I don't want to hijack anything, but the NHL is the last pro sports league I would want to see in Sacramento. It's just a terribly run league. Plus, I think a summer sport would be better, like the MLB or MLS. They would provide more balance through the year for the Sacramento area. I think the Sacramento winter entertainment dollars are vividly earmarked for the Kings.
Bee: New arena financing takes shape
- Thread starter coolhandluke
- Start date
It was just another consideration for the future. The point is the current Arco takes THREE DAYS to go from floor to ice and back to floor. That limits things like ice shows, especially during the basketball season. I do not want to get into an argument about whether or not the NHL might be attractive, although I know there is certain amount of support for ice hockey in Sacramento.
The MLB or MLS wouldn't use a new arena. I was pointing out the potential for additional uses for said arena.
The MLB or MLS wouldn't use a new arena. I was pointing out the potential for additional uses for said arena.
I am just fine with this. We need an Arena to bring more events here - I'd love to see NBA All-Star weekend held at the new ARCO. Talk about bringing $$$ to this town. Can you imagine how much an event like that alone would help out the local economy with hotels, restaurants, shopping, etc....
Not to mention all the jobs created and $$$ spent locally for Arena construction. More concessions, more events, more hotels - and all of the sales kick in tax revenue to the city.
Not to mention all the jobs created and $$$ spent locally for Arena construction. More concessions, more events, more hotels - and all of the sales kick in tax revenue to the city.
I used the Bee's math, which was based on a quote from a City manager, that a 1/4% sales tax increase would raise $60 million a year. That is in the article. So, there are fewer than 2 million people in Sacramento county; $60 million/year from 2 million people works out to an average of $30 per person.
It is true that the manager quoted could be wrong, but I imagine that he's closer to the situation than any of us. What do people pay, on average, for cars these days? $35,000? There's very nearly your average right there. And no, we don't buy a car every year. But every 5 years? Sure.
Anyway, just re-reading the CSUS poll today, I see no bias in it at all. I suggest you re-read it yourselves, and then show me where the bias is. I've read it thorughly, and just don't see where the bias is in a question like this:
And so forth.
Show me the bias.
http://www.csus.edu/news/finalkingsreport4.pdf
As I said in my very first post, if I was presented with a "responsible" plan, I'd vote for it. But, right off, they skirt propriety by looking for a way around a 2/3 vote. The opposition to this proposal has been greatly underestimated around here.
And I'm not a cheapskate. If they proposed a 1/4 percent sales tax increase to fund light rail, I'd absolutely vote for that.
It is true that the manager quoted could be wrong, but I imagine that he's closer to the situation than any of us. What do people pay, on average, for cars these days? $35,000? There's very nearly your average right there. And no, we don't buy a car every year. But every 5 years? Sure.
Anyway, just re-reading the CSUS poll today, I see no bias in it at all. I suggest you re-read it yourselves, and then show me where the bias is. I've read it thorughly, and just don't see where the bias is in a question like this:
“Do you think the Kings need a new arena?”
“If a new arena were built, how, do you think, it should be paid for?”
“
If an election were held today, would you vote yes or no on a ballot measure to
open up thousands of acres of agricultural land in return
for landowners paying for a new arena for the Kings?”
open up thousands of acres of agricultural land in return
for landowners paying for a new arena for the Kings?”
And so forth.
Show me the bias.
http://www.csus.edu/news/finalkingsreport4.pdf
As I said in my very first post, if I was presented with a "responsible" plan, I'd vote for it. But, right off, they skirt propriety by looking for a way around a 2/3 vote. The opposition to this proposal has been greatly underestimated around here.
And I'm not a cheapskate. If they proposed a 1/4 percent sales tax increase to fund light rail, I'd absolutely vote for that.
Arena Skeptic - If you're going to participate in this discussion, it would be helpful if you didn't continue to put MISINFORMATION out on the board.
A sales tax is assessed on EVERYONE who purchases something. It isn't assessed solely on country residents. That has been explained multiple times and you've chosen to ignore it.
Bottom line, a .25% increase means 25 cents in addtional tax on every ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS that is spent on taxable items.
Where's the bias in the poll? Very simple. It's indicating that only the Kings would use a new arena. That's restrictive and it's wrong.
As far as the message you sent to the moderators, this isn't actually an totally unstructured forum where people can continue to post erroneous information. Some of this stuff isn't opinion; it's cold hard fact and mathematics and you're wrong. Redunant posts simply aren't necessary. Thanks ever so for understanding.
A sales tax is assessed on EVERYONE who purchases something. It isn't assessed solely on country residents. That has been explained multiple times and you've chosen to ignore it.
Bottom line, a .25% increase means 25 cents in addtional tax on every ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS that is spent on taxable items.
Where's the bias in the poll? Very simple. It's indicating that only the Kings would use a new arena. That's restrictive and it's wrong.
As far as the message you sent to the moderators, this isn't actually an totally unstructured forum where people can continue to post erroneous information. Some of this stuff isn't opinion; it's cold hard fact and mathematics and you're wrong. Redunant posts simply aren't necessary. Thanks ever so for understanding.
Although VF21 already hit some of the points:
You didn't "use the Bee's math" - you used a total amount to be raised per year estimate based on county sales and decided to divide this up into the # of residents, which makes absolutely no sense in this discussion. It's your own math, and it doesn't accurately reflect the plan being proposed.
If you don't see the bias in the poll questions, you aren't reading close enough. The arena isn't for the Kings - they will be but one of many "shows" that use it. Putting the word "Kings" into the question implies that the Arena will be owned by the Maloofs when in fact it is not. There is a built-in bias that kicks in when Kings/Maloofs are attached to it in this way. The arena will be needed whether the Kings are here or not. I would rather get an arena deal done before they leave and keep them here. Apparently, you disagree.
The 2/3 vote is required for specific tax useage. Also on the ballot will be item(s) relating to the use of said tax. At $60 mil/year, it won't take long to pay off a $300-400 mil arena (about 5-7 years), maybe longer with interest, however that all gets worked out. After that, the $$$ are available for other uses and not just for the arena.
Maybe they allocate 1/3 of it for the arena and the other 2/3 for other uses (including light rail) and stretch the payback period to 15-20 years. Would you object to that?
We don't even have any specifics yet, so let's wait and see what they are able to come up with first, OK?
You didn't "use the Bee's math" - you used a total amount to be raised per year estimate based on county sales and decided to divide this up into the # of residents, which makes absolutely no sense in this discussion. It's your own math, and it doesn't accurately reflect the plan being proposed.
If you don't see the bias in the poll questions, you aren't reading close enough. The arena isn't for the Kings - they will be but one of many "shows" that use it. Putting the word "Kings" into the question implies that the Arena will be owned by the Maloofs when in fact it is not. There is a built-in bias that kicks in when Kings/Maloofs are attached to it in this way. The arena will be needed whether the Kings are here or not. I would rather get an arena deal done before they leave and keep them here. Apparently, you disagree.
The 2/3 vote is required for specific tax useage. Also on the ballot will be item(s) relating to the use of said tax. At $60 mil/year, it won't take long to pay off a $300-400 mil arena (about 5-7 years), maybe longer with interest, however that all gets worked out. After that, the $$$ are available for other uses and not just for the arena.
Maybe they allocate 1/3 of it for the arena and the other 2/3 for other uses (including light rail) and stretch the payback period to 15-20 years. Would you object to that?
We don't even have any specifics yet, so let's wait and see what they are able to come up with first, OK?
All I've done is tried to answer the queries people have put forth. It makes it look as though I have "cut and run", and I haven't. I tried to answer every question put forward, such as the $60 million estimate.
Almost all counties generate sales taxes mostly from residents of those counties. Yes, some of it comes from outside; we bought our last cars in San Francisco, Placerville and Auburn, respectively. But if you're in Yolo or Solano, it's not like you spend most of your money in Sacramento. You spend it in your home county. Sacramento is not special in that regard.
I almost joined a few months ago to correct one piece of misinformation regarding how schools are funded. One poster said "Hey, education funding comes from the State!", and everyone quickly agreed to that.
So I checked, and that "fact" to which everyone agreed was, in fact, not even close to a fact. Schools get money from the Feds, the State and Local funding, and it's not anything like the 1%, 98%, 1% I bet you're envisioning.
So everyone here agreed to a "fact" that wasn't close.
Look it up. You just have to use the right search terms.
And, I WILL vote for a RESPONSIBLE funding option. The Bee article quoted a County manager who estimated that a 1/4% sales tax increase would generate $60 million, and in my estimation, that's far too much. I think that's an inappropriate use of public funds. Just my opinion, by the way.
I haven't posted any obscenities or suggested that folks move to a city that has a 100% publicly-funded arena (Memphis is turning into a disaster, by the way); I've tried to directly address those questions, and have had direct answers rejected. It makes kingsfans look like an echo chamber to me.
In my estimation, knowing about bias in polls, I believe the CSUS poll to be completely unbiased. Again, that's just my opinion.
Almost all counties generate sales taxes mostly from residents of those counties. Yes, some of it comes from outside; we bought our last cars in San Francisco, Placerville and Auburn, respectively. But if you're in Yolo or Solano, it's not like you spend most of your money in Sacramento. You spend it in your home county. Sacramento is not special in that regard.
I almost joined a few months ago to correct one piece of misinformation regarding how schools are funded. One poster said "Hey, education funding comes from the State!", and everyone quickly agreed to that.
So I checked, and that "fact" to which everyone agreed was, in fact, not even close to a fact. Schools get money from the Feds, the State and Local funding, and it's not anything like the 1%, 98%, 1% I bet you're envisioning.
So everyone here agreed to a "fact" that wasn't close.
Look it up. You just have to use the right search terms.
And, I WILL vote for a RESPONSIBLE funding option. The Bee article quoted a County manager who estimated that a 1/4% sales tax increase would generate $60 million, and in my estimation, that's far too much. I think that's an inappropriate use of public funds. Just my opinion, by the way.
I haven't posted any obscenities or suggested that folks move to a city that has a 100% publicly-funded arena (Memphis is turning into a disaster, by the way); I've tried to directly address those questions, and have had direct answers rejected. It makes kingsfans look like an echo chamber to me.
In my estimation, knowing about bias in polls, I believe the CSUS poll to be completely unbiased. Again, that's just my opinion.
You are entitled to your opinion. At least three different people have tried to point out the fallacies in your arguments and you continue blithely to ignore those responses.
This isn't about education funding. This is about a .25% increase in the sales tax of Sacramento county. How can you possibly argue that $60 million is too much? It's still only ONE QUARTER on every ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS spent. What part of that is it you simply cannot understand? And, contrary to what you think is true, Sacramento County gets a lot of people coming from other counties - such as El Dorado, Butte, Yuba, etc. - to make their large purchases. In addition, Sacramento County is a tourist destination. Every single tourist who visits the area spends money. And most of it is on taxable items. So, once again, your basic assumption - that the burden for this will be on residents of Sacramento County alone - simply isn't borne out by in-depth analysis. You and everyone else in Sacramento County are not going to be responsible for a certain amount of the total. You will pay 25 cents more in sales tax on every hundred dollars of taxable purchases you make. If you spend more, you will pay more but it's still at the same rate.
And why is it that you continue to ignore dissenting opinions?
You've made your point. Thank you.
If you look at the caption under the "NEW ARENA" title, you'll see that here we're operating under the basic premise that "Sacramento needs a new arena." This is a privately-owned website. We can make those assumptions. And we're pretty up front about why we believe it. You have had your opportunity to state your views. If you would like to exchange dialogue with people, fine. But if you're going to just continue to post without responding to those people who have pointed out the obvious flaws in your reasoning, that just doesn't further the discussion in any way.
Your user name pretty much says it all. We get it. You're skeptical.
This isn't about education funding. This is about a .25% increase in the sales tax of Sacramento county. How can you possibly argue that $60 million is too much? It's still only ONE QUARTER on every ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS spent. What part of that is it you simply cannot understand? And, contrary to what you think is true, Sacramento County gets a lot of people coming from other counties - such as El Dorado, Butte, Yuba, etc. - to make their large purchases. In addition, Sacramento County is a tourist destination. Every single tourist who visits the area spends money. And most of it is on taxable items. So, once again, your basic assumption - that the burden for this will be on residents of Sacramento County alone - simply isn't borne out by in-depth analysis. You and everyone else in Sacramento County are not going to be responsible for a certain amount of the total. You will pay 25 cents more in sales tax on every hundred dollars of taxable purchases you make. If you spend more, you will pay more but it's still at the same rate.
And why is it that you continue to ignore dissenting opinions?
You've made your point. Thank you.
If you look at the caption under the "NEW ARENA" title, you'll see that here we're operating under the basic premise that "Sacramento needs a new arena." This is a privately-owned website. We can make those assumptions. And we're pretty up front about why we believe it. You have had your opportunity to state your views. If you would like to exchange dialogue with people, fine. But if you're going to just continue to post without responding to those people who have pointed out the obvious flaws in your reasoning, that just doesn't further the discussion in any way.
Your user name pretty much says it all. We get it. You're skeptical.
Last edited:
Insisting on a 2/3 percentage is a death sentence for ANY proposal. They have to find a way around that and it looks like precedence has been set for one. All perfectly legal and upfront. You have no complaint there.
Who says all the money will solely go into a new arena? What if there are other public development items that get included like a library, museum, etc. The Crocker Art Museum is planning on expanding in order to triple it's size. If it was included as part of the vote, I would certainly vote yes as well. Even though I've never set foot in the place. It's for the good of the city and it's people and that's what a responsible city does.
Who says all the money will solely go into a new arena? What if there are other public development items that get included like a library, museum, etc. The Crocker Art Museum is planning on expanding in order to triple it's size. If it was included as part of the vote, I would certainly vote yes as well. Even though I've never set foot in the place. It's for the good of the city and it's people and that's what a responsible city does.
VF: To your question, "And why is it that you continue to ignore dissenting opinions?"
I will say one thing to defend myself. I had three or four posts I submitted on Friday that never showed up here. I don't know why that is, but I think VF partially answered this here:
"As far as the message you sent to the moderators, this isn't actually an totally unstructured forum where people can continue to post erroneous information. Some of this stuff isn't opinion; it's cold hard fact and mathematics and you're wrong. Redunant posts simply aren't necessary. Thanks ever so for understanding."
So what I'm saying is, I answered questions, and the answers were "moderated out." That's where they answers went; I didn't ignore the questions, I had my answers tossed.
I would like to see the hard research that says so much of our sales tax revenues comes from surrounding counties. It's in my name: I'm skeptical on that point. It seems like it's on the people who make that claim to back it up. I would guess that for any given county you can name, the vast majority of its tax revenues come from that county's residents. I think it's probably that way for Butte, Yolo, Solano, Alameda, Sacramento, or any other county you can name.
How much do I think is a reasonable amount for us to pay? I think we should be making an investment. That sounds like hedging, but if we lop $60 million out of the local economy, you have to show me how it's going back into the economy. I don't know how much events at an arena, of which approximately 50% are controlled by the Maloofs, bring into the economy. Is it $60 million? If you can show me that, then fine, I'll vote for it.
But what if you find out it's $20 million? How does that affect your decision? In other words, if I find out that with a tax increase of $60 million, we see, say, $55 million of that put back into the economy, I will vote yes. But I have to get you to agree on one thing: If you find out it's $20 million, doesn't that seem like a gift of at least $25 million to the Maloofs? Kings-related events at Arco are easily the most profitable events out there. You can't really compare a night of occupancy: A CSUS graduation <> A Kings game. Come on, we know which of these events is subsidized.
I want to know what percentage of revenues (not nights) comes from Kings/Monarchs games/events. If it's 10%, then the Maloofs are 100% correct in asking for this. If it's 90%, then I'd have to say I'm not prepared to give up even 1 cent of $100 in purchases.
So, kupman, I have answered your question, and the answer cannot be a simple, "$50 a year!" or "$.02 a year!". It's not possible.
Make sense?
I will say one thing to defend myself. I had three or four posts I submitted on Friday that never showed up here. I don't know why that is, but I think VF partially answered this here:
"As far as the message you sent to the moderators, this isn't actually an totally unstructured forum where people can continue to post erroneous information. Some of this stuff isn't opinion; it's cold hard fact and mathematics and you're wrong. Redunant posts simply aren't necessary. Thanks ever so for understanding."
So what I'm saying is, I answered questions, and the answers were "moderated out." That's where they answers went; I didn't ignore the questions, I had my answers tossed.
I would like to see the hard research that says so much of our sales tax revenues comes from surrounding counties. It's in my name: I'm skeptical on that point. It seems like it's on the people who make that claim to back it up. I would guess that for any given county you can name, the vast majority of its tax revenues come from that county's residents. I think it's probably that way for Butte, Yolo, Solano, Alameda, Sacramento, or any other county you can name.
How much do I think is a reasonable amount for us to pay? I think we should be making an investment. That sounds like hedging, but if we lop $60 million out of the local economy, you have to show me how it's going back into the economy. I don't know how much events at an arena, of which approximately 50% are controlled by the Maloofs, bring into the economy. Is it $60 million? If you can show me that, then fine, I'll vote for it.
But what if you find out it's $20 million? How does that affect your decision? In other words, if I find out that with a tax increase of $60 million, we see, say, $55 million of that put back into the economy, I will vote yes. But I have to get you to agree on one thing: If you find out it's $20 million, doesn't that seem like a gift of at least $25 million to the Maloofs? Kings-related events at Arco are easily the most profitable events out there. You can't really compare a night of occupancy: A CSUS graduation <> A Kings game. Come on, we know which of these events is subsidized.
I want to know what percentage of revenues (not nights) comes from Kings/Monarchs games/events. If it's 10%, then the Maloofs are 100% correct in asking for this. If it's 90%, then I'd have to say I'm not prepared to give up even 1 cent of $100 in purchases.
So, kupman, I have answered your question, and the answer cannot be a simple, "$50 a year!" or "$.02 a year!". It's not possible.
Make sense?
I want, also, to point out that arena funding will not be done in a vaccuum. As such, this is an example of one of the things a new tax will have to contend with:
http://www.caltax.org/Jahn-PensionsContributeToCountysBudgetWoes2-14-05.pdf
I remember last year when the Parkway was threatened...
I don't think this will be an easy sell even at the Board of Supervisors level, but we'll see.
http://www.caltax.org/Jahn-PensionsContributeToCountysBudgetWoes2-14-05.pdf
I remember last year when the Parkway was threatened...
I don't think this will be an easy sell even at the Board of Supervisors level, but we'll see.
The posts in question simply hadn't been approved for posting. They're there now, and I don't see much of an answer to the questions other members of this forum have posed.
What's in YOUR name? It's a tax on sales in the county. If you really want to avoid it, do your shopping across the river. You make a lot of suppositions and we're supposed to refute them? How about you prove there is NO substantial revenue from people outside of Sacramento County?
Lop $60 million out of the local economy? Please explain.
It isn't a $60 million TAX INCREASE. It's a 1/4 percent sales tax increase that could raise $60 million. It could raise more, it could raise less. It isn't flat based. It's based solely on the amount of sales.
Since this part seems more directed at kupman, I'll let him answer you...or not.
What's in YOUR name? It's a tax on sales in the county. If you really want to avoid it, do your shopping across the river. You make a lot of suppositions and we're supposed to refute them? How about you prove there is NO substantial revenue from people outside of Sacramento County?
Lop $60 million out of the local economy? Please explain.
It isn't a $60 million TAX INCREASE. It's a 1/4 percent sales tax increase that could raise $60 million. It could raise more, it could raise less. It isn't flat based. It's based solely on the amount of sales.
Since this part seems more directed at kupman, I'll let him answer you...or not.
From the City of Galt's Existing Conditions Report, public review draft:
As Table 2.26 shows, Galt market trade area households will have spent an
estimated $6.6 million at discount stores in the year 2003, which is not enough to
support a large-size discount store. On average, large-size discount stores such as
Wal-Mart generate $29.5 million in sales. However, a big-box store such as Wal-Mart
sells a variety of merchandise offered by store types within the broad category of
general merchandise-apparel store. In other words, should a Wal-Mart locate in Galt,
this store will earn its $29.5 million in sales by capturing some, if not all, of the $22.5
million in general merchandise-apparel store spending that, for now, is being spent in
places other than Galt. Thus, given the amount of leakages in the general
merchandise-apparel category, households in Galt cannot support a discount store
such as Wal-Mart, although households in Galt and in the census tracts and blocks
groups immediately surrounding Galt can support this discount store, as
demonstrated in the regional market trade area retail sales leakage analysis. It
should be noted that discount stores such as Wal-Mart typically draw shoppers from
beyond the city in which they are located.
estimated $6.6 million at discount stores in the year 2003, which is not enough to
support a large-size discount store. On average, large-size discount stores such as
Wal-Mart generate $29.5 million in sales. However, a big-box store such as Wal-Mart
sells a variety of merchandise offered by store types within the broad category of
general merchandise-apparel store. In other words, should a Wal-Mart locate in Galt,
this store will earn its $29.5 million in sales by capturing some, if not all, of the $22.5
million in general merchandise-apparel store spending that, for now, is being spent in
places other than Galt. Thus, given the amount of leakages in the general
merchandise-apparel category, households in Galt cannot support a discount store
such as Wal-Mart, although households in Galt and in the census tracts and blocks
groups immediately surrounding Galt can support this discount store, as
demonstrated in the regional market trade area retail sales leakage analysis. It
should be noted that discount stores such as Wal-Mart typically draw shoppers from
beyond the city in which they are located.
http://www.jlmintier.com/Galt_ECR/CHAPTER_2_Economics_Conditions_PRD_FINAL_.pdf
Now, Galt is in Sacramento County, but a good portion of these sales go to San Joaquin County (Lodi and Stockton) and goes to show that yes, significant amounts of sales "leakage" across borders of counties takes place.
Where are folks in Davis and Woodland and Chico and Yuba City and Oroville and Dixon going to go for serious shopping? Sacramento. Sacramento is the regional shopping Mecca.
This $60 mil isn't being lopped out of the economy, it's being redirected into other expenditures in the same economy for jobs in construction and ongoing employment opportunities. Say you make a conscious decision to not spend the $0.25 per $100 of discretionary spending - what would you do, not buy a couple packs of Twinkies? That $$$ would go into a pool to pay for construction work and supplies from local retailers, who would then use these $$$ to buy the Twinkies you didn't.
I'm not sure about % of revenues, but the money goes to the city whether it is the Kings or the circus. It doesn't matter what the event is. More events per year (like we could do with a modern arena) would mean more sales and events bringing more $$$ to the city.
Now, Galt is in Sacramento County, but a good portion of these sales go to San Joaquin County (Lodi and Stockton) and goes to show that yes, significant amounts of sales "leakage" across borders of counties takes place.
Where are folks in Davis and Woodland and Chico and Yuba City and Oroville and Dixon going to go for serious shopping? Sacramento. Sacramento is the regional shopping Mecca.
This $60 mil isn't being lopped out of the economy, it's being redirected into other expenditures in the same economy for jobs in construction and ongoing employment opportunities. Say you make a conscious decision to not spend the $0.25 per $100 of discretionary spending - what would you do, not buy a couple packs of Twinkies? That $$$ would go into a pool to pay for construction work and supplies from local retailers, who would then use these $$$ to buy the Twinkies you didn't.
I'm not sure about % of revenues, but the money goes to the city whether it is the Kings or the circus. It doesn't matter what the event is. More events per year (like we could do with a modern arena) would mean more sales and events bringing more $$$ to the city.
Very true. I can buy basically everything I need here in Chico, but we often drive to Sacramento for stores that we don't have here: Macy's, Crate and Barrel, Pottery Barn, good furniture stores, etc. And cars! My family members have bought most of their cars in the Sacramento area because you often can't find the exact car you want around here.
Arena Skeptic: Your response makes sense from a point of logic. However, I look at the situation differently. For example:
In other words, if I find out that with a tax increase of $60 million, we see, say, $55 million of that put back into the economy, I will vote yes. But I have to get you to agree on one thing: If you find out it's $20 million, doesn't that seem like a gift of at least $25 million to the Maloofs?
It does not seem like a "gift" to the Maloofs. It seems like a reciprocal benefit for the Maloofs and the city of Sac. They make money, in part, from Sacramento and in return the collective "we" get to enjoy their fine product. I do not expect to get quality entertainment for nothing. I am willing to pay. You keep bringing in arguments like for every $1 we spend we should get somewhere around $1 in return. I do not buy that argument. When I go out for a nice meal and spend say $40, I do not expect to get a $40 return in nutritional value. I pay for the entertainment and enjoyment of a nice evening.
Beyond the Maloofs, this is about Sac. The Maloofs will get what they need somewhere and I prefer that they do it here. The Maloofs are not out to screw the city. The Maloofs and Sacramento will share in mutual benefit. They are willing to "pony-up" so why shouldn't we. I believe the Maloofs to be reasonable people and we should feel lucky to be able to do business with them.
Furthermore, beyond the maloofs and the Kings I would like to be able to enjoy big time shows such as U2, Stones Maddona etc. without making a daytrip. Fresno will be enjoying Madonna - but not Sac. Again, $30/person/year seems like a bargain to be able to enjoy all these events locally even if (for the sake of argument) only a small fraction of that goes back into the economy. How much does a trip to Fresno cost?
In other words, if I find out that with a tax increase of $60 million, we see, say, $55 million of that put back into the economy, I will vote yes. But I have to get you to agree on one thing: If you find out it's $20 million, doesn't that seem like a gift of at least $25 million to the Maloofs?
It does not seem like a "gift" to the Maloofs. It seems like a reciprocal benefit for the Maloofs and the city of Sac. They make money, in part, from Sacramento and in return the collective "we" get to enjoy their fine product. I do not expect to get quality entertainment for nothing. I am willing to pay. You keep bringing in arguments like for every $1 we spend we should get somewhere around $1 in return. I do not buy that argument. When I go out for a nice meal and spend say $40, I do not expect to get a $40 return in nutritional value. I pay for the entertainment and enjoyment of a nice evening.
Beyond the Maloofs, this is about Sac. The Maloofs will get what they need somewhere and I prefer that they do it here. The Maloofs are not out to screw the city. The Maloofs and Sacramento will share in mutual benefit. They are willing to "pony-up" so why shouldn't we. I believe the Maloofs to be reasonable people and we should feel lucky to be able to do business with them.
Furthermore, beyond the maloofs and the Kings I would like to be able to enjoy big time shows such as U2, Stones Maddona etc. without making a daytrip. Fresno will be enjoying Madonna - but not Sac. Again, $30/person/year seems like a bargain to be able to enjoy all these events locally even if (for the sake of argument) only a small fraction of that goes back into the economy. How much does a trip to Fresno cost?
I recently got tickets to the Def Leppard and Journey concert as a gift but it's at the Sleep Train Amp. north of Sacramento (near Marysville). I'm going to spend an extra 1.5 hours on the road and $15 in gas just to get there vs. if it was in Sacramento. There's half of your fictional fiscal "impact" right there....
Good point. You would like to have the Sacramento and surrounding counties discretional spending be spent in Sacramento County - not Yuba, Placer, Alameda, etc. With no arena in town, the people will drive elsewhere to spend their entertainment dollars. Sports, concerts, special events will all likely be in the bay area.
I don't want to say much more, not because I have my tail between my legs as much as I have a headache. I want to reiterate my main points:
If the County asks the voters to raise taxes by $60 million/year, even if it's for a general-purpose arena not specifically benefitting any one party, the voters will reject it. That's my cautionary note here. You do not have to convince me; I go to events at Arco, too. It's an old arena.
But, I guarantee it, the voters will not raise taxes $60 million to pay for it. Just look at the County budget now; it's already a mess, and people know it.
They have precisely one shot to do this right. If they ask the voters for $60 million a year, we'll never be asked again, because I firmly believe that 2007 will be their last season here when voters reject a $60 million request. I do not think there's a hint of an "if" they reject this; it's a lock that they will.
One further point; The question in the CSUS poll was this:
"Do you think the Kings need a new arena?"
How would you have worded it?
"Do you think Sacramento County needs a new arena?", or
"Do you think Sacramento would benefit from a new arena?", or...
I'm out of ways to word that, personally. And I don't think either of my ideas causes the polling to turn the other way; that if you ask if the County needs a new arena, you don't suddenly turn 37% into 73%.
What question would you ask to turn that number to 73%?
And, sorry I've been away for a couple days. I am rowing as fast as I can.
Take a look at the Bee letters today:
http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/letters/story/14260586p-15074421c.html
kingsfans.com/forums is not exactly a place to do scientific research. I know that virtually everyone here, save, perhaps, Wert, disagrees with me on this. But just take this as a warning: If the County puts a 1/4 cent sales tax increase in front of the voters, it will fail. It's a reality that, evidently, few here at kingsfans want to hear. I mean, okay, if that's not what you want to hear, I guess I can always say, "Hmmm, a sales tax increase! Brilliant! How can the voters say no?".
I cannot do that, because I think that's not how it'll turn out.
You folks need to contact Fong, et al, and tell them you think this is potentially suicide.
True story here: I went to high school with Robert. Seriously.
If the County asks the voters to raise taxes by $60 million/year, even if it's for a general-purpose arena not specifically benefitting any one party, the voters will reject it. That's my cautionary note here. You do not have to convince me; I go to events at Arco, too. It's an old arena.
But, I guarantee it, the voters will not raise taxes $60 million to pay for it. Just look at the County budget now; it's already a mess, and people know it.
They have precisely one shot to do this right. If they ask the voters for $60 million a year, we'll never be asked again, because I firmly believe that 2007 will be their last season here when voters reject a $60 million request. I do not think there's a hint of an "if" they reject this; it's a lock that they will.
One further point; The question in the CSUS poll was this:
"Do you think the Kings need a new arena?"
How would you have worded it?
"Do you think Sacramento County needs a new arena?", or
"Do you think Sacramento would benefit from a new arena?", or...
I'm out of ways to word that, personally. And I don't think either of my ideas causes the polling to turn the other way; that if you ask if the County needs a new arena, you don't suddenly turn 37% into 73%.
What question would you ask to turn that number to 73%?
And, sorry I've been away for a couple days. I am rowing as fast as I can.
Take a look at the Bee letters today:
http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/letters/story/14260586p-15074421c.html
kingsfans.com/forums is not exactly a place to do scientific research. I know that virtually everyone here, save, perhaps, Wert, disagrees with me on this. But just take this as a warning: If the County puts a 1/4 cent sales tax increase in front of the voters, it will fail. It's a reality that, evidently, few here at kingsfans want to hear. I mean, okay, if that's not what you want to hear, I guess I can always say, "Hmmm, a sales tax increase! Brilliant! How can the voters say no?".
I cannot do that, because I think that's not how it'll turn out.
You folks need to contact Fong, et al, and tell them you think this is potentially suicide.
True story here: I went to high school with Robert. Seriously.