Arena deal still up in the air!

#4
I'm moving to Montana if they don't get this tax passed.
Can we ship Mayor Fargo with you, if this happens??:D Dammit, this HAS to get done...its my heart we're talking about here...the Kings are the blood of Sacramento, and to all the people that are against this...ah...nevermind, nuthin' but NIMBY'S trying to rain on our parade!!
 
#5
I left a similar post over on SacKings. I think the city officials involved with the talks are a bunch of tree-huggers that are more concerned with global warming and saving the world than actually saving their own city. To the city council I imagine this proposal sounds like a small business deal. Kind of like that Capital One commerical where the small business owner is on the bottom of the bank president's shoe. Although the Maloofs are big business men within Sacramento and LAs Vegas, outside of that, they don;t have much more.

Gavin Maloof described the talks as cordial. To me that sounds like they're only listening to him to be nice, and because he's treating them to everyhting free at the Palms. I think the only reason why this is going on at the Palms is so that these idiots will listen to him!
 

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#6
I think we need to be careful about labeling city officials, etc. as "tree-huggers" or anything else. It's been a long-standing rule around here NOT to argue politics or religion. While it's difficult to keep politics out of this discussion, I do think it's possible...

And I disagree with the idea that the city council and others are just listening to the Maloofs without any real interest in getting anything done. While some members of the council may not have been in favor of spending public money for the project, I think actually getting them to say they don't think there are any benefits to be derived from a new facility would be nearly impossible. They just don't want to have to answer to their constituents over the tax issue...
 
#7
I believe in order to get something on the next ballot the issue has to raised/discussed at two (2) County Board of Supervisor board meetings prior to the August deadline.

So, unless I'm missing something if nothing is on the agenda for the July 18th BOS meeting it is not going to qualify for the next general election!!
 
#8
I believe in order to get something on the next ballot the issue has to raised/discussed at two (2) County Board of Supervisor board meetings prior to the August deadline.

So, unless I'm missing something if nothing is on the agenda for the July 18th BOS meeting it is not going to qualify for the next general election!!
They said the other night that it just had to be submitted by August 4th or something like that to be eligible for the ballot.
 

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#9
G_M is right. Before the idea of placing it on the ballot can be voted on, it must be discussed at two meetings (including the one where the vote is taken). So, in essence, both GM and Doc are correct.

It must be on the agenda and discussed at the next meeting so it can be voted on at the following one.
 
#10
I'm worried that rushing this to the November ballot doesn't give them time to sell this to the public...but is there any other option?

I wish my vote counted...I know so many people up here in Butte Co. (and others) that would be really frustrated if a new arena couldn't be built in Sacramento. Others have said it before: this arena serves a very large area of Northern California. Yes, I'm a HUGE Kings fan, but I've been to Arco as many times for other events as I have for Kings games...easily. To have no venue for the NBA, WNBA, concerts, etc. would be truly tragic for this entire area.
 

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#11
I would still like to see a more innovative approach. I'm a fourth-generation Californian and have lived within 2 hours of Sacramento my entire life, as have my mother, my daughter and my granddaughters (who are sixth-generation Californian). The area around Sacramento isn't just cow pastures any more, despite what Phil Jackson has said. It's a thriving, vibrant area of growth and people need to address that - and not stick their heads in the sand, saying "La la la la la" and claiming they'd rather drive to SF, Lake Tahoe, etc. and spend their money there rather than make their own backyards better.

Northern California desperately needs a state-of-the-art arena for the variety of events previously mentioned. And if we build it, "they" will come. Some events that have reluctantly moved because of dissatisfaction with the facility would undoubtedly return. And more would consider Sacramento if they knew others were doing the same. It's the old "follow the leader" concept ... and it works.

One of the tribal leaders in the North State had mentioned before that she would be willing to listen to innovative ideas for helping to finance a new arena. I think that should be looked into... I also think some kind of cooperative financing between multiple counties should be considered. Yuba, El Dorado, Yolo, Sutter, Placer, Nevada and other counties could all derive benefit from revenue sharing concepts.

People need to think outside the box and they need to do so quickly. If Gregg Lukenbill could fulfill the dream to begin with there should be at least one person of vision around who can expand the dream and continue it...
 
#12
I'm worried that rushing this to the November ballot doesn't give them time to sell this to the public...but is there any other option?

I wish my vote counted...I know so many people up here in Butte Co. (and others) that would be really frustrated if a new arena couldn't be built in Sacramento. Others have said it before: this arena serves a very large area of Northern California. Yes, I'm a HUGE Kings fan, but I've been to Arco as many times for other events as I have for Kings games...easily. To have no venue for the NBA, WNBA, concerts, etc. would be truly tragic for this entire area.
I'm bummed a bit, too. After living in Sacramento City or Co for almost 4 decades, I just moved to Yuba City for a new job. (Unlike the apparent "thousands" of other Sacramentans who commute to the bay area or other long distances, I don't like the waste of time, environmental damage, cost, gridlock, road rage......;) ) It kills me that I won't have a vote.:(

As to having no venue, you haven't read that you have plenty of options for entertainment like driving to Tahoe and the Bay Area? ;)

I wish the surrounding counties, at least, could participate, but with our byzantine tax system, that would apparently take legislation at the state level and we don''t have time for that.
 
#13
The only way this bond issue passes is if there is a sunset clause for the sales tax. It needs to expire after the arena is built, not 8 years later. The problem that the "no new taxes" crowd has with another sales tax is that this new quarter of a cent tax will take us up to, I believe, 8%. These additions to our sales tax seem to pop up every election year for one reason or another. And they will never go away once they are approved unless they have a sunset clause written into them before they are voted on. I have heard talking heads on KHTK chide callers for being cheap because they do not want to take on a quarter of a cent tax to keep the kings here. It goes way beyond that. The maloofs and the city need to show the fiscally responsible type voters out there that they are willing to see this addition to our sales tax go away after the arena is built. Putting people down for not being forward thinking, for not seeing the big picture, and for being cheap is not the way to win over the people who tend to vote in these types of election.

There has got to be something I can do to help to keep my team here!
 
#14
I would still like to see a more innovative approach. I'm a fourth-generation Californian and have lived within 2 hours of Sacramento my entire life, as have my mother, my daughter and my granddaughters (who are sixth-generation Californian). The area around Sacramento isn't just cow pastures any more, despite what Phil Jackson has said. It's a thriving, vibrant area of growth and people need to address that - and not stick their heads in the sand, saying "La la la la la" and claiming they'd rather drive to SF, Lake Tahoe, etc. and spend their money there rather than make their own backyards better.

Northern California desperately needs a state-of-the-art arena for the variety of events previously mentioned. And if we build it, "they" will come. Some events that have reluctantly moved because of dissatisfaction with the facility would undoubtedly return. And more would consider Sacramento if they knew others were doing the same. It's the old "follow the leader" concept ... and it works.

One of the tribal leaders in the North State had mentioned before that she would be willing to listen to innovative ideas for helping to finance a new arena. I think that should be looked into... I also think some kind of cooperative financing between multiple counties should be considered. Yuba, El Dorado, Yolo, Sutter, Placer, Nevada and other counties could all derive benefit from revenue sharing concepts.

People need to think outside the box and they need to do so quickly. If Gregg Lukenbill could fulfill the dream to begin with there should be at least one person of vision around who can expand the dream and continue it...
And while driving to other places for entertainment, it means we are paying taxes to other localities, instead of into our own coffers. Sales tax, ticket surcharges, hotel tax, etc......so we are paying for their entertainment venues and amenities, instead of one in our area. Unless, of course, you just forego the bigger events, which a lot of people do anyway and that's their choice. It just reduces the local choices available. I'd rather spend my money here.

And we no longer draw the entertainment dollars into the area that would produce sales tax at the very, very least.

The problem the Indian tribes face is they would only loan the money and they would have to get a really good return on the investement. For them, there are much more lucrative things to invest in, including there own casinos. Couldn't seem to get around that issue.

Yes, I think of Lukenbill when I think about this. I think he really stretched himself thin to bring a pro sports team to Sacramento, because it was his dream and vision for a city he loved. It would be sad to see it gone.
 
Last edited:
#15
For the record, I have driven to San Francisco ONCE for a concert, and never to Tahoe. I go to Tahoe to snowboard, not to see shows. Arco is IT.
 
#16
For the record, I have driven to San Francisco ONCE for a concert, and never to Tahoe. I go to Tahoe to snowboard, not to see shows. Arco is IT.
Did you miss my ;)

I have gone to the bay area for some entertainment. Generally go to Tahoe for the outdoors. That was primarily BEFORE Sacramento had more options including Arco. I really don't want to go back to that. My son went to an A's game in summer school once and it took the bus four friggin' hours to get back thru rush hour traffic. I'm glad I didn't volunteer to chaperone THAT trip! Four hours with tired, hungry elementary school kids. :eek:
 

Warhawk

Give blood and save a life!
Staff member
#19
And while driving to other places for entertainment, it means we are paying taxes to other localities, instead of into our own coffers. Sales tax, ticket surcharges, hotel tax, etc......so we are paying for their entertainment venues and amenities, instead of one in our area. Unless, of course, you just forego the bigger events, which a lot of people do anyway and that's their choice. It just reduces the local choices available. I'd rather spend my money here.

And we no longer draw the entertainment dollars into the area that would produce sales tax at the very, very least.
Exactly!

You are spending HOURS driving and wasting gas and polluting just to go see an event in another town.

Think of it this way - the gas money for the 1 trip to SF/Tahoe/Reno to catch those shows that won't come here would pay for the arena by itself.

Really. Sacramento to San Francisco. $3.00/gal at 20 mpg (for example) for a 180 mile round trip is $27 - about the same annual impact this tax is supposed to have. Add in two $3 bridge tolls and you are well above whatever tax penalty you would pay with this proposal....
 
#20
Exactly!

You are spending HOURS driving and wasting gas and polluting just to go see an event in another town.

Think of it this way - the gas money for the 1 trip to SF/Tahoe/Reno to catch those shows that won't come here would pay for the arena by itself.

Really. Sacramento to San Francisco. $3.00/gal at 20 mpg (for example) for a 180 mile round trip is $27 - about the same annual impact this tax is supposed to have. Add in two $3 bridge tolls and you are well above whatever tax penalty you would pay with this proposal....
GREAT way to look at it!

Shoot...I forgot that using ALL CAPS actually WEAKENS my argument...

;)
 
#21
I wnat them to have a new arena but it's not worth having us pay for it in taxes...the maloofs should pay for it themselves they're the ones with all the money
 
#23
webberfan4 said:
I wnat them to have a new arena but it's not worth having us pay for it in taxes...the maloofs should pay for it themselves they're the ones with all the money


They are paying for some of it... Why should they do Sacramento ANY favors? Really they're not going to buy us a 400 million dollar arena. They'll pay for 25%ish of that(which is still a lot of millions...) but that's probably the limit.
 
#25
They are paying for some of it... Why should they do Sacramento ANY favors? Really they're not going to buy us a 400 million dollar arena. They'll pay for 25%ish of that(which is still a lot of millions...) but that's probably the limit.

Agreed. And, realistically, if they pay 25% it would be 25% more than they'd pay in some cities who would probably pony up the whole dollar amount.
 

Warhawk

Give blood and save a life!
Staff member
#27
Agreed. And, realistically, if they pay 25% it would be 25% more than they'd pay in some cities who would probably pony up the whole dollar amount.
Some other cities have arenas waiting to be filled - wouldn't cost a dime.

It's also 25% more we'd have to pay for the arena to build it later. And we would have to build one later. The existing one is going downhill and cannot be remodeled.

And guess what - you know those construction costs they (the city/county) are having some problems with? Imagine what they will be in 5 or 10 years if a deal isn't reached now....
 
#28
I wnat them to have a new arena but it's not worth having us pay for it in taxes...the maloofs should pay for it themselves they're the ones with all the money
The tax is 25 cents on a hundred dollars. If we took up a collection for you, would you support the tax? I'll volunteer my share. Who else here has a quarter? :p
 
#30
Some other cities have arenas waiting to be filled - wouldn't cost a dime.

It's also 25% more we'd have to pay for the arena to build it later. And we would have to build one later. The existing one is going downhill and cannot be remodeled.

And guess what - you know those construction costs they (the city/county) are having some problems with? Imagine what they will be in 5 or 10 years if a deal isn't reached now....
And the misconception is that the city gets to decide what to do with Arco. Kings leave, Maloofs pay off the loan, they own it and get to decide what happens to Arco. Considering all the consultants have agreed its nearing the end of its useful economic life and the foaundation will not support remodeling, I fully expect it to be razed, the land sold for other, much more lucrative development.