Arena foes: Make new plan public

[Cerwindel]

Arena foes: Make new plan public

They want proposal sent to Kings released

By Mary Lynne Vellinga - Bee Staff Writer

Published 12:00 am PDT Thursday, October 5, 2006
Story appeared in METRO section, Page B1

http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/34307.html

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Opponents of the proposal before voters Nov. 7 to raise sales taxes to fund construction of a new Kings arena in the downtown railyard called on local officials Wednesday to release the latest arena proposal sent to the team's owners.[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Representatives of the Sierra Club and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association called an afternoon press conference to demand that the latest arena site plan and proposal -- crafted by the city and county after the Maloofs angrily exited negotiations last month -- be made public. They pointed out that absentee ballots will start going out next week.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Sacramento County Supervisor Roger Dickinson called the demand for public review "laughable" since the documents are simply draft proposals that have yet to receive a response from the Maloof family.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]It's a laughable request made purely for campaign purposes by the opposition," Dickinson said. "As we've seen over the past several years on a number of occasions, negotiating in public has not proven to be very successful," he said.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]The ballot contains two measures designed to implement the arena plan. Measure R would raise the sales tax in Sacramento County by a quarter cent without specifying what the money would be used for. Measure Q, a companion advisory measure, would ask voters to bless roughly splitting the $1.2 billion in proceeds between a publicly owned arena/entertainment facility and community projects in the county and its cities.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]But neither ballot measure contains any details about the proposed arena deal, which is still in flux. A memorandum of understanding that was supposed to be released by this Friday stands in limbo with the Maloofs and the local governments not yet in agreement.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]"The people of Sacramento have a right to know what the city and county are offering the Maloofs," said Bill Magavern, a Sierra Club of California lobbyist.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, called on the city and county to "just do the right thing" and release the proposal made last week to the Maloofs.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]"We have this very proposal going on the ballot in a few short weeks," Coupal said.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]But Sacramento County Counsel Bob Ryan said the California Public Records Act specifically exempts draft documents used in negotiations such as those being conducted with the Maloofs.[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]"It's only in draft form, and we're still in negotiations," he said.[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Earlier talks among the city and county, the Maloofs and the developer of the downtown railyard broke down over several significant issues, including the Maloofs' insistence on receiving the revenue from 8,000 parking spaces, the number they regularly fill at Arco.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]With the Maloofs refusing to participate in further talks, the city, county and railyard developer crafted a new proposal and sent it to the Kings last week.[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]John Thomas, president of Maloof Sports and Entertainment, said Wednesday the new proposal is incomplete because it still doesn't address all parking issues, such as who gets the revenue.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]"They told us they would have more for us on parking by Friday," Thomas said.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Paul Hahn, the county's economic development director, said Wednesday he was unaware that the county had received any request for additional information from the Maloofs, or any response at all.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]"That doesn't mean it wasn't sent," Hahn said. "It could be in my mailbox right now."[/FONT]

 

[VF21]

But Sacramento County Counsel Bob Ryan said the California Public Records Act specifically exempts draft documents used in negotiations such as those being conducted with the Maloofs.

"It's only in draft form, and we're still in negotiations," he said.

I think that's all that needs to be said in response to this.

 

[Arena Skeptic]

VF, technically, I agree with you. But from a political/PR POV, I think they have to release the MOU. No, they're not required to release it; that is true, they have the law on their side. However, releasing it wouldn't violate law; the law doesn't say they cannot release it.

What this position gives people is this choice: "Trust us", or vote no.

I feel the strong desire to have a contract. An MOU would possibly be good enough. But, "Trust us", given the excellent work they've done so far? Given their absolute lack of ability to nail down even basic, vague ideas?

It's kind of funny, I think I walked past that press conference yesterday. Walking to a bus stop, on my way to the dentist, over at the old Elks building (I think that's the Elks building) at 11th and J.

As anyone who has seen the list of endorsements for the No on Q&R knows, that is an extremely diverse group of people. So they're bringing out "odd bedfellows" at every opportunity. This time, they had a guy from the Sierra Club and another from Howard Jarvis holding hands.

These guys NEVER work together. Ever.

I kind of figure that when both the Democratic party and Republican party both endorse the "No" campaign, that's another sign of trouble.

Years and years ago, I had a talk with my representitive on the Council, Robby Waters, about the arena issue. At the time, even 4 years ago, he told me the Maloofs wanted to make sure that all the City voters would ever get was a vote on, "Should we negotiate with the Maloofs?" on the ballot, with nothing specific as to the terms in that measure. That was their plan, even 4 years ago, according to Waters.

I more-or-less scoffed at that, but now I'm thinking that maybe this is all going according to plan. Maybe the Maloofs will now come halfway, and will endorse Q&R, and even contribute to it, but will make it clear that they reject "key provisions" of the MOU and will proceed "based on trust," or make some similar statement. Given the history of this thing, and just vaguely recalling my conversation with Waters, I really can see something like this happening. They'd have to make some sort of statement to that effect by the end of the weekend, though. Absentee ballots go out on Monday, which means I'll have mine on Tuesday (and yes, I live and work in Sacramento; it's just more convenient for me to vote this way).

 

[BMiller52]

VF, technically, I agree with you. But from a political/PR POV, I think they have to release the MOU. No, they're not required to release it; that is true, they have the law on their side. However, releasing it wouldn't violate law; the law doesn't say they cannot release it.

What this position gives people is this choice: "Trust us", or vote no.

I feel the strong desire to have a contract. An MOU would possibly be good enough. But, "Trust us", given the excellent work they've done so far? Given their absolute lack of ability to nail down even basic, vague ideas?

It's kind of funny, I think I walked past that press conference yesterday. Walking to a bus stop, on my way to the dentist, over at the old Elks building (I think that's the Elks building) at 11th and J.

As anyone who has seen the list of endorsements for the No on Q&R knows, that is an extremely diverse group of people. So they're bringing out "odd bedfellows" at every opportunity. This time, they had a guy from the Sierra Club and another from Howard Jarvis holding hands.

These guys NEVER work together. Ever.

I kind of figure that when both the Democratic party and Republican party both endorse the "No" campaign, that's another sign of trouble.

Years and years ago, I had a talk with my representitive on the Council, Robby Waters, about the arena issue. At the time, even 4 years ago, he told me the Maloofs wanted to make sure that all the City voters would ever get was a vote on, "Should we negotiate with the Maloofs?" on the ballot, with nothing specific as to the terms in that measure. That was their plan, even 4 years ago, according to Waters.

I more-or-less scoffed at that, but now I'm thinking that maybe this is all going according to plan. Maybe the Maloofs will now come halfway, and will endorse Q&R, and even contribute to it, but will make it clear that they reject "key provisions" of the MOU and will proceed "based on trust," or make some similar statement. Given the history of this thing, and just vaguely recalling my conversation with Waters, I really can see something like this happening. They'd have to make some sort of statement to that effect by the end of the weekend, though. Absentee ballots go out on Monday, which means I'll have mine on Tuesday (and yes, I live and work in Sacramento; it's just more convenient for me to vote this way).

Is there even a slight possibility you vote for the arena?

 

[JB_kings]

Sorry AS, but - DUH. If anyone would like any prop to pass, complete end to end disclosure is not your friend. I'm not talking about Q&R here, this goes for any measure. The more you share, the likelyhood that everybody will find something they don't like in there. If full info on Prop 218 had been shared, I doubt it would be on the books today.

 

[Arena Skeptic]

There is way, way more than a slight chance I'll vote for an arena, but as presented, I think Q&R are fatally flawed. I don't know why they did it the way they did it.

As completely die-hard Kings fans (you are clearly a bigger fan than I am), I think you have every right to be 10 times as peaved at Dickinson than I ever have the right to be. They have brought forth a highly flawed plan to the voters, one that fence-sitters won't vote for.

I said all along what I'd vote for, and they missed my personal target by a very long way. But remember, there is no MOU. Given that they've been working toward a new arena since AT LEAST 2000, you have to ask yourself: Why is there no MOU? Six years to put a deal together just wasn't enough??

I even see splits here, with very die-hard Kings fans, logging on to kingsfans.com, and saying, "Hmmm, that seems a little greedy." I think I've even noticed that from you once or twice. So as someone on the Bee's website pointed out today, How is the family making around $35k/year supposed to vote on this? They're too rich for government help, but spending even $300 to take their family to a single Kings game is a genuine hardship.

You're asking them to give up ANY money simply to make it cheaper for a family making $150k to go to Kings games (or tractor pulls, or "Large Christian Gatherings", or Disney on Ice)?

Just put yourself in their shoes: What would you do if you were the family making $35k, which really isn't enough to go to any event at an arena? They're supposed to give up $20 a year to make it so Kings tickets are $10 cheaper? I do think that's wrong.

Since people aren't going to miss that 1/4 cent, I'll tell you what: Why doesn't everyone in Sacramento County send me 25 cents a year, for the next five years. You'll never miss it. I'll do everything in my power to promote Sac County if people agree to this plan. That's much less than the Maloofs want, and I guarantee that I'll do everything I can to promote Sacramento. I'll distribute "I Love Sacramento" bumperstickers on the streets of Paris, Madrid, London, Beijing and Tokyo. Maybe even Athens and Sydney.

A sales tax is fatally flawed; the Maloofs, the proposed JPA, and Thomas have done NOTHING to educate us as to why that statement is false. The public education campaign we all expected -- even me -- COMPLETELY fizzled out.

I'm not happy about it, and you should be 10 times madder than I am.

 

[Arena Skeptic]

JB, I voted against 218, but I am pro rule-of-law. 218 passed by a 56-44 margin, which is very nearly a landslide. Not quite a landslide, but close. The people spoke clearly on that one; it's the law. I will abide by that. If Measure R fails by about a 3-1 margin, I think you'll hear a lot of howling from the Q&R folks; I really do.

 

[kennadog]

Of course, the opposition wants the details. They have nothing more to attack at the moment. They want something to attack, even is it isn't even close to the deal that might happen.

I think its been a dumb move to have ever negotiated in public. It is pretty much unheard of. A deal is negotiated and then, normally the City Council or Supervisors debate at a public meeting and reject, approve, or send back for more work.

I agree that we should have had the details by now, because they were promised and its hard to vote without knowing them. Lack of getting done what was promised is the nail in the coffin for this proposal.

At this point, releasing the details of a proposal that may never, ever be agreed to just confuses the issue and could have voters voting on something that will never happen that way. Would be utterly stupid to do.

And has been proven numerous times over the last few years, making the negotiations public only gets people stirred up, angry, or against the Maloofs, or against the arena over things that may never come to pass. That is exactly the mishandling that's gone on for a long time now.

Thank goodness they have smartened up. Can you imagine the fall-out if they made a draft public, people voted yes (whcih I think isn't likely anyway)and then the final deal was quite different? At this point its a stupid and pointless thing to make public anything, but a signed deal.

 

[kennadog]

AS: if I'm made about anything, its that the City/County waited till the last minute to come up with any plan. In as short a time frame as they had, a sales tax was the only realistic revenue-raising option. CA localities don't have many options to raise revenue.

And from reports, it seems that it wasn't the politicians that have held up a deal for so long, but had more to do with the former city manager, who only recently retired. (Not that I think our local politicians have much to crow about in the "having a vision and getting it done" department.)

 

[JB_kings]

JB, I voted against 218, but I am pro rule-of-law. 218 passed by a 56-44 margin, which is very nearly a landslide. Not quite a landslide, but close. The people spoke clearly on that one; it's the law. I will abide by that. If Measure R fails by about a 3-1 margin, I think you'll hear a lot of howling from the Q&R folks; I really do.

That is a landslide, but it's not 2/3 now is it? So if we are to follow this letter of the law, then even the landslide of 56% isn't good enough. You couldn't get 2/3 of the voters to agree on a 1/4 cent sales tax passed for specific use to rebuild levees.

218 took advantage of a loophole to impose a standard that itself couldn't reach and likely will never be met by any measure. So we shouldn't be too high on the horse about those who try to find loopholes around 218. This isn't criminal law here, it's tax law and finding loopholes is practicaly a national pastime that everyone plays. So forgive me for not going all patriotic over 218. I'm not really the type to be a hypocrite.

 

[kennadog]

I don't like 218, because I think its anti-democratic. Majority should rule, except changes to the US Consitution as far as I'm concerned.

 

[VF21]

VF, technically, I agree with you. But from a political/PR POV, I think they have to release the MOU. No, they're not required to release it; that is true, they have the law on their side. However, releasing it wouldn't violate law; the law doesn't say they cannot release it.

What this position gives people is this choice: "Trust us", or vote no.

I feel the strong desire to have a contract. An MOU would possibly be good enough. But, "Trust us", given the excellent work they've done so far? Given their absolute lack of ability to nail down even basic, vague ideas?

It's kind of funny, I think I walked past that press conference yesterday. Walking to a bus stop, on my way to the dentist, over at the old Elks building (I think that's the Elks building) at 11th and J.

As anyone who has seen the list of endorsements for the No on Q&R knows, that is an extremely diverse group of people. So they're bringing out "odd bedfellows" at every opportunity. This time, they had a guy from the Sierra Club and another from Howard Jarvis holding hands.

These guys NEVER work together. Ever.

I kind of figure that when both the Democratic party and Republican party both endorse the "No" campaign, that's another sign of trouble.

Years and years ago, I had a talk with my representitive on the Council, Robby Waters, about the arena issue. At the time, even 4 years ago, he told me the Maloofs wanted to make sure that all the City voters would ever get was a vote on, "Should we negotiate with the Maloofs?" on the ballot, with nothing specific as to the terms in that measure. That was their plan, even 4 years ago, according to Waters.

I more-or-less scoffed at that, but now I'm thinking that maybe this is all going according to plan. Maybe the Maloofs will now come halfway, and will endorse Q&R, and even contribute to it, but will make it clear that they reject "key provisions" of the MOU and will proceed "based on trust," or make some similar statement. Given the history of this thing, and just vaguely recalling my conversation with Waters, I really can see something like this happening. They'd have to make some sort of statement to that effect by the end of the weekend, though. Absentee ballots go out on Monday, which means I'll have mine on Tuesday (and yes, I live and work in Sacramento; it's just more convenient for me to vote this way).

AS - You might release the MOU - ONCE it's finalized. You do not release a draft. There's simply no upside to doing it and it's an interim document anyway that has no legal standing until and unless it's agreed to be all parties concerned.

And although you'll have your absentee ballot in your hand shortly, if you truly want to make an educated vote you won't send it in quite yet.

 

[VF21]

Now, about 218 - I think it is unconstitutional. The rule of the land has always been simple majority. That proposition allows a minority to control an outcome. Why? Because instead of having to muster half the voters to defeat something, they only have to come up with 1/3. That's just wrong.

 

[kennadog]

Now, about 218 - I think it is unconstitutional. The rule of the land has always been simple majority. That proposition allows a minority to control an outcome. Why? Because instead of having to muster half the voters to defeat something, they only have to come up with 1/3. That's just wrong.

WORD! As I've said....tyranny of the minority.