Maloofs respond to arena plan
But details of proposal - and their reaction - remain unknown
By Mary Lynne Vellinga and Hudson Sangree - Bee Staff Writers
Published 12:00 am PDT Saturday, October 14, 2006
Story appeared in MAIN NEWS section, Page A1
A month after angrily exiting arena talks with the city and county of Sacramento, the Maloofs have re-entered the game.
Kings representatives delivered on Friday a detailed response to a new arena proposal sent by Sacramento city and county two weeks ago. The city/county proposal was crafted in cooperation with the developer of the downtown railyard, where the government agencies propose to build the Kings a new arena costing about $541 million.
Despite a lawsuit filed by arena opponents and pressure from the media, the city and county have refused to release the proposal they sent to the Maloofs, nor would they discuss the substance of the team's response Friday.
It is unclear whether the two sides have come any closer to resolving key sticking points such as the Maloofs' previous insistence that they receive the revenue from 8,000 parking spaces around the new arena.
"I just saw it within the last half hour or so," Sacramento County Supervisor Roger Dickinson said of the Kings' response. "I haven't had a chance to look at it carefully, but the encouraging news from my standpoint is they have now given us a substantive response, so it gives us something to work on. They've re-engaged on the issues."
Jaime Morse-Mills, spokeswoman for Maloof Sports and Entertainment, confirmed a response was sent but declined to comment on what it said.
Whether or not the family's re-engagement will result in an arena deal before the Nov. 7 election remains to be seen.
Voters are being asked to approve Measures Q and R, which would raise the sales tax by a quarter cent to pay for an arena, without any binding arena deal with the team.
The campaign has been struggling financially without any contributions from the Maloofs, or even an agreement that their team would play in an arena funded by the new sales tax.
The basic outline of an arena deal was announced in July and placed on the ballot by the county supervisors in the form of Measures Q and R. Measure R would raise the sales tax by a quarter cent. Measure Q, an advisory measure, would bless spending half of the $1.2 billion raised on a new arena, and the remainder on community projects.
Talks with the Maloofs, always contentious, broke down last month when it came time to work out the arena proposal with greater specificity. The parties had promised to produce a detailed memorandum of understanding by Oct. 6, but that document never materialized.
Last month, Joe and Gavin Maloof publicly accused the city and county of backing away from earlier promises that the team would receive the revenue from 8,000 parking spaces around the new downtown arena, and that they would have control over what kinds of competing businesses could locate nearby.
The brothers said Thomas Enterprises, the railyard developer, tried to shortchange them on the amount of land set aside for the sports/entertainment center.
City and county negotiators said they made no such promises on parking and surrounding businesses, and always intended to provide whatever amount of land the arena required. They huddled with Thomas Enterprises and tried to come up with a proposal that would bring the Maloofs back to the table.
That proposal -- sent to the Maloofs two weeks ago -- has never been released to the public, despite criticism from arena opponents who say the public has a right to know what the city and county are offering the team.
City and county negotiators say the proposal is not subject to public disclosure because it is a draft document, and releasing it would hurt negotiations.
Last week, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association sued the city of Sacramento. Its complaint asks the judge to order the city to produce the proposal, and to assess a penalty of $25,000 and other damages.
On Friday, Sacramento Superior Court Judge Jack Sapunor ruled that the city has until Wednesday to file a written response to the demand to see the documents. A hearing on the matter is scheduled for Oct. 26.
Timothy Bittle, legal affairs director for the Jarvis group, said voters ought to see the proposal before going to the polls. "They need to know exactly where the cash flow is going," he said. "What we fear is it's all going into the pockets of the Maloofs."
The Sacramento City Council has scheduled a closed door meeting Tuesday to decide what to do. City Attorney Eileen Teichert said the council could choose to make the proposal public despite its staff's opinion that it isn't legally required to do so.
Sacramento County is also under pressure to release the joint city-county proposal. The Bee filed a Public Records Act request Wednesday with County Counsel Bob Ryan for disclosure of the document. The county has yet to respond, although Ryan has previously said the document does not need to be released because it is in draft form.
Supervisor Dickinson, a lead supporter of the arena measures, said he hopes the city opts to keep the document private.
"If the law is interpreted to mean that any time there is an exchange of draft documents it is a public document, we won't be able to negotiate anything, let alone this deal," he said.
About the writer: The Bee's Mary Lynne Vellinga can be reached at (916) 321-1094 or mlvellinga@ sacbee.com.
But details of proposal - and their reaction - remain unknown
By Mary Lynne Vellinga and Hudson Sangree - Bee Staff Writers
Published 12:00 am PDT Saturday, October 14, 2006
Story appeared in MAIN NEWS section, Page A1
A month after angrily exiting arena talks with the city and county of Sacramento, the Maloofs have re-entered the game.
Kings representatives delivered on Friday a detailed response to a new arena proposal sent by Sacramento city and county two weeks ago. The city/county proposal was crafted in cooperation with the developer of the downtown railyard, where the government agencies propose to build the Kings a new arena costing about $541 million.
Despite a lawsuit filed by arena opponents and pressure from the media, the city and county have refused to release the proposal they sent to the Maloofs, nor would they discuss the substance of the team's response Friday.
It is unclear whether the two sides have come any closer to resolving key sticking points such as the Maloofs' previous insistence that they receive the revenue from 8,000 parking spaces around the new arena.
"I just saw it within the last half hour or so," Sacramento County Supervisor Roger Dickinson said of the Kings' response. "I haven't had a chance to look at it carefully, but the encouraging news from my standpoint is they have now given us a substantive response, so it gives us something to work on. They've re-engaged on the issues."
Jaime Morse-Mills, spokeswoman for Maloof Sports and Entertainment, confirmed a response was sent but declined to comment on what it said.
Whether or not the family's re-engagement will result in an arena deal before the Nov. 7 election remains to be seen.
Voters are being asked to approve Measures Q and R, which would raise the sales tax by a quarter cent to pay for an arena, without any binding arena deal with the team.
The campaign has been struggling financially without any contributions from the Maloofs, or even an agreement that their team would play in an arena funded by the new sales tax.
The basic outline of an arena deal was announced in July and placed on the ballot by the county supervisors in the form of Measures Q and R. Measure R would raise the sales tax by a quarter cent. Measure Q, an advisory measure, would bless spending half of the $1.2 billion raised on a new arena, and the remainder on community projects.
Talks with the Maloofs, always contentious, broke down last month when it came time to work out the arena proposal with greater specificity. The parties had promised to produce a detailed memorandum of understanding by Oct. 6, but that document never materialized.
Last month, Joe and Gavin Maloof publicly accused the city and county of backing away from earlier promises that the team would receive the revenue from 8,000 parking spaces around the new downtown arena, and that they would have control over what kinds of competing businesses could locate nearby.
The brothers said Thomas Enterprises, the railyard developer, tried to shortchange them on the amount of land set aside for the sports/entertainment center.
City and county negotiators said they made no such promises on parking and surrounding businesses, and always intended to provide whatever amount of land the arena required. They huddled with Thomas Enterprises and tried to come up with a proposal that would bring the Maloofs back to the table.
That proposal -- sent to the Maloofs two weeks ago -- has never been released to the public, despite criticism from arena opponents who say the public has a right to know what the city and county are offering the team.
City and county negotiators say the proposal is not subject to public disclosure because it is a draft document, and releasing it would hurt negotiations.
Last week, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association sued the city of Sacramento. Its complaint asks the judge to order the city to produce the proposal, and to assess a penalty of $25,000 and other damages.
On Friday, Sacramento Superior Court Judge Jack Sapunor ruled that the city has until Wednesday to file a written response to the demand to see the documents. A hearing on the matter is scheduled for Oct. 26.
Timothy Bittle, legal affairs director for the Jarvis group, said voters ought to see the proposal before going to the polls. "They need to know exactly where the cash flow is going," he said. "What we fear is it's all going into the pockets of the Maloofs."
The Sacramento City Council has scheduled a closed door meeting Tuesday to decide what to do. City Attorney Eileen Teichert said the council could choose to make the proposal public despite its staff's opinion that it isn't legally required to do so.
Sacramento County is also under pressure to release the joint city-county proposal. The Bee filed a Public Records Act request Wednesday with County Counsel Bob Ryan for disclosure of the document. The county has yet to respond, although Ryan has previously said the document does not need to be released because it is in draft form.
Supervisor Dickinson, a lead supporter of the arena measures, said he hopes the city opts to keep the document private.
"If the law is interpreted to mean that any time there is an exchange of draft documents it is a public document, we won't be able to negotiate anything, let alone this deal," he said.
About the writer: The Bee's Mary Lynne Vellinga can be reached at (916) 321-1094 or mlvellinga@ sacbee.com.
Last edited by a moderator: