kupman
Starter
Your reputation is good with me. It is AS that has some work to do, unless he can produce a commendable rebuttal.
Bee: RE Graswich and Steve Cohn are wrong!
- Thread starter Jkbiker
- Start date
Your reputation is good with me. It is AS that has some work to do, unless he can produce a commendable rebuttal.
I thought Roger Dickinson made some good points in his speech. The critics get an easy chance to say what they would have done differently had they negotiated. Of course none of them would have come back with a deal in hand. For example, Mr Cohn had his shot a few times and came up empty. So what makes us think that he has sound ideas and insight? Roger and Rob Fong did what he failed to do.
kupman
Starter
It is pretty hard to sit by and watch the Bee distort numbers like this on a daily basis.
In my head I have been thinking that if RE Graswich got his dream and the Maloofs committed financial hara-kiri and bestowed a $500 million dollar gift upon the city it would not mean much to any of us. The gift would constitute about 42% of my estimated $3.75 extra per month I would be spending in sales tax. Remember, the other 58% of the tax is going to other civic improvement projects. In other words, that giant gift from the Maloofs would mean an extra $1.58 in my pocket every month. Ironically, that is not even enough for a gallon of milk.
There may be those that argue an extra $1.58 per month is a lot of money for the poor. However, to reach the extra $3.75/month mark a person has to spend $1500/month on goods that have a sales tax. It turns out that the giant gift from the Maloofs would really just be pocket change at best for each of us.
In my head I have been thinking that if RE Graswich got his dream and the Maloofs committed financial hara-kiri and bestowed a $500 million dollar gift upon the city it would not mean much to any of us. The gift would constitute about 42% of my estimated $3.75 extra per month I would be spending in sales tax. Remember, the other 58% of the tax is going to other civic improvement projects. In other words, that giant gift from the Maloofs would mean an extra $1.58 in my pocket every month. Ironically, that is not even enough for a gallon of milk.
There may be those that argue an extra $1.58 per month is a lot of money for the poor. However, to reach the extra $3.75/month mark a person has to spend $1500/month on goods that have a sales tax. It turns out that the giant gift from the Maloofs would really just be pocket change at best for each of us.
kennadog
Dog On It!
Arena Sceptic: Liability insurance is an operating cost. MSE is to pay all operating costs. Landlords require tenants to carry liability insurance and have an endorsement to the policy naming the landlord as additional insured.
What doesn't seem to get mentioned is that MSE has to bear all operating costs and all business losses. They get all the revenue, but they accept all the risk, too. If the city wanted to share the revenue, then they would be reasonably expected to bear a share of operating costs and losses, if any.
The city gets lease payments, period. Maybe not a lot of money, but zero liability for operating costs/loses.
1kingzfan: If little Johnny invests the $2.00 for the 3 years, he may end up with more than $2.00 to keep. Or he'll have $2, plus investment income to repair or replace the wagon after 3 years.
What doesn't seem to get mentioned is that MSE has to bear all operating costs and all business losses. They get all the revenue, but they accept all the risk, too. If the city wanted to share the revenue, then they would be reasonably expected to bear a share of operating costs and losses, if any.
The city gets lease payments, period. Maybe not a lot of money, but zero liability for operating costs/loses.
1kingzfan: If little Johnny invests the $2.00 for the 3 years, he may end up with more than $2.00 to keep. Or he'll have $2, plus investment income to repair or replace the wagon after 3 years.
Last edited:
Well an awful lot of the anti arena crowds argue that we have more pressing needs. Then I expect they will all vote for the sales tax increase and against the arena. Right?
Fine with me since it is non-binding and all the county supes support the idea.
1kingzfan: If little Johnny invests the $2.00 for the 3 years, he may end up with more than $2.00 to keep. Or he'll have $2, plus investment income to repair or replace the wagon after 3 years.
Very true.
Arena Skeptic
Bench
I want everyone to read this:
http://www.sacbee.com/static/richmedia/pdf/0804arena01.pdf
After reading this, I can never vote for the measures. I think it'll even change the minds of some pretty staunch supporters.
For instance, section B, point 3: The City will sell their 100 acres near the arena, and then give those proceeds to pay for the arena.
Section B, point 2: The JPA pays for the demolition of the current arena.
Tell me again, folks: HOW MUCH are the Maloofs paying as their share? (Hint: Rhymes with "Hero.").
Oh well. This is going to fail 60-40 or 70-30 anyway.
http://www.sacbee.com/static/richmedia/pdf/0804arena01.pdf
After reading this, I can never vote for the measures. I think it'll even change the minds of some pretty staunch supporters.
For instance, section B, point 3: The City will sell their 100 acres near the arena, and then give those proceeds to pay for the arena.
Section B, point 2: The JPA pays for the demolition of the current arena.
Tell me again, folks: HOW MUCH are the Maloofs paying as their share? (Hint: Rhymes with "Hero.").
Oh well. This is going to fail 60-40 or 70-30 anyway.
So, the city is going to sell property and that's got you alarmed? Why? The property is sitting there with the remnants of what was going to be a ball field. It should bring a nice chunk of change to the city.
Face it, Arena Skeptic. You were never going to vote for this proposal anyway. You continue to maintain that it's all about the Maloofs. And that's your right.
Oh well. My brother's vote will cancel out yours.
Face it, Arena Skeptic. You were never going to vote for this proposal anyway. You continue to maintain that it's all about the Maloofs. And that's your right.
Oh well. My brother's vote will cancel out yours.
Circa_1985_Fan
All-Star
Exactly, VF. But no matter what hard, cold facts and logic that is brought to the forefront in this, the people that are wickedly against this are always going to be in the thinking that the Maloofs are crooked, and that they are out to get a handout, screw the city, and then kick back in their Lazy Boy's and spark up a couple of stogies when they get a free arena. THIS is the mentalities that we're up against, unfortunately.
While that might be the view of a hard-core group of people, I don't think it's the prevailing view - any more than I think the woman with her two children who was worried about not being able to buy them milk if the measures passes are indicative of all mothers with children.
It's not those hard-core people we should be thinking about. Their minds will NOT be changed. The people we need to educate are those who: 1) Don't realize the arena is old and falling apart; 2) Don't understand the benefits outside of sporting events; 3) Don't really grasp how small of an impact the additional .25% sales tax will have on them; and 4) Don't understand that this deal is a compromise between three parties. This last point is important, because you have to give and take in a successful compromise and I think they've done a pretty good job.
If we can get those people to see the big picture, we won't have to worry about the other ones.
No measure has passed with 100% yes. I'd like to see it pass by at least 67%, which would eliminate any possible argument about the 2/3 provision, but I think it has a decent chance of passing IF we all do our part.
Don't be confrontational. Allow the other person the right to their own opinion, but if they're not aware of some of the facts of the situation, tell them. We have to maintain the high road on this. Let people like R.E. Graswich and Steve Cohn take all the cheap shots; the shots that can easily be refuted.
Arena Skeptic
Bench
The 100 acres
No, folks, sorry, but that land is commercially useful for something else. It has market value.
Instead, we're donating it.
And you cannot see the flaw in that. That's just... Really something.
I can say the same thing to you, about how I was going to vote against this under any circumstances. You are not correct. I would vote for a fair deal to the JPA, which this deal is not.
But you? You'd vote for ANYTHING, it appears to me. And by the way, the PFD does not mention a single word about insurance. Not one. That is worrisome. Go ahead and search for "insurance" in that PDF; it is not there.
It was an egregious oversight to not specifically mention this $3 million item.
No, folks, sorry, but that land is commercially useful for something else. It has market value.
Instead, we're donating it.
And you cannot see the flaw in that. That's just... Really something.
I can say the same thing to you, about how I was going to vote against this under any circumstances. You are not correct. I would vote for a fair deal to the JPA, which this deal is not.
But you? You'd vote for ANYTHING, it appears to me. And by the way, the PFD does not mention a single word about insurance. Not one. That is worrisome. Go ahead and search for "insurance" in that PDF; it is not there.
It was an egregious oversight to not specifically mention this $3 million item.
AS - You keep wanting a deal that is perfect for the city/county and sticks it to the Maloofs. Sorry, but it's not going to happen.
You don't like the whole concept and keep finding things to support your negative stance. Fine. We won't convince you otherwise.
Yes, I'm for the proposal and my family in Sacramento support it, too. They aren't going to micro-analyze this to death. They believe - as do I - this is important for the future growth of Sacramento. Some of them aren't even Kings fans and they're for it. My mother was born in Sacramento, my daughter and grand-daughters and my son-in-law were born in Sacramento. I think we have a pretty good feel for what Sacramento has been, is now and could be.
Bottom line is that the benefits of a state-of-the-art facility to this area (and to the entire north state) are much bigger than the negatives you keep finding.
You have the right to your feelings and convictions. Unfortunately, you're pretty much trying to swim upstream in hostile waters. For a pretty good variety of reasons over and above our support for our Kings, most of us see the need for this proposal to pass and we're going to do everything we can to ensure it.
And that's what true politics is all about.
You don't like the whole concept and keep finding things to support your negative stance. Fine. We won't convince you otherwise.
Yes, I'm for the proposal and my family in Sacramento support it, too. They aren't going to micro-analyze this to death. They believe - as do I - this is important for the future growth of Sacramento. Some of them aren't even Kings fans and they're for it. My mother was born in Sacramento, my daughter and grand-daughters and my son-in-law were born in Sacramento. I think we have a pretty good feel for what Sacramento has been, is now and could be.
Bottom line is that the benefits of a state-of-the-art facility to this area (and to the entire north state) are much bigger than the negatives you keep finding.
You have the right to your feelings and convictions. Unfortunately, you're pretty much trying to swim upstream in hostile waters. For a pretty good variety of reasons over and above our support for our Kings, most of us see the need for this proposal to pass and we're going to do everything we can to ensure it.
And that's what true politics is all about.
I think this is the Term Sheet clause that has Mr. Skeptic up in arms.
Stop and think for a moment, instead of trying to find something wrong.
Read the entire Financing portion and then you'll realize that this is all about SEED money to get the project going. This is not donating the property to the Maloofs or a charity or anyone else. This is about getting their hands on a ton of dough for vacant land next to Arco that has value, so that less has to be borrowed (with interest charges) to pay off the builder during construction.
It is also NOT a commitment for the taxpayers to pay any more than has been advertised.
Arena Skeptic, after you post a negative comment supporting your position, and then some facts get presented here to counter that, you don't debate but rather go away and then come back with a new negative. What will it be this time?
Last edited:
I'm trying to figure this out as well.
So if I really wanted to build a new garage for myself (to lease out to others), and I have a piece of land across town that I don't want, why not sell the land (which I got for free) to help fund the garage? I don't see the downside here....
Ryle
Starter
It's obvious by the screen name and the fact they only post in this forum they are against the deal. I'm not sure what your point is but all operating costs of the arena include insurance, wages, workers' comp, employee benefits, maintenance, clean up, etc.....
Other then peoples dislike of the Maloofs or general jealousy for seeing someone succeed I can't see a reason not to vote for this. It just makes sense and it will be a reason for me to go downtown(unlike now).
Other then peoples dislike of the Maloofs or general jealousy for seeing someone succeed I can't see a reason not to vote for this. It just makes sense and it will be a reason for me to go downtown(unlike now).
I disagree.
I think that most of us here are somewhere between middle class and upper class folks. Sometimes it's hard to take that cap off and look out the window of someone else that is not as well off as most of us are.
What about less-well-off folks who have never been able to afford attending a big-name band's concert, eating at a nice downtown restaurant, carefree shopping in Old SAC, or attending a pro sports game? They struggle each month to make the rent payment, pay the car note (if they have one), and make sure the utility gets theirs just in time so the power doesn't get shut off. Maybe they work two jobs to make ends meet.
No Maloofs' hatred. No jealousy for someone else's success.
They are an important part of the citizenry that needs to be shown the windfall benefits of this deal that could positively affect their economic standard and THEIR quality of life.
I'm sure that this will be an important education point for the government as we get closer to November 7th.
kupman
Starter
They aren't going to micro-analyze this to death. They believe - as do I - this is important for the future growth of Sacramento.
They are not going to micro-analyze $3.75/month to death? They think that $3.75/month is a small investment towards major civic improvement? Sounds pretty reasonable.
kennadog
Dog On It!
What I don't get is why they say $5 per month. I guess that is an average that includes some fairly wealthy people. To pay $5 month at a quarter of a cent, I'd have to spend $2,000 that month on taxable goods!!!
Now, I consider myself comfortable (above median), but out of my net paycheck, by the time I pay the bulk of my expenses, which are not sales taxable, I have no where near that amount to spend on taxable goods. My mortgage, car payment, insurance, utilities, medical and food items are not sales taxable.
Honestly, I can't imagine it costing me more than an extra $1.25 a month. I think I'll keep exact track of the sales tax I pay for a couple of months, out of curiousity.
SAles tax is regressive and I'm not fond of it. However, no matter what we want the city to spend money on, they have few ways to raise revenue.
Now, I consider myself comfortable (above median), but out of my net paycheck, by the time I pay the bulk of my expenses, which are not sales taxable, I have no where near that amount to spend on taxable goods. My mortgage, car payment, insurance, utilities, medical and food items are not sales taxable.
Honestly, I can't imagine it costing me more than an extra $1.25 a month. I think I'll keep exact track of the sales tax I pay for a couple of months, out of curiousity.
SAles tax is regressive and I'm not fond of it. However, no matter what we want the city to spend money on, they have few ways to raise revenue.
Similar threads
- Yahoo! Sports - NBA -
- Kings News Links
