http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/36086.html
Arenas face stop - and -go politics
By Terri Hardy - Bee Staff Writer
Published 12:00 am PDT Monday, October 9, 2006
When government leaders in Memphis sat down one morning in 2001 to begin negotiations to bring an NBA franchise to town, "We didn't even make it until lunch," recalled Tom Jones, a senior adviser to the county mayor.
Jones said he could only watch as team representatives -- upset at the city's initial proposals -- stormed from the room.
The two sides eventually reconvened, differences were patched over, and the Vancouver Grizzlies ultimately relocated to a new arena in Memphis, Tenn., although the team's negotiators would walk out twice more before a final agreement was reached.
Sound familiar? It should to anyone who has followed the volatile negotiations between local civic leaders and the Sacramento Kings' owners.
Joe and Gavin Maloof or their representatives have periodically staged their own walkouts during the history of Sacramento arena efforts.
On Sept. 5, John Thomas, president of Maloof Sports and Entertainment and other team negotiators left a dinner meeting, halting talks. They said they were being shortchanged on promised parking and land in the downtown railyard proposed for a new sports and entertainment complex.
City and county negotiators denied those promises were made, but the damage was done. New plans have been drafted in hopes of assuaging the Kings, but talks still hadn't resumed last week.
The high-profile meltdown has blunted the campaign for a new sales tax to pay for an arena, irritating voters, raising questions about the Maloofs' commitment to Sacramento, and dampening support for the project.While sports arena deals are notoriously contentious, observers are wondering if the Kings' very public dissatisfaction so close to the high-stakes Nov. 7 referendum on Measures Q and R is merely a hiccup -- or something much more serious.
Owners pulling out of talks so close to an election "is almost unheard of," said Dave Walden, a political consultant who managed Houston's successful 2000 campaign for a new arena for the city's NBA team, the Rockets.
"It's fatal, it's drop-dead stupid. How can you ask voters to approve something that the team doesn't support? I wish the campaigners good luck," he said.
Compounding the campaign's problems are recent Bee poll results that show voters aren't inclined to increase their sales tax to pay for a new arena.
Fifty-eight percent said they would reject Measure R, which would boost the tax by a quarter cent.
Other communities that struggled with their own sports facility efforts say these deals are often brutal to craft. Defeats at the ballot box, however, don't necessarily spell the end to the process.
Houston took years of starts and stops and two referendums before voters agreed to fund a new downtown home for the Rockets. One of the negotiators early on was John Thomas, then a Rockets vice president, now president of Maloof Sports and Entertainment and chief negotiator for the Kings.
Thomas declined comment about his Houston experience, but according to media reports and other officials involved at the time, Thomas was considered a hard-nosed negotiator who wasn't afraid to push matters to the brink.
"Thomas was always playing games and leaving the table," Walden recalled.
"And he just couldn't get a deal done. You can't try to squeeze every last dollar out of the public. You've got to leave some on the table so public officials can save face. John never understood that."
Rockets owner Les Alexander told the Houston Chronicle in 1997 that Thomas described the negotiations there as "a farce." Thomas ultimately left Houston in 1998 to pursue other opportunities. He was tapped for his job with the Kings in 1999.
George Postolos, a special assistant for NBA Commissioner David Stern, became the Rockets chief operating officer in the fall of 1998 and inherited Houston's arena push. Under Postolos, a deal was made and a referendum was placed on the 1999 ballot. After an acrimonious and partisan campaign, the measure was soundly trounced by voters, said Postolos, now a private sports consultant.
Soon after that defeat, proponents went back to work. This time, a different downtown site was chosen, the NBA's Stern got involved and the funding plan was altered. Instead of using a ticket surcharge to help pay for the facility, it was decided to use visitor taxes already approved.
That allowed the yes campaign to adopt a "no new taxes" pitch -- a message that made a huge difference with the community, Walden and Postolos said.
Supporters spent a lot of time meeting with those who had opposed the previous plan. Many Republicans got on board. Key leaders in the business community rallied behind the proposition, a group headed by then--Enron Corp. Chairman and Chief Executive Ken Lay, Walden said.
With significantly less opposition, voters approved the plan in a 2-1 landslide.
"It boiled down to people needing time to come around to the view that an arena is in the best interest of the community," Postolos said. "It's a challenge to bring about a strong consensus, but it's worth the effort."
Officials from several cities said opponents of arena plans voiced similar concerns to those that are being raised in Sacramento. There was much resentment about pouring public funds into a sports complex for rich team owners and a belief by some that the money would be better spent on schools and roads.
Tom Murphy, former mayor of Pittsburgh, said those concerns helped send a 1997 sports complex measure in his city to a crashing defeat. Proponents had hoped to fund new homes for football's Steelers and baseball's Pirates and expand the city's convention center with a temporary 11-county sales tax.
Almost immediately, Murphy said he began formulating an alternative funding package -- one that wouldn't go before voters. A deal was crafted that included team contributions, existing sales tax revenue, and a state contribution approved by the Pennsylvania Legislature.
The resulting building project has transformed the Pittsburgh waterfront and ensured keeping the Steelers and Pirates in town. Critics hardly remember their one-time opposition, he said.
His advice: "Don't do a referendum. Try to find existing taxes and do it that way."
Indianapolis never even attempted a public vote when it launched a downtown sports construction spree funded largely with taxpayer dollars. In the 1990s, the city erected a Triple A baseball stadium and the $183 million Conseco Fieldhouse for the Indiana Pacers.
Now the city is looking to build a $675 million football stadium for the Colts, a package cobbled together by the state Legislature and approved by local officials -- a deal voters would likely not approve because the team owner is not from the area, said Bill Blomquist, a professor of political science at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis.
Even so, with backing from the political and business establishment, approval of the sports facilities was a fait accompli, Blomquist and others said.
While the political and legal landscape is much different in California, Postolos shrugs off Sacramento's current arena tumult. Instead, he said the area is paving the way for an eventual successful arena effort.
"Breakdowns happen. Threats go back and forth. People walk out," Postolos said. "The strong bond the community has with the Kings is unique, one of the better relationships in sports. I think they'll get things back on track."
About the writer: The Bee's Terri Hardy can be reached at (916) 321-1073 or thardy@sacbee.com. Bee staff writer Mary Lynne Vellinga contributed to this report.
Arenas face stop - and -go politics
By Terri Hardy - Bee Staff Writer
Published 12:00 am PDT Monday, October 9, 2006
When government leaders in Memphis sat down one morning in 2001 to begin negotiations to bring an NBA franchise to town, "We didn't even make it until lunch," recalled Tom Jones, a senior adviser to the county mayor.
Jones said he could only watch as team representatives -- upset at the city's initial proposals -- stormed from the room.
The two sides eventually reconvened, differences were patched over, and the Vancouver Grizzlies ultimately relocated to a new arena in Memphis, Tenn., although the team's negotiators would walk out twice more before a final agreement was reached.
Sound familiar? It should to anyone who has followed the volatile negotiations between local civic leaders and the Sacramento Kings' owners.
Joe and Gavin Maloof or their representatives have periodically staged their own walkouts during the history of Sacramento arena efforts.
On Sept. 5, John Thomas, president of Maloof Sports and Entertainment and other team negotiators left a dinner meeting, halting talks. They said they were being shortchanged on promised parking and land in the downtown railyard proposed for a new sports and entertainment complex.
City and county negotiators denied those promises were made, but the damage was done. New plans have been drafted in hopes of assuaging the Kings, but talks still hadn't resumed last week.
The high-profile meltdown has blunted the campaign for a new sales tax to pay for an arena, irritating voters, raising questions about the Maloofs' commitment to Sacramento, and dampening support for the project.While sports arena deals are notoriously contentious, observers are wondering if the Kings' very public dissatisfaction so close to the high-stakes Nov. 7 referendum on Measures Q and R is merely a hiccup -- or something much more serious.
Owners pulling out of talks so close to an election "is almost unheard of," said Dave Walden, a political consultant who managed Houston's successful 2000 campaign for a new arena for the city's NBA team, the Rockets.
"It's fatal, it's drop-dead stupid. How can you ask voters to approve something that the team doesn't support? I wish the campaigners good luck," he said.
Compounding the campaign's problems are recent Bee poll results that show voters aren't inclined to increase their sales tax to pay for a new arena.
Fifty-eight percent said they would reject Measure R, which would boost the tax by a quarter cent.
Other communities that struggled with their own sports facility efforts say these deals are often brutal to craft. Defeats at the ballot box, however, don't necessarily spell the end to the process.
Houston took years of starts and stops and two referendums before voters agreed to fund a new downtown home for the Rockets. One of the negotiators early on was John Thomas, then a Rockets vice president, now president of Maloof Sports and Entertainment and chief negotiator for the Kings.
Thomas declined comment about his Houston experience, but according to media reports and other officials involved at the time, Thomas was considered a hard-nosed negotiator who wasn't afraid to push matters to the brink.
"Thomas was always playing games and leaving the table," Walden recalled.
"And he just couldn't get a deal done. You can't try to squeeze every last dollar out of the public. You've got to leave some on the table so public officials can save face. John never understood that."
Rockets owner Les Alexander told the Houston Chronicle in 1997 that Thomas described the negotiations there as "a farce." Thomas ultimately left Houston in 1998 to pursue other opportunities. He was tapped for his job with the Kings in 1999.
George Postolos, a special assistant for NBA Commissioner David Stern, became the Rockets chief operating officer in the fall of 1998 and inherited Houston's arena push. Under Postolos, a deal was made and a referendum was placed on the 1999 ballot. After an acrimonious and partisan campaign, the measure was soundly trounced by voters, said Postolos, now a private sports consultant.
Soon after that defeat, proponents went back to work. This time, a different downtown site was chosen, the NBA's Stern got involved and the funding plan was altered. Instead of using a ticket surcharge to help pay for the facility, it was decided to use visitor taxes already approved.
That allowed the yes campaign to adopt a "no new taxes" pitch -- a message that made a huge difference with the community, Walden and Postolos said.
Supporters spent a lot of time meeting with those who had opposed the previous plan. Many Republicans got on board. Key leaders in the business community rallied behind the proposition, a group headed by then--Enron Corp. Chairman and Chief Executive Ken Lay, Walden said.
With significantly less opposition, voters approved the plan in a 2-1 landslide.
"It boiled down to people needing time to come around to the view that an arena is in the best interest of the community," Postolos said. "It's a challenge to bring about a strong consensus, but it's worth the effort."
Officials from several cities said opponents of arena plans voiced similar concerns to those that are being raised in Sacramento. There was much resentment about pouring public funds into a sports complex for rich team owners and a belief by some that the money would be better spent on schools and roads.
Tom Murphy, former mayor of Pittsburgh, said those concerns helped send a 1997 sports complex measure in his city to a crashing defeat. Proponents had hoped to fund new homes for football's Steelers and baseball's Pirates and expand the city's convention center with a temporary 11-county sales tax.
Almost immediately, Murphy said he began formulating an alternative funding package -- one that wouldn't go before voters. A deal was crafted that included team contributions, existing sales tax revenue, and a state contribution approved by the Pennsylvania Legislature.
The resulting building project has transformed the Pittsburgh waterfront and ensured keeping the Steelers and Pirates in town. Critics hardly remember their one-time opposition, he said.
His advice: "Don't do a referendum. Try to find existing taxes and do it that way."
Indianapolis never even attempted a public vote when it launched a downtown sports construction spree funded largely with taxpayer dollars. In the 1990s, the city erected a Triple A baseball stadium and the $183 million Conseco Fieldhouse for the Indiana Pacers.
Now the city is looking to build a $675 million football stadium for the Colts, a package cobbled together by the state Legislature and approved by local officials -- a deal voters would likely not approve because the team owner is not from the area, said Bill Blomquist, a professor of political science at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis.
Even so, with backing from the political and business establishment, approval of the sports facilities was a fait accompli, Blomquist and others said.
While the political and legal landscape is much different in California, Postolos shrugs off Sacramento's current arena tumult. Instead, he said the area is paving the way for an eventual successful arena effort.
"Breakdowns happen. Threats go back and forth. People walk out," Postolos said. "The strong bond the community has with the Kings is unique, one of the better relationships in sports. I think they'll get things back on track."
About the writer: The Bee's Terri Hardy can be reached at (916) 321-1073 or thardy@sacbee.com. Bee staff writer Mary Lynne Vellinga contributed to this report.
