Bee: Maloofs respond to arena plan

#1
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
#2
NO details means a NO vote

If they want any chance of the arena deal to pass, they need the details released now, not a week before the election. otherwise the Vote is no. What are they waiting for?
 
#3
It's too late...

Bad PR, bad planning, and the fat ladies warming up...

Here's to a plan B. Please tell me there's a plan B!!
 
#4
If they want any chance of the arena deal to pass, they need the details released now, not a week before the election. otherwise the Vote is no. What are they waiting for?
Why? Because there is no agreement to release. It is a couinter offer to the city/county and neither side has agreed to a darn thing yet.

It would be the height of stupidity to release a non-agreement, have people vote on it and then neither side ever agrees to the draft conditions or the final agreement differs from what people assumed they were voting on. This has already been handled badly enough without taking an even dumber step.

If, it is actually signed by both parties before election day, then is the time to release the details, altho I believe it will be way too late.

And if Q & R don't pass, which is likely at this point, any agreement reached now probably becomes null and void, because the city won't have any financing to offer, even if it proved to be a good deal for the city.

There is absolutely no benefit to sharing a non-deal with the public. It would likely only fuel the naysayers, who would argue against every little point as though it were actually a real deal. Which they've already done to death over the "Intent to Enter into an Agreement", which expired Oct 6th. That was not an agreement either, it was merely an outline of some conditions for a "possible" agreement.
 
Last edited:
#5
Which they've already done to death over the "Intent to Enter into an Agreement", which expired Oct 6th. That was not an agreement either, it was merely an outline of some conditions for a "possible" agreement.

Have you read the actual document. It was an agreement that expired on the 6th. Now everything that was agreed to is pointless, and the City can give the Maloofs more if they desire to. My vote went off yesterday. Its a big NO.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

CruzDude

Senior Member sharing a brew with bajaden
#6
Seems to me there are some folk like Voteno who have their minds made up no matter what is worked out between City, County and everyone involved. The benefit of the development for the overall welfare of the city, the region and everyone associated with the greater Sacramento area cannot be understated. For Sacramento to get a once in a lifetime jewel like a major new downtown redevelopment out of a contaminated rail yard is a miracle.

To loose out on that, get a permanent black eye for the capitol of California and to have a major league pro sports franchise leave due to lack of a interest is selfish, narrow minded and would likely permanently ban any major pro franchise from considering Sacramento again.

As I travelled around the USA and internationally in the 90's everyone I met knew about Sacramento and the Kings. Every visit anywhere in the USA got into discussions about basketball once they found out I was a Kings fan.

THe new arena will attract world class entertainment who have shy'd away from Arco. The restaurants and shops it would bring to an "on the river" location will get more people downtown in the evening, a lot more.

The tax ramifications for any one of you is minimal to the point of never really seeing it. The benefits it brings will touch every one of you and us.
 
#7
Have you read the actual document. It was an agreement that expired on the 6th. Now everything that was agreed to is pointless, and the City can give the Maloofs more if they desire to. My vote went off yesterday. Its a big NO.
This is an absolutely perfect post that typifies the narrow-mindedness of the opposition.

A clear acknowledgment that things are still in a state of flux and being worked on, yet believing that things can only become less advantageous financially for the city/County, so off the "no" vote goes.

Totally irresponsible voting (not the vote itself, but its timing).

Last I checked, the deal could be the same, or worse, or better financially for the City/County, or an MOU may not happen at all. None of us knows at this juncture.

I'm voting absentee too, but I will wait to see what transpires in coming weeks before I cast my vote.
 

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#8
I'm voting absentee too, but I will wait to see what transpires in coming weeks before I cast my vote.
Oh dear. Actually waiting to see what happens? And, just because you're voting absentee, actually letting more time expire so you can cast an informed ballot?

What kind of example are you trying to set anyway?












;)
 
#9
Well, I guess they are finaly figuring out that they should keep the negotiations behind closed doors.
Can you say too little too late? :(

Too cast your vote willingly before all the info is in seems like an action of someone who is so unopen to the idea in the first place that the actual info doesn't matter. I hope you enjoy your railyard, I here it is beautiful this time of year ;) .
 
#10
Too cast your vote willingly before all the info is in seems like an action of someone who is so unopen to the idea in the first place that the actual info doesn't matter.
It is the all-too-often-seen irresponsible use of the voting PRIVILEGE.
 
#12
Have you read the actual document. It was an agreement that expired on the 6th. Now everything that was agreed to is pointless, and the City can give the Maloofs more if they desire to. My vote went off yesterday. Its a big NO.
Lets see, I put right in the statement you quoted that it expired on the 6th and you ask if I read it and tell me it expired on the 6th.:confused:

It was not an actual agreement in the sense that it was only an agreement to enter into an agreement, and only if certain things happened. The bare bones issues were set out, but not much of the actual detail. That is why it was referred to as an "intent to enter into an agreement." Actually quite a big difference between that and a real agreement. Anyway its moot at this point, because the deadline to have an actual acceptable agreement to sign expired on Oct 6th.