Bee: Sales tax quietly weighed for arena

[JB_kings]

Another note, for those who think that NBA team owners should build their own buildings, I have two examples of why not. Look up in Portland and Paul Allen. He built the Rose Garden and now he's in trouble and the team is losing a LOT of money. He's looking to sell the team and arena and get out while he can. And Portland was nice enough to build a competing facility that took events away from the Rose Garden. Nasty little relationship they have.
And the other example is Arco Arena. Privately built in times with terrible interest rates and at half the cost and features of other arenas built the same year. The Jim Thomas loan was no different than any homeowner who bought a house in the mid-80s and re-financed later when interest rates were lower. The only trouble is that you have fewer re-fi options when you own a 17,000 seat as opposed to a 2000 sq ft home.

 

[kennadog]

Thank you JB kings. Bonds were proposed for the new arena, but shot down. Too bad. When the owners in north Natomas deal fell apart, because not all of the owners wanted to participate, I genuinely could not understand why the city didn't offer to fill the gap with bond financing (no tax). It would have been considerably less risky for the city if you have a large amount of equity contributed by some big land owners, 20-25% contribution from the Maloofs and then city fills in the gap, somehow. The City just remained mute.

Not without some risk to the city, but considerably reduced due the lesser amount needed relative to the value of the land and new arena.

If the Kings leave, the city will still need some sort of big venue. This is a large region and growing. And they won't have anyone to contribute money to building it. If Fresno and Stockton can build nice new sports/entertainment arenas with no wealthy pro sports team owners to contribute, what is wrong here?

Geez, even poor West Sacramento got a baseball stadium built, when its rich sister across the way couldn't manage it. And West Sacramento has not been sorry they built it. Its part of their over-all drive to upgrade their image and enhance the enjoyment of the riverfront for everyone.

 

[VF21]

Wert - We are having a civil discussion without the use of sarcasm, etc. This is a serious issue. It's not about debating and scoring points or trying to "win." If you don't want an arena, fine. Don't vote for it.

But please - this forum "NEW ARENA" HERE at Kingsfans.com is predicated on the belief that we DO want an arena. You are posting longer and longer tomes in opposition to that concept. Those types of posts, which reflect your opinion and are certainly valid for you, are NOT what this section or SAVEOURKINGS.com is all about.

Thank you for your input but this isn't the appropriate place.

I do encourage you to write to your local representatives, the Bee, etc. and give voice to your concerns. But, here at least, you've had your say.

Thank you.

 

[JB_kings]

I understand where you're coming from VF21. I don't mind having an exchange with somebody who really is interested in learning more. But when I see someone refer to themself as a "devil's advocate", it's a red flag to me. I won't waste any more of my time responding to Wert.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Wert has one valid point in that the sales tax is a regressive tax which would negatively effect people who can't even afford to go to Kings games and those people are hurting enough as it is in the current economy. I do think a new arena will benefit Sacramento a great deal and really want to see it happen but I think there are better ways to get it done, but the tax burden should be tilted towards those who use the arena or those who will benefit the most from it.

 

[PFFFT!!]

I would love it if they used Natomas again.