Bee: Appeals court orders release of arena plan documents (merged)

VF21 · Oct 30, 2006

http://www.sacbee.com/102/story/52943.html

Appeals court orders release of arena plan documents
By Terri Hardy - Bee Staff Writer
Published 10:13 am PST Monday, October 30, 2006

An appeals court has ruled that the city of Sacramento must make public a secret arena negotiating proposal given to the owners of the Sacramento Kings, officials said Monday.

Last week, a Sacramento Superior Court Judge ordered the city to release the document. Instead, the city asked the 3rd District Court of Appeal to allow it to keep under wraps while legal arguments in the case were reviewed.

Monday morning, the 3rd District determined that the temporary stay should be lifted and the document released, said Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the group that sued the city for the proposal.

The taxpayers group said the public is entitled to the information in order to make an informed vote Nov. 7 on Measures Q and R -- the arena plan to increase the sales tax a quarter cent to raised $1.2 billion for an arena/entertainment center and community projects.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Note: I'm pretty sure this is just the first of several "breaking news" stories about this so maybe this could be the "official" thread to post them...

VF21 · Oct 30, 2006

Minor update: I'm watching the Ch. 13 noon news and they're already making a basic conceptual mistake in touting their upcoming story about the release of the "AGREEMENT" between the Maloofs and the city/county. I hope they correct it, as what is being released was a proposed offer by the city/county that was submitted to the Maloofs, who declined. It was NOT an agreement by any stretch of imagination.

VF21 · Oct 30, 2006

Okay, they did the "breaking news" story. Talk about Geraldo Rivera and the safe...

They did correct the comment about the "agreement" and indicated it was a preliminary document and nothing more. In addition, they stated there were no real surprises in the document. The city attorney has said they fought having it released because it was NOT an actual agreement.

The Jarvis Taxpayer Assoc. is saying the city attorney has done irreparable harm by not releasing the information. My personal feeling is the Jarvic people have done irreparable harm by trying to make a very big mountain out of a wee tiny molehill.

kennadog · Oct 30, 2006

VF21 said:

Amen, sister!

So how does a proposal that is not binding in any way, make the public more informed about how to vote?

It was a big flap to keep the opposition in the public eye. A publicity stunt.

Kingzrool · Oct 30, 2006

City Releases Arena Documents

http://www.kcra.com/news/10191699/detail.html

SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- The city of Sacramento released copies of the unexecuted memorandum of understanding and other documents related to the deal for a new sports and entertainment arena Monday morning.

The release came after news that the 3rd District Court of Appeals had vacated an emergency stay that was issued Friday.

The stay froze an earlier ruling by a Sacramento Superior Court judge ordering the city to release the documents.
The earlier ruling was in response to a lawsuit filed by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, which argued that the documents should be made public prior to the Nov. 7 election.

Leaders of the Jarvis group arrived at City Hall Monday morning to find copies of the documents waiting for them at the public counter.

"We have not had a chance to review this proposal, but we're glad that we have it and we're glad that the voters of Sacramento have it. It was so critically important to have this bit of information available for everybody who's going to be voting on measures Q and R," said John Coupal of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

Later, the attorney for the city of Sacramento explained why the city fought so hard to keep the documents from being released.

"We did not originally release these documents because we were trying to preserve the city's ability to keep negotiations private on the project and others in the future. We still believe that this really had nothing to do with the election, that it's really separate and apart from the election, that the election measures Q and R -- Measure Q in particular -- is not binding upon the county or the city," city of Sacramento attorney Eileen Teichert said.

--
So much for keeping negotiations behind closed doors. Do people really not understand and think the city is hiding stuff from them?

Edit - sorry looked around and did not see anything, must be blind.

VF21 · Oct 30, 2006

Critically important to have a piece of information for the voters and yet they haven't even read it and don't know what's in it?

I have to agree with kennadog. Just another publicity stunt to further muddy the waters. Jon Coupal should be ashamed. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association was NOT created to influence votes, and yet that's exactly what they have done. And they've put out erroneous information in their zeal to overturn every single rock.

Mike0476 · Oct 30, 2006

More has been reported by CBS 13 at 5 p.m.

You can watch the video here:

http://cbs13.com/topstories/local_story_303153320.html

Not a lot of surprises in the MOU-

- $20 million paid for by the Kings partnership for construction, in which the total should be between $377-450 million

- Total project cost of any where up to $500 million

- Maloofs would pay $3 million per year in rent with a 2 percent increase every year for a total of $122 million during the arena complex lease

- Parking issue was not addressed in MOU. Not sure what the reporter meant unless it was over what the Maloofs wanted in terms of parking.

- CBS 13 spoke to someone from Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and they said the government officials have done more harm than good politically

- City officials said parking information was not released because the MOU is not done as there will be several more drafts to come. Once they were completed, it would have been released to voters.

A piece of news that was not reported on the video was something about $45 million going towards the cost of the parking, in which the Maloofs would collect the revenues from it. The HJTA was not too pleased with that information.

If anyone else saw this report, please feel free to correct any mistakes I may have made. Thanks.

You can also read the MOU at the URL below -

http://cbs13.com/reference/local_story_303154343.html

Mike0476 · Oct 30, 2006

Here is the part that the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association are not too happy with from the MOU -

2. Parking.
(a) Landlord will contribute $45 million toward construction of parking adjacent to the Arena which will provide approximately 2,000 parking spaces (the "Adjacent Parking Spaces"), to be controlled by Tenant and from which Tenant will receive and retain all revenues. Landlord hereby agrees to provide up to a maximum of 3,000 Adjacent Parking Spaces to the extent that funds are available in the Project budget. The Adjacent Parking Spaces will be located as generally illustrated in Exhibit B and will be configured to permit a maximum twenty (20) minute exit time ("open field" exit time) for that number of cars following Arena events under normal circumstances.
(b) Landlord and/or the Railyards developer will take all action reasonably required to assure Tenant that, prior to the opening of the Arena, in addition to the Adjacent Parking Spaces, there will be at least 5,000 unrestricted parking spaces available for public parking within approximately a (10) minute walk from the Arena. It is currently contemplated that approximately 3,500 unrestricted parking spaces available for public parking shall be available just south of the Arena in the area generally bounded by Big Four to the North, 5th Street to the South, 6th Street to the East and Bercut to the West. In addition, it is expected that approximately 1,000 unrestricted parking spaces available for public parking shall be located at the Intermodal Facilities. Additional temporary and/or permanent spaces shall be made available, to the extent necessary, to provide a total of 5,000 unrestricted parking spaces available for public parking by good faith negotiations between Landlord, Tenant and the Railyards developer.
(c) The allocation of revenue generated by event-related parking ("Event Parking") from other than Adjacent Parking Spaces shall be determined by October 6, 2006, by good faith negotiations between Landlord, Tenant and the Railyards developer.

VF21 · Oct 30, 2006

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association can go take a flying leap, AFAIC. The contents of that document are totally irrelevant as it was not agreed to. And nitpicking ANY negotiations by outside interests is silly.

And unless I'm really missing something, the document they're picking apart is NOT an MOU. It was an interim proposal that, had it been accepted and agreed to by all parties, would have become an MOU. It's like a rough draft of a critical term paper. You wouldn't want your grade to depend on the rough draft and the public shouldn't be putting too much emphasis on a document that might or might not be comparable to a final agreement.

Negotiations are often prolonged and quite details with a lot of changes made at every turn. This is misleading, and if the media isn't making it clear this document wasn't agreed to then they're as bad as HJTA. Shame on all of them.

Mike0476 · Oct 30, 2006

CBS 13 had more with the city officials and they stated the MOU is a rough draft and the reason why it was not released earlier is because they wanted to get the best deal possible for Sacramento and in doing so needed to negotiate privately to ensure that would happen.

The opponents are calling this a victory while proponents say it's not that big of a deal.

In other words, the opponents are making an ant hill into a mountain.

VF21 · Oct 30, 2006

Exactly. I'm totally fed up with all the bulldooty being floated around by the people who just don't get it OR who are, like Graswich, not going to let facts stand in the way of their screechings.

Mike0476 · Oct 30, 2006

VF21 said:

Speaking of R.E. "I wish I was in Hawaii" Graswich, I read some where he quoted Joe Benvenuti and Benvenuti denied ever making any such statements of the Kings agreeing to relocate the franchise to Anaheim. If that's the case, why wasn't Graswich fired? He has his own agenda and it's not reporting the facts. I do not care if it's an editorial piece or not. He lied. He made up a quote. He should be fired.

Cerwindel · Oct 30, 2006

kennadog said:

And a HUGE win for the little people. Regardless of this document being a draft, a handwritten note, or anything else, its ALL public information.

You call this a publicity stunt? If this was no big deal, why the HUGE secrecy? Its sad to think that this is immediately a "Publicity Stunt" when the city brought this on themselves. This is a huge WIN for the people of sacramento, and I personally thank Jarvis TP assoc for fighting this "Obiously Correct" legal battle.

I don't understand the logic behind defending the city for keeping documents in secret that pertain to an upcoming vote. It is a wakeup call for all cities who are attempting to defraud the public by barring them extenuating details on a measure they want to pass.

Don't go blaming Jarvis, you need to look at the city for causing this furor, release the document and no big deal, fight the people and lose.

The courts have said the document "Should be released". Which in turn means the city should not be hiding details (NO matter How small) from the people that would be voting on such a measure.

Can the city do more to flush this down the toilet? We shall see, however talking with people about it, it was flushed long ago.

On A side note, this document cements even further how important it is to hold public hearings, and have a favorable solid Signed and agreed deal in place before ever placing it on a ballot.

-C

Warhawk · Oct 30, 2006

Cerwindel said:

How is this a win "for the little people"?

What does this document mean for us? Absolutely bupkis. Nothing. Zilch. Zip Nada.

It is a draft of a PROPOSAL. Until accepted (which it hasn't been), it carries as much weight with anyone as the 4 bugs in my windshield right now.

The secrecy comes in the negotiations. It isn't wise to negotiate in public, because nothing will ever be agreed to if you are taking straw polls before deciding which pair of socks to put on in the morning. There are reasons for privacy in negotiations. Some demands are put up as loss leaders, in effect, to be removed during negotiations to appear to be giving something back. Both sides do this.

The document released does not pertain to the vote at all because nothing has been agreed to.

I don't know how clearer anyone can make this for some of you.....

Cerwindel · Oct 30, 2006

Warhawk said:

Unfortunatly, you need more clarity then others.. Let me clarify why this was a HUGE win for the "Little People:..

It has really nothing to do with the contents of the document. The Legal point here was made. The city cannot trade documents in secret, nor hide ANY updated information or any proposals therof that pertain in ANY way no matter how slight to the public.

With that said, you say "The secrecy comes in the negotiations. It isn't wise to negotiate in public, because nothing will ever be agreed to if you are taking straw polls before deciding which pair of socks to put on in the morning. There are reasons for privacy in negotiations. Some demands are put up as loss leaders, in effect, to be removed during negotiations to appear to be giving something back. Both sides do this. "

The difference between these negotiations are they are talking about using public funds..

#2 - You say it "isn't wise to negotiate in public"... I say, it isn't wise to put measures on the ballot without a public hearing AND a fully 100% signed and sealed agreement that both parties fully support.

Wouldent you agree ?

When you deprive the people of information, especially if you are going to stick your hand in their pockets, you should expect the public to want EVERY detail no matter how trivial, draft or not.

BMiller52 · Oct 30, 2006

Cerwindel said:

Unfortunatly, you need more clarity then others.. Let me clarify why this was a HUGE win for the "Little People:..

It has really nothing to do with the contents of the document. The Legal point here was made. The city cannot trade documents in secret, nor hide ANY updated information or any proposals therof that pertain in ANY way no matter how slight to the public.

With that said, you say "The secrecy comes in the negotiations. It isn't wise to negotiate in public, because nothing will ever be agreed to if you are taking straw polls before deciding which pair of socks to put on in the morning. There are reasons for privacy in negotiations. Some demands are put up as loss leaders, in effect, to be removed during negotiations to appear to be giving something back. Both sides do this. "

The difference between these negotiations are they are talking about using public funds..

#2 - You say it "isn't wise to negotiate in public"... I say, it isn't wise to put measures on the ballot without a public hearing AND a fully 100% signed and sealed agreement that both parties fully support.

Wouldent you agree ?

When you deprive the people of information, especially if you are going to stick your hand in their pockets, you should expect the public to want EVERY detail no matter how trivial, draft or not.

What is the dang point of showing something that wasn't agreed to to people? A lot of people don't keep themselves informed about things like this so they'll hear it, read it, and assumed it was the thing agreed to, then they'll throw a fit about it. If/when something's agreed to people will know what it is, and THAT'S what they'll be voting on.

Warhawk · Oct 30, 2006

Cerwindel said:

No, I don't agree.

There are no reasons why an ongoing negotiation should be made public.

I do not recall us viewing the specifics of, say, any bond proposition.

Sure, we vote for Prop 1B, for example, for more $$$ to go to roads. We are not voting on specific dollars for specific roads at this time, we are voting on an idea that in general, roads need improvement and we trust the government to distribute those $$$ to specific projects in a rational manner. Did you have any review of the proposition before it went to the ballot? Did you scream for an accounting of where $19,925,000,000 is theoretically going to be spent? That's over 36,000 times more money than this piddly little tax increase, and Jarvis isn't out there asking where the last $$$ is going, are they?

For levee repairs we are not voting specific $$$ to specific levees, we are voting for a set amount of $$$ to go to levee repair and let the government figure out which levees need it the most. Have you asked for which levees are going to be fixed with the over $4,000,000,000 raised by this proposition? Why not? Isn't that more important than about 1/7,300 of that amount going to build a facility for cultural activities in the region? Where's the court order for that one?

Same here. We are voting for an entertainment structure to be owned by the government and leased to another party after construction is complete. I trust that the government will hash out the best deal it can and spend the $$$ wisely, since they are in control of structure design and construction activities. We need this structure whether the Kings are here or not. Asking for a copy of a negotiation draft is not conductive to getting anything accomplished.

Don't go blowing smoke up in the air about us needing "clarity" - if you don't like the deal, vote no. It really is so much less important than a lot of other things, and this is the only one garnering the headlines because of the grandstanding of a few individuals with an axe to grind, not realizing they are cutting off their nose to spite their face.

6th · Oct 30, 2006

WORD!!!

Excellent response, Warhawk!!!

Warhawk · Oct 30, 2006

Cerwindel said:

OK, I have another question for you:

Do you have any idea how many public works projects are bid?

The company I work for does a lot of preliminary design work for some major construction projects. Cost is not even a concern until a contractor is chosen in many cases. The contractor (and the rest of the design team) are chosen first, then that contractor's bid is opened and price is negotiated later.

There is a reason for this. Price is not always an overriding concern.

If every detail of public $$$ being spent requires such strict overview and public review, why not require the negotiations for every other construction projects be made public as well? Every bridge, road, school, water treatment plant, pump station, bus garage, county building - everything. No "secret" negotiations whatsoever. Every detail of every project should be made public during these initial negotiations, right? Isn't that what you are arguing for? They all use public $$$, don't they?

What specific knowledge does the public have to evaluate such things? How does Joe Blow know whether $10,000 for a bridge foundation investigation is adequate? Is $2,000,000 a fair price for a new courthouse building? How many federal dollars need to be spent on a water treatment plant before Aunt Sally decides she can sign off on the deal?

Are you seeing the bigger picture here?

Cerwindel · Oct 30, 2006

Warhawk said:

Yes, but you still are not.

"Public Works" projects are using funds that the city currently has, or bond mesaures that have passed.

Comparing this to a public works negotiation is a bad analogy.

The public assumes that the city will negotiate deals where funds are already earmarked in good faith, however, the "Public" when asked to pay sales taxes in any specific deal or measure, ALL details that pertain to the funding or ANY and all proposals, agreements and or documentation pertaining to to such Deal or "Measure" in this instance are required by LAW to make such documents availible to the public. Now they can publish these documents as soon they are complete, or the public can request these documents if they are not made availible in a timely manner.

Now, does this help for posturing for the "No" Campaign, absolutely.

Looking back at this entire deal, -sarcasm on- Im shocked people actually believe that your local government is no trustworthy. I mean, gosh, look at all the positive in this whole thing for the community. -sarcasm off-

I also am proud to live in a county that is mindful enough not to let the love for a basketball team subvert the best interests of the community.

-C

Cerwindel · Oct 30, 2006

Warhawk said:

Once again, you miss the whole picture, relax a bit and read :

Road Projects, such as BOND measures are not a "Special Tax". You are trying to confuse everyone so I will make this VERY Clear for you.

This is a SPECIFIC and Special Taxes, not a Bond Measure. There have been MANY names for this, lately its the "Quality of Life Measure" (I think its still that).

You can grandstand all you like, but unfortunatly with all your anger, you still subvert the BOTTOM LINE.

S p e c i a l -- T a x e s < ---- Not Bond Measure.

Let me clarify what a bond measure is, so you can understand :

A bond measure is an initiative to sell bonds for the purpose of acquiring funds for various public works projects, such as research, transportation infrastructure improvements, and others. These measures are put up for a vote in general elections and must be approved by a plurality or majority of voters, depending on the specific project in question.

Such measures are very often used in the United States when other revenue sources, such as taxes, are limited or non-existent.

So now that we know what a "Bond Measure" means, lets break it down..

A bond measure is an initiative to sell bonds <--- Sell, you mean they arent going to just reach into my pockets? I can choose to buy the bonds or not! The Horror!

public works projects, such as research, transportation infrastructure improvements. <-- I don't see the word "arena" in there, nor do I see Special Developments, or quality of life projects?? How can this pass, if the "Grandstanding, axe grinders" are on the watch!!! (Could it be because its a Bond, yes, thanks)

Now, explain to the "NO" crowd why they should vote for this again? Cowtown? To better sacramento?

If this measure falls in a landslide of "NO", I highly doubt it was a couple of naysayers, or "grandstanders" that tainted the sauce.. No you must look straight to the elected officals office for the answer, and I can assure you, the voters will when they are up for re-election.

-C

P.S - Can i get a NICE response 6th?

VF21 · Oct 30, 2006

Cerwinkel - I don't know quite what you're trying to prove but this is the NEW ARENA forum.

I really don't like the condescending tone... And the hyperlinks to the definitions of words are pretty much in direct violation of our rule #1. Which is why I'm removing them.

Play nice, okay?

Cerwindel · Oct 30, 2006

VF21 said:

Yeah sorry, I cut and pasted that out because im too lazy to type it all

.

Trying to keep it positive.

I will clear them out next time.

-C

Cerwindel · Oct 30, 2006

Documents Reveal New Arena Costs, Opponents Say

Appeals Court Vacates Stay Issued Friday

POSTED: 10:30 am PST October 30, 2006
UPDATED: 5:35 pm PST October 30, 2006

artice can be found here : http://www.kcra.com/news/10191699/detail.html

SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- Analysis of draft documents released by the city of Sacramento Monday reveal some new costs associated with building a new sports and entertainment arena, opponents of the plan said.

The city issued copies of an unexecuted memorandum of understanding and other documents related to the plan.

Opponents of measures Q and R, which are seen as key to the arena plan, quickly offered criticism. The city, meanwhile, defended efforts to keep the documents secret as negotiations with the owners of the Sacramento Kings continue.

The document release came after news that the 3rd District Court of Appeals had vacated an emergency stay that was issued Friday.

"This is a dramatically different vision for an arena," said Assemblyman Dave Jones, an opponent of measures Q and R.

Q and R opponents said the latest proposal revealed in the documents revealed hidden costs not mentioned in the earlier $542 million price tag for the arena.

"What we have here in the secret counter offer is a bad deal that's gone worse," Jones said.

Jones said the document reveals that an additional $45 million would be needed for parking. Another $52 million would be required for short-term financing. The plan also calls for construction of a large electronic billboard near Interstate 5 at public expense.

"The secret counter offer reveals that not only (are) the city and county willing to give away what they talked about before, but they're willing to give away a lot more to make this happen," Jones added.

The stay froze an earlier ruling by a Sacramento Superior Court judge ordering the city to release the documents.

The earlier ruling was in response to a lawsuit filed by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, which argued that the documents should be made public prior to the Nov. 7 election.

Leaders of the Jarvis group arrived at City Hall Monday morning to find copies of the documents waiting for them at the public counter.

John Coupal of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association said the actions of the city over the arena negotiations have likely "poisoned the well" for at least a decade with regard to any proposal to raise the local sales tax to pay for a new arena.

Coupal also praised the released of the documents.

"It was so critically important to have this bit of information available for everybody who's going to be voting on measures Q and R," Coupal said.

Later, the attorney for the city of Sacramento explained why the city fought so hard to keep the documents from being released.

"We did not originally release these documents because we were trying to preserve the city's ability to keep negotiations private on the project and others in the future. We still believe that this really had nothing to do with the election, that it's really separate and apart from the election, that the election measures Q and R -- Measure Q in particular -- is not binding upon the county or the city," city of Sacramento attorney Eileen Teichert said.

slugking50 · Oct 31, 2006

Wow, What a bunch of B.S. We already knew about most this. The billboard idea is a freakin year old. THe only thing I see new is the the 45 million for parking.

The city may have just lost alot of trust with companies coming to our city. Who knows the ramifacations with this.... It could be a decade before some trust is earned back.

This is a goose bump turned into Mt Everest!

.... And Politicians wonder why people hate them.....

JB_kings · Oct 31, 2006

"poisoned the well"
There you go. That was the whole reason for this mountain making. They want to make sure this doesn't come up for a vote for a long time. It's not about this election, they want to make sure that this is a dead issue for years to come.
Don't hold your breath waiting for a "thank you" coming from me.

Warhawk · Oct 31, 2006

Cerwindel said:

Uh, no. We do public works-type projects all the time (preliminary design, at least) sometimes years before the work is ever funded.

I have, on my desk right now, a report we did for a project in 1997 that we need to update because funding is just now coming together. The design team, design, and engineering was all assembled almost a decade ago. It is now being updated for changes in the seismic codes, etc.

This is, essentially, a county building being constructed with a tax increase, with over 1/2 the funds raised by said tax going to other projects. The projects to be funded by the cities and county are not defined, either. Why aren't you screaming for the details on how Galt, Elk Grove, Isleton, Folsom, Rancho Cordova, etc, are going to spend over 1/2 the funds raised, if the issue is so darn important to you? Or is the spending of less than half the money more important than the spending of the majority to you?

If we don't build it now, we are going to pay more to build it later.

Warhawk · Oct 31, 2006

Cerwindel said:

I am quite relaxed, thanks.

Frankly, the difference is only important to you.

Whether the $$$ are a special tax or a bond measure, it is my tax $$$ being spent by the government for specific projects.

You seem to need to draw a distinction between the two. For me it doesn't really matter. What if the deal was presented as a bond measure instead - $1.2 billion for county improvements, including less than half for a sports and entertainment comlex? Would that be more appealing to you because you don't think your tax $$$ are going to pay for it? The payments for a bond come out of the General Fund. It's tax $$$, no matter how you slice it.

kennadog · Oct 31, 2006

Rarely, if ever are negotiations on anything made public untl there is actually something concrete to discuss openly. Negotiations with businesses and developers and a host of entities seeking government approval or funding are going on every single day in every city all over California.

If and when there is an actual, real proposal, that both sides have agreed to, it is then published, presented for a specified public comment period, public hearings are held and then the city council or county board of supervisors vote.

So if anyone really thinks this is out of the ordinary, they aren't paying much attention to how reperesentative government works.

Cerwindel, how often do you read the paper for publication of notices of public hearings? Do you then go and research the reports on the item and attend all public hearings for every item that your city or county vote on? How about other public agencies? Do you go to all public meetings of the redevelopment agency and read all their public notices and staff reports on the items they are going to vote on?

Not only that, but most agencies of the state have periodic public comment meetings and the state legislature have public hearings going on every day. How many of those do you research and attend?

Maybe you've been to quite a few, I don't know. My experience with preparing staff reports for such public comment meetings is almost no one ever attends most of them, except a very, very narrow range of people directly affected. And I'm taking about meetings that determine the future of how billions of dollars are spent. They make this project look like petty cash.

The court told them to release the documents. You'll notice tho, that the city/county have not, at any point, been accused of violating the "sunshine" laws regarding deliberate withholding of information they are required to release to the public.

I am one who think it just got infinitely harder for the city and county to negotiate with businesses that want to locate, stay or do business in the Sacramento area. A lot of demands can be made in the midst of negotiations that are meaningless once they aren't in the actual deal arrived at and may only serve to bias people against a person or business, instead of looking at the merits of the actual deal. That's what I believe is happening here. I believe it only serves to bias a segment of people against the Maloofs. They will then probably vote no to any deal with the Maloofs instead of looking at the merits or demerits of the actual deal.

And what, exactly has been gained by releasing this document? Absolutely nothing. To vote no, because of the detail in those documents, is to vote on the basis of shifting sand, not facts.

If someone wanted to vote no, because there were no details and no deal, I'd say they had a very good reason to vote that way. Its actually likely, at this point, that it would be what I would vote. But I knew that without seeing or knowing anything about these documents. Why? Becasue I already knew there was no deal, therefore no details of a deal.

This gained absolutely nothing, except made the opposition look like they won something that actually had any meaning at this point.

VF21 · Oct 31, 2006

kennadog said:

And kennadog wins the thread.

Bee: Appeals court orders release of arena plan documents (merged)

Super Moderator Emeritus

Super Moderator Emeritus

Super Moderator Emeritus

Dog On It!

Starter

Super Moderator Emeritus

Starter

Starter

Super Moderator Emeritus

Starter

Super Moderator Emeritus

Starter

Prospect

Give blood and save a life!

Prospect

All-Star

Give blood and save a life!

Homer Fan Since 1985

Give blood and save a life!

Prospect

Prospect

Super Moderator Emeritus

Prospect

Prospect

All-Star

Starter

Give blood and save a life!

Give blood and save a life!

Dog On It!

Super Moderator Emeritus