have been vocal and demonstrative about the need to channel tax funds into social works, gathered at a shuttered downtown restaurant Thursday to criticize the measures.

They've seized on every chance to paint the admittedly high-living Maloofs as corporate-welfare chasers, even lampooning their decision to star in a commercial for the Carl's Jr. fast-food chain in which they're seen chasing their burgers with a $6,000 bottle of wine.

"While the billionaire Maloofs are out living the high life in Las Vegas ... local business-owners are being redeveloped out of town," said Katherine Maestas, an arena-plan opponent who runs a consulting firm.

But supporters of the measure -- who include the Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce and many local businesspeople -- believe the naysayers are shortsighted and provincial. They point to ample evidence that downtown arenas spur job growth and business expansion while providing a civic point of pride and boosting the Kings, who have become the Sacramento Valley's public face to much to the nation.

"It seems to me that we have a unique opportunity to revitalize downtown Sacramento and create an urban identity that will be a benefit to generations of Sacramentans," said Darrell Steinberg, a state Senate candidate who spoke in favor of the measures in a recent public debate.

"I urge people, when they think about this vote not to ask what the private sector is getting, but what are we as the public getting for the future of Sacramento," he said.

Only money could have sullied Sacramento's love affair with the Maloofs, who purchased a majority interest in the Kings in 1999 and immediately transformed a mediocre, boring club into one of the NBA's most interesting, exciting franchises.
Sacramento has reached the playoffs in eight straight seasons despite undergoing wholesale changes since its heyday with Chris Webber, Vlade Divac and Peja Stojakovic. The Maloofs fired coach Rick Adelman last summer after eight straight playoff appearances, and new coach Eric Musselman leads an untested new team built around volatile forward Ron Artest.

A new arena could change the Kings again -- or the ballot measures' defeat could move the Kings closer to the road out of town.
"I hope it passes, because I don't want to move," guard Mike Bibby said.

Copyright 2006 by The Associated Press
So everyone else except the Sacramento Bee and select residents of Sacramento can see the need for a new arena?

Maybe the nation is spoiled by modern amenities...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Only money could have sullied Sacramento's love affair with the Maloofs, who purchased a majority interest in the Kings in 1999 and immediately transformed a mediocre, boring club into one of the NBA's most interesting, exciting franchises.

Only money? Au contraire. What has caused the most problems isn't money. It's the bashing by R.E. Graswich and the Sacramento Bee. They have to bear a big part of the blame for the misconceptions about the Maloofs AND about the condition of Arco.
 
This was a gentle assessment of Arco. I've read or heard comments by a number of writers and visitors from outside the area, just amazed at what a dump Arco is.

Truth is, it is a dump and not just for basketball. Its beloved by many, because of the memories, but in reality it is ugly, dingy, uncomfortable and can no longer handle many events due to deficiencies that cannot be corrected, because it can't be remodeled.

As the public we can't even see the very worst areas. If you really look closely, tho, you can see how it could get really bad, really fast. I think MSE does a pretty amazing job of keeping its public face together. But the new roof it needs would cost millions alone. That would be a waste of money.
 
Only money? Au contraire. What has caused the most problems isn't money. It's the bashing by R.E. Graswich and the Sacramento Bee. They have to bear a big part of the blame for the misconceptions about the Maloofs AND about the condition of Arco.
Yep, its flatout class bigotry and the biggest fanner of the hate flames is RE.
 
Kind of hard to make the argument of not being able to hold many events when there's still a lot of events being advertised there whenever people tune into the Comcast Sportsnet. Definitely got to advertise all the events though...

Ultimate Fighting Championship? Crazy stuff.
 
Main problem with Q and R

is that there is no agreement. How can they expect this to pass? The Kings do not make Sacrmento.. Sacramento has made the Kings.

People , including the Maloofs, have claimed that the Arena doesnt turn a profit. Any business can be made to show a loss. It simply depends on what you pay out. Teacher of math on sacbee did a simple calculation that showed that there was about 26 million this season available from the kings alone. I dont believe it included any income from any events at Arco other than the kings games. Surely the other events pay for the wages of all the employees associated with the arena. I would bet that they pay themselves a nice salary, to show a loss.

Nothing would surpise me.

Change the deal to include a reasonable % of public subsidy and I could support it. The current deal is a 100% subsidy. They wouold pay less for their lease, then they do currently.. That equates to a 100% subsidy.
 
Simply refer to the Maloofs as the "billionaire Maloofs" and you've instantly got half the people against them.

Amazing how financial prejudice is completely acceptable.

Most of the public are not businesspeople and many really have no desire to try to comprehend the details of a business deal and how it will or will not affect them. Just look at the political campaigns. Sure, a candidate could go on TV and explain to them what they will do to make things better. But you don't get far appealing to the intellect.

People respond to a good mud-slinging ad way better. Show goofy pictures of the opponent (always in black and white, because he doesn't have a soul), mention how much money has been donated to his campaign, and let the masses boo the bad guy.

And it's so much easier when the most public figures in this debate are the Billionaire Maloofs. The opposition? Heck, the opposition doesn't even have a face. The milk-money lady? Kathy Maestas? Please. The Carl's Jr. commercial made it worse because it's free advertising for the opposition which perpetuates their strongest point: The Maloofs are billionaires and should be hated.

The arena opposers have their bad guy clearly defined. You can't hope to overcome that without an equally compelling bad guy on the other side (or an outstanding good guy on your side... see Arnold Schwarznegger). Unfortunately, there isn't one.

The area supporters should run ads claiming that Q & R will help find Osama Bin Laden. Also, the National Alliance for Stepping on Baby Puppies opposes Q & R.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
^^Two things:

1. You need to post more often.

2. You owe me a keyboard.
 
^^Baby puppies...isn't that redundant? ;)

Funny post, though...and completely true when it comes to putting a face on the opposition. Similar to when Jon Stewart said that supporters of stem cell research should call it "The War on TERRORble diseases."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
voteno: Do know that the Bee was given the opportunity to go over MSE's financial books twice since the Maloofs have been here? Its been a couple of years now.

D-Mass: I have many family members that are teachers. Teachers should be rich, IMHO.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
We need to be very careful about discussing party politics. It's a slippery slope that leads nowhere good. We know - we've tried before.

The arena issue is one thing. It's permitted. Discussing partisan politics isn't.

Thanks...
 
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2633492

So everyone else except the Sacramento Bee and select residents of Sacramento can see the need for a new arena?
...

Honestly, I think it's a question of perception vs. reality. And, being the people who frequent Arco, poeople in Sac may be the most blinded to reality. Do you walk out of a Kings game thinking "man, that place is falling apart, we need a new arena?" No, if you're anything like me, you walk out of Arco energized by the fans, excited by the team, and loving basketball. I've heard many people say, "why replace Arco, I love Arco". But again, it's perception. Do they really love the arena, or is it the energy brought by the fans and the excitement created by their team that they love.

A while ago, someone posted a picture of the visiting team's locker room at Arco. I honestly think my high school had nicer locker rooms. While you can still play a basketball game in Arco, it is not up to the standards of most NBA teams, and the Maloofs and the team will get something better. Not just want better, or deserve better, but eventually, they will get something better. They will get it in Sacramento (which would be my choice) or they will get it somewhere else.
 
Back
Top