NoBonus
Starter
I have been thinking a lot about the Arena in Sacramento and how there are a handful of vocal people who do not want to see it built. Thing is, Sacramento is at a crossroads, they either act now and keep an NBA franchise/tenant that will support a world class arena and downtown or they let the team go to some other city. What will the long-term impact be either way?
Think what would have happened if the nay-sayers had won on one of Sacramento's most famous and ambitious building projects: the raising of Sacramento.
In the mid-1800's, Sacramento was the largest city in California, but they had a major flooding problem... the flooding was so bad, the capital of California was going to potentially be moved from Sacramento to California's second largest city. So, Sacramento's residents sprang into action. They diverted the Sacramento river and built a brilliant system of levees in Sacramento that effectively lifted the town up an entire story. This system would not just protect Sacramento with levees that would be almost impossible to break (unlike a traditional levee), this project protected Sacramento’s future and helped secure Sacramento as the capital of California.
So the nay-sayers say, “So what? Sacramento would be fine not being the capital.” Would it? Just ask the second-largest city at that time how not becoming the capital went. That city was San Francisco, right? No.
L.A.? No.
San Diego? Nope.
Fresno? No.
Long Beach? Oakland? Anaheim? Bakersfield? Santa Ana? Riverside? Stockton? Chula Vista? Fremont? Irvine? No, no, no.
The then second largest city that was almost the State Capital? Oroville. The 385th largest city in California. Had Oroville become the State Capital, Sacramento would likely have about 14,000 people like Oroville does now instead of the close to 500,000 that currently live there. Sacramento is on every map and transportation route; Oroville is buried in the foothills miles from I-5.
That was a major crossroads for two cities and so is the arena. Sacramento can stagnate and decline allowing some other city to reap the rewards of having the Kings or it can grow and become great.
Just something I was thinking about and I thought I would share...
Think what would have happened if the nay-sayers had won on one of Sacramento's most famous and ambitious building projects: the raising of Sacramento.
In the mid-1800's, Sacramento was the largest city in California, but they had a major flooding problem... the flooding was so bad, the capital of California was going to potentially be moved from Sacramento to California's second largest city. So, Sacramento's residents sprang into action. They diverted the Sacramento river and built a brilliant system of levees in Sacramento that effectively lifted the town up an entire story. This system would not just protect Sacramento with levees that would be almost impossible to break (unlike a traditional levee), this project protected Sacramento’s future and helped secure Sacramento as the capital of California.
So the nay-sayers say, “So what? Sacramento would be fine not being the capital.” Would it? Just ask the second-largest city at that time how not becoming the capital went. That city was San Francisco, right? No.
L.A.? No.
San Diego? Nope.
Fresno? No.
Long Beach? Oakland? Anaheim? Bakersfield? Santa Ana? Riverside? Stockton? Chula Vista? Fremont? Irvine? No, no, no.
The then second largest city that was almost the State Capital? Oroville. The 385th largest city in California. Had Oroville become the State Capital, Sacramento would likely have about 14,000 people like Oroville does now instead of the close to 500,000 that currently live there. Sacramento is on every map and transportation route; Oroville is buried in the foothills miles from I-5.
That was a major crossroads for two cities and so is the arena. Sacramento can stagnate and decline allowing some other city to reap the rewards of having the Kings or it can grow and become great.
Just something I was thinking about and I thought I would share...
