Bee: Arena details to remain secret

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#1
http://www.sacbee.com/351/story/41418.html

Arena details to remain secret
By Mary Lynne Vellinga - Bee Staff Writer
Last Updated 1:04 am PDT Wednesday, October 18, 2006

After a session closed to the public, the Sacramento City Council decided not to release the latest arena proposal made by city staff to the Kings' owners, despite a lawsuit claiming residents have a right to the information before voting on an arena plan Nov. 7.

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association has demanded that the latest exchanges between the Kings and the city be made public. The city is scheduled to file an answer in Sacramento Superior Court today.

The city claims the material constitutes draft documents used in negotiations, not final proposals, and should remain confidential.
Councilman Steve Cohn, an opponent of the plan to increase the sales tax a quarter-cent to pay for a new arena, presented a dissenting view Tuesday before going into closed session, but was not successful in convincing his colleagues.

"It's on the ballot; people need to know what's in it," Cohn said. "What are people voting on?"

The council's debate in private Tuesday wasn't the talk of the town, anyway. That belonged to the Maloof brothers, the Kings' owners, because of their appearance as high-living casino owners in a new television ad for the Carl's Jr. hamburger chain.

The ad, airing nationwide for Carl's Jr. and Hardee's, features the four Maloof brothers chowing down on Carl's Jr. hamburgers against a backdrop of beautiful women and dinging slot machines at the family's Palms Casino Resort in Las Vegas. "Net worth: $1 billion," flashes on the screen. The brothers wash down the burgers with a bottle of 24-year-old French bordeaux, poured by a woman in a slinky dress.

The ad closes with: "The Carl's Jr. $6,000 combo meal, exclusively at the Palms."

It quickly became fodder for talk radio, local TV news shows, and considerable discussion in political circles among Measures Q and R campaign consultants, local staffers and politicians.

The viewings raised questions about the Maloofs' judgment for taking part in the commercial so close to the election when voters are being asked to publicly fund a $600 million arena and entertainment complex.

"This is amazing," marveled political consultant Jeff Raimundo, who is not involved in the campaign for Measures Q and R. "The billion dollars, the slot machines in the background, the glitz, the $5,995 bottle of wine.

"It's everything the voters in Sacramento would not want to put up their tax money for," Raimundo said. "I think this shows the Maloofs have written off this ballot measure."

Robert Waste, a public policy professor at California State University, Sacramento, said the ad "solidifies the image of (the Maloofs) as completely detached and living on another planet.

"Why couldn't they hold off this national ad for another three weeks?" he asked.

But Joe Maloof, contacted by phone, said he doesn't expect the ad to have any effect Nov. 7. He said he thinks Sacramentans have "a sense of humor" and won't take the ad too seriously.

Carl's Jr. aims its marketing squarely at a demographic its press materials describe as "young, hungry guys."

Andrew Puzder, president and chief executive officer of Carl's Jr. parent CKE Restaurants Inc., said in a press release that he thought the Maloofs "would be perfect in a commercial" for the restaurant chain.

"They live the life every young, hungry guy wants to live -- they're successful, wealthy, own a basketball team, a casino, and have fun doing it."

Joe Maloof said Carl's Jr.'s management offered to not air the ad in the Sacramento market, but he told them to go ahead.

"I said, 'People in Sacramento have a sense of humor. They'll understand.'"

He said he thinks voters "more or less have their minds made up" on Measures Q and R, anyway.

Maloof said he and his family still hope they can nail down an arena deal with the city and county before Election Day.

The brothers angrily exited arena negotiations in September, saying the public agencies had reneged on promises that they would get the revenue from 8,000 parking spaces and control over what businesses could locate nearby.

On Friday, the Maloofs re-engaged, sending a response to the city and county's revised arena proposal. Both documents have been kept secret, but public officials involved in the talks say the major sticking points -- including parking and business competition -- remain unresolved.

"Some of the things that have been the tough nuts are still there," said Sacramento County Supervisor Roger Dickinson.

Joe Maloof said that if Q and R fail, his family will try to find another way to get an arena built here. "We belong in one place, and that's Sacramento. We've got to try to work to get it done somehow."

Puzder asked the Maloofs to appear in the ad after meeting them at a Kings game and discovering that they frequently ate at Carl's Jr. in North Natomas.

Maloof said the ad was shot in August at the Palms. "It was great because the four of us got to be together for 10 hours; that's how long it took to shoot it. It's probably the first time in 10 years we've been together that long."

Maloof said he and his siblings "got paid a little bit" for appearing in the advertisement.

"We recognize we're blessed with our lifestyle," he said. "We can afford to eat wherever we want, and we just happen to pick Carl's Jr. We like their food."

Some political consultants who watched the ad Tuesday said they thought it was effective, even if it doesn't help the campaign for Measures Q & R, which are already far down in the polls.

"Carl's Jr. hit a home run by engaging the Maloofs; no question about it," said Doug Elmets, a political veteran who is currently serving as spokesman for the Q and R campaign. "It doesn't do anything for the campaign, but it certainly is going to help sell hamburgers, which is exactly what they want to do."

About the writer: The Bee's Mary Lynne Vellinga can be reached at (916) 321-1094 or mlvellinga@sacbee.com.
 
#2
The Las Vegas Kings or The Anaheim Kings. Which has a better ring to it? Obviously Sacramentans are ready to give the Kings a foot to the *** on their way out of town! It's to bad that the Maloofs and the county reps tried to and failed at passing this LEMON of a deal.
 

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#3
Boy, are you going to be disappointed when the Kings don't go running away with their tails between their legs if this fails.

Not approving a ballot measure with more holes than Swiss cheese doesn't mean Sacramento is ready to show the Kings the door. But then, you know that. You've made your point. You're pretending like you won something.

Well, if an arena deal of some kind doesn't pass, no one wins. Everyone loses.
 

Warhawk

Give blood and save a life!
Staff member
#4
The Las Vegas Kings or The Anaheim Kings. Which has a better ring to it? Obviously Sacramentans are ready to give the Kings a foot to the *** on their way out of town! It's to bad that the Maloofs and the county reps tried to and failed at passing this LEMON of a deal.
Can you please explain exactly which part of:

Joe Maloof said that if Q and R fail, his family will try to find another way to get an arena built here. "We belong in one place, and that's Sacramento. We've got to try to work to get it done somehow."

you don't understand?

Thanks! :rolleyes:
 
#5
The Las Vegas Kings or The Anaheim Kings. Which has a better ring to it? Obviously Sacramentans are ready to give the Kings a foot to the *** on their way out of town! It's to bad that the Maloofs and the county reps tried to and failed at passing this LEMON of a deal.


So you're happy about it because you think you've won an argument online about it? Buddy if you were a true fan you would be depressed that they're moving(atleast in your opinion). You're not a true Kings fan at all.

BTW this doesn't mean they're moving 100%.
 
#6
I believe the Maloofs want to stay. If they actually do leave, it will be because they just couldn't get a mutually agreeable deal done here. No blame, no fault...just couldn't get a deal done.

While I think Q & R will fail, I'm not yet ready to give up hope that something can and will get done. As a matter of fact, I won't give up hope until the Maloofs announce they are leaving because their business will fair better financially elsewhere and the NBA approves it.

EDIT: BTW, I don't agree with Roger D on this one. How do you think voters would feel, if they saw this draft, actually passed Q & R based on what they read and then the deal that finally got inked had quite a few changes?
 
Last edited:

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#7
Agreed. It would set a very bad precedent, IMHO, if delicate negotations were made public. There are a lot of things talked about, debated, etc. in these kinds of proceedings and the whole process could and would grind to a quick and irreversible halt if they had to wait for public input on each and every one of them.

Just because we have the ability to share every iota of business information because of technology doesn't mean we have the right to demand it.
 
#8
I'm a little curious about the why's and how's of this *proposal* on the table.

How is it that the talks/agreements won't be made public because the councilmembers say it's *only in draft form* yet the Maloofs say the draft is binding enough to hold out on the talks?

I'm not a blithering idiot and I won't vote for something I can't read about. If it's good enough to get the Maloofs back to the table then it's good enough to make public.

That would be like walking into Carl's Jr. and ordering a #5 on the menu but not knowing what your actually getting.
 

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#9
I see no reason for the Maloofs or the city/county to reveal negotiations at this point.

If you don't want to vote for Q & R, there are certainly a myriad of reasons to support your opinion. But not releasing interim discussions shouldn't be one of them...That shouldn't even be in contention. If the city/county, the Maloofs and the developer had done this thing right, we'd all know the details that bind all parties. There are NO binding agreements. Asking for details on something that hasn't been finalized is like having your professor grade your thesis on your first rough draft.

Don't get me wrong. I understand the frustration of a large number of Sacramento voters. I just think the frustration is being spun in some cases by the opponents of this measure, who would have been against it even if all the i's had been dotted and t's crossed.
 
Last edited:
#10
I'm a little curious about the why's and how's of this *proposal* on the table.

How is it that the talks/agreements won't be made public because the councilmembers say it's *only in draft form* yet the Maloofs say the draft is binding enough to hold out on the talks?

I'm not a blithering idiot and I won't vote for something I can't read about. If it's good enough to get the Maloofs back to the table then it's good enough to make public.

That would be like walking into Carl's Jr. and ordering a #5 on the menu but not knowing what your actually getting.

You don't have to vote for like 3 weeks. Maybe you should wait to make up your mind until you know what a #5 is?:)
 
#11
How is it that the talks/agreements won't be made public because the councilmembers say it's *only in draft form* yet the Maloofs say the draft is binding enough to hold out on the talks?

I'm not a blithering idiot and I won't vote for something I can't read about. If it's good enough to get the Maloofs back to the table then it's good enough to make public.

That would be like walking into Carl's Jr. and ordering a #5 on the menu but not knowing what your actually getting.
You are confusing the "intent to enter into an agreement" that was binding if all the conditions were met, but contained very little detail. One of the conditions was that an actual agreement be signed by October 6th. The "intent" document was in effect at the time the Maloofs said "no way." Now it is expired. Neither side is bound by that document, anymore.

Now the city has offered a draft proposal for an agreement and the Maloofs have made a counter proposal. Nobody has agreed to anything yet. A draft document isn't worth much more than birdcage liner.

To view the draft proposal and vote based on that would be like ordering a #5 at Carl's Jr, thinking you are getting a hamburger. Then when your order actually arrives it is a salad. Either way, when you are ordering, you don't know what you are actually getting.
 
#12
I see no reason for the Maloofs or the city/county to reveal negotiations at this point.

If you don't want to vote for Q & R, there are certainly a myriad of reasons to support your opinion. But not releasing interim discussions shouldn't be one of them...That shouldn't even be in contention. If the city/county, the Maloofs and the developer had done this thing right, we'd all know the details that bind all parties. There are NO binding agreements. Asking for details on something that hasn't been finalized is like having your professor grade your thesis on your first rough draft.

Don't get me wrong. I understand the frustration of a large number of Sacramento voters. I just think the frustration is being spun in some cases by the opponents of this measure, who would have been against it even if all the i's had been dotted and t's crossed.

Unless I'm mistakin' there must have been "binding agreements" otherwise the Maloofs would never have walked out of the talks. Right? And if those "agreements" are expected to be honored by the county, (me), then I want to know about them BEFORE I vote; not after. NO ONE signs a contract without reading it first and this is a contract between the Kings Mngmt. and, in the end, me. If it's not a "binding agreement" then the Maloofs are wrong to demand anything and saying it was agreed upon in previous talks.

I can remember the comment was made that the talks will remain closed to the public siting the reason as "the talks never work when open to the public". Hmmmm....I wonder why?
 
#13
You are confusing the "intent to enter into an agreement" that was binding if all the conditions were met, but contained very little detail. One of the conditions was that an actual agreement be signed by October 6th. The "intent" document was in effect at the time the Maloofs said "no way." Now it is expired. Neither side is bound by that document, anymore.

Now the city has offered a draft proposal for an agreement and the Maloofs have made a counter proposal. Nobody has agreed to anything yet. A draft document isn't worth much more than birdcage liner.

To view the draft proposal and vote based on that would be like ordering a #5 at Carl's Jr, thinking you are getting a hamburger. Then when your order actually arrives it is a salad. Either way, when you are ordering, you don't know what you are actually getting.

Again with the confusion, I am. Expired document? Then what will I be voting for? A blank sheet of paper? This gets better all the time.

I must add that, as a DJ, I belong to other public mssg. boards and, frankly, I expected more flaming on this board. Thank you for being civil.

As a person who owns a business I'm strugling with the concept of voting for something I of no knowledge what I'm voting for (details).

I must also confess I am not a fan of The Big Three major sports; Basketball, Football, Baseball. I have decided, however, to see if I might get more insight to this issiue and I picked your board to pursue that. I find it quite informing.

As a citizen I think I have a right to know what I am being asked to pay for with my taxes. As I have no intention of attending any function at any arena I fail to see how I might benifit from this. Granted, I am not saying I, personally, should garner anything. But for those who don't, or can't afford to, attend any functions at the new, or old, arena it seems a little underhanded to be asked to pay for something without knowing what I paying for.

I know...we're paying for a new arena. We'll own it but, outside of the "rent" from the Maloofs, what other benifits will Sacramento citizens get out of this? And with the extremly high cost of any event it seems only the wealthy will be able to attend any functions there. And the issiue of controlling the compition in the area surrounding the arena is unheard of.

So....how will Sacramento benifit? Convince me.
 

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#14
Unless I'm mistakin' there must have been "binding agreements" otherwise the Maloofs would never have walked out of the talks. Right? And if those "agreements" are expected to be honored by the county, (me), then I want to know about them BEFORE I vote; not after. NO ONE signs a contract without reading it first and this is a contract between the Kings Mngmt. and, in the end, me. If it's not a "binding agreement" then the Maloofs are wrong to demand anything and saying it was agreed upon in previous talks.

I can remember the comment was made that the talks will remain closed to the public siting the reason as "the talks never work when open to the public". Hmmmm....I wonder why?
I hate to break it to you, but you are mistaken. There are no binding agreements in effect. None. Nada. Zip. Zero. Zilch. There were interim terms of understanding, however. Those were basically just conceptual, with all parties to come to terms by Oct. 6. For various reasons, the parties didn't come to any agreements.

The whole problem, however, is more basic. First, we have a developer who doesn't even have title to the land yet. Then, we have the city/county wanting to make a deal with the developer, based on an agreement with their potential long-term tenants, the Maloofs, that doesn't exist yet.

In an ideal world, the developer would already have title to the land. The city/county and the Maloofs would already have an agreement in place as to what they would each be giving and receiving. Then the city/county would go to the developer and negotiate the fine points.

For a variety of reasons, this hasn't happened. Now, the city/county is saying they will go ahead without the promise of a long-term tenant and build the arena anyway. Which might be fine, if we had the events to fill it. Unfortunately, without the Maloofs, we won't have the events to fill the arena. AND the city/county will be paying all the operating expenses instead of the Maloofs.

This is a big catch-22. If, for some strange reason, however, Q & R do pass, there's no doubt in my mind the city/county and the Maloofs will find a way to come to an accord.

As far as the public being involved in each and every negotiation, that's just not practical ... nor is it of any benefit to the Maloofs or the city. You elect supervisors and city council members to deal with these kinds of things. You don't have public input into every other item on their agenda. The fact this is more public doesn't negate the duties you have delegated to your elected officials to represent you.
 
Last edited:
#15
Points taken.

But in reality I think that unless something more concrete comes about I can't, in good conceince, vote for this. If there are no events to fill the arena then why build it? If it's to keep the Maloofs then let them build it.


Thank you for the comments.
 
#16
I know...we're paying for a new arena. We'll own it but, outside of the "rent" from the Maloofs, what other benifits will Sacramento citizens get out of this? And with the extremly high cost of any event it seems only the wealthy will be able to attend any functions there. And the issiue of controlling the compition in the area surrounding the arena is unheard of.

So....how will Sacramento benifit? Convince me.
Come on... ok... so you don't go to any events... but to say that only the wealthy get to attend any events is just mis information and blatent regurgitation of opposition propaganda.

I'm no where near wealthy and I typically go to 2 or 3 games a year, I've seen a few U2 concerts at Arco (but always only after Sacramento is added to the tour as an afterthought; hopefully a new arena would rectify that - but I digress), I've taken the kids to the circus and we even went to a globetrotters game (which I don't recommend unless you are 7 or under).

Also, I would guess that with a bigger arena, it might stand to reason that there will be more opportunity for affordable seating. I have nothing to back this up except that there seems to be an abundunt of cheap seating at A's games becuase there stadium is huge.

Also, rent from the Maloofs is only a fraction of the revenue that can potentially be brought into the city from the many other events that will will come to Sacramento with a proper facility.
 

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#17
Points taken.

But in reality I think that unless something more concrete comes about I can't, in good conceince, vote for this. If there are no events to fill the arena then why build it? If it's to keep the Maloofs then let them build it.


Thank you for the comments.
Although I don't agree with your conclusions, I can understand how you arrived at them. And that's the biggest problem with this whole campaign. It was concocted at the 11th hour and they didn't have their ducks in a row before they started. In fact, I'm not even sure they're sure what ducks are...

;)
 

Warhawk

Give blood and save a life!
Staff member
#18
Points taken.

But in reality I think that unless something more concrete comes about I can't, in good conceince, vote for this. If there are no events to fill the arena then why build it? If it's to keep the Maloofs then let them build it.


Thank you for the comments.
Less than half the $$$ raised is going to the arena with the remainder being distributed among the cities and county for whatever projects they want to spend it on - roads, libraries, police, fire, parks, homeless shelters - whatever. These will make a difference in your life, even if you never go to the arena.

Using these $$$ to help kickstart the railyards development will eventually bring boatloads of additional (sales and property) tax revenues to the city and help create a more vibrant "near-downtown" area.

Everyone says there is nothing to do around here. For $1 in tax on every $400 of disposable income you spend, we can try to remedy that.

And how exactly is MSE supposed to pay for an arena on their own? We've discussed this before, but just because you own a house that's worth $300,000 doesn't mean you can afford to buy a yacht that costs $150,000. The Maloofs, collectively, may be worth $1 billion, but that is spread among multiple businesses with different ownership groups. I doubt those different groups would be too interested in giving up their profits just so another ownership group can try to fund a new arena.

Cities like Sacramento cannot support a major sports franchise without major public support. It just can't be done financially.
 
Last edited:
#19
Less than half the $$$ raised is going to the arena with the remainder being distributed among the cities and county for whatever projects they want to spend it on - roads, libraries, police, fire, parks, homeless shelters - whatever. These will make a difference in your life, even if you never go to the arena.

Using these $$$ to help kickstart the railyards development will eventually bring boatloads of additional (sales and property) tax revenues to the city and help create a more vibrant "near-downtown" area.

Everyone says there is nothing to do around here. For $1 in tax on every $400 of disposable income you spend, we can try to remedy that.

And how exactly is MSE supposed to pay for an arena on their own? We've discussed this before, but just because you own a house that's worth $300,000 doesn't mean you can afford to buy a yacht that costs $150,000. The Maloofs, collectively, may be worth $1 billion, but that is spread among multiple businesses with different ownership groups. I doubt those different groups would be too interested in giving up their profits just so another ownership group can try to fund a new arena.

Cities like Sacramento cannot support a major sports franchise without major public support. It just can't be done financially.

Nice post. Alot of uninformed people should read this post.
 
#20
If the public is going to pay for it...

Then everything should be open to review by the public. Why would the city want to hide this from us? My bet is because if the citizens of Sacramento were to actually see the fine print and all the details they would be upset. Why should the kings recieve welfare and not the rest of us? I would like to make out like a bandit with millions. Why stop the gravey train for just the Maloofs?
 

Warhawk

Give blood and save a life!
Staff member
#21
Then everything should be open to review by the public. Why would the city want to hide this from us? My bet is because if the citizens of Sacramento were to actually see the fine print and all the details they would be upset. Why should the kings recieve welfare and not the rest of us? I would like to make out like a bandit with millions. Why stop the gravey train for just the Maloofs?
Well, how much do you think the roads you drive on, clean water you drink, police and fire protection you enjoy, and hospital services you use are worth? Try building them yourself....
 

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#22
Then everything should be open to review by the public. Why would the city want to hide this from us? My bet is because if the citizens of Sacramento were to actually see the fine print and all the details they would be upset. Why should the kings recieve welfare and not the rest of us? I would like to make out like a bandit with millions. Why stop the gravey train for just the Maloofs?
You really don't understand the whole concept of representative government, do you?
 
#23
Then everything should be open to review by the public. Why would the city want to hide this from us? My bet is because if the citizens of Sacramento were to actually see the fine print and all the details they would be upset. Why should the kings recieve welfare and not the rest of us? I would like to make out like a bandit with millions. Why stop the gravey train for just the Maloofs?
Just out of curiousity...do you have a mortagage on a home? Homewoners get one of the biggest government subsidies (welfare) around......mortgage interest write-off on their taxes.

Why should I pay for maintenance of any infrastructure or police or fire protection in your neighborhood? If you have kids, why should I pay a dime for schools for them? If I don't use libraries, why should I pay anything for those? If I hate parks, because I have allergies and think they only attract problems, why should I pay for them? The rest of the state is being asked on this ballot to pay millions for levees to protect people in northern California. Why should they?

If you are in an accident on the highway, but you don't have health insurance, why should I pay for that or the ambulance and police response, for that matter?

Rock concerts, ballet, opera, live theater, symphonies, art museums, zoos, why should I pay for any of those if I can't go? Some of those are "only for people with money" and cost as much or more than going to any Kings game.

Why should I have to pay for the subsidies given to the Hyatt, Sheraton and Embassy Suites Hotels downtown?

I could go on and on. I can only go to a few Kings games a year and only for the last few years. I've bought $10 tickets to Kings games. I just spent $9.50 to see a movie not long ago!

Its just cr*p that only the well-to-do can afford to go to a Kings game. Only people with a pretty good income can afford season tickets. Big deal. Some people can go to movies, concerts, live theater more than me. I can't afford to go to many events at the Community Center either. Maybe I should ask for a refund of my tax money on that.
 
Last edited:
#24
Just out of curiousity...do you have a mortagage on a home? Homewoners get one of the biggest government subsidies (welfare)around......mortgage interest write-off on their taxes.

Why should I pay for maintenance of any infrastructure or police or fire protection in your neighborhood? If you have kids, why should I pay a dime for schools for them? If I don't use libraries, why should I pat anything for those? If I hate parks, because I have allergies and think they only attract problems, why should I pay for them? The rest of the state is being asked on this ballot to pay millions for levees to protect people in northern California. Why should they?

If you are in an accident on the highway, but you don't have health insurance, why should I pay for that or the ambulance and police response, for that matter?

Rock concerts, ballet, opera, live theater, symphonies, art museums, zoos, why should I pay for any of those if I can't go? Some of those are "only for people with money" and cost as much or more than going to any Kings game.

Why should I have to pay for the subsidies given to the Hyatt, Sheraton and Embassy Suites Hotels downtown?

I could go on and on. I can only go to a few Kings games a year and only for the last few years. I've bought $10 tickets to Kings games. I just spent $9.50 to see a movie not long ago!

Its just cr*p that only the well-to-do can afford to go to a Kings game. Only people with a pretty good income can afford season tickets. Big deal. Some people can go to movies, concerts, live theater than me. I can't afford to go to many events at the Community Center either. Maybe I should ask for a refund of my tax money on that.
Great post Kennadog... very well said.