Bee: RE Graswich and Steve Cohn are wrong!

[Jkbiker]

http://www.sacbee.com/content/sports/basketball/kings/story/14285272p-15098783c.html

R.E. Graswich: Cohn says leaders shot an airball in striking arena deal with Maloofs

By R.E. Graswich -- Bee Columnist
Published 12:01 am PDT Wednesday, August 2, 2006var ppn='Page B1';if(ppv==1){ppn=''+ppn+'';}document.write('
Story appeared in Metro section, '+ppn);

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Money matters: Sacramento City Councilman Steve Cohn figured taxpayers would get a raw deal from the new Kings arena proposal. Then he ran the numbers. It's much worse than Steve dreamed. "Incredibly, we would be better off building the arena and giving it away to Joe and Gavin Maloof," said Steve of the happy Las Vegas brothers who own the Kings. "The rent they will pay is less than what they would pay in property taxes, by 2 or 3 million dollars a year." As proposed, the public will own the new arena. That means zero property taxes. Big mistake, Cohn thinks. The rent deal was cooked up by Sacramento City Councilman Rob Fong and county Supervisor Roger Dickinson. The pols negotiated with the Maloofs. Our reps gave up almost everything. The Maloofs would pay about $4 million in rent for 30 years. Joe and Gavin keep ticket sales, parking, food, beverage, even naming rights. If the Maloofs owned the building, they would pay close to $6 million each year in property taxes, Cohn figures. "We came up with a worse deal than just giving the damned thing away," Steve said. "You would think it's impossible. But we did it." Even Dickinson admits the deal isn't great for taxpayers. He says it's "the best" he and Rob could manage. Fong and Dickinson want the public to vote on the tax giveaway Nov. 7. Can't wait. …[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif] [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif] [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]My comment:[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]I dont think they are correct that Maloofs will not have to pay property tax. If the county owns the Arena and runs it as a public facility they would probably be exempt from property tax. But when a private company enters into a long term lease (30yrs) and has all the rights to use the building I believe that they have a Taxable Possessory Interest in the Arena[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif] [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]http://www.assessor.saccounty.net/possessory-interests/possessory.html#Three[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif] [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Taxable Possessory Interests - What are They?[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]A taxable Possessory Interest may exist whenever there is a private, beneficial use of publicly-owned, non-taxable real property. Such Interests are typically found where private individuals, companies or corporations lease, rent or use federal, state or local government owned facilities and/or land for their own beneficial use.
Examples of Possessory Interests include such things as:

• A boat dock built on a public lake or river.
• A mini-storage facility built under a freeway.
• A private walkway built above a city street.
• An airplane tie-down at a county airport.
• Cattle grazing rights on Federal or State land.
• Private companies leasing government buildings.
• Tenants, concessionaires and exhibitors at Cal-Expo or the Community Center at any time during the year.
• The right to grow crops on land owned by a community college district.
• The right to have food vending machines located in a government building.
• The right to operate a rental car agency at an airport.

The variety and form of such Interests vary widely and evolve continually, so identifying them all can be a very difficult task.
[/FONT]

 

[JB_kings]

Cohn + Graswich = team? Way to go there Steve. After having a hand in screwing up the last deal. Which cost a few years in time and making the current arena deal cost several hundred million dollars more due to rising building costs. Then he decides to team up with the town clown. If Steve Cohn was smart, he would just shut his trap.

 

[Kingzrool]

Cohn is spewing his crap on KCRA as well. And the "Poll" is not looking good - it seems people are listening to this bull. When do the Maloofs start the education campaign? Channel 10 has a stake to loose if they go away (I do not like to even type it), maybe they can run something to offset this propaganda.

and I don't even have a vote.

Too bad they cannot go to Reno, that would be even closer and there is a ton of Fans there.

 

[LPKingsFan]

Cohn already did his part to stunt Sacramento's rise with that Midtown traffic calming madness (somehow it "calms" traffic, but makes road rage go WAY uo). Enough already.

 

[Warhawk]

http://www.sacbee.com/content/sports/basketball/kings/story/14285272p-15098783c.html

R.E. Graswich: Cohn says leaders shot an airball in striking arena deal with Maloofs

By R.E. Graswich -- Bee Columnist
Published 12:01 am PDT Wednesday, August 2, 2006var ppn='Page B1';if(ppv==1){ppn=''+ppn+'';}document.write('
Story appeared in Metro section, '+ppn);

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Money matters: Sacramento City Councilman Steve Cohn figured taxpayers would get a raw deal from the new Kings arena proposal. Then he ran the numbers. It's much worse than Steve dreamed. "Incredibly, we would be better off building the arena and giving it away to Joe and Gavin Maloof," said Steve of the happy Las Vegas brothers who own the Kings. "The rent they will pay is less than what they would pay in property taxes, by 2 or 3 million dollars a year." As proposed, the public will own the new arena. That means zero property taxes. Big mistake, Cohn thinks. The rent deal was cooked up by Sacramento City Councilman Rob Fong and county Supervisor Roger Dickinson. The pols negotiated with the Maloofs. Our reps gave up almost everything. The Maloofs would pay about $4 million in rent for 30 years. Joe and Gavin keep ticket sales, parking, food, beverage, even naming rights. If the Maloofs owned the building, they would pay close to $6 million each year in property taxes, Cohn figures. "We came up with a worse deal than just giving the damned thing away," Steve said. "You would think it's impossible. But we did it." Even Dickinson admits the deal isn't great for taxpayers. He says it's "the best" he and Rob could manage. Fong and Dickinson want the public to vote on the tax giveaway Nov. 7. Can't wait. …[/FONT]


[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]My comment:[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]I dont think they are correct that Maloofs will not have to pay property tax. If the county owns the Arena and runs it as a public facility they would probably be exempt from property tax. But when a private company enters into a long term lease (30yrs) and has all the rights to use the building I believe that they have a Taxable Possessory Interest in the Arena[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]http://www.assessor.saccounty.net/possessory-interests/possessory.html#Three[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Taxable Possessory Interests - What are They?[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]A taxable Possessory Interest may exist whenever there is a private, beneficial use of publicly-owned, non-taxable real property. Such Interests are typically found where private individuals, companies or corporations lease, rent or use federal, state or local government owned facilities and/or land for their own beneficial use.[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Examples of Possessory Interests include such things as:

• A boat dock built on a public lake or river.
• A mini-storage facility built under a freeway.
• A private walkway built above a city street.
• An airplane tie-down at a county airport.
• Cattle grazing rights on Federal or State land.
• Private companies leasing government buildings.
• Tenants, concessionaires and exhibitors at Cal-Expo or the Community Center at any time during the year.
• The right to grow crops on land owned by a community college district.
• The right to have food vending machines located in a government building.
• The right to operate a rental car agency at an airport.

The variety and form of such Interests vary widely and evolve continually, so identifying them all can be a very difficult task.[/FONT]

You should forward that to Cohen and Graswich as well as maybe write a letter or editorial for the Bee and see if they publish it. You don't have to go into that much detail, just the paragraph you quoted would be enough. Make sure to spell Cohen's and Graswich's and Weintraub's names correctly, will ya?

Seriously - you have to do more than post on this board. It doesn't take long to write a quick, coherent and non-angry letter and fire it off to the Bee or any other publication you think might want it. Maybe the News and Review?

 

[BigWaxer]

You could also go a lot deeper into it..Looks like that income/profits will play a part as well as future income. Nice post JK...

The income approach is the most commonly relied upon method of valuing Possessory Interests.

If we understand the principle of anticipation, which holds that "the value of a property for a period of less than perpetuity is equal to the sum of its anticipated future income," the income approach becomes an important tool for valuing Possessory Interests. Where we can determine both economic rent and a reasonable term of possession, then to estimate the PI value, all we need to do is properly capitalize the potential rental income stream (less anticipated vacancy, collection loss and management expense from a landlord's point of view) and the resulting figure is the taxable value of the Possessory Interest.

By capitalizing the economic net income for the term of possession, we have measured only those rights "possessed" by the tenant and have excluded any non-taxable rights retained by the governmental landlord.

When relying on the income approach, the appraiser must carefully determine three important factors:

1. Economic Rent
2. A reasonable Term of Possession over which to capitalize the rent
3. A capitalization rate

 

[Jkbiker]

You should forward that to Cohen and Graswich as well as maybe write a letter or editorial for the Bee and see if they publish it. You don't have to go into that much detail, just the paragraph you quoted would be enough. Make sure to spell Cohen's and Graswich's and Weintraub's names correctly, will ya?

I Have sent emails to Cohn and Graswich, The spelling on Steve Cohn's name was from the Bee article, it also matches the City of Sacto website spelling.

Maybe they know more about the lease than I do, I don't know if the County can make the tax liability go away legally through the lease, or if they have already gotten a ruling from the Assessor. Before I write big editorials, want a chance to see if these two know additional facts about the tax liability before I start making too much public noise.

 

[Jkbiker]

Update on email back from Graswich and second email sent:

Second Email from me back to RE:
We are talking about millions of dollars a year here, the county assessor office opperates and makes assessments regardless of
what type of agreements are made as part of the deal. The County assessor makes these assesments based on Under the California Constitution and the Revenue and Taxation Code. To think this big of an item has not been settled upon is just silly. Even if negotiators agreed to some "no tax clause", tax assessments are based on Law, not lease aggreements. I dont think it would be legal to make a taxable possessory interest non-taxable at the option of the County Board? Unless you have actual information such an agreement exists and is legal enforcable you should not be reporting that the maloofs get the 30 yr arena lease "Tax-free".
Doing that is is not responsible reporting. You should print in your next column that the issue of whether tax will have to be paid by the Maloofs has NOT been determined!

----- Original Message -----
From: R. E. Graswich
Subject: RE: Maloofs may have to pay tax anyway


Thanks for the note... the maloofs and their attorney darrell steinberg are trying to get the city/county to eliminate all taxes... will have to see the final documents to see what's what... best all, bob graswich

-----Original Message-----
To: R. E. Graswich
Subject: Maloofs may have to pay tax anyway

​

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]I dont think they are correct that Maloofs will not have to pay property tax. If the county owns the Arena and runs it as a public facility they would probably be exempt from property tax. But when a private company enters into a long term lease (30yrs) and has all the rights to use the building I believe that they have a Taxable Possessory Interest in the Arena


[/FONT]​

 

[LPKingsFan]

Cohn's name is spelled Cohn I know his son.

 

[JB_kings]

I would forward that on to Terri Hardy at the Bee. She is a real reporter and not a gossip columnist. If this is a significant point, then she has the right contacts to get to the correct info. And she could include that in a story. I've spoken on the phone with her before and she is a good reporter. Exchanging emails with Graswich is just pissing into the wind.

This is Terri's email address:
thardy@sacbee.com

 

[Jkbiker]

I would forward that on to Terri Hardy at the Bee. She is a real reporter and not a gossip columnist. If this is a significant point, then she has the right contacts to get to the correct info. And she could include that in a story. I've spoken on the phone with her before and she is a good reporter. Exchanging emails with Graswich is just pissing into the wind.

This is Terri's email address:
thardy@sacbee.com

Done, thanks for the suggestion JB!

To thardy@sacbee.com

It was reccomended to me that I forward my comments on RE Graswich's article where Steve Cohn says Maloofs will not have to pay property tax on the Arena

I was told you are an excellent reporter that would check the actual facts of the arena Deal and objectively report an unbiased opinion on the property tax issue.

Thank you for your time,

Jerry Kumpf

 

[Jkbiker]

Reply from Terri Hardy:

Hi Jerry,

Stay tuned...I'm working on this very subject, planning a story soon.

Thanks for the email.

Terri Hardy

 

[Arena Skeptic]

I just wanted to point out this:

From Sacbee article: http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/14286457p-15102948c.html

"Possessory Interest Tax: In lieu of property taxes, the JPA will pay a tax based on the lease value. The yearly amount has not yet been determined."

Translating that into English: The JPA (currently the City and County are the only members) will pay property taxes.

JKBiker's comment originally seemed correct to me, except the agreement now in writing says the JPA, not MSE will pay the property taxes.

I have a question, too: I haven't seen it spelled out specifically anywhere who pays the liability insurance once the building opens. That's yet another potential $3 million/year can of worms. If the answer is, "The JPA", I'm afraid that bolsters Cohn's position even more.

 

[Jkbiker]

All I can say is WOW!

Since the taxable possessory interest tax is usually substantially less than the normal prop tax of 6 Mill a year, hopefully wont be more than a Mil or two. But to have the JPA pay for a tax usually assessed to the tenant means that out of the 4 million rent the JPA would pay a part of that in property tax.

Of course since the JPA is the City/county and the tax is paid to guess who - the City/County its sort of paying the tax to your self.

of course the rent of 4 mil is less than the full prop tax if the county gave the arena outright to the maloofs. But you also have to realize the JPA would still own the arena after the 30 yrs so it could sell the arena recoup part of orig investment and collect prop tax from the new owner

 

[thatguy]

I copied this from the "Preliminary Term Sheet" available from here:

http://www.ceo.saccounty.net/pio/information/Quality-of-Life-Measure.html

"Possesory Interest Taxes. During the term of the SEF lease, the JPA, as owner of the SEF will pay the possessory interest taxes attributable to use and occupancy of the SEF by the Kings, Monarchs and their affiliates."

The wording is a little funny to me. Are just the dates the Kings and Monarchs are utilizing the "Sports Entertainment Facility" paid by the JPA? Would Christina Aguilera be considered an "affiliate?" Or are all dates outside of basketball taxed and paid by MSE?

 

[JB_kings]

I'm still having trouble trying to see the logic on how it's better to give an asset worth one half billion dollars on day one to MS&E in exchange for a few extra million dollars a year in property tax revenue over a 30 year span. And how do prevent the Maloofs from selling this asset 6 or 7 years from now when the collected tax has paid off the arena debt? Without a long term lease, what is to stop them from selling a facility worth over a half billion dollars and then moving anyway?

 

[1kingzfan]

This little thread has clarified why the local government is better off owning the facility.

The reason they don't want to operate it, too, is because they have no earthly idea how to do it, much less how to make money doing it. This was previously discussed elsewhere here.

This all makes perfect sense to me.

Why don't Cohn and Graswich get it???

 

[VF21]

Why don't Cohn and Graswich get it???

Of the two, I think Cohn is just not the brightest bulb in the lamp.

I think Graswich is so blinded by hate and self-importance that he refuses to acknowledge the truth.

 

[Arena Skeptic]

JB said:

"I'm still having trouble trying to see the logic on how it's better to give an asset worth one half billion dollars on day one to MS&E in exchange for a few extra million dollars a year in property tax revenue over a 30 year span. And how do prevent the Maloofs from selling this asset 6 or 7 years from now when the collected tax has paid off the arena debt? Without a long term lease, what is to stop them from selling a facility worth over a half billion dollars and then moving anyway?"

The reason is simple. The lease they negotiated is for $3 million/year, growing at 2%/year, so after 30 years, the total collected is $122 million (give or take). If the Maloofs owned the building, the assessment is 1%/year, growing at 2%/year... That means on the base year--year one--the property tax WOULD be $6 million/year (1% of $600 million = $6 million).

So by giving the arena to the Maloofs, their payment to the county, in the form of property taxes, would be roughly double what it will be in the agreement negotiated.

I hope that's a clear explanation. Let me know if it's not.

And I still see zero mention of insurance. That's a little scary. It's as though it was overlooked. Given that it SHOULD cost around $3 million/year (in present dollars), it'd be a little scary to think they overlooked it. I can find no specific mention of that. That's not good.

Another question I've asked: The City and County are forming a JPA to run the arena. Shouldn't that have been subject to a debate and vote by the City Council? I'm no expert on this, but with the Rivercats stadium, West Sac, Yolo County and Sac County each voted separately to join the JPA. I cannot specifically recall such a vote by the Council.

 

[VF21]

Here's the obvious answer: You think voters would follow that logic? Building a new arena and then simply GIVING it to the Maloofs would not have flown. This was a compromise agreement made to get the proposal on the ballot.

The bottom line is that this is for the benefit of all concerned. Each side had to give up some things. I think Roger Dickinson has been the most vocal in trying to point this out. A deal that was perfect for the city/county wouldn't have been acceptible to the Maloofs and vice versa.

 

[JB_kings]

Skeptic, I admitted that a property tax would be a significant chunk more than the present 30 year lease generating approx 122 million. But you bounced right past my point. Giving the arena to MS&E is a half billion dollar asset on day 1. That blows away the double 122 million math your showing over the course of 30 years any day. No matter how you run that math, the asset's value will outpace the return in property tax.
What Steve Cohn is really doing here is building a straw man argument. The arena will belong to the public and that asset stays with the public. It's foolish to hand over the building in the name of getting better tax revenue. Cohn used this quite lame approach to prove that a point in the deal isn't to his liking. But then again this is the guy that wanted zero public involvement in a new arena. He's fought this thing for years and doesn't plan to stop now. And I guess using these absurd arguments serves his agenda.

 

[1kingzfan]

The reason is simple. The lease they negotiated is for $3 million/year, growing at 2%/year, so after 30 years, the total collected is $122 million (give or take). If the Maloofs owned the building, the assessment is 1%/year, growing at 2%/year... That means on the base year--year one--the property tax WOULD be $6 million/year (1% of $600 million = $6 million).

So by giving the arena to the Maloofs, their payment to the county, in the form of property taxes, would be roughly double what it will be in the agreement negotiated.

OK, I may risk my already-suffering board reputation this one, but here goes... a little story...

Little Johnny wanted to have more friends and activities around his typically quiet house, so he contemplated building a big, fancy red wagon -- the best that ever was. There would be no other like it in the neighborhood, not even close, so he knew if he built it, the kids would come.

The wagon Johnny envisioned would have a materials cost of somewhere in the range of $47.00 to $54.20, just enough for him to pay for with the allowance from mom and dad which he saved over the last year. He would build it himself.

Johnny wasn't really into wagons, though, he just wanted to have more kids around his place, leading to more fun and more experiences. The wagon would really be for all the kids in the neighborhood.

Having a shrewd business mind for an 5-year old, Johnny began contemplating what was the best financial course of action for him to follow in order to get this wagon and start attracting more kids to his place. He told his friend, Candy, about his grand plan, and she immediately wanted to get involved and get a piece of the action. She plans to charge kids some money to ride the wagon.

As a result, Johnny came up with two plans involving Candy. He figures that 3 years is a reasonable time frame to have Candy pay him back what they mutually decide is fair for her involvement:

1) Johnny buys the materials for $47.00 to $54.20 and builds the wagon. He gives Candy the right to use the wagon, as long as it stays housed at Johnny's house, and all rides originate from Johnny's house, so he gets his true desired benefit from the wagon. He charges Candy a total of $12.17 to use the wagon under his terms. Johnny must pay to maintain the wagon, but the expected cost is small in comparison with the materials cost. He gets Candy to set aside $2.00 to cover those expected repair costs, but if they are not needed, Johnny gets to keep the $2.00 or whatever is left. After 3 years, the wagon is Johnny's to do as he pleases.

2) Johnny buys the materials for $47.00 to $54.20 and builds the wagon. He gives the wagon to Candy afterwards, It is hers. She owns it, but must operate it under the same terms in 1) above that Johnny set up...the wagon stays in his garage and all rides start at his house. In exchange, Johnny asks her for double the payment of what he would have charged her to simply to use the wagon, that is, a total of $24.34. If a wheel is broken, an axle bent, or the paint gets chipped, Candy must pay to fix the wagon to keep it in top condition, or not as many kids will want to ride it any more. Candy keeps this neat-o wagon to do as she pleases after paying back Johnny but, if she gets tired of the wagon business (even before she pays off Johnny), she can sell the wagon to someone else without needing Johnny's approval.

Johnny's Decision: Johnny knows that to build another wagon like this in 3 years will cost more money, a heck of a lot more. If he builds the wagon properly now as planned (and he knows wagons can get pretty ragged out after 3 years) and as he has estimated its cost, it will still be a great wagon after 3 years and well beyond. It will likely be more valuable, if it is properly maintained, probably worth between $75 and $100. He also knows that he can sell the wagon after 3 years to someone else, cutting a similar deal to have the wagon housed at his place so he keeps the benefits, or take the wagon apart and build another one, if a better one can be built at that time. And, if he gives her the wagon, what if Candy decides to sell the wagon and then buy her own and give wagon rides at her OWN house a few streets away?

So what does Johnny do?

Take Candy's $12.17 (and maybe the extra $2.00 too, if it does not get spent) and keep the wagon that will almost assuredly be worth more in the future?

Or take Candy's $24.34 to defray more of Johnny's up front materials costs and give her the wagon to keep?

I think the 5-year old can figure this out.

 

[VF21]

Why doesn't Johnny make the wagon green? And why doesn't Johnny take that money and feed the hungry kids in his class? Shouldn't Johnny have considered just paying those kids to hang around with him?

 

[D-Mass]

Great analogy, 1kingzfan, but I would think a wagon, like a car, would depreciate over time.



Actually, this DID help me understand the basics of the deal...thanks!

 

[1kingzfan]

Great questions, actually...

Why doesn't Johnny make the wagon green?

There will always be some kids that want it red, some want it green, and some want it, gasp, purple! Some decisions just have to be left up to the designer and builder, Johnny.

And why doesn't Johnny take that money and feed the hungry kids in his class?

While it would certainly be a noble gesture for Johnny to feed the hungry kids in his class, there are already numerous church, government, and volunteer organizations that do just that. Johnny is attempting to improve the quality of life in his neighborhood by doing something a little different.

And besides, Johnny often puts a quarter in the collection plate at church on Sunday when they have special collections for the poor. Just like the government doesn't spend every nickel and dime on ONE thing, Johnny believes that his wagon plan will provide a different neighborhood benefit, not only for himself but all the kids in the neighborhood. Even those that don't want to ride or have the money to ride his wagon will benefit from coming to his place and meeting new friends and sharing experiences that don't necessarily include riding the wagon.

Shouldn't Johnny have considered just paying those kids to hang around with him?

Maybe. But it likely would have cost him more.

 

[JB_kings]

I'll be at least several people will switch their vote to "yes" as long as 1kingzfan promises not to tell another red wagon story.

 

[1kingzfan]

Great analogy, 1kingzfan, but I would think a wagon, like a car, would depreciate over time.

Actually, this DID help me understand the basics of the deal...thanks!

Thanx, D-Mass. No analogy is perfect, and I hope that this does not stimulate massive discussion about why it is not a perfect analogy, because it isn't.

The point was that, even if some estimated property tax payment on a new arena would result in double the Maloofs' OOP expense, to say that that is a DEAL in exchange for giving them the arena is just plain stupid.

Anyway, it appears that the issue of a private contractor paying property tax for controlled usage of a government-owned facility is still up in the air right now.

 

[VF21]

Great questions, actually...



There will always be some kids that want it red, some want it green, and some want it, gasp, purple! Some decisions just have to be left up to the designer and builder, Johnny.



While it would certainly be a noble gesture for Johnny to feed the hungry kids in his class, there are already numerous church, government, and volunteer organizations that do just that. Johnny is attempting to improve the quality of life in his neighborhood by doing something a little different.

And besides, Johnny often puts a quarter in the collection plate at church on Sunday when they have special collections for the poor. Just like the government doesn't spend every nickel and dime on ONE thing, Johnny believes that his wagon plan will provide a different neighborhood benefit, not only for himself but all the kids in the neighborhood. Even those that don't want to ride or have the money to ride his wagon will benefit from coming to his place and meeting new friends and sharing experiences that don't necessarily include riding the wagon.



Maybe. But it likely would have cost him more.

Great answers. I may have to start calling you Roger Dickinson.

 

[1kingzfan]

I'll bet at least several people will switch their vote to "yes" as long as 1kingzfan promises not to tell another red wagon story.

Show me the votes, and I will promise, sir!!!

Hehehehehe!

 

[VF21]

Thanx, D-Mass. No analogy is perfect, and I hope that this does not stimulate massive discussion about why it is not a perfect analogy, because it isn't.

The point was that, even if some estimated property tax payment on a new arena would result in double the Maloofs' OOP expense, to say that that is a DEAL in exchange for giving them the arena is just plain stupid.

Anyway, it appears that the issue of a private contractor paying property tax for controlled usage of a government-owned facility is still up in the air right now.

News10 - which is so far doing a fantastic job of covering the questions and addressing the key points - had a clip of Dickinson, addressing the property tax question. Then, their reporter said there is reason to believe the sports complex would fall under a different category (with a lower rate) for property tax purposes than the rate for businesses Cohn was trying to use. I didn't catch it all, but I have to appluad News10 for at least attempting to look beyond the obvious. Ch. 3, on the other hand, has done nothing as far as research or actual "REPORTING" goes, and has merely strung together various sound bytes.

News10 may have a vested interest in the Kings (which I don't think matters, but some people keep pointing to), but they are certainly showing they want to give their viewers a little more to think about than just the same old video clips.