Bee: Arena's tax strategy assailed but backers defend legality

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#1
http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/14261232p-15074828c.html

Arena's strategy for tax assailed
But the project's backers ardently defend its legality.
By Terri Hardy -- Bee Staff Writer
Published 12:01 am PDT Saturday, May 27, 2006


A strategy to finance a new Sacramento arena with a quarter-cent sales tax approved by a majority of voters would likely violate state law, according to the author of the state proposition that outlined how such levies are imposed.

Any proposed sales tax to be used for a specific purpose, such as an arena, would need to be approved by a two-thirds vote -- not the simple majority that arena backers have stated, said Jon Coupal of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association on Friday.

"How can you describe this as anything but an arena tax?" Coupal said. "If this (proposed) tax is intended to pay for an arena, it's a special tax requiring a two-thirds vote."

Coupal is an attorney and the principal drafter of Proposition 218, the "Right to Vote on Taxes Act" passed by voters statewide in 1996.

Arena backers on Friday dismissed Coupal's concerns.

Bob Ryan is the Sacramento County counsel who has been examining legal issues surrounding the arena financing plan for the civic leaders spearheading arena talks. He said he's convinced that a two-thirds vote isn't necessary.

Taxpayer group critics were "providing a legal analysis on an ordinance they haven't seen," he said.

John Dangberg, a Sacramento assistant city manager for economic development and the city's arena point person, said he is confident in Ryan's take on the law. However, the city has asked the law firm Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe for a third-party opinion.

Orrick was the firm that represented Santa Clara County in a test case. Once its opinion has been delivered, it will be reviewed by City Attorney Eileen Teichert, and she will provide her own opinion.

"This is why we've been somewhat circumspect about the full funding proposal," Dangberg said. "We haven't completed our due diligence."

While the arena team has yet to reveal the complete plan for paying for a new arena, it has said it's considering a quarter-cent sales tax and land swaps as part of the public financing component. The Maloof family, the owner of the Sacramento Kings, also is expected to contribute.

Beyond funding an arena, backers are expected to propose using the funding plan to pay for a host of other civic improvements around the region.

While technical, the question of whether the proposed sales tax increase is for general or specific purposes is a crucial one. Arena team members acknowledge that achieving a two-thirds vote for any tax, whether it's for schools, police protection or arenas, has proved exceedingly difficult in California.

Following the example of Santa Clara County, arena supporters said they planned to put two questions on the ballot for voters. One would be a binding question, asking whether voters would approve a general sales tax increase. The second would be a companion advisory question on whether voters would support certain projects, including an arena.

Ryan said in this way, the sales tax increase would be for general purposes and only require a majority vote. In a precedent-setting case, the state Supreme Court in 1998 upheld a Santa Clara County sales tax increase passed for no specified purpose on a simple majority vote. The same ballot included a separate measure that said extra sales tax funds should be used for transportation improvements.

Arena backers include several attorneys -- county Supervisor Roger Dickinson, City Councilman Rob Fong and former Assemblyman Darrell Steinberg. All said they don't have a legal opinion but are comfortable with Ryan's interpretation.

"We have a capable and confident county counsel," Dickinson said. "He has looked at this carefully."

Coupal said the Santa Clara County tax and Proposition 218 both appeared on the same ballot in November 1996. Because Proposition 218 didn't go into effect until the following day, it didn't apply in the Santa Clara County case. However, Coupal contended it would apply in any case after Proposition 218 took effect.

Although the legal issues surrounding the tax are cloudy, what's becoming clear is that a lawsuit is brewing.

Coupal said his organization "will take a very serious look at contesting the validity" of a proposed sales tax increase.

Joe Sullivan, the executive director of the Sacramento County Taxpayers League, in a letter to city and county officials, said the ballot strategy as proposed "would likely lead to litigation."

Sullivan had this piece of advice:

"Follow the law, tell voters the truth and put the measure on the ballot as a special tax," Sullivan wrote. "If successful, with the right mix of private money and a solid plan to make the arena self-supporting, you might have a chance of building an arena and retaining the Kings."

Dickinson said the criticism by the Taxpayers League and Coupal doesn't come as a surprise.

"They have not been supportive of any initiative which might involve any public money spent on a sports arena," Dickinson said. "It doesn't surprise me they would try to conjure an argument against the type of approach validated in the Santa Clara case."

About the writer: The Bee's Terri Hardy can be reached at (916) 321-1073 or thardy@sacbee.com.
 
#2
It would be an uphill fight for any taxpayer group that wants to fight this. Precedent is not on their side.

FYI, Prop 218 did not pass by a 2/3 majority vote in 1996(56%). Ironic that they would want to implement a criteria that the proposition itself couldn't pass.
 

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#4
BMiller52 said:
Well this is bad... If we don't get a new arena we can blame stupid trashy haters like this for it.
Stupid trashy haters?

Jon Coupal may be a lot of things but why the name calling? He's presenting an opinion you might not agree with, but he does represent one philosophy about this whole thing.

Nothing is ever accepted by 100% of a group. Nothing...

Instead of resorting to name calling, which NEVER does anyone any good, argue the points of his comments that you don't agree with.

People who don't think the arena needs to be replaced have a right to their opinion without being called haters.

People who don't want any public funds used to finance a new arena have a right to their opinion.

People who think the idea of a sales tax increase would not be supported in the courts have a right to their opinion, even though precedence is not on their side.

Object to his stand, if you like, but please - do it without the name calling.
 
#5
The Jarvis-Gann folks basically oppose all public taxes, period. They've essentially made it impossible to raise taxes for anything, amywhere in California, including schools, police and fire protection.

They started with the limit on property tax increases. They acted all concerned about older people being taxed out of their homes, but as either Jarvis or Gann (I can't remember which) was a President of the California Apartment Owners Association, and a major rental property owner, it doesn't take rocket science to figure out their motivation.

They sold it to renters by saying the savings would be passed on to them in lower rents. Guess what happened? No savings accrued to renters at all.

They are behind the 2/3s rule, which has hampered getting anything financed in California. Personally, I think its undemocratic. It should be by simple majority. As is, we basically have a tyranny of the minority in financial matters in this State.

These people aren't arena haters, they are any-kind-of-tax haters. They are pretty extremist. They are also very, very well financed.
 
Last edited:
#6
Due to our recent housing boom, more people were flipping houses instead of buying them to rent. This caused a shortage in rentals which equals an increase in rent. ALSO IMO the limit on property taxes is one of the single best props this state has passed.

On the arena issue, precedent doesn't matter for two reasons. We are in CA and if they find the right judge 1 case is not going to be enough. But the main reason: There is no way this measure will pass. This will put Sacramento's sales tax at the highest in the region and one of the highest in NOCAL. They will shred them come election time, I can see the ads now.

I will not have a say since I live up in the YC, but I do work in Sactown and I am against a general sales tax. In fact I am against any tax in general. The only tax I would consider to support would be a tax on items that feel a direct impact from a new arena. Mostly the tourism stuff, hotels.... AKA why don't they just follow KC's tax plan? They know this general tax is not going to pass. I don't get it.

Also think of the negative impact this could have... I want to buy a high dollar item, so instead of going to Sacramento now I will go to Rocklin as it won't be affected by this tax.

I can see this going down as another fumble by the Maloofs. My once high regard of them has quickly disapeared. I have a few choice words that I will put like this :eek: :( :confused: :mad:


My questions to the Maloofs and Tax supporters.
How much revenue do the Kings and the Arco events currently bring to Sacramento? I would like to know the answer to both seperately.

How much money are the Maloofs going to pay? (it will be a huge mistake if they don't release a figure)

We live in a state that generaly believes that taxing us is the way to create revenue and solve problems... Needless to say I am a big fan of Jarvis-Gann.

READ MY LIPS: NO NEW TAXES

At least something is happening but it's all lip service and fluff for a measure that I think has no chance at passing. When I go to the ballot and I see the word tax increase I check no REGARDLESS of what it is.
 
Last edited:

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#7
It's 25 cents on every hundred dollars, BigWaxer. Considering the discounts on big ticket items people can get in Sacramento because of competition, there is NO reason to believe this increase would have any kind of negative impact on purchasing.

This isn't a Maloof proposition, BTW. And this would raise the sales tax to 8%, which ISN'T the highest in the "region" if you define the region as Northern California.

If you want a new arena for Sacramento you have to look at a variety of ways of paying for it. This proposal isn't cast in concrete yet. The idea that you ALWAYS vote no for a tax increase regardless of what it is shows me that you're just against the whole concept and not really doing a lot of research into the specifics.

This isn't lip service. This is a genuine attempt by a lot of well-respected members of the Sacramento community to try and find a way to get this done, not just for the Maloofs but for the people who would benefit from the new arena.
 
#8
BigWaxer said:
Also think of the negative impact this could have... I want to buy a high dollar item, so instead of going to Sacramento now I will go to Rocklin as it won't be affected by this tax.

My questions to the Maloofs and Tax supporters.
How much revenue do the Kings and the Arco events currently bring to Sacramento? I would like to know the answer to both seperately.


At least something is happening but it's all lip service and fluff for a measure that I think has no chance at passing. When I go to the ballot and I see the word tax increase I check no REGARDLESS of what it is.
First of all, Rocklin already has a lower sales tax than Sac, (7.25% to 7.75%) so people that are THAT price sensitive are already probably making the drive. I don't think an additional .25% is going to suddenly drive tons of people over the edge to change their spending pattern.

I also would like to know how much income the Kings/Arco events bring to Sacramento. I don't need to see them separately, but I'd love to see the money the city would lose by not having these events, along with the travel, the hotel stays, and the food revenue that comes along with them. I think you'd be surprised. There are a lot of people that travel from nearby counties to see Kings alone (not even considering the other events) that end up spending money in Sac that they wouldn't otherwise. If we had a new arena, we'd have even better concerts and events that would bring in more revenue. A professional sports team isn't the only thing we stand to lose if we don't keep the Kings here.

Finally, there's always going to be a percentage of people that vote "NO" to any new taxes. That is their right. Those are not the votes they are looking for, because they will never get those votes anyway. They need to appeal to the voters who are willing to spend a little money to make Sacramento a better place to live. In order to pass this, they will need some serious marketing efforts to educate people to what a new arena will mean for Sacramento, and make people want it. I think it will be a big task to get even half the vote, and 2/3 would be even more daunting. I hope they find a way though, because there's nothing more sad then "don't know what you've got until it's gone".
 
#9
BigWaxer said:
On the arena issue, precedent doesn't matter for two reasons. We are in CA and if they find the right judge 1 case is not going to be enough. But the main reason: There is no way this measure will pass. This will put Sacramento's sales tax at the highest in the region and one of the highest in NOCAL. They will shred them come election time, I can see the ads now.
I notice that the detractors have a little habit of shying away from using numbers and distorting facts.
This increase from 7.75% to 8.0% would still put us below Contra Costa & San Mateo, Santa Clara Counties (8.25%) and far below Alameda County (8.75%). Those counties that would be below the projected 8.0% are not densely populated counties. Even the City of Stockton has a rate of 8.0%. So in fact, Sacramento County currently has a lower tax rate than any other densely populated county in NORCAL and would stay that way after the increase.
 
Last edited:
#10
I don't think I'm going to spend even $5 of gas to drive some distance to save $1.25 on a $500 purchase. That would be a huge taxable purchase for me, too. Probably won't drive that far to save $2.50 on a $1,000 taxable purchase either. I'd have to spend $2,000, just to break even on the gas, let alone the mileage on my car (and increased pollution of the environment).

And the proposed raise would not even come close to making Sacramento County have the highest sales tax in northern California. Actually, it would only put us a hair above Fresno at 7.975%. Some NoCal counties are as high as 8.75%. Little ol' Truckee , CA is at 7.875%.

By the way, the recent housing boom has nothing to do with the rental rate issue I'm talking about. Prop 13 passed close to 30 years ago. Even in down housing markets, rental rates have pretty much never decreased. Jarvis-Gann at inception were about nothing but the pure, unadulterated greed of landlords. It was also the single biggest cause of California schools falling from among the best in the nation into the bottom third. Prop 13 slashed revenues without any plan for how to pay for the things those revenues paid for.

If it fails, this will NOT be a Maloof stumble. The people planning this have made a deliberate effort to keep the Maloofs out of the planning. The stated plan is to get a sports/entertainment complex, regardless of whether the Kings stay or not. If the Maloofs want to stay and participate, they have pretty consistently proposed a contribution in the range of 20% of the cost, I believe. Maybe more, but not less, as I remember reading.

As to the income an arena brings, I've read so many studies from all parts of the country, that its pretty clear that no one can provide any definitive numbers in that regard. And you can't measure intrinsic values anyway. Things like esthetic or cultural values or civic pride.

Personally, I think we should wait to see the proposal. We really haven't any facts to debate right now. If the county voters don't want an arena or any of the other things proposed to be paid for from a possible .0025 cent per dollar increase, then there won't be one and the Kings will have to leave, period. And I have to assume those people won't be sorry to see the Kings leave. Its going to be their choice.
 

Warhawk

The cake is a lie.
Staff member
#11
kennadog said:
I don't think I'm going to spend even $5 of gas to drive some distance to save $1.25 on a $500 purchase. That would be a huge taxable purchase for me, too. Probably won't drive that far to save $2.50 on a $1,000 taxable purchase either. I'd have to spend $2,000, just to break even on the gas, let alone the mileage on my car (and increased pollution of the environment).

And the proposed raise would not even come close to making Sacramento County have the highest sales tax in northern California. Actually, it would only put us a hair above Fresno at 7.975%. Some NoCal counties are as high as 8.75%. Little ol' Truckee , CA is at 7.875%.

By the way, the recent housing boom has nothing to do with the rental rate issue I'm talking about. Prop 13 passed close to 30 years ago. Even in down housing markets, rental rates have pretty much never decreased. Jarvis-Gann at inception were about nothing but the pure, unadulterated greed of landlords. It was also the single biggest cause of California schools falling from among the best in the nation into the bottom third. Prop 13 slashed revenues without any plan for how to pay for the things those revenues paid for.

If it fails, this will NOT be a Maloof stumble. The people planning this have made a deliberate effort to keep the Maloofs out of the planning. The stated plan is to get a sports/entertainment complex, regardless of whether the Kings stay or not. If the Maloofs want to stay and participate, they have pretty consistently proposed a contribution in the range of 20% of the cost, I believe. Maybe more, but not less, as I remember reading.

As to the income an arena brings, I've read so many studies from all parts of the country, that its pretty clear that no one can provide any definitive numbers in that regard. And you can't measure intrinsic values anyway. Things like esthetic or cultural values or civic pride.

Personally, I think we should wait to see the proposal. We really haven't any facts to debate right now. If the county voters don't want an arena or any of the other things proposed to be paid for from a possible .0025 cent per dollar increase, then there won't be one and the Kings will have to leave, period. And I have to assume those people won't be sorry to see the Kings leave. Its going to be their choice.
OK - pet peeve here - I hate to hear about how Prop 13 "ruined the school system and turned our chid'ren into turnip-heads".

There are lots of contributions to the "dumbing down" of the education system.

Teacher's unions are in the top 3, along with weak administrations that don't support the teachers against unruly kids and parents/kids themselves. Funding comes later on the list.

Other than that, I agree.
 

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#12
Every time prop. 13 is brought up I cringe, because it's usually an attempt - this time by Jon Coupal - to derail the discussion into a different direction. Those who are so adamantly against ANY kind of tax increase are generally very good at smoke and mirrors.
 
#13
Value Added Tax (or sales tax in US) in Europe is at between 17.50% (UK) to 18.50% (most of EU) and up to 20% in some countries. Tax on Alcohol, cigarettes and gasoline is something astronomical, but I don't remember.

I never heard of a sports franchise in Europe ever moving. In fact there is usually an outcry even if the new stadium is as much as couple of miles away from the original location.

Is there a correlation? I think yes, people in Europe gramble about taxes as much as we do in USA, but at least they can take some things for granted (no, I am not talking about sports only, but I don't want this to become too political).

And that should be the bottom line: Will Sacramento benefit from the new Arena and will the benefit be substential enough to justify tax increase and arena expenditure? Those who live and/or work in Sacramento should care about it and spread the cost of new arena through the sales tax. Special tax (e.g. Hotel tax that was used to remodel Soldier Field in Chicago)) will not work as Sacramento is simply not big enough to generate that much cash from special tax.

I understand the attitude of many (most?) Americans who have a preference for Governament to stay out of their business and out of their wallet, but in my very humble opinion, the anti or low tax "movement" is just a ruse for middle classes by those who have millions or even billions to be collected against (and conversly who don't really need to rely on governament services) and who would rather keep that money no matter how much schools, roads or communities need it. California especially is becoming overcrowded and underserviced, just like many European countries and more community oriented approach will be needed sooner or later.

Notable exception is Warren Buffet who has some $40 billion to his name. Follow the link and scroll down to "views on taxes" to see what he thinks about lower/no taxes (with Caliornia example to boot):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Buffet
 
#14
Again here is what I said:
This will put Sacramento's sales tax at the highest in the region and one of the highest in NOCAL”
I see no real point in comparing tax rates to towns over 100+ miles away and may I add towns with very different economies. I mean if that’s the case why not toss New York out there?

Yolo – 7.25 - 7.75%
Yuba – 7.25
Sutter – 7.25
Placer – 7.25
Eldorado -7.25 – 7.75

10 cents here, 25 cents there … Well at least we are not one of the most taxed states around (thx to prop13). I think we fall in the middle.

“The idea that you ALWAYS vote no for a tax increase regardless of what it is shows me that you're just against the whole concept and not really doing a lot of research into the specifics.”

I am actually surprised you would make such a speculation. I am a very informed voter and to imply I am not confuses me because generally you don't make statements with so much speculation… Because I don’t agree doesn’t mean I am not informed. In fact have followed this particular issue pretty close and again at this point from the info we have it’s not going to pass… I may have been over zealous in my I “ALWAYS” vote no on taxes, I want to deal with that more in my next post cause there are rare occasions when I would support a tax increase. I will say I have never voted yes for any general or broad sales tax. I strongly believe that there are better ways to raise and increase revenue then simply taxing an issue.

“ANY kind of tax increase are generally very good at smoke and mirrors.”
The same types of people are on both sides and that’s the part I find funny, side “A” claims to be all high and mighty and then attempts to slander/put down the other. Side “B” trys to be all high and mighty and slanders/put downs the other side. Which is were most mis-information starts. We, as the voting public have to be smart enough to weed out the smoke and mirrors that will be coming from both sides. Trust me we will hear it all, this is going to be a very big debate in Sacramento. The election turnout should be decent because of the governor’s race. I see both sides of the political spectrum being opposed to this. The right that is strongly opposed to taxes and the left that is for tax’s for “helping the poor” but not for a sports team.

Kennadog no way we will agree on this and I fall more along the thinking of Warhawk... I assume that’s why there are no politics on this board. But it’s all good

Lovethemkings good points in your post and I touch on that later. Got some work to do.

Bozz just read your post before I posted. For every Buffet there are 10 more economists that will say the opposite. I am middle class and I just don't want to pay money to anyone.
 
#15
BigWaxer said:
Bozz just read your post before I posted. For every Buffet there are 10 more economists that will say the opposite. I am middle class and I just don't want to pay money to anyone.
That's fine, and I respect that point of view. I am just saying that from purely practical point of view some states/communities in US will have to raise taxes like Europe did as their problems (demographic pressure and slower economic growth) become like European issues. Florida can afford not to tax its citizens because they tax the tail off of their millions of visitors. California, is becoming more like Germany then it is like Florida. Except for the weather of course.

BTW, I know that many more economists disagree with Buffet, but it is interesting to me how Buffet and Gates have more money then the rest of the rich list put together and they are on the "other side". Barring a lottery win, I will not have to worry about Estate tax so I don't care and yet Buffet and Gates who are affected more then anyone else are for it. So, I will just have to defer to them on tax views. ;)
 
#16
LTK is right I most likely am not in support of a general tax for these purposes. As much as I love the Kings I have a strong opinion about tax increases overall. There is also going to be that group of people that would vote yes even if our tax went up to 10% just because its the Kings then another segment that will vote no because they think we should have a tax but for different purposes. Nothing wrong with any of that. I think the people that are faily solid in their opinions cancel each other out.

I could go on forever about this. I will hold off on some of my thoughts until we hear how the Maloofs will “EDUCATE” us. We need to be educated because we are all morons that don't have a clue. To me this is one of the big problems, and thats exactly how this comes across.Why? Because of the way the Maloofs have fumbled item after item. Not only do they have to battle a public that is against a tax increase, then they have to touch up some of their own image problems. While we are at it lets blame the media for the last few years of constant bashing and backhanded commentary.

I think the Maloofs could turn this around and would like to go a step further and give them some advice. In regards to a tax for the arena issue I suspect a lot of the voting public falls into the following segments: non Kings fans, people that think Arco is fine and the causal undecided fan.

Key WaXeR talking points:

- Benefits of a new arena – (They are starting to really hammer on this point but this alone will not win over many voters)

- How much money does Arco bring, and an estimate of how much more a new Arena will bring.

- How much of that money goes back into public services (this one is a key seller if done right)

- How many new jobs could be created

-How long will the tax last, if its permanent? where does that money go after the Arena is paid for? (obviously this part they won't have the answers for until the plan is drafted but I am curious to see what that answer will be)

All but the last are basic issues that should be standard protocol in public relations. They should have some answers for this, I would assume they have studied this. Right now its Arco is old and we need a new one. The follow me and close your eyes approach is not going to work.

My added comments: Its our right to vote how we want and thank you for recognizing that LTK. Its much easier to respect other peoples opinions when they show that respect back. I vote my way someone votes theirs and the majority wins. I am not bitter if what I vote for doesn't win, my life will go on. I hope we can keep this as non-political and as clean as possible so it doesn't get locked. I think this could be a really good discussion as we start to hear the plans.
 
Last edited:
#17
BigWaxer said:
Again here is what I said:


I see no real point in comparing tax rates to towns over 100+ miles away and may I add towns with very different economies. I mean if that’s the case why not toss New York out there?

Yolo – 7.25 - 7.75%
Yuba – 7.25
Sutter – 7.25
Placer – 7.25
Eldorado -7.25 – 7.75

10 cents here, 25 cents there … Well at least we are not one of the most taxed states around (thx to prop13). I think we fall in the middle.
Of course you would select the counties with very little population and less need of sevices. I compared against other NORCAL (NOCAL is a SOCAL person's derogatory term) counties with similar population numbers. More people means more things to provide for it's residents. Pretty simple concept I think.
Like it or not, Sacramento is now a big city. We can't operate this city like Yuba City, Marysville, Auburn, etc. operate thier cities We have to have big entertainment venues like an arena. I find it absolutley small minded to think that millions of people who live near here don't want to have a place to go see pro sports, concerts, circus and whatever shows can be hosted.
 
#18
JB I am confused. I have no idea what your point is... I will try to expand on some of my thoughts but honestly I am lost and no disrespect is meant by that.

You said.

"Contra Costa & San Mateo, Santa Clara Counties (8.25%) and far below Alameda County (8.75%). Those counties that would be below the projected 8.0% are not densely populated counties. Even the City of Stockton has a rate of 8.0%."

The only city you named that is even somewhat close to having a similar economy as Sacramento is Stockton. There is no way you can go on population alone as there are so many other factors involved. There is not one Bay area community that can be compared to Sacramento as that is comparing apples to oranges. Like I said if your going to do that toss in New York, Cananda and everything else. Two entire different worlds... I don't think many would disagree that our economy is separate from the Bay.

The facts I laid out, were not skewed and not mis-represented. I gave you all the counties in the region. I didn't pick and choose, I gave you all the surrounding counties and they all depend on the same economy. If you think that Yolo or Sutter doesn't count on Sacramento and the other way around you are mistaken. What happens in Santa Clara or Alameda has little affect on us. The most basic example is the housing market. When prices dip in the bay area they usually don't dip here and the other way around. There are exceptions when the general state economy goes to the crapper but regional wise no. When you see a price dip in Sacramento they also dip in Yolo, Yuba, Sutter, Eldorado and Placer. Another question Why are all the tax rates in the area the same? Or close to the same? Why are none of the surrounding counties above 7.75%... Well I think there is a simple(basic) answer for that.

Sacramento raises the rates to now be the highest in the region. So a new business comes to NOCAL looking for a place to set up shop. We are not talking about spending 100 dollars we are talking about a business. Where do they go Sacramento/Yolo/Yuba/Sutter. If I am an owner I want to make as much money as I can and the choice is pretty simple. Tax increases have a greater impact then just normal Joe's buying a 100 dollar stereo at Circuit City. I can understand someone saying it's only .25 but I am looking at the larger picture.

Help me Help you, I don't know what your saying. I am all for a new arena but I am against something as we have heard so far. For a couple reasons, this has little to no chance at passing and two of course it involves raising the taxes for everyone. This is just additional lip service/going through the motions by the powers that be IMO. It makes it easier to say "HEY WE TRIED BUT YOU GUYS DIDN'T PASS It." I won't speculate further. Not to mention this is all pure speculation as we haven't heard a solid plan yet. Could have been possibly leaked to see the response (which has been overwhelmingly negative) maybe they will tweak some things.

There are better options and I hate to say there are better ways to implement a tax out there. I think there are a few towns they can follow the example of.

I am not sure how many times I have to say this. I WANT A NEW ARENA, I HAVE BEEN A FAN SINCE 1985, I LOVE THE KINGS, I CRIED WHEN CWEBB WAS TRADED (33 year old male) I AM NOT G... 'SELF EDIT NOT APPROPRIATE" HAHA.

General tax is not going to do it or pass. Bottom line and its why I am upset. This tax affects me when I happen to stop in to grab something at K-Street. Otherwise it has absolutely no affect on me. If you guys want it vote for it go ahead but its not going to pass as just a general tax increase. My problem is why are they wasting time on this type of proposal when there are better options. I am saying I wouldn't support it if I lived in SAC county and I think there are better ways to make it pass. So at the end of the day we actually see a new arena.

This post should clear up any questions on my thoughts. I am in a rush so disregard the typos and all the stuff. Sorry for the my need to babble

Will check back tonight
 
Last edited:

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#19
BigWaxer - You're talking 25 cents on every hundred dollars. People aren't going to drive long distances to avoid that. You're talking about a difference, if this tax increase comes to pass, of $2.50 on every thousand dollar purchase. That is simply not going to get people to shop elsewhere.

I will still go to Sacramento for my electronic purchases at Fry's, etc. The idea that a $500 computer will now cost me an additional $1.25 in sales tax isn't going to affect my decision in any way, shape or form.

That's what makes this sales tax increase attractive. It would have a minimal impact on most of us. Very few people would change their buying habits because of it. It would be applied on all purchases, regardless of where the purchaser lives. It would be a small contribution from a large number of people instead of a large contribution from a small number of people.
 
Last edited:
#20
Did you even read my post?

#1 I am for a new arena : I am not for a general tax for 2 reasons, one it has no chance in hell at passing and two I am against taxes, bottom line is #1 will override all doesn't matter what I think. This is a pointless arguement. I want a new arena... Maloofs get me one and don't play these games.

(I see no reason in them waisting time on something that is doomed from the start)

#2
The sales tax is attractive to who? Someone that doesn't live in Sacramento? Because the majority say a big hell no to any tax increase. So who is it attractive to? I would like to know...

Don't take this the wrong way but I don't care if anyone supports it or not. I just want the Kings to stay. This sales tax increase is a disaster and doomed from the start . Even if by some slim to none chance it passes they have a huge legal battle ahead of them that again has a very little chance at winning. Do you not all see what is happing here. Didn't you say something to me the other week VF? "Don't get sucked in" I am obviously the one that is not and I say look in the mirror.

My opinions on taxes matter none but apparently I am the punching bag for those at this board. Which is fine because in NOV we will see what I have been saying will happen. A general sales tax will not pass period and you can quote me on that.
 

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#21
BigWaxer said:
Did you even read my post?

#1 I am for a new arena : I am not for a general tax for 2 reasons, one it has no chance in hell at passing and two I am against taxes, bottom line is #1 will override all doesn't matter what I think. This is a pointless arguement. I want a new arena... Maloofs get me one and don't play these games.

(I see no reason in them waisting time on something that is doomed from the start)

#2
The sales tax is attractive to who? Someone that doesn't live in Sacramento? Because the majority say a big hell no to any tax increase. So who is it attractive to? I would like to know...

Don't take this the wrong way but I don't care if anyone supports it or not. I just want the Kings to stay. This sales tax increase is a disaster and doomed from the start . Even if by some slim to none chance it passes they have a huge legal battle ahead of them that again has a very little chance at winning. Do you not all see what is happing here. Didn't you say something to me the other week VF? "Don't get sucked in" I am obviously the one that is not and I say look in the mirror.

My opinions on taxes matter none but apparently I am the punching bag for those at this board. Which is fine because in NOV we will see what I have been saying will happen. A general sales tax will not pass period and you can quote me on that.
You don't know if a sales tax will pass or not. We don't even know the particulars yet. What we do know is that groups are finally talking, finally beginning to realize the importance of getting this whole thing off the ground sooner rather than later.

You're dooming it to failure because you don't want any kind of tax increase. Well, unfortunately, you're probably going to be disappointed. And the sales tax proposition IS attractive to a lot of people because of its less intrusive impact. As others and I have said, it's spread out. It's a 25 cent addition on every hundred dollar purchase. It's $2.50 on every thousand dollar purchase. It is paid by anyone spending money in Sacramento County but at such a low rate most people won't even notice it. How many times do you buy something for 99 cents, give the clerk a dollar and not wait for the penny or put it in the penny jar on the counter? This would be even less of an impact than that.

Instead of saying it won't pass, why not at least wait and see what the actual proposal is? See what the Maloofs are willing to contribute.

Remember, this isn't just about a place for the Kings to play. This is a project that would benefit a lot of different people in different ways.
 
Last edited:
#22
BigWaxer said:
... Maloofs get me one and don't play these games.
There it is right there. Those guys are billionaires and I'm not.

Paul Allen built the Rose Garden. Have you been following that fiasco? He's swimming in debt now with the Blazers and he's trying to sell the team and building. Also, the city of Portland built their own facility and stole a bunch of events that would have gone to the Rose Garden. I certainly would never build a private arena no matter how much money I had. It's financial suicide. The privately owned arena model only works in places like LA or NY. where they can build suites that stacked 4 levels high and the yearly TV and Radio contract revenue surpasses the NBA salary cap.
This cannot be done without public funding - period.
 
#23
BigWaxer said:
JB I am confused. I have no idea what your point is...

The only city you named that is even somewhat close to having a similar economy as Sacramento is Stockton.
No need to be confused, we agree. If you state that Stockton has a similar economy to Sacramento, then there should be no reason why we can't have the same 8% tax rate. I just didn't feel it was fair to compare cities like Yuba City, Woodland and Roseville to Sacramento.

BTW, did you know that Stockton built 2 facilities for their pro sports teams? A baseball stadium and an arena.
 
#24
I will grant that any tax increase may well not pass when put to a vote, whether its for an arena or anything else for that matter.

But localities have only so many options to raise money or financially support an arena (or anything else). Bond financing would not have caused any tax increase, but the city would have to guarantee paying off the bond if the arena owners defaulted on the loan. However, this idea was also shouted down.

Maybe there could be some amount of rental car taxes, as the county is now in discussions and most of the cars rented are in their jurisdiction (airport).

Bottom line is we have no idea yet what the full picture is on the proposed financing sources. The people negotiating the proposal may not even have it all pinned down yet.

What is pretty clear almost everywhere, is that an arena needs some amount of public financial help to make any financial sense. Besides making payments to pay off the original city loan early, the Maloofs have poured millions into a team that operated in the red for most years and paid luxury taxes.

I can't blame them for not wanting to run a money-losing business, even if the franchise is gaining in value on paper. And when you look at the increased value, you really need to subtract all the red ink the Maloofs covered and the luxury taxes.

I'm not even in Sacramento County since last November after decades living there. I'm resigned to the fact that this vote will be it, most likely. If it fails, it fails and we lose the team and I'll just have to live with that outcome.

Reading about the upcoming soccer world cup, I was reminded again that sports actually have the ability to unite people, even warring factions within a country. That's why I'd miss the Kings in Sacramento. It can create a civic unity and a civic pride like few things do these days. I can't put a price on that.
 
#25
JB I agree I don't think there is anyway this gets done with private money alone sorry if I made the wrong impression on that.

We haven't heard the entire proposal yet so maybe they do have some sort of rental/hotel tax mixed in. I know they initially attempted something similar that first debacle at that city council meeting with the Maloofs...(BTW no way was that the Maloofs fault at all) not sure if they are shying away from that type of tax because of it. Also I am speculating but I don't think a hotel/tourism tax would be enough to cover the cost. I still need to find out what the Maloofs are spending. They tossed out figures of about 250 mil? I think not sure... correct me on that one

My stance on taxes alone doesn't matter. Getting a new arena does. I would be the type of person to vote no and hope it passes. Just for my own beliefs I would vote no...haha. Twisted sure now welcome to waxer world :)
 
#26
BigWaxer said:
My stance on taxes alone doesn't matter. Getting a new arena does. I would be the type of person to vote no and hope it passes. Just for my own beliefs I would vote no...haha. Twisted sure now welcome to waxer world :)
That's funny.:D

The Maloofs have always said somewhere in the neighborhood of at 20% of total costs, I believe. I think they may have given a range potentially higher than that (up to 25%?), I just can't remember. If they got the $600 mil arena they'd like, that would amount to $150 to $200 mil. If it were a $400 mil arena that would be $80 to $100 mil.