Arco Arena Land Swap Developer Sweetens The Pot
- Thread starter Konj157
- Start date
Info about VisionMaker. They seem pretty legit to me.
The Maloofs right about now must be singing:
... Do you know the way to San Jose...
... You can really breathe in San Jose
They've got a lot of space.
There'll be a place where I can stay...
Seriously, though, it doesn't look good for a new arena but hope springs eternal. You guys up there are used to this (10 years and counting). I'm crossing my fingers. GET THIS THING DONE!!!!!
... Do you know the way to San Jose...
... You can really breathe in San Jose
They've got a lot of space.
There'll be a place where I can stay...
Seriously, though, it doesn't look good for a new arena but hope springs eternal. You guys up there are used to this (10 years and counting). I'm crossing my fingers. GET THIS THING DONE!!!!!
Last edited:
Look, I hate to point this out – but you folks are looking at this solely from a Sacramento and Kings perspective. This deal keeps getting better for Sacramento … but more and more unlikely to pass the legislature.
There are two hurdles here. First, getting the Cal Expo board to move this forward. Second, getting a majority of the state legislature to vote for this. While the sweeteners help the first, they hurt the second.
Right now, the state owns and operates the land. While it’s pretty poor, the fair draws a decent crowd and doesn’t lose much money in terms of cash in and cash out (most of the debt is unfunded repairs). Part of the draw is the fact that it comes along once a year. Most people come for the rides, not to see live birthing of animals. The fairgrounds are in debt, but a reputable consultant has said that: (1) with the first Cal Expo plan; (2) Cal Expo can clear the debt; (3) conservatively, improve some of the fairgrounds; and (4) if the land sells for more or they ever start turning a profit, they can basically redo the fairgrounds themselves.
Thus, option one is to keep the State Fair state run and permit Cal Expo to sell a portion of the property to clear debt and make improvements. There is a 144 page report explaining why it’s the best course of action.
Option two, the state: (1) down sizes a public asset; (2) to finance an arena and theme park for one California city; (3) for 49 weeks out of the year, the State doesn’t control the property; and (4) the draw and viability of the state fair is greatly diminished because the new theme park already provides those attractions every day. I’m not sure a representative from Orange County or San Diego is itching to vote for that.
And don’t forget – option three for legislature of a broke state is always “Wait. You are telling us that we don’t need to run this property a least 49 weeks out of the year and the land is valuable. Ok, I vote no for your bill, and I propose the state just sells the property and pays down state debt. All in favor?”
The sweeteners aren’t getting us any closer to the finish line. The first Expo plan was like trying to hit a half courter. The second plan was like moving back to the opposite 3 point line. In terms of getting state approval – the ultimate issue – this is like taking three more steps back.
Should it happen, this development is great from Sacramento. So I can’t blame you for being excited. As Kings fans hoping the team will stay, this is not a positive development. In terms of this ever passing, I think the report was 144 nails in the coffin. Kamilos is trying to save the deal, but the writing is on the wall.
There are two hurdles here. First, getting the Cal Expo board to move this forward. Second, getting a majority of the state legislature to vote for this. While the sweeteners help the first, they hurt the second.
Right now, the state owns and operates the land. While it’s pretty poor, the fair draws a decent crowd and doesn’t lose much money in terms of cash in and cash out (most of the debt is unfunded repairs). Part of the draw is the fact that it comes along once a year. Most people come for the rides, not to see live birthing of animals. The fairgrounds are in debt, but a reputable consultant has said that: (1) with the first Cal Expo plan; (2) Cal Expo can clear the debt; (3) conservatively, improve some of the fairgrounds; and (4) if the land sells for more or they ever start turning a profit, they can basically redo the fairgrounds themselves.
Thus, option one is to keep the State Fair state run and permit Cal Expo to sell a portion of the property to clear debt and make improvements. There is a 144 page report explaining why it’s the best course of action.
Option two, the state: (1) down sizes a public asset; (2) to finance an arena and theme park for one California city; (3) for 49 weeks out of the year, the State doesn’t control the property; and (4) the draw and viability of the state fair is greatly diminished because the new theme park already provides those attractions every day. I’m not sure a representative from Orange County or San Diego is itching to vote for that.
And don’t forget – option three for legislature of a broke state is always “Wait. You are telling us that we don’t need to run this property a least 49 weeks out of the year and the land is valuable. Ok, I vote no for your bill, and I propose the state just sells the property and pays down state debt. All in favor?”
The sweeteners aren’t getting us any closer to the finish line. The first Expo plan was like trying to hit a half courter. The second plan was like moving back to the opposite 3 point line. In terms of getting state approval – the ultimate issue – this is like taking three more steps back.
Should it happen, this development is great from Sacramento. So I can’t blame you for being excited. As Kings fans hoping the team will stay, this is not a positive development. In terms of this ever passing, I think the report was 144 nails in the coffin. Kamilos is trying to save the deal, but the writing is on the wall.
Last edited:
Conservative improvement.....ugh. Since Cal Expo is so old, outdated and, frankly, boring, "conservative" improvements over time is a gigantic yawn. No creativity, no vision, no energizing or exciting design, just more of the same blandness that plagues this city. The State does what it wants, without any regard for what the city or its residents might want. That's hardly limited to the arena, though and its been true for at least in the 40+ years I've been around here.
JB, I'm not trying to be a kill joy. I'm just explaining the big picture re the sweetners. Most of the people I've talked to think this was a break even change. In fact, it's going the other way really fast. While you might know that, I sure that 100% of the readers understood the impact. Don't kill the messenger.
Agree Kenna. But it's probably the way they go. The fact that you and I see eye to eye this week says a whole lot about this deal ... and that's not good.
Agree Kenna. But it's probably the way they go. The fact that you and I see eye to eye this week says a whole lot about this deal ... and that's not good.
As I am trying to figure this out for myself I have these questions for points you made that I put in bold:
1) Isn't the state downsizing this public asset in both plans?
2) with points #2 and #3 comes 150 million dollars in investment from VM. If #2 and #3 are deal breakers fine - but say good bye to $150 milion. (BTW, how much would get their attention? 300 million?)
3) to point #4 - this deal come with a no loss guarantee from VM. No such gaurantee going on your own.
Look, you make some valid points to a hastily written example … but at the end of the day:
One move is the state developing a portion the state fairgrounds for a state run fair.
The second is the state selling the state fairground to fund facilities for two private business (the state would lease the property of one business).
Your point about the guarantees is valid. But I’m willing to bet that I know how that vote comes out.
Frankly, I’m slightly concerned this wraps up next week. Logically, Cal Expo would at least study the new proposal. But the board could decide the consultant’s plan is the way to go and/or not want to fire themselves.
Also the report says the Convergence plan already doesn’t pencil anyhow. As a board member, adding 150 million would lead me to one of two conclusions … either the developer is offering VM some of the backend– thereby making the numbers even weaker and reducing the likelihood of the 25% profit shares on the end; or there is enough promise for the facility that Expo should attempt to do what VM plans. Frankly, I think it’s a variation of the first option. Cal Expo was saying “Wait, we wait several years for our redevelopment money on the backend and it’s not even guaranteed.” So Kamilos brought on another partner that will front Cal Expo’s / the state’s cut of the backend and take the risk of running the smaller fairground.
That solves one issue, but does nothing to address the critical finding – that the state is best served if they go it alone. Moreover, adding another partner and mouth to feed creates more issues on several fronts.
Most likely this drags into 2011, but we might be talking about the next plan as early as a week from now.
One move is the state developing a portion the state fairgrounds for a state run fair.
The second is the state selling the state fairground to fund facilities for two private business (the state would lease the property of one business).
Your point about the guarantees is valid. But I’m willing to bet that I know how that vote comes out.
Frankly, I’m slightly concerned this wraps up next week. Logically, Cal Expo would at least study the new proposal. But the board could decide the consultant’s plan is the way to go and/or not want to fire themselves.
Also the report says the Convergence plan already doesn’t pencil anyhow. As a board member, adding 150 million would lead me to one of two conclusions … either the developer is offering VM some of the backend– thereby making the numbers even weaker and reducing the likelihood of the 25% profit shares on the end; or there is enough promise for the facility that Expo should attempt to do what VM plans. Frankly, I think it’s a variation of the first option. Cal Expo was saying “Wait, we wait several years for our redevelopment money on the backend and it’s not even guaranteed.” So Kamilos brought on another partner that will front Cal Expo’s / the state’s cut of the backend and take the risk of running the smaller fairground.
That solves one issue, but does nothing to address the critical finding – that the state is best served if they go it alone. Moreover, adding another partner and mouth to feed creates more issues on several fronts.
Most likely this drags into 2011, but we might be talking about the next plan as early as a week from now.
So how about this idea:
The state sells Cal Expo to developers and the city/Maloofs sell the Arco site to developers. The money from each is funneled to the railyards where a VM amusement park is built alongside the new arena. The state uses the VM railyard site during the fair (just as it would at Arco site) and also gets to use the new arena during the fair.
Could the state really do better than $150 million towards development of a new site plus use of an arena?
Think about how attractive a desination this would be to out-of-towners if the inter-modal is built that would drop you off at the doorsteps of the new state fair/VM amusement park?
The state sells Cal Expo to developers and the city/Maloofs sell the Arco site to developers. The money from each is funneled to the railyards where a VM amusement park is built alongside the new arena. The state uses the VM railyard site during the fair (just as it would at Arco site) and also gets to use the new arena during the fair.
Could the state really do better than $150 million towards development of a new site plus use of an arena?
Think about how attractive a desination this would be to out-of-towners if the inter-modal is built that would drop you off at the doorsteps of the new state fair/VM amusement park?
Last edited:
Now I would not trust the personal priorities of the Cal Expo board members, but when it comes to the state..in an environment where privatization is being worshipped, where the state is desperately looking for ways to sell off assets while maintaining services, and in a deal which, regardless of location, involves multiple large private entities investing some half a billion dollars into the state of California...I am not as convinced as some that that is taken as a negative. The assumption is that the state will want to absolutely maximize profits from Cal Expo, but I am not sure that is really what is first on their mind. To have the problem taken off their hands, the risks and management eaten up by a private entity in a deal which also involves major investemnt and development to one of tis major urban areas...that may not appeal to a bureaucrat, but could have considerable appeal to the pols of a bankrupt state. At least enough appeal that it could enter into the you scratch my back I'll scratch yours back room lobbying circuit that gets bills passed.
That whole post was very informative and clarifying, so thanks for taking the time. I'm not disagreeing with you, but I've had a problem understanding the Cal Expo Board's position on this for a long time so maybe you can explain this to me. From what I understand, Cal Expo is state property. The Cal Expo board is a state appointed panel in charge of managing this property. The main purpose for the property is the annual state fair, a tradition which is becoming increasingly irrelevant with each passing year. During the majority of the year when the property is not in use for the state fair, they balance their budget by allowing conventions to use the facility for a fee. In addition they also have the horse racing track as additional revenue. The water park I'm guessing is independently owned but perhaps they pay a lease for use of the property?
If I'm wrong on any of those details so far, please correct me. That brings me back to your first point. You say the fair draws a decent crowd and doesn't lose much money. That's already a disconnect for me. As you point out yourself, the state has been in financial trouble for some time now. I would think eliminating unnecessary properties which lose money annually would be a priority for the state. So when it comes to a state-wide vote, what the Cal Expo Board wants is really irrelevant since they are only appointed by the state to manage this property. If the state decides Cal Expo is unnecessary, then their jobs are unnecessary too. Selling off a chunk of valuable land for a one-time profit in order to renovate a fiscally insolvent property and break even doesn't sound like it's in the best interest of the state either. Wasn't it just a couple of years ago that Arnold was suggesting the state just cash in on the Cal Expo property and be done with it?
So if every county in the state other than Sacramento would benefit from selling the property, ending the state fair, and using the profits to make a tiny dent in our state-wide debt -- why hasn't this already happened? Do Sacramento representatives have more pull than I give them credit for? Is there a lot of handshaking going on behind the scenes -- do this for my county and I'll do something for yours? If the writing is on the wall as you say, it seems to me it isn't saying "the Kings are leaving Sacramento because Cal Expo can't get it's act together and the state doesn't care". It's instead saying "Cal Expo is doomed because they can't get their act together and the state doesn't care". And that's been plainly apparent for a long time already.
How this affects the Kings... well, if the state would prefer to sell off Cal Expo anyway why can't Kamilos just bid on the property like everyone else? Developing the property into usable residential/commercial space is going to bring them a profit ultimately anyway. And since VisionMaker is interested in the old Arco site, interested enough to front $150 million to use that property anyway, than the city of Sacramento can let them use that land and invest the money in exchanging an out-of-date arena into a new up-to-date arena in a different location (ie the railyards). The loan the Maloofs are paying off on Arco (which would be demolished in this scenario) is instead transferred to the new arena but they come out ahead because they'll be getting more revenue from additional luxury boxes and amenities, and probably higher average ticket prices and parking.
The only problem with this scenario is making up the difference in cost which was supposed to come from selling the Cal Expo property. The citizens of Sacramento should be jumping at the chance to sell off a state property and use a chunk of that money to develop the city of Sacramento and yet so many of them seem staunchly opposed for reasons I can't fathom. But it's not their choice anyway, it's the choice of the state legislature as you pointed out. Which brings me back to my original point (see I didn't forget!): Cal Expo, and by extension the Cal Expo board, is doomed unless they do something radical right now to justify their existence to the state. They don't need a consultant to tell them that. So why not take advantage of all the free publicity with Kamilos, VisionMaker, Maloof Sports & Entertainment, the NBA itself, and the city of Sacramento pushing for this and agree to the land swap? The state will only allow Cal Expo to continue to exist if it's profitable and they haven't shown that they can do that at their current location. A brand new fairgrounds with a greater emphasis on rides in a new location stands a better chance of paying for itself than a renovated one at the current location. If a new fairgrounds can pay for itself and contribute an annual surplus to the state budget, that's the only reason the state legislature would approve it. So it seems to me that not only is the land swap ultimately in the best interest of the Cal Expo board, it looks like their only real option if they want to continue to exist. They should be the ones pushing for this the hardest.
If I'm wrong on any of those details so far, please correct me. That brings me back to your first point. You say the fair draws a decent crowd and doesn't lose much money. That's already a disconnect for me. As you point out yourself, the state has been in financial trouble for some time now. I would think eliminating unnecessary properties which lose money annually would be a priority for the state. So when it comes to a state-wide vote, what the Cal Expo Board wants is really irrelevant since they are only appointed by the state to manage this property. If the state decides Cal Expo is unnecessary, then their jobs are unnecessary too. Selling off a chunk of valuable land for a one-time profit in order to renovate a fiscally insolvent property and break even doesn't sound like it's in the best interest of the state either. Wasn't it just a couple of years ago that Arnold was suggesting the state just cash in on the Cal Expo property and be done with it?
So if every county in the state other than Sacramento would benefit from selling the property, ending the state fair, and using the profits to make a tiny dent in our state-wide debt -- why hasn't this already happened? Do Sacramento representatives have more pull than I give them credit for? Is there a lot of handshaking going on behind the scenes -- do this for my county and I'll do something for yours? If the writing is on the wall as you say, it seems to me it isn't saying "the Kings are leaving Sacramento because Cal Expo can't get it's act together and the state doesn't care". It's instead saying "Cal Expo is doomed because they can't get their act together and the state doesn't care". And that's been plainly apparent for a long time already.
How this affects the Kings... well, if the state would prefer to sell off Cal Expo anyway why can't Kamilos just bid on the property like everyone else? Developing the property into usable residential/commercial space is going to bring them a profit ultimately anyway. And since VisionMaker is interested in the old Arco site, interested enough to front $150 million to use that property anyway, than the city of Sacramento can let them use that land and invest the money in exchanging an out-of-date arena into a new up-to-date arena in a different location (ie the railyards). The loan the Maloofs are paying off on Arco (which would be demolished in this scenario) is instead transferred to the new arena but they come out ahead because they'll be getting more revenue from additional luxury boxes and amenities, and probably higher average ticket prices and parking.
The only problem with this scenario is making up the difference in cost which was supposed to come from selling the Cal Expo property. The citizens of Sacramento should be jumping at the chance to sell off a state property and use a chunk of that money to develop the city of Sacramento and yet so many of them seem staunchly opposed for reasons I can't fathom. But it's not their choice anyway, it's the choice of the state legislature as you pointed out. Which brings me back to my original point (see I didn't forget!): Cal Expo, and by extension the Cal Expo board, is doomed unless they do something radical right now to justify their existence to the state. They don't need a consultant to tell them that. So why not take advantage of all the free publicity with Kamilos, VisionMaker, Maloof Sports & Entertainment, the NBA itself, and the city of Sacramento pushing for this and agree to the land swap? The state will only allow Cal Expo to continue to exist if it's profitable and they haven't shown that they can do that at their current location. A brand new fairgrounds with a greater emphasis on rides in a new location stands a better chance of paying for itself than a renovated one at the current location. If a new fairgrounds can pay for itself and contribute an annual surplus to the state budget, that's the only reason the state legislature would approve it. So it seems to me that not only is the land swap ultimately in the best interest of the Cal Expo board, it looks like their only real option if they want to continue to exist. They should be the ones pushing for this the hardest.
Last edited:
Actually, I've never been far away from your viewpoint on the shakiness of this deal. But I don't usually try and specualte on how politicians are going to react.
As pointed out, Arnold was ready to sell off the property and not have any state fair. Its not totally infeasible to think they might like to be able to keep a state fair in Sacramento and be rid of burden of being fiscally responsible for the fair, the land, all the administrative costs and managing the property year-round.
They could claim to be fiscally prudent by cutting more state jobs and another state board. Not to mention no more sweating out whether they can cover costs every year, which they are not doing now. Deferred maintenance means you have a cash flow problem. And if you can't pay for regular maintenance items, you can't do much capital improvement. Of course, that's why the consultant said to sell 125 acres to raise money for that. Just a bland option to me and not likely to help Cal Expo become a more exciting/interesting destination or a better advertisement for California.
As pointed out, Arnold was ready to sell off the property and not have any state fair. Its not totally infeasible to think they might like to be able to keep a state fair in Sacramento and be rid of burden of being fiscally responsible for the fair, the land, all the administrative costs and managing the property year-round.
They could claim to be fiscally prudent by cutting more state jobs and another state board. Not to mention no more sweating out whether they can cover costs every year, which they are not doing now. Deferred maintenance means you have a cash flow problem. And if you can't pay for regular maintenance items, you can't do much capital improvement. Of course, that's why the consultant said to sell 125 acres to raise money for that. Just a bland option to me and not likely to help Cal Expo become a more exciting/interesting destination or a better advertisement for California.
Brick - I don’t disagree with a lot of what you are saying, but understand the majority party isn’t a big fan of privatization or using publicly held land for that end. Moreover, non-affected unions fight that process because they want to keep that genie bottled up. And the last thing we need is an organized and funded opposition. Typically the legislature settles for the most conventional approach or the greatest short term impact.
I’d put the odds at: (1) no sale. Basically –either make a profit, sell the bonds we approved, or linger until the debt becomes critical and we take it away; (2) complete sale – all profits back the state: (3) the plan in the report; and (4) the modified convergence with sweeteners.
Hard. That’s a great post. You put in a lot of facts and clarity and raise some very valid point regarding Expo. Just a guess, but it looks like Expo was spared from the original sale list because the state was interested the prospect of the original NBA Cal Expo plan. Essentially, Cal Expo is simply proposing to dump the NBA and ask the state to give them the keys to the car. But you’ve hit the issue on the head. Cal Expo has no real power and the board just wants to say in control. Kamilos wanted to walk into the legislature hand-in-hand with the board saying –“Look, I’ve come to help save the fair and they want my help. All we have to do is build Sacramento an arena along the way.” If he wanted to, he and Steinberg could propose a bill right now. But this is very unlikely to pass anyhow, and if Cal Expo is feeding /running an opposition campaign it’s a dead duck. Kamilos couldn’t meet the demands of Expo behind the scenes and the report came out. It remains to be seen if the board view the new wrinkle as a sweetener or a way to cut them out, but I’m guessing we’ll see on September 24.
But I don’t think the state or Cal Expo feels an urgent need to fix the problems at Expo. It’s been this way for a long time, but the state doesn’t want to dump the fair. For most of the state, I don’t think anything is urgent or a priority there. If the state eventually steps in, it’s probably to liquate Expo and simply run a fair on an existing fairground.
But if the state is staring over – I doubt the new fair would be here. If Sacramento had its own “six-flags” in Natomas, the draw for the “state fair” would be minimal. A lot of the family/kids come for the rides. Thus, I’m not sure why the “new fair” says here.
If the State is “starting over” with the fair and looking for a location. Wouldn’t it just make more sense to liquidate Cal Expo, pay down debt, and hold the state fair at the Los Angeles County Fairgrounds, San Diego, SF, or elsewhere? As opposed to the state operating the fairground 3 weeks a year here and competing directly with the lessee for the other 49 weeks for the same business? I think you are more likely to see a stripped down fair in another city before you see a new state fairground here.
At the end of the day, the state isn’t getting into the arena game. But really, if you are counting on back room deals and state to start liquidating assets to redevelop, which do you think will happen first.
Option A: State sells Expo, leases new fairground to Vision, and Sacramento gets a new arena.
Option B: State sells Expo. Money diverted to Hollywood Park project for football stadium. NFL promises a super bowl there every 5 years and the associated impact. State fair moved somewhere – probably a fairground in Southern California.
I doubt anything happens at all. But if this bill gets moving, the backrooms deals probably aren't good for us.
I’d put the odds at: (1) no sale. Basically –either make a profit, sell the bonds we approved, or linger until the debt becomes critical and we take it away; (2) complete sale – all profits back the state: (3) the plan in the report; and (4) the modified convergence with sweeteners.
Hard. That’s a great post. You put in a lot of facts and clarity and raise some very valid point regarding Expo. Just a guess, but it looks like Expo was spared from the original sale list because the state was interested the prospect of the original NBA Cal Expo plan. Essentially, Cal Expo is simply proposing to dump the NBA and ask the state to give them the keys to the car. But you’ve hit the issue on the head. Cal Expo has no real power and the board just wants to say in control. Kamilos wanted to walk into the legislature hand-in-hand with the board saying –“Look, I’ve come to help save the fair and they want my help. All we have to do is build Sacramento an arena along the way.” If he wanted to, he and Steinberg could propose a bill right now. But this is very unlikely to pass anyhow, and if Cal Expo is feeding /running an opposition campaign it’s a dead duck. Kamilos couldn’t meet the demands of Expo behind the scenes and the report came out. It remains to be seen if the board view the new wrinkle as a sweetener or a way to cut them out, but I’m guessing we’ll see on September 24.
But I don’t think the state or Cal Expo feels an urgent need to fix the problems at Expo. It’s been this way for a long time, but the state doesn’t want to dump the fair. For most of the state, I don’t think anything is urgent or a priority there. If the state eventually steps in, it’s probably to liquate Expo and simply run a fair on an existing fairground.
But if the state is staring over – I doubt the new fair would be here. If Sacramento had its own “six-flags” in Natomas, the draw for the “state fair” would be minimal. A lot of the family/kids come for the rides. Thus, I’m not sure why the “new fair” says here.
If the State is “starting over” with the fair and looking for a location. Wouldn’t it just make more sense to liquidate Cal Expo, pay down debt, and hold the state fair at the Los Angeles County Fairgrounds, San Diego, SF, or elsewhere? As opposed to the state operating the fairground 3 weeks a year here and competing directly with the lessee for the other 49 weeks for the same business? I think you are more likely to see a stripped down fair in another city before you see a new state fairground here.
At the end of the day, the state isn’t getting into the arena game. But really, if you are counting on back room deals and state to start liquidating assets to redevelop, which do you think will happen first.
Option A: State sells Expo, leases new fairground to Vision, and Sacramento gets a new arena.
Option B: State sells Expo. Money diverted to Hollywood Park project for football stadium. NFL promises a super bowl there every 5 years and the associated impact. State fair moved somewhere – probably a fairground in Southern California.
I doubt anything happens at all. But if this bill gets moving, the backrooms deals probably aren't good for us.
This is more or less what I expect to happen as well. Cal Expo has a limited amount of time to solve their problems and prove the state fair can continue to exist at it's current location. If they can't do that, the property will be sold and if there still is a state fair it will be moved somewhere else -- probably not in Sacramento. I haven't been to the fair myself for a long time, probably 10 years. I don't think it's a bad idea to keep the tradition going, but I think they badly need to update the concept if they want to draw more people. For instance, it's great that they continue to celebrate California's agricultural tradition, but there's so much more they could do in addition to that. Why not celebrate California's musical history (Grateful Dead, Sly Stone, The Eagles, etc)? Or the history of it's National Parks? That's one way to reach more people -- target multiple interests.
I also have a hard time seeing how an amusement park and state fairgrounds could co-exist on the same property though for slightly different reasons than you mentioned. Looking at the other developments by VisionMaker (the two listed on their website look like theme parks or resorts with enclosed rides as opposed to rollercoasters) and their prior experience with Disney and Universal, it seems like they're planning something more like a Disney theme park than a Six Flags. This is also suggested by the words "next-generation indoor theme park" on page 4 of the convergence plan report. (here).
The Arco site barely seems big enough to support a theme park of any kind. But to have all the open convention areas needed for the state fair plus the expected midway would cut into that space even more. Seems unlikely to me but perhaps they have this all figured out somewhere since they've apparently been involved since at least January of 2009? A theme park theoretically could be themed to anything, so maybe the plan is to theme the park based around California history and then tack on the state fair facilities and use them for other events throughout the year (much like Cal Expo is used now)?
It's exciting to envision the possible ways that all of these properties could be put to better use -- but the amount of time, money, and bureaucratic red-tape involved makes anything large scale seem impossible. Do you remember the Gold Rush Park project from a few years ago? That seemed like a cool idea too that's never going to happen. Makes me wonder how these great urban park projects like Golden Gate Park in San Francisco and Central Park in New York ever got built in the first place.
I also have a hard time seeing how an amusement park and state fairgrounds could co-exist on the same property though for slightly different reasons than you mentioned. Looking at the other developments by VisionMaker (the two listed on their website look like theme parks or resorts with enclosed rides as opposed to rollercoasters) and their prior experience with Disney and Universal, it seems like they're planning something more like a Disney theme park than a Six Flags. This is also suggested by the words "next-generation indoor theme park" on page 4 of the convergence plan report. (here).
The Arco site barely seems big enough to support a theme park of any kind. But to have all the open convention areas needed for the state fair plus the expected midway would cut into that space even more. Seems unlikely to me but perhaps they have this all figured out somewhere since they've apparently been involved since at least January of 2009? A theme park theoretically could be themed to anything, so maybe the plan is to theme the park based around California history and then tack on the state fair facilities and use them for other events throughout the year (much like Cal Expo is used now)?
It's exciting to envision the possible ways that all of these properties could be put to better use -- but the amount of time, money, and bureaucratic red-tape involved makes anything large scale seem impossible. Do you remember the Gold Rush Park project from a few years ago? That seemed like a cool idea too that's never going to happen. Makes me wonder how these great urban park projects like Golden Gate Park in San Francisco and Central Park in New York ever got built in the first place.
In that case, I see it going a little something like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivFl7Y23gLY&feature=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivFl7Y23gLY&feature=channel
This was mentioned today:
http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2010/09/state-leaders-taking-budget-ro.html
"All four legislative leaders and Schwarzenegger are expected to attend talks tomorrow at 1 p.m. The location is still under discussion. Potential sites are the governor's private office in Santa Monica or the Ronald Reagan State Building in Los Angeles. (Oddly enough, part of the budget deal may hinge on selling the Ronald Reagan building, along with 10 other properties, to raise immediate cash to help bridge the $19 billion deficit.)"
Does anyone know if Cal Expo is one of those 10 properties?
http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2010/09/state-leaders-taking-budget-ro.html
"All four legislative leaders and Schwarzenegger are expected to attend talks tomorrow at 1 p.m. The location is still under discussion. Potential sites are the governor's private office in Santa Monica or the Ronald Reagan State Building in Los Angeles. (Oddly enough, part of the budget deal may hinge on selling the Ronald Reagan building, along with 10 other properties, to raise immediate cash to help bridge the $19 billion deficit.)"
Does anyone know if Cal Expo is one of those 10 properties?