http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/35607.html
Arena adversaries duel before a crowd
Supporters at debate call tax key to railyard's development; opponents see a boondoggle subsidizing wealthy Maloofs.
By Todd Milbourn - Bee Staff Writer
Published 12:00 am PDT Sunday, October 8, 2006
A quarter-cent sales tax to build an arena for the Kings will radically transform downtown Sacramento for the better, attracting new jobs and development while forging a stronger sense of community pride.
Or, the tax will divert money for fighting crime and improving roads into the pockets of Las Vegas playboys who don't really care about Sacramento and are itching to leave, anyway.
It depends on whom you ask.
Several hundred Sacramentans turned out Saturday at the Radisson Hotel to hear both sides of the arena debate, capping a day of political forums hosted by Sacramento's Asian American community.
It was a long afternoon for many who attended, as candidates made their pitches for state attorney general, the Board of Equalization and seemingly every office in between.
But the arena debate -- a fixture of local newspapers, radio talk shows and water cooler discussions for months now -- got the crowd the most excited.
Panelists didn't make many fresh points, but they did put forth strong cases both for and against the arena measures, which will be on the November ballot.
Darrell Steinberg, a candidate for state Senate and a supporter of the arena tax, said the downtown railyard has sat idle for too long -- 30 years. An arena, he said, would serve as a catalyst for a downtown renaissance, sparking new businesses and raising Sacramento's profile.
"The question I ask is not what the private sector is getting. But what are we, the public, getting for the future of Sacramento," said Steinberg, a lawyer who worked with Kings owners Joe and Gavin Maloof to get the arena tax on the ballot.
Dave Tamayo, who leads a grass-roots organization opposing the plan, sees the arena tax as an egregious example of corporate welfare. Plus, there's no guarantee the arena will actually be built in the railyard, he said.
"You can't get around this fact: This is a half-a-billion dollar subsidy for billionaires who come from out of town and can fully afford this themselves," said Tamayo, president of People United for a Better Sacramento.
Pat Fong Kushida, an arena tax supporter and head of the Sacramento Asian and Pacific Islander Chamber of Commerce, said the issue isn't about basketball but economic development. She figures the tax would cost the average taxpayer the cost of a cup of coffee a month, and that's a good deal.
"This will translate into tremendous opportunity for jobs and small business," she said.
Sandy Smoley, a former Sacramento County supervisor who is chairing the pro-arena campaign, addressed concerns about the motivations of the Kings owners.
"This is not about the Maloofs," Smoley said. "This is about our community. Do we want to keep the status quo or do we want to think big?"
Assemblyman Dave Jones, an arena tax opponent, got the loudest applause of the debate when he posed a question to the other side: Why should working families support this tax when they can't even afford to go to a game?
Both sides agreed on one point: Sacramento needs to redevelop the railyard. Steinberg said the railyard is the largest stretch of undeveloped downtown land in any city.
But Jones said an arena tax would actually make it more difficult to transform the railyard because the tax would siphon dollars needed for roads and sewers.
"This sucks up money we need for infrastructure," Jones said.
The discussion didn't change the mind of Bob Milam, who, like 58 percent of Sacramentans, according to a recent Bee poll, opposes the sales tax. But the debate did change the mind of his wife, Joyce. She said the opposition won her over by stressing the structure of the deal, which they argued is tilted in the Maloofs' favor. The deal lets the Maloofs keep all revenue from sports events, concerts, concessions and parking.
"I really don't like the idea that the Maloofs get everything," Joyce Milam said, as the debate ended and the crowd made its way to the door. "I want an arena downtown, but not at the expense of other community needs."
About the writer: The Bee's Todd Milbourn can be reached at (916) 321-1063 or tmilbourn@sacbee.com.
Arena adversaries duel before a crowd
Supporters at debate call tax key to railyard's development; opponents see a boondoggle subsidizing wealthy Maloofs.
By Todd Milbourn - Bee Staff Writer
Published 12:00 am PDT Sunday, October 8, 2006
A quarter-cent sales tax to build an arena for the Kings will radically transform downtown Sacramento for the better, attracting new jobs and development while forging a stronger sense of community pride.
Or, the tax will divert money for fighting crime and improving roads into the pockets of Las Vegas playboys who don't really care about Sacramento and are itching to leave, anyway.
It depends on whom you ask.
Several hundred Sacramentans turned out Saturday at the Radisson Hotel to hear both sides of the arena debate, capping a day of political forums hosted by Sacramento's Asian American community.
It was a long afternoon for many who attended, as candidates made their pitches for state attorney general, the Board of Equalization and seemingly every office in between.
But the arena debate -- a fixture of local newspapers, radio talk shows and water cooler discussions for months now -- got the crowd the most excited.
Panelists didn't make many fresh points, but they did put forth strong cases both for and against the arena measures, which will be on the November ballot.
Darrell Steinberg, a candidate for state Senate and a supporter of the arena tax, said the downtown railyard has sat idle for too long -- 30 years. An arena, he said, would serve as a catalyst for a downtown renaissance, sparking new businesses and raising Sacramento's profile.
"The question I ask is not what the private sector is getting. But what are we, the public, getting for the future of Sacramento," said Steinberg, a lawyer who worked with Kings owners Joe and Gavin Maloof to get the arena tax on the ballot.
Dave Tamayo, who leads a grass-roots organization opposing the plan, sees the arena tax as an egregious example of corporate welfare. Plus, there's no guarantee the arena will actually be built in the railyard, he said.
"You can't get around this fact: This is a half-a-billion dollar subsidy for billionaires who come from out of town and can fully afford this themselves," said Tamayo, president of People United for a Better Sacramento.
Pat Fong Kushida, an arena tax supporter and head of the Sacramento Asian and Pacific Islander Chamber of Commerce, said the issue isn't about basketball but economic development. She figures the tax would cost the average taxpayer the cost of a cup of coffee a month, and that's a good deal.
"This will translate into tremendous opportunity for jobs and small business," she said.
Sandy Smoley, a former Sacramento County supervisor who is chairing the pro-arena campaign, addressed concerns about the motivations of the Kings owners.
"This is not about the Maloofs," Smoley said. "This is about our community. Do we want to keep the status quo or do we want to think big?"
Assemblyman Dave Jones, an arena tax opponent, got the loudest applause of the debate when he posed a question to the other side: Why should working families support this tax when they can't even afford to go to a game?
Both sides agreed on one point: Sacramento needs to redevelop the railyard. Steinberg said the railyard is the largest stretch of undeveloped downtown land in any city.
But Jones said an arena tax would actually make it more difficult to transform the railyard because the tax would siphon dollars needed for roads and sewers.
"This sucks up money we need for infrastructure," Jones said.
The discussion didn't change the mind of Bob Milam, who, like 58 percent of Sacramentans, according to a recent Bee poll, opposes the sales tax. But the debate did change the mind of his wife, Joyce. She said the opposition won her over by stressing the structure of the deal, which they argued is tilted in the Maloofs' favor. The deal lets the Maloofs keep all revenue from sports events, concerts, concessions and parking.
"I really don't like the idea that the Maloofs get everything," Joyce Milam said, as the debate ended and the crowd made its way to the door. "I want an arena downtown, but not at the expense of other community needs."
About the writer: The Bee's Todd Milbourn can be reached at (916) 321-1063 or tmilbourn@sacbee.com.
(hopefully one will surface that will be more thought out and agreed upon before it is exposed to the voting public, even if it does have to wait another 2 years before it can be brought forth)
