Bee: Sales tax quietly weighed for arena

[Warhawk]

http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/14246595p-15064448c.html

Sales tax quietly weighed for arena

By Mary Lynne Vellinga -- Bee Staff Writer


As the Kings head into the NBA playoffs, Sacramento city and county leaders are huddling over plans to fund construction of a new arena, perhaps with a hike in local sales taxes.

Those involved remain close-lipped about the latest discussions, fearing premature publicity will cause nascent plans for a new arena to wither like so many others have in the past few years.

"Every time this thing has gotten out prematurely it's blown up prematurely - I'm not interested in participating in that," Sacramento Mayor Heather Fargo said Thursday.

A few details have emerged, however.

Sacramento City Councilman Ray Tretheway said one idea being discussed would involve raising the sales tax for Sacramento County residents.

"I heard there's the potential for the county to put on the ballot a sales tax, for 10 years, I think," Tretheway said. "It would do two things: It would fund an arena and entertainment center and also contain money that would go back to the local jurisdictions."

Such a general sales tax would require only a majority vote to pass, rather than the two-thirds vote required for taxes passed for a specific purpose. The county conceivably could designate the money for an arena - albeit unofficially - by winning voter approval of a companion advisory measure supporting its construction.

Local political consultant Jeff Raimundo said such a two-pronged approach had been used by local governments around the state. He cited a similar pair of initiatives adopted in Santa Clara County to fund transportation improvements.

"It's a way to avoid the two-thirds vote, but it's perfectly legal," he said.

Kings owner Joe Maloof said Friday he was not aware of the details of the latest arena plan. He reiterated that Arco Arena is beyond rehabilitation and a solution must be found.

Tretheway, whose district includes downtown and North Natomas, in which Arco Arena is located, said he will be briefed on the sales tax proposal Tuesday in a meeting arranged by Sacramento City Manager Ray Kerridge.

He remains skeptical about the possibility of winning voter approval for public financing of an arena.
"I've seen polls in the past that were devastating: People saying they would not vote for this if it were the last thing on earth," Tretheway said. "And now we're talking about having an assessment for flood protection."

Besides Kerridge, those involved in the discussions include Sacramento County Executive Terry Schutten, county Supervisor Roger Dickinson, Fargo, Sacramento City Councilman Rob Fong and River Cats chief executive Art Savage, a veteran of finance deals for sports facilities in such cities as West Sacramento and San Jose.

Some of those involved cautioned that a variety of financing mechanisms remain under discussion. They would not be more specific.

"At this point, we're still exploring all the opportunities," said Savage, who said he was called in by Fargo, Dickinson and Fong to help on the arena financing issue. "It's way too early to speculate just on one structure. The city and county are really working together for the first time to jointly solve this problem."

Matt Mahood, president of the Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, said he has been regularly briefed on the arena talks, and they remain very much in flux.

"The city and county have been communicating about multiple strategies," he said. " ... I think the most important thing to remember here is the lesson we've learned: When these strategies are released too soon they fail."

One thing is clear, however. City and county leaders are attacking the arena issue with renewed vigor. It's a significant shift from the two years, in which the private sector shouldered much of the task.

Developer Angelo K. Tsakopoulos tried two approaches. In 2004, he proposed accelerating approvals for construction in the unincorporated county's portion of Natomas. In return, landowners would have designated 20 percent of the proceeds from the sale of their land to fund construction of an arena - with money left over for the arts and youth sports. This plan imploded because not all the landowners supported it.

Tsakopoulos then floated a similar plan involving land he owned near the Sacramento-El Dorado county line. That idea fizzled as well.

"It wasn't his fault; it wasn't our fault," said Kings owner Joe Maloof. "There was never any certainty of when the land would get rezoned, and when we could get an arena. You could go 10 years without anything getting started."

Maloof said he hadn't been briefed on the latest city-county talks, but is more optimistic than he's been in a while.

"I'm looking forward to meeting with the new city manager," Maloof said. "I think the city's excited again about the team. For a while, it was dismal."

Maloof said he welcomed the idea of a public vote on the arena issue, even though he acknowledged that the idea of public funding would be a hard sell.

"For seven years we've been trying to get a public vote, and we've been stonewalled," Maloof said.
The Maloof family's relationship with the previous city manager, Bob Thomas, was tense. Brothers Joe and Gavin blamed Thomas for undermining previous proposals advanced by Fargo to build a downtown arena either in the downtown railyard or on the K Street Mall.

 

[6th]

Things can now happen because Bob Thomas is gone. It's about time. I am crossing my fingers.

 

[tubiscus]

Go for the Tourist Tax

I'm not sure why they think the voters in Sac would want to jack the sales tax rate. Yes it does effect everyone who makes purchases there, including out of towners. but....

Why not jack the taxes for hotels, rental cars, airport fees, and then match it with a fee for every ticket sold to an event at the new ARCO. It will be paid mostly by those who visit Sac on business or tourists, and those who use the Arena. This would seemto me to be an easier plan for the voters to back.

 

[kennadog]

I'm not sure why they think the voters in Sac would want to jack the sales tax rate. Yes it does effect everyone who makes purchases there, including out of towners. but....

Why not jack the taxes for hotels, rental cars, airport fees, and then match it with a fee for every ticket sold to an event at the new ARCO. It will be paid mostly by those who visit Sac on business or tourists, and those who use the Arena. This would seemto me to be an easier plan for the voters to back.

The airport and much of the rental car business are in the County, not the City. That's been a big problem all along. I'm encouraged to read that apparently the City and County are trying to work together (about time). Maybe that will be part of the deal. And at least if its partly a sales tax, it would hurt a lot less if it was spread over the whole county, instead of just the city. That's tons more people. Be nice if the six or so surrounding counties wold join in. Its the closest big event facility for them, too.

I also think the voters would be willing to do something, if they see a plan that incudes multiple sources of funds.

And thank god Bob Thomas is gone. He was a huge roadblock, IMHO.

 

[JB_kings]

I always cringe when I hear a ballot idea brought up. But the majority thing is MUCH easier than the 2/3 margin. The simple point to communicate is that it's a vote to keep the Kings in Sacraento. No tippy-toeing around. Just come right out and say it's stay/go vote. That way if it's shot down, than the whole city and county has to shut up when they leave. The finger points at the large part of the population and not just the smaller city of Sacramento proper. I believe it came down to a vote like this in Houston.

 

[JB_kings]

I'm not sure why they think the voters in Sac would want to jack the sales tax rate. Yes it does effect everyone who makes purchases there, including out of towners. but....

Why not jack the taxes for hotels, rental cars, airport fees, and then match it with a fee for every ticket sold to an event at the new ARCO. It will be paid mostly by those who visit Sac on business or tourists, and those who use the Arena. This would seemto me to be an easier plan for the voters to back.

I'm sure this was discussed. Hotel taxes would be mostly in the city, but I doubt it would be substantial. The car rental tax is mostly county since it's at the airport. And that in itself probably won't generate enough. It probably would have had to included some other type of tax that would have hit the general population anyway. I don't have any evidence, but I'm guessing this is also an area that the county did not want to go for the arena deal. The county has long range plans for airport expansion and the rental tax probably the revenue source they had in their back pocket to use. Again I'm just trying to play connect the dots, but when the county was pulled in as a player, they probably told them that the rental car tax was untouchable.

 

[kennadog]

I always cringe when I hear a ballot idea brought up. But the majority thing is MUCH easier than the 2/3 margin. The simple point to communicate is that it's a vote to keep the Kings in Sacraento. No tippy-toeing around. Just come right out and say it's stay/go vote. That way if it's shot down, than the whole city and county has to shut up when they leave. The finger points at the large part of the population and not just the smaller city of Sacramento proper. I believe it came down to a vote like this in Houston.

Actually, I think its much more important that they emphasize this is not just about the Kings. Arco is the only entertainment venue of its size in the region. And it was so cheaply built to begin with and now so badly out of date, that there all kinds of events passing up Sacramento.

And its amazing (or embarrassing) that a city of this size has managed to go this long without spending a dime on some sort of large arena/entertainment venue. (Unless you count the Community Center, which is fixed seat and very limited.)

 

[ShatteredVision]

I wonder if West Sacramento can pick up the ball on this one...

They have lots of gain by pursuing an arena.

 

[slugking50]

http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/14246595p-15064448c.html

Sales tax quietly weighed for arena

By Mary Lynne Vellinga -- Bee Staff Writer


As the Kings head into the NBA playoffs, Sacramento city and county leaders are huddling over plans to fund construction of a new arena, perhaps with a hike in local sales taxes.

Those involved remain close-lipped about the latest discussions, fearing premature publicity will cause nascent plans for a new arena to wither like so many others have in the past few years.

"Every time this thing has gotten out prematurely it's blown up prematurely - I'm not interested in participating in that," Sacramento Mayor Heather Fargo said Thursday.

A few details have emerged, however.

Sacramento City Councilman Ray Tretheway said one idea being discussed would involve raising the sales tax for Sacramento County residents.

"I heard there's the potential for the county to put on the ballot a sales tax, for 10 years, I think," Tretheway said. "It would do two things: It would fund an arena and entertainment center and also contain money that would go back to the local jurisdictions."

Such a general sales tax would require only a majority vote to pass, rather than the two-thirds vote required for taxes passed for a specific purpose. The county conceivably could designate the money for an arena - albeit unofficially - by winning voter approval of a companion advisory measure supporting its construction.

Local political consultant Jeff Raimundo said such a two-pronged approach had been used by local governments around the state. He cited a similar pair of initiatives adopted in Santa Clara County to fund transportation improvements.

"It's a way to avoid the two-thirds vote, but it's perfectly legal," he said.

Kings owner Joe Maloof said Friday he was not aware of the details of the latest arena plan. He reiterated that Arco Arena is beyond rehabilitation and a solution must be found.

Tretheway, whose district includes downtown and North Natomas, in which Arco Arena is located, said he will be briefed on the sales tax proposal Tuesday in a meeting arranged by Sacramento City Manager Ray Kerridge.

He remains skeptical about the possibility of winning voter approval for public financing of an arena.
"I've seen polls in the past that were devastating: People saying they would not vote for this if it were the last thing on earth," Tretheway said. "And now we're talking about having an assessment for flood protection."

Besides Kerridge, those involved in the discussions include Sacramento County Executive Terry Schutten, county Supervisor Roger Dickinson, Fargo, Sacramento City Councilman Rob Fong and River Cats chief executive Art Savage, a veteran of finance deals for sports facilities in such cities as West Sacramento and San Jose.

Some of those involved cautioned that a variety of financing mechanisms remain under discussion. They would not be more specific.

"At this point, we're still exploring all the opportunities," said Savage, who said he was called in by Fargo, Dickinson and Fong to help on the arena financing issue. "It's way too early to speculate just on one structure. The city and county are really working together for the first time to jointly solve this problem."

Matt Mahood, president of the Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, said he has been regularly briefed on the arena talks, and they remain very much in flux.

"The city and county have been communicating about multiple strategies," he said. " ... I think the most important thing to remember here is the lesson we've learned: When these strategies are released too soon they fail."

One thing is clear, however. City and county leaders are attacking the arena issue with renewed vigor. It's a significant shift from the two years, in which the private sector shouldered much of the task.

Developer Angelo K. Tsakopoulos tried two approaches. In 2004, he proposed accelerating approvals for construction in the unincorporated county's portion of Natomas. In return, landowners would have designated 20 percent of the proceeds from the sale of their land to fund construction of an arena - with money left over for the arts and youth sports. This plan imploded because not all the landowners supported it.

Tsakopoulos then floated a similar plan involving land he owned near the Sacramento-El Dorado county line. That idea fizzled as well.

"It wasn't his fault; it wasn't our fault," said Kings owner Joe Maloof. "There was never any certainty of when the land would get rezoned, and when we could get an arena. You could go 10 years without anything getting started."

Maloof said he hadn't been briefed on the latest city-county talks, but is more optimistic than he's been in a while.

"I'm looking forward to meeting with the new city manager," Maloof said. "I think the city's excited again about the team. For a while, it was dismal."

Maloof said he welcomed the idea of a public vote on the arena issue, even though he acknowledged that the idea of public funding would be a hard sell.

"For seven years we've been trying to get a public vote, and we've been stonewalled," Maloof said.
The Maloof family's relationship with the previous city manager, Bob Thomas, was tense. Brothers Joe and Gavin blamed Thomas for undermining previous proposals advanced by Fargo to build a downtown arena either in the downtown railyard or on the K Street Mall.

I would be shocked if that passed.

 

[Wert]

The only way the citizens of Sacramento are going to allow this is if it's snuck by them or it's misrepresented to them in some way.

 

[VF21]

Sneak by or lie about the need for our area to have a modern venue to attract concerts, tournaments, etc?

That - in a nutshell - is what's wrong with this whole thing.

The citizens of Sacramento just DON'T GET IT. It's not just about the Kings. It's about all the other 323 days of the year (any playoffs excluded) that the Kings AREN'T in Arco. Yes, the Monarchs take up a small number of days, but other than that we have a huge facility that is not being fully utilized. Why?

Because it's old and outdated and not capable of meeting the needs of a lot of different events.

We have to be very careful about ice shows, for example, because it takes THREE DAYS to go from hard floor to ice and back again. Staples Center had a basketball game in the morning and a hockey game that night. That's significant...

We are losing potential revenue producing events all the time because Arco Arena just isn't good enough any longer. It was built cheaply and it was built for basketball. There wasn't any long-range vision about the future.

It isn't just about the Kings.

 

[Wert]

I love the Kings and hope they stay. But I think folks sell the citizens of Sacramento short by implying that they're too dense to "Get it". Perhaps other folks have different priorities for their tax dollars than entertainment/sports venues and I'm not sure they should be excoriated for that.

 

[GreenKing]

Stick a 50 cent tax on gas per gallon to pay for Arco 2.

 

[Warhawk]

I love the Kings and hope they stay. But I think folks sell the citizens of Sacramento short by implying that they're too dense to "Get it". Perhaps other folks have different priorities for their tax dollars than entertainment/sports venues and I'm not sure they should be excoriated for that.

The city was openly looking for ways to spend redevelopment $$$ and we have a crusty old arena that is past it's useful life span. At what point does 2+2=4 with this idiotic city? What better use for those $$$ than to contribute to make the best venue in the area to draw more attractions and bring in even more tax $$$ for these mythical "other priorities"?

This city is stuck in the dark ages.

 

[kennadog]

I love the Kings and hope they stay. But I think folks sell the citizens of Sacramento short by implying that they're too dense to "Get it". Perhaps other folks have different priorities for their tax dollars than entertainment/sports venues and I'm not sure they should be excoriated for that.

I don't have a problem with having different priorities, but the various surveys they take seem to indicate that people believe Arco will just keep on going. If they really believe that they definitely aren't getting it. The Maloofs own the arena. If the Kings leave, what incentive will they have to spend one more dime on that aging, ugly and cheap building? If I were them I'd dump it in a heartbeat and never look back.

I'm old enough to remember having to drive to the bay area to see anything. I LIKE being able to go to a concert or take kids to the circus or an ice show without driving to the bay area. Other cities have the same priorities as here, but seem to manage to develop and keep a variety of entertainment/cultural activity choices for their citizens. Sacramento is pretty pathetic compared to other cities of its size.

Heck, Fresno and Stockton both have new arenas. People in Stockton didn't really want their arena either, but city leaders pushed it through and now people are gushing over it down there.

 

[Wert]

I wonder.

Of the nearly 1.9 million inhabitants of Sacramento, what percentage of those actually use the arena in any given year?

With prices for most events at Arco fairly steep these days (even for kid stuff like the circus or ice capades), it seems a tax on everyone here would act as a regressive tax for those who have been increasingly priced out of events these days. For many people, the benefits of a new arena would be pretty much zero. I suspect people living from paycheck to paycheck don't lie awake at night worrying about building a new arena for the Maloofs.

We know that the one of the main things that is desired are more hospitality suites to bring in more corporate bling to the Maloofs. Now, right now, they're losing that business already with the limited boxes available, yet they're magically going to be able to line up business to fill twice as many boxes in a new arena? Sacramento is a small market and there's only so far you can squeeze it no matter what you build or how you market it.

How many days out of each year does arco go empty for lack of events to fill it? And where's the hard proof that a new arena will necessarily have a greater amount of use? Sure, it would be nice to have the icing of the floor go quicker, but since we have no hockey team, exactly how many ice capades shows can the area stand per year?

Not to mention a new stadium would almost certainly bring even higher prices. Hell, even in crappy old arco, the Kings have one of the more expensive ticket prices in the league.

I hope they work out a way to get a new arena without doing it on the back of taxpayers (who polls show don't want to pay with it via new taxes). But honestly, as much as I'd like them to stay, I find I can't really afford much of what goes on at Arco these days and I suspect I'm not alone in this. If the king's do move elsewhere, that would stink, but I'd remain a fan no matter what city they might land in.

 

[Warhawk]

How many days out of each year does arco go empty for lack of events to fill it? And where's the hard proof that a new arena will necessarily have a greater amount of use? Sure, it would be nice to have the icing of the floor go quicker, but since we have no hockey team, exactly how many ice capades shows can the area stand per year?

You make some good points, but the arena cannot hold many more events a year as it is because of it's condition. It is BECAUSE it takes so long to switch between events and lack some modern amenities that many events do not come to the arena. You have to have the capacity to hold an event before it can arrive.

There are lots of concerts, etc., that couldn't come over the years because of the inability of arena personnel to be able to make the changes necessary to host certain events on a tight turnaround schedule.

Do I have a # per year increase we would see? No, but I read about how certain shows pass up Sacramento because of their inability to host it, and that is just sad.

Also, we would be able to host NBA All-Star weekend and other events that aren't on the radar screen right now that would bring in lots of tax $$$ to the city coffers.

 

[JB_kings]

I wonder.

Of the nearly 1.9 million inhabitants of Sacramento, what percentage of those actually use the arena in any given year?

Just curious, do you know how many things your tax dollars went for that are used by an even smaller percentage of Sacramento residents than use Arco Arena?
How did the Sacramento Convention Center get built - twice, and expanded?
How did the Memorial Auditorium get retrofitted?
New hotel development?
Various retail, resturants, entertainment and cultural arts?
Who bailed out the Sacramento Symphony year after year when it didn't pay for itself?

They all had some sort of public money that was required to get them done. Did you vote on those? No. A city does these kinds of things because it makes it a better place to live and attract out of town visitors. I wonder how many of these worthy items would have been tossed aside if the public were asked to vote on them?

Agree or not, the Kings are regional asset that makes this a better city. They offer national and international recognition. They keep discretionary spending in the region as opposed to being spent in the bay area or Nevada. Not to mention the positive impact to local charities and organizations.

I'm shocked that people are so short sighted about what a new arena means to the region.

FYI, The sales tax across the board in Sacramento County is 7.750. If you live in Contra Costa, Santa Clara or San Mateo Counties it's 8.250, City of Stockton and Santa Cruz County are 8.0. If you live an Alameda County, you are 8.750.
So compared to other NorCal counties with similar or larger populations, we aren't asking the people of Sacramento be out of line if they were to increase to 8.0 or 8.25 for 10 years.

 

[Wuster]

Sneak by or lie about the need for our area to have a modern venue to attract concerts, tournaments, etc?

That - in a nutshell - is what's wrong with this whole thing.

The citizens of Sacramento just DON'T GET IT. It's not just about the Kings. It's about all the other 323 days of the year (any playoffs excluded) that the Kings AREN'T in Arco. Yes, the Monarchs take up a small number of days, but other than that we have a huge facility that is not being fully utilized. Why?

Because it's old and outdated and not capable of meeting the needs of a lot of different events.

We have to be very careful about ice shows, for example, because it takes THREE DAYS to go from hard floor to ice and back again. Staples Center had a basketball game in the morning and a hockey game that night. That's significant...

We are losing potential revenue producing events all the time because Arco Arena just isn't good enough any longer. It was built cheaply and it was built for basketball. There wasn't any long-range vision about the future.

It isn't just about the Kings.

You said it all, VF21.

WAKE UP, SACRAMENTO!!

 

[Wert]

Just curious, do you know how many things your tax dollars went for that are used by an even smaller percentage of Sacramento residents than use Arco Arena?
How did the Sacramento Convention Center get built - twice, and expanded?
How did the Memorial Auditorium get retrofitted?
New hotel development?
Various retail, resturants, entertainment and cultural arts?
Who bailed out the Sacramento Symphony year after year when it didn't pay for itself?

They all had some sort of public money that was required to get them done. Did you vote on those? No.

Ah, but I value all those things more than an sports venue. And I say that cross section hits a larger potential demographic than just an arena. Arco tends to fill the arena with locals while something like a convention center brings in people/money from out of town. I'd rather see new hotels/convention centers/etc. than a new arena (with extra large comfy corporate boxes that I'm not sure they could even fill) for the Maloofs. And I'm sure a vote would show that plenty of people feel the same way.

A city does these kinds of things because it makes it a better place to live and attract out of town visitors. I wonder how many of these worthy items would have been tossed aside if the public were asked to vote on them?

I think you're comparing apples/oranges. I think the vast majority of events at arco don't draw many tourists. I think most events are attended primarily by locals. And if Arco didn't exist, that would only open up a market for smaller venues. From what I see of Arco's calendar, it sits empty a surprising amount of the year.

Agree or not, the Kings are regional asset that makes this a better city.

Nah, bullcrap. Sacramento existed as the capitol of the 6th largest economy in the world before the Kings and it'll exist (and still be very important) without them if it comes to that. Cities don't need pro sports to be "better".

Now I'm a Kings fan for may years now and hope something can be worked out that doesn't entail putting it to the taxpayers. Now I know many of you out there have invested huge parts of your life to the Kings and losing them would be a tragedy to you personally. But you've got to realize that not all people (even some fans) don't have that sort of emotional investment and would remain Kings fans even if they were forced to go to another city.

They offer national and international recognition.

Being the capitol of one of the largest economies in the world isn't enough? We're so insecure as a city that we can't be "important" unless we've got a bunch of grown men playing a kids game in a professional capacity? Yeesh.

They keep discretionary spending in the region as opposed to being spent in the bay area or Nevada.

Hard numbers please. That's a generalization I don't think you can support. And with prices at Arco continuing to rise at stratospheric rates (which I'm sure would only by exacerbated by the cost of a new arena), is it not reasonable to think they might choose to use their disposable income in other, less expensive ways?

Not to mention the positive impact to local charities and organizations.

Once again, numbers? Proof? I'm guessing the charities did well enough before the Kings and suspect they'll find ways to do what they need to do without the Kings. Heaven's, how do charities in non nba cities ever survive?

I'm shocked that people are so short sighted about what a new arena means to the region.

Nah, once again you sell people short by claiming they're "short sighted" for merely not agreeing with your particularly rose tinted point of view.

So compared to other NorCal counties with similar or larger populations, we aren't asking the people of Sacramento be out of line if they were to increase to 8.0 or 8.25 for 10 years.

With gas prices out of control, cuts to levee repair and education falling apart, you think taxpayers are going to look kindly on being further taxed to build a new arena for the Maloofs? And make no mistake, they would be the largest beneficiaries. Well them and those who still have the disposable income to attend increasingly high priced events at such an arena.

Here on a Kings fan board we hear "It's not about the Kings", but in fact it is. Do any other events at the arena draw as much revenue? I'd like to know what percentage of Arco revenue the Kings generate vs. the rest of the events in a given year. I'd wager the revenue from the kings outstrips the total of everything else.

Ask the taxpayers if they'd like extra taxes levied for a sports arena and see what they say. For that reason, proponents of the new arena obviously prefer a tax to be shoved on to us knowing full well that a full and fair vote wouldn't serve their perceived needs.

 

[VF21]

I think you're comparing apples/oranges. I think the vast majority of events at arco don't draw many tourists. I think most events are attended primarily by locals. And if Arco didn't exist, that would only open up a market for smaller venues. From what I see of Arco's calendar, it sits empty a surprising amount of the year.

How could you possibly know since you say you don't attend events at Arco? Did you know the NCAA is coming back to Arco? Did you know that high school tournaments from around the state use the facility?

I'm not a local but I travel to Arco several times a year, and NOT just for Kings games. I know a number of people who do the same thing. For a lot of people north of Sacramento, Arco Arena is the closest large venue for concerts, other sporting events, etc. When we come to Arco, we spend money - both at the event and eating, shopping, etc.

Arco could become a major hub for the whole area - not just the city itself. It is very well located close to freeways and the airport and, if the amenities were better, it would be utilized more.

It IS short-sighted to summarily dismiss any other uses of a potential new arena simply because you personally aren't in favor of them. And it's not about a "rose tinted point of view." It's about growth of an area, expanding a community's resources, and looking forward...

 

[Wert]

How could you possibly know since you say you don't attend events at Arco?

Who said that? Not I! Ah, But you did, putting words in my mouth. Thanks.

Did you know the NCAA is coming back to Arco? Did you know that high school tournaments from around the state use the facility?

Yep and what portion of the arena do those HS facilities fill? What percentage of revenue do they bring compared to the Kings? Convince me that the current arena isn't empty for huge stretches each year and prove to me that a new arena (with higher priced events) is going to somehow magically be more fully used.

I'm not a local but I travel to Arco several times a year, and NOT just for Kings games. I know a number of people who do the same thing.

Cool, but that proves nothing. I'd bet that a census of people who attend games regularly would show the vast majority are locals. Your personal experience with a "number" of people doesn't mean a damn thing.

What's a "number of people" anyway? 2 people? 20? 200? 2000? Seems a lot of extrapolating on your part with no hard data.

Obviously those are the hardcore folks. Bear in mind that not all fans have your level of dedication/obsession with keeping the kings here via additional unwanted taxation.

For a lot of people north of Sacramento, Arco Arena is the closest large venue for concerts, other sporting events, etc. When we come to Arco, we spend money - both at the event and eating, shopping, etc.

Well, yes, but it's a not ideal for stuff like concerts because it frankly has lousy acoustics. Can you tell me that Sacramento couldn't encourage other ways of generating revenue? Is a huge arena the only way? Hell, even huge things like the circus don't always need a huge arena. I've seen plenty of smaller cities with perfectly good venues for concerts and the like that didn't require a huge (and acoustically crappy) sports arena to hold them. And frankly, building those kind of venues (without the need for iced floors, extra corporate boxes, etc.) would likely be more cost efficient than building a big boondoggle on the backs of taxpayers to appease the Maloofs.

Arco could become a major hub for the whole area - not just the city itself.

Could.
Maybe.
Perhaps.
Gee, we sure hope so!

Sacramento still remains a small market and frankly, areas that are ripe for development (like the railyards) are going to be developed whether or not the Maloofs force the city to put a new arena there.

What happens if a new arena doesn't meet its goals? Do you think the Maloofs (the major beneficiary if this doesnt happen) would be willing to give performance guarantees and pay money to the city if those guarantees aren't met? I sort of doubt it. Do folks here believe the Maloofs should kick in a fair share for an arena that's probably going to primarily (dollar wise) benefit them? Or do they deserve a free ride on the backs of Sacramento taxpayers? Just because others cities have done so, is it incumbent on us to also give that free ride?

It is very well located close to freeways and the airport and, if the amenities were better, it would be utilized more.

Do we really want to encourage a ton of new development in an area that we now know is one of the least safe in the nation in terms of flooding?

It IS short-sighted to summarily dismiss any other uses of a potential new arena simply because you personally aren't in favor of them.

Nice try to turn that back on me.

I take the devils advocate position because certain folks feel they have all the answers because they're simply blinded by their love of having the Kings local. Since you're not a local, perhaps you wouldn't even be paying the extra taxes eh? If so, I understand your enthusiasm for them.

So yeah, calling folks you disagree with "shortsighted" without knowing what they feel or why they feel that way sees pretty disingenuous to me. Especially since polling has shown the majority opposed to being taxed for a new arena.

And it's not about a "rose tinted point of view." It's about growth of an area, expanding a community's resources, and looking forward...

All based on your personal feelings without a shred of supportive evidence. You speak in rose tinted generalities, but when someone disagrees, well darn it, they're simply "short sighted".

Got any convincing proof that Sacramento won't somehow soldier on without the benefit of a professional sports team?

And please enlighten me why the capitol of the 6th largest economy in the world needs a sports team to get "respect" and to be more "important"? How did Sacramento ever survive the dark decades before the Kings came here and magically made us better?

And would you support a fair vote on the issue knowing full well that taxpayers would probably resoundingly vote "no"?

I was a fan of the Kings years before I ever moved to Sacramento and would remain a fan of theirs even they moved to another city.

How about the rest of you folks? Would you still remain active fans if the Kings moved to another city?

 

[BMiller52]

If the kings move then I will make sure I tell all of you people who complain about their taxes that this is what you wanted. You don't want to shell out any money to get the kings a new arena. You just want the maloofs to give one to you. Well they already pay the player's salaries, they pay for stuff like that. To give you have to get. If you want the kings to stay in Sacramento then you have to be willing to give to get them to stay and it's THAT simple. I know people who don't want them to move but complain so badly about their taxes it makes me wish I had earplugs. Well in reality that is the easiest way to get the kings a new arena, and if you are saying no and you just want one given to you then you are basically saying you want them to move so you can keep your money.

 

[Wert]

If the kings move then I will make sure I tell all of you people who complain about their taxes that this is what you wanted.

I doubt that's what most folks want. I'd say they probably want to see the Maloofs pay a fair share and work towards being able to stay without doing so primarily on the backs of taxpayers.

And yeah, honestly, if they leave because a vast majority stands up against a tax like that, I'd be perfectly fine with it and would continue to be their fan in whatever city they end up in.

You don't want to shell out any money to get the kings a new arena.

Nope. I don't mind the thought of the city giving some support (which I think can be done without the kind of taxation where talking about here), but I also want to see the Maloofs making a strong effort to contribute. From their comments in the past, it's pretty clear that they want the city to give the a new arena outright. I do not want to be taxed to build an arena that will primarily benefit the Maloofs if they aren't willing to chip in appropriately. And if they want to jump ship to a city that'll give them a blank check/free arena, that's cool with me. I'll still love watching the Kings.

You just want the maloofs to give one to you.

Nope, I'd like to see them find a way of financing it without doing so on the backs of taxpayers.

If you want the kings to stay in Sacramento then you have to be willing to give to get them to stay and it's THAT simple.

While I'd like them to stay, it's not such a big deal to me if they leave. I'll still follow them, be their fan, etc.

I know people who don't want them to move but complain so badly about their taxes it makes me wish I had earplugs.

Not all folks who disagree with you point of view are shrill. In terms of earplugs, I could generalize the same way about those who support giving the Maloofs a blank check, but I don't think that would be fair.

I think taxpayers have every right to question how their tax dollars are spent. I suspect most people would somehow manage to survive if the Kings left. Jeez, from what you hear here, you'd think Sacramento was going to become some sort of uber-ghetto if the Kings leave. And frankly, I see little proof that there would be much overall effect at all. How else did the city (the capitol of the 6th largest economy in the world) survive before the kings magically "saved it"?

Well in reality that is the easiest way to get the kings a new arena, and if you are saying no and you just want one given to you then you are basically saying you want them to move so you can keep your money.

I like the Kings and would prefer they stay. But, I want them to find a way to finance a new arena without doing it on the backs of taxpayers. Giving a blank check to the Maloofs at taxpayer's expense might be the "easy" way, but I'm not convinced it's the best way.

Failing that, I would regret seeing them go, but it wouldn't be the end of the world. I'd somehow manage to get through each day, living with the horror of knowing that we didn't have a local NBA team. *gasp!* And I suspect others might find that "sacrifice" a mild one compared to being taxed "quietly" in ways they don't support.

 

[BMiller52]

Well see that's the thing. If the Maloofs/somebody else pays for the arena then they are just giving it to you. Basically you just want them to give you an arena.

Also who cares if Sacramento is the capitol of the California besides Sacramento itself? Nobody. People will care about LA, the Bay Area, etc. Look at Washington-all people talk about is Seattle but that's not the capitol. Nobody cares about their capitol.

 

[kennadog]

Ah, but I value all those things more than an sports venue.And I say that cross section hits a larger potential demographic than just an arena. Arco tends to fill the arena with locals while something like a convention center brings in people/money from out of town. I'd rather see new hotels/convention centers/etc. than a new arena (with extra large comfy corporate boxes that I'm not sure they could even fill) for the Maloofs. And I'm sure a vote would show that plenty of people feel the same way.

So its okay to spend money on things you value, but not on something you don't, but others do? And the Convention Center has been one of the biggest drains on local government. They built it and then couldn't get conventions, because of the lack of decent nearby hotel rooms. And they couldn't get the better hotels to build here, because their market studies said they'd lose money (they were right). So guess what? The City had to give "financial incentives" to Hyatt, Embassy Suites and Sheraton to lure them to build here. (I'm sure its because they couldn't afford to build there own hotels ) And Hyatt, the first one in? The city had to guarantee to make up their losses and did so for a number of years. How often do you stay at any of those hotels and how often do you attend events at the Convention Center or the Community Center? I have and its often cost me more (even a lot more) than going to a Kings's game at Arco.

As to luxury boxes at Arco? Sacramento is estimating having about the same number as San Antonio, a city similar in size to Sacramento. If you read about their arena, it is the money they get from luxury suites that helps them keep tickets prices down on other seats. Here, we are paying higher ticket prices, because of the lack of luxury suites.

I think you're comparing apples/oranges. I think the vast majority of events at arco don't draw many tourists. I think most events are attended primarily by locals. And if Arco didn't exist, that would only open up a market for smaller venues. From what I see of Arco's calendar, it sits empty a surprising amount of the year.

Well they arent "tourists," but a lot of people come to Sacramento to see events at Arco, from as far north as Redding and down into Modesto and Merced. And many will make it a day or even stay overnight. And a lot of locals used to spend their bucks in the bay area to attend events there before Arco was built. Meaning money lost to the local economy.

Nah, bullcrap. Sacramento existed as the capitol of the 6th largest economy in the world before the Kings and it'll exist (and still be very important) without them if it comes to that. Cities don't need pro sports to be "better".

I think your confusing important and and being a more attractive place to live. I've lived in and around Sacramento for almost 40 years. Of course its important as the capitol, but that's it and who else cares, really? It brings politicians here. Whooppeee. I used to travel around the country and people didn't even know where Sacramento was, for the most part. Now people in remote corners of the world know where Sacramento is. You cannot buy that kind of advertising. Cities don't need pro sports to be better or (important), but they do need a variety of cultural and entertainment choices to be attractive places for people to live and for businesses to want to locate there. (And for conventioneers to want to attend a convention in Sacramento.)

As for smaller venues doing better, that's just silly. They are not in competition for the same events. There's a place for smaller venues and a place for a big venue in a city this size. You aren't going to have the circus, ice shows, major rodeo events, major star concerts, basketball tournaments in a small venue.

Now I'm a Kings fan for may years now and hope something can be worked out that doesn't entail putting it to the taxpayers. Now I know many of you out there have invested huge parts of your life to the Kings and losing them would be a tragedy to you personally. But you've got to realize that not all people (even some fans) don't have that sort of emotional investment and would remain Kings fans even if they were forced to go to another city.

Yes, I would miss the Kings being in Sacramento. I grew up rooting for home town teams (LA) and it meant a lot to me as a kid and I have many, many fond family memories around sporting events. It's been wonderful to have that here in Sacramento and to be able to share that kind of fun with my son. A team in another city really doesn't compare. And why is trying to build a nice sports and entertainment venue putting it to the taxpayers any more than any other civic improvement?

Being the capitol of one of the largest economies in the world isn't enough? We're so insecure as a city that we can't be "important" unless we've got a bunch of grown men playing a kids game in a professional capacity? Yeesh.

Yeah....I really get all warm and fuzzy and have so much fun over being the capital of one of the largest economies in the world. Its been such a bonding thing for me and my son. Globally, its the SF bay area and LA region that are the attention getters economy-wise. People just have to deal with Sacramento over the technicalities. And being the capitol of CA hasn't brought us anywhere close to the kind of attention (read advertising) that the Kings have.

Hard numbers please. That's a generalization I don't think you can support. And with prices at Arco continuing to rise at stratospheric rates (which I'm sure would only by exacerbated by the cost of a new arena), is it not reasonable to think they might choose to use their disposable income in other, less expensive ways?

Once again, numbers? Proof? I'm guessing the charities did well enough before the Kings and suspect they'll find ways to do what they need to do without the Kings. Heaven's, how do charities in non nba cities ever survive?

I can go to a game for what a movie ticket costs at a lot of theaters these days. And it would be a heckuva lot more expensive to go to the bay area to see a sporting event, concert, etc, which is what I did once in a while before Arco. What a pain.

As for charities....I have worked with a lot of nonprofits. A lot of them don't survive or they just have to settle for doing less. And besides, why would you want to throw away free money? And the more money the charities can get, the more they can do. And at least the Maloofs do contribute lots of money. I'll guarantee you it amounts to more than Hyatt, Embassy Suites and Sheraton donate after receiving big financial help from the city.

Nah, once again you sell people short by claiming they're "short sighted" for merely not agreeing with your particularly rose tinted point of view.

With gas prices out of control, cuts to levee repair and education falling apart, you think taxpayers are going to look kindly on being further taxed to build a new arena for the Maloofs? And make no mistake, they would be the largest beneficiaries. Well them and those who still have the disposable income to attend increasingly high priced events at such an arena.

Maybe not short-sighted, but if Arco closes its doors with nothing at all to replace it, I'll guarantee people will be mad and won't blame themselves. All businesses benefit when they receive help from a city. So why single out the Maloofs as somehow evil? They are willing to spend money on a new arena, they just can't finance the whole darn thing at bank rates, because then tickets would really be totally unaffordable.

Here on a Kings fan board we hear "It's not about the Kings", but in fact it is. Do any other events at the arena draw as much revenue? I'd like to know what percentage of Arco revenue the Kings generate vs. the rest of the events in a given year. I'd wager the revenue from the kings outstrips the total of everything else.

Ask the taxpayers if they'd like extra taxes levied for a sports arena and see what they say. For that reason, proponents of the new arena obviously prefer a tax to be shoved on to us knowing full well that a full and fair vote wouldn't serve their perceived needs.

I"m a long time Sacramentan and the arena is not just about the Kings to me. I don't know how much money the other events generate, but there are a lot more of them than Kings games and they are not cheap tickets. The thing is that a modern facility could accomodate a whole lot more events, which could help keep Kings game ticket prices down, besides bringing a greater number of entertainment choices.

All cities have to make choices about what to spend money on. But I just don't see why this has to be an either or choice. I'm hoping they can come up with a public/private financing scenario that can get it done. As to a "fair and full" vote, personally I have never thought a 2/3 vote for any tax issues is a fair vote anyway, for anything, including education, roads, levees, you name it. It allows a tyranny of a minority. I think a majority vote is the only "fair" way in a democracy.

 

[Wert]

So its okay to spend money on things you value, but not on something you don't, but others do?

I think it's fair to give taxpayers a bit of say in the new arena. That's all. None of tis "quiet" taxation, which I suspect would be less "quiet" if there was actual majority support for such a thing.

And the Convention Center has been one of the biggest drains on local government. They built it and then couldn't get conventions, because of the lack of decent nearby hotel rooms.

Good example. Now what's going to keep a new arena from being a similar drain? What happens if the Kings undergo a rebuilding period and folks become less willing to spend the big bucks on the games and merchandise?

How often do you stay at any of those hotels and how often do you attend events at the Convention Center or the Community Center? I have and its often cost me more (even a lot more) than going to a Kings's game at Arco.

It's apples/oranges. Normally a hotel stay or a convention is often something necessitated by a visit for one's work/whatever. The convention center and local hotels have a much different demographic than an arena filled primarily with locals. Going to a game is nice, it's fun, but it's seldom compulsory.

As to luxury boxes at Arco? Sacramento is estimating having about the same number as San Antonio, a city similar in size to Sacramento. If you read about their arena, it is the money they get from luxury suites that helps them keep tickets prices down on other seats. Here, we are paying higher ticket prices, because of the lack of luxury suites.

They have trouble filling the boxes now, having lost a few major sponsors in just the last year, but they're going to magically find a way to sell twice as many boxes at what's likely to be an even higher price. Ohhhhkay.

Well they arent "tourists," but a lot of people come to Sacramento to see events at Arco, from as far north as Redding and down into Modesto and Merced.

Numbers? What's a "lot" other than a generalization on your part?

And many will make it a day or even stay overnight.

Define "many" please.

And a lot of locals used to spend their bucks in the bay area to attend events there before Arco was built.

There's "a lot" again. Sorry, but such generalizations don't convince.

Meaning money lost to the local economy.

Based on your generalizations (and no hard figures), I find this an unsupported generalization.

I think your confusing important and and being a more attractive place to live.

Ah, I'm confused now because I disagree with your point of view. Check.

Now people in remote corners of the world know where Sacramento is.

Whoopee. I could care less and chose not base any sense of civic pride on the simple fact that a city has a pro sports team.

You cannot buy that kind of advertising. Cities don't need pro sports to be better or (important), but they do need a variety of cultural and entertainment choices to be attractive places for people to live and for businesses to want to locate there.

And you're saying that this couldn't be accomplished without a huge boondoggle of an arena? That having a large new arena will make this just magically happen? I don't buy it.

As for smaller venues doing better, that's just silly. They are not in competition for the same events. You aren't going to have the circus, ice shows, major rodeo events, major star concerts, basketball tournaments in a small venue.

Circuses have existed without stadiums for a long time. Heard of tents? Ever compared a concert in Arco to a concert at a venue with proper acoustics? The last time I checked rodeo events can be held outside and often are, even in other venues like Cal Expo. And have you taken a look at the calendar of events at arco? The events you mention comprise a very small portion of the total year. It seems that arco sits empty for many many days out of year. Besides, I'd wager that dollarwise, these events are pretty insignificant compared to the revenue the Kings generate.

Sacramento and to be able to share that kind of fun with my son.

You could enlist your son in little league or a local kids BBall team and still share that kind of fun with him. Hell, some might even argue that that kind of hands on thing could be even better than passively watching a game. Geez, you make it sound like you can't bond with your son without the Kings being in town and that's frankly kind of depressing.

A team in another city really doesn't compare. And why is trying to build a nice sports and entertainment venue putting it to the taxpayers any more than any other civic improvement?

Not all civic improvement's are created equal in the eyes of taxpayers who are asked to pay for them. Simply having different priorities does not make folks "shortsighted" or wrong.

Yeah....I really get all warm and fuzzy and have so much fun over being the capital of one of the largest economies in the world.

I know that's an attempt at sarcasm, but that factoid is really very impressive. But perhaps not as impressive as knowing we have a batch of full grown men being paid millions of bucks to play a kids game.

Globally, its the SF bay area and LA region that are the attention getters economy-wise. People just have to deal with Sacramento over the technicalities. And being the capitol of CA hasn't brought us anywhere close to the kind of attention (read advertising) that the Kings have.

So, we're attention whores and need the kings to satiate that need. We have no way of being respected/etc. without the blessing of having the kings here. Gotcha.

I can go to a game for what a movie ticket costs at a lot of theaters these days. And it would be a heckuva lot more expensive to go to the bay area to see a sporting event, concert, etc, which is what I did once in a while before Arco. What a pain.

You realize a lot of taxpayers you're asking to foot the bill for a new arena might not even be able to afford the movie ticket right?

As for charities....I have worked with a lot of nonprofits. A lot of them don't survive or they just have to settle for doing less.

If a charity is dependent on the NBA to do all their legwork for them in terms of publicity and so one, what good are they? Charities in other non nba towns do just fine.

And at least the Maloofs do contribute lots of money.

Yet are very reticent to pay any substantial portion of cost of a new arena.

Maybe not short-sighted, but if Arco closes its doors with nothing at all to replace it, I'll guarantee people will be mad and won't blame themselves.

Guess what. Development will continue whether or not Arco closes or not. Take a look at the railyards. Plans are going through there even without an arena.

All businesses benefit when they receive help from a city. So why single out the Maloofs as somehow evil?

I didn't say they were evil, but thanks for putting those words in my mouth.

They are willing to spend money on a new arena, they just can't finance the whole darn thing at bank rates, because then tickets would really be totally unaffordable.

I've seen no proof they're willing to contribute much at all, so this assertion holds little weight with me.

I don't know how much money the other events generate, but there are a lot more of them than Kings games and they are not cheap tickets.

And yet even a little peek at the calendar for arco shows it stands empty quite often.

The thing is that a modern facility could accomodate a whole lot more events, which could help keep Kings game ticket prices down, besides bringing a greater number of entertainment choices.

If you think Kings tickets would remain at current levels in a new arena, I think you're living in a fantasy world. It's sort of like Bush saying that invading Iraq would result in lower gas prices.

All cities have to make choices about what to spend money on.

Yep, and that's why I say put any further taxation to a fair vote. Why would anyone have issue with that unless they felt they couldn't win?

But I just don't see why this has to be an either or choice. I'm hoping they can come up with a public/private financing scenario that can get it done.

Well, I wouldn't be averse to that if they could do it without adding a tax that would be fairly regressive toward the lower economic strata here.

As to a "fair and full" vote, personally I have never thought a 2/3 vote for any tax issues is a fair vote anyway, for anything, including education, roads, levees, you name it.

Ah, but politicians have to be accountable to the voters at some point and raising taxes hasn't alway been the road to political popularity in that regard.

It allows a tyranny of a minority. I think a majority vote is the only "fair" way in a democracy.

Polls have shown a majority of folks would vote against excessive public funding for a new arena. And I think it a straight "up or down" vote with the public, I doubt extra taxation for a new arena would fly. And so I see little to convince me that a "tyranny of the minority" exists here. Unless you can prove to me that a majority of taxpayers support if of course.

Why the reluctance to put it to a vote? Tax issues of this nature are far reaching and often regressive for the lowest income earners in any market. Broad based changes in taxation affect everyone, so I have no issue seeing such things taken to a vote.

It all comes down to priorities and expectations. It's not hard to imagine a die hard Kings fan would prioritize doing whatever it takes to keep them here. And to perhaps have expectations that might not match future realities (see convention center boondoggle).

 

[JB_kings]

These are taken from arena studies done in the past and are available on the Sacramento City Council website. They are from the 1999 - 2001 time frame.

Event breakdown averaged over 3 years:
Kings regular and preseason events - 43
Other Sports events - 48
Family Shows - 25
Other Events - 28
Concerts - 25
Total average: 170 events

How does this compare to arenas in similar small markets:
Orlando Arena- 191
San Jose Arena - 161
Conseco - 145
Delta Center - 130
Nashville - 106

So Arco isn't sitting empty more than any other similar small market arena. They do pretty well.

There's more revenue than just suites. There's naming rights, signage, club seating (this is NOT suite related), parking and a number of other items. Suite revenue and general ticket sales are usually similar in numbers with parking and concessions next.
The ARCO naming & signage deals run a long time and is chump change in relation to recent deals. For example, Memphis is getting 5 million a year from Federal Express. The only way to get out that is to have a new building.

 

[kennadog]

Let's see, I have generalizations, unsupported by actual numbers? So do many of your statements. And who is talking about "quiet" taxation? Pretty much any tax mentioned so far has to be put to the voters. Its the law. The Maloofs have said they are willing to pay up to 20-25% of the cost. That's not saying nothing.

By the way, I did soccer, little league baseball through senior majors; cub scouts, boy scouts, music, hiking, backpacking, camping and lots of other things with my son. You assumed way too much. Guess what? I spent way more on those things than I ever spent on anything related to the Kings.

You will still be a Kings fan if they move? So its okay with you, if people in other cities spend their money so you can watch?

I'm not advocating placing all of the burden on residents, not even talking about how any resident contribution would be made. If it cost you $5.00 a year would you vote for it? Or do you want to spend zero? There are a lot of different funding mechanisms, but bottom line, without some public support there will eventually be no arena in the Sacramento area. With or without the Kings, I think that's just sad.

Now that I live in Yuba City, I really don't want to go to the bay area for events that can only take place in an arena or venue of that size. That would just be way too expensive for me. By the way, Arco would have far more events during the year if it was more adaptable and modern. As reported in the Bee, many events are now bypassing Sacramento completely, because Arco just can't meet their needs.

 

[JB_kings]

FYI,
Going back to the loan in 1997 from the city to the Kings owner Jim Thomas. 73.7 million in 30 year bond notes.
In exchange for this loan, the Kings signed a 30 year lease and guarenteed it would remain in the city for 10 years.
Hey 10 years flys by when your having fun!

Here's where it gets interesting. The details:
1. The Kings hand over the deed to the Arco Arena property to the City in return for the bond repayment.
2. The City leases the arena property to the City Finance Authority under a 30 year site lease in return for the 70 million in bonds. (Note: the bonds were obtained by the city finance authority. They are the middle man between the City and the Merrill-Lynch)
3. The Authority sub leases the Arco Arena property back to the City under a facility lease in exchange for rent. (equal to the bond debt payments)
4. The City subleases the Arco property back to the Kings in exchange for the rent. (again equal to the payments)

Real exciting stuff, eh? But did you notice who's holding the deed to the Arco Arena property? The City.

So now lets play what if.
The voters go to the polls in spring 2007 and shoot down the tax increase for a new arena.
The 10 year agreement to not relocate cooincidently expires at the same.
So there's no hope for a new arena and the NBA and the Maloofs have given their last chance to the city. Permission to move is given to the Kings. It doesn't matter which city, it's just a done deal and they move in the summer of 2007.
Now the Kings have to settle affairs with the city in regards to the sublease on Arco Arena. They can either re-pay the loan in full and get their deed back. Not really attractive to own the building you just moved out of since you were the main tennant. Or they can negotiate a deal where the deed is free and clear to the City. Maybe throw them a few bucks just avoid a messy court case when the sublease payments stop.
You see no matter what the city is going to own an arena. They can either own a new facility that can bring thousands bodies downtown over 170 times a year. Or they can make payments for 20 years on a building that will be reaching it's useful end soon after taking ownership. Of course, minus the benefit of 60 plus events when the Kings and Monarchs are gone. They would probably be better off taking a wrecking ball to the building and selling off the land to re-pay the bond debt. And now you have no facility to run any events.
Over 2 million people living in the Sacramento-Yolo region - the 19th largest market (media or MSA) and no public facility for big events.