Bee: The arena debate: Grand plans, hard realities

#1
The arena debate: Grand plans, hard realities

Backers say railyard project's on track, but big issues like land costs remain unsettled

By Mary Lynne Vellinga - Bee Staff Writer


link to article Here: http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/33775.html


Published 12:00 am PDT Wednesday, October 4, 2006
Story appeared in MAIN NEWS section, Page A1


Suheil Totah, vice president of development for Thomas Enterprises, on Friday peers out at the Union Pacific railyard from his downtown office.


[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]The television ad campaign supporting the new Kings arena plan on the November ballot focuses on its potential to spur the stalled redevelopment of downtown Sacramento's railyard.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Stan Thomas, the Georgia developer negotiating to buy the railyard from Union Pacific, is funding the campaign with $2 million. The ad features his renderings of a railyard transformed into a vibrant housing, retail and sports and entertainment district.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Yet even as Thomas opens his wallet to help the arena bid, his initial negotiations with the city over other aspects of the railyard development suggest he may strike a hard bargain when it comes to selling the city and county the land for an arena.[/FONT]


[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]City and county officials talking to Thomas' team about the arena won't say how much he's asking for the land on which it would sit. But last week his representatives said the land the city needs to acquire for a new train, light-rail and bus station is worth as much as $5.5 million an acre. The publicly funded station would benefit Thomas' project.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Discussions over the station -- just one part of the railyard development -- illustrate the enormity of the complex and costly issues that must be worked out before railyard development could begin.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Suheil Totah, vice president of development for Thomas Enterprises, says his firm will be ready to break ground next year, once the city approves environmental review and project plans. City officials, too, say this timetable is realistic.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]"There's no reason I can see why we can't be breaking ground by next summer," said Assistant City Manager Marty Hanneman.[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Yet nearly all the big-ticket issues remain on the table. Members of the Maloof family, which owns the Kings, have repeatedly pointed out that Thomas doesn't even own the 240-acre railyard. He's been negotiating with Union Pacific for more than three years.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Totah says the deal will close, but he's stopped saying when.[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]The city has just begun talks with Totah over who should pay $40 million to $70 million to move the Union Pacific train tracks to the north and make improvements needed for the railyard development and the planned transit station.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Totah said his company expects the city -- with help from state and federal agencies -- to shoulder the financial burden.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]"I think their initial reaction is they'd like to see the city bear as much of the cost as possible," Hanneman said.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Another goal of the negotiations is a separate agreement on the 32 acres for the transit station. [/FONT][FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]In a meeting with city officials Friday, Totah presented an appraisal suggesting some of the land could fetch as much as $5.5 million an [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]acre, Hanneman said. [/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]"We don't agree with that value; that's just what they say it's worth," Hanneman said. "We want to get our own third-party appraisal."[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Hanneman stressed that the arena land would probably be appraised for less than what Thomas Enterprises is seeking for the station piece, which is closer to the front of the railyard and thus more valuable.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Totah would not comment on the price for either property.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Mayor Heather Fargo said she has long expected that land for the station would be made available to the city at little or no cost.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Both the track relocation and intermodal station have the potential to greatly increase the value of other land in the 240-acre railyard. So does the arena.[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]"My opinion is that it would be reasonable, given that the intermodal is going to be the centerpiece for the entire development, and the real catalyst for the entire development, that the city would pay little if anything for the intermodal site," Fargo said. "It improves access. It provides infrastructure. It's a huge public investment in the middle of a very large private piece of land."[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Construction on the station itself is expected to cost about $200 million, Fargo said. So far, the city has $17.5 million in federal transportation funds and $60 million earmarked from the county's Measure A sales tax.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]The city is also working with Thomas Enterprises to develop an overall plan for building streets, sewers, utilities and other infrastructure needed to serve its railyard project -- an undertaking expected to cost hundreds of millions of dollars.[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]"They need everything; there's nothing out there," Hanneman said.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Thomas Enterprises plans to build a level of parking over much of the 240 acres. It will double as a giant platform for buildings and streets above. An extension of Fifth Street would curve through the development, and a new street tentatively named Big Four Boulevard would run through the sports and entertainment district and in front of the arena.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]The developer won't divulge how much it is paying Union Pacific for the railyard. In addition to the purchase price, Thomas Enterprises will be responsible for completing the cleanup of toxics on the Superfund site. The cost of this work has also not been released.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]"We are taking on the cleanup responsibility, and our responsibility is being backed by a large insurance company," Totah said.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Proponents of the arena plan on the Nov. 7 ballot consider its location in the railyard its strongest selling point. For some elected officials it's the only reason they've put their political capital on the line to back Measures Q and R, which would impose a new quarter-cent sales tax and ask voters to bless spending half of the $1.2 billion generated on a sports and entertainment facility. The measures received dismal ratings from voters in a Bee-commissioned poll published last Sunday.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]"We always thought it was worth the kind of investment we were willing to make if it was going to be in the downtown railyard," said City Councilman Rob Fong. "We certainly recognize how important and strategic this project would be as an anchor and a catalyst."[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Totah shares Fong's enthusiasm. [/FONT][FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]From his office in the recently renovated Railway Express Agency building, he looks out his windows and sees 240 acres of possibility -- a former industrial hub now empty except for historic red brick buildings that once served as workshops.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Colorful drawings hanging on his walls show the railyard as he envisions it -- pedestrian-friendly streets lined with stores, housing and offices, and historic buildings turned into lively markets and museums. There's also a performing arts complex. And, of course, a basketball arena. [/FONT][FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]But Kings President John Thomas, ensconced in his offices at Arco Arena, has a different picture in mind. When he contemplates the downtown railyard, Thomas focuses mostly on the risks of moving the team from its current, comfortable berth in North Natomas, surrounded by wide roads, freeway exits and plenty of parking.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]The railyard is an unknown, in his view, and he wants to protect the business interests of his employers, Joe and Gavin Maloof, by making sure they receive at least the same income from parking and concessions in the railyard location as they do at Arco.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]The Maloofs broke off talks with the city and county last month, saying Thomas Enterprises failed to provide several promised concessions, including 8,000 parking spaces controlled by the Kings. The developer and government negotiators crafted a new plan and sent it to the Kings. John Thomas said the team needs more information before it can respond.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]"Everybody knows that the easiest location, and the least expensive location, is right where we are now, and it's the most popular with our customers," [/FONT][FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Thomas said last week. "The Maloofs have always said we'll go downtown if that's what the community wants. ... (But) we can't go backwards."
About the writer:
[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]
[/FONT]
 
#2
"How dare they spend my hard earned tax dollars on a tranportation facilities. I don't ever ride the train or light rail. I'm voting NO on this."

See how this argument just sounds silly.
 
#3
Of all the articles the Bee has printed so far, this is easily the most damaging. It really solidly underscores my point, too: The "before" and "after" pictures that sharethevision has on their website are extremely misleading. All the arena does is present the opportunity to develop the rest of the railyard, but I figured at $3 million an acre, maybe the subsidies required for the rest of the 240 acres wouldn't be too bad.

Now comes the stunner: $5.5 million/acre.

She's dead, Jim.

Sorry.

I wish there was some other way, but Thomas Enterprises just looks greedy here to me. Very, very greedy. You can't blame the voters for rejecting Q&R now, because that land is way too expensive. You can't blame the Maloofs, because they shouldn't be forced to give up parking revenue. You can't even blame the City, because building what'd be a MASSIVELY expensive parking lot (do you think Joe and Gavin care how much it costs to build that parking lot? Think again.) that'd simply put existing lots out of business is a bad idea.

And frankly, in a way, I can't even blame the developer, if they're truly paying for the cleanup.

The problem is this deal was badly rushed and botched last May-July. Too complex a deal to do in that short of time, and dealing with a developer who doesn't even own the land yet, and failure to write down the key provisions in the deal, and, and, and...

How do you now vote FOR Q&R??? I don't see it.
 

Bricklayer

Don't Make Me Use The Bat
#4
How do you now vote FOR Q&R??? I don't see it.
In order to distort you need to be a little sneakier than that, as the article quite explicitly points out that a) the $5.5 mil is debateable, and b) the $5.5mil would only apply to the land at the front of the redevelopment anyway, with it getting cheaper the deeper you go.
 
#5
She's dead, Jim.

Sorry.

I wish there was some other way, but Thomas Enterprises just looks greedy here to me. Very, very greedy. You can't blame the voters for rejecting Q&R now, because that land is way too expensive. You can't blame the Maloofs, because they shouldn't be forced to give up parking revenue. You can't even blame the City, because building what'd be a MASSIVELY expensive parking lot (do you think Joe and Gavin care how much it costs to build that parking lot? Think again.) that'd simply put existing lots out of business is a bad idea.
You are right, Bones, she is dead (although they did resurrect Spock with the Genesis project).

The Maloofs will and should give-up parking spots. 8,000 spots around a downtown arena is absurd and highly unusual. The city would be dumb to build that parking lot....too expensive, giving-up too much valuable land for parking, putting other garages out of business, adding to traffic congestion, making it much, much more difficult for pedestrians, added pollution. In IMHO, the city should never, ever allow anything close to 8,000 spots.....dumb, dumb dumb for everyone but the Maloofs and I think they know it.
 

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#6
The number of parking spots is the least of the problems right now.

1. The developer doesn't have title to the land.
2. The Maloofs and the city/county have a temporary agreement supposedly to lead to an MOU with more holes in it than the proverbial swiss cheese.
3. The public doesn't perceive the need for a new arena.
4. Did I mention the developer doesn't even own the land?

At this point, there are HUGE issues to be resolved. I'm a Kings fan, and everyone knows I've supported the idea of a new arena. BUT I don't think the people of Sacramento County should be expected to vote on blind faith alone.
 
#7
The number of parking spots is the least of the problems right now.

1. The developer doesn't have title to the land.
2. The Maloofs and the city/county have a temporary agreement supposedly to lead to an MOU with more holes in it than the proverbial swiss cheese.
3. The public doesn't perceive the need for a new arena.
4. Did I mention the developer doesn't even own the land?

At this point, there are HUGE issues to be resolved. I'm a Kings fan, and everyone knows I've supported the idea of a new arena. BUT I don't think the people of Sacramento County should be expected to vote on blind faith alone.

i. e. "She's dead, Jim."
 

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#8
I'm not ready to start throwing dirt, kupman, but I think they need to do some STRONG work to clarify issues. If they don't, I just can't see the people of Sacramento coming around to a pro-arena point of view.
 
#10
I don't have much hope for this vote, but you do have to understand that we cannot vote on this again for another two years. So that is why this is rushed and nobody looks like they are on the same page.
Can you blame the city and county for rushing this? Maybe. But if they had indicators that MS&E wasn't going to wait for another two years, maybe what we are seeing is the hail mary pass to keep the Kings. I fear the residents refuse to do this any other way than worst possible scenario. They won't do this until they see the actual result of losing the team.
 
#11
JB, you are 100% correct that we cannot vote on this for another two years. The problem is, the Maloofs have been lobbying since, what, 2000?, for another arena, and then everyone waited until the last possible 60 days to assemble a deal. How dumb is that?

I maintain that two years gives them sufficient time to iron out what will clearly be a complex deal, and that the current arena has two years left in it.

And now it looks as though, really, the railyards may not be the best place to do this. Think about it, if the arena and the parking lot occupy 15 acres, that's around $80 million JUST FOR THE LAND. That kills it right there.

So, fine, go back to the drawing board for a different location, and since that different location will, by design, NOT be a redevelopment project (that was about 80% of the appeal of doing this in the railyard), it will have to have a smaller public funding component. You know, if it's just next door to the current arena, maybe we donate the 100 acres we own and build there, and since we donated that land, we pay for 50% of the costs. Maybe the voters go for it then.

But man, I just cannot believe that $5.5 million/acre figure was not known in July. You gotta be kiddin' me. That's either a coverup, a gross miscommunication, or pure ignorance; worst of all, it's a showstopper.

We cannot proceed on "Just trust us." There was absolutely no reason to rush this, unless you're like my middle-school daughter, who gets an assignment on Friday, due next Wednesday, and then starts on it at 10:30 Tuesday night. Then, okay, I guess it's normal.

To the rest of us? SNAFU.
 
#12
Or maybe this really was our last best hope and the worst case scenario is going to play out. That one will definitely cost more and we lose the Kings. I can understand the play it safe route and have all the details worked out. The question is will MS&E wait the extra time?
I have my educated guess at what really is in play here, but it's not one that Kings fans would really like to hear.
 
#13
Even if this were to pass, construction wouldn't start for awhile. They were saying 2010 to finish the arena. Adding two more years means no new arena until 2012. And knowing developers, that's probably a way too optimistic estimate. I'd add 1 or 2 years to that estimate. I'm not sure the Kings can stay at Arco for another possible 6-8 years.

There's at least two cities with arena's built or close to built and wanting an NBA team. Anaheim and Kansas City. There may be more before Sacramento could get anything off the ground.

I think the Maloofs would like to stay. However, I don't think they are going to run a losing business for an unknown number of years (since we're only assuming an approved deal in 2 years). No one should expect them to do so.

On the other hand, I don't think Thomas Enterprises wants to do an arena in their development. Or, if the city is determined to have the arena in the railyards, TE knows they have the city over a barrel, with or without the Kings being involved. Greed, yup. Next to greed in the dictionary, I'm sure there must be a picture of a land developer.

Its too bad the city couldn't have optioned part of the land themselves.But that would have taken money and a sizeable risk.
 
#14
The Maloofs want all the revenue from an arena, Anaheim is not going to give them that and KC is a saturated market. Whatever notions that Vegas can't be done can likely be overcome by easier negotiations then we've been watching here. It's not hard to read the Maloofs true desire if you've watched them carefully over time. The only doubt is whether the new arena is next to the Palms or somewhere else in town. I now think Anaheim is being used as leverage for the better deal in Vegas.
 
#15
JB - good points about KC and Anaheim. These two cities will not hand the Maloofs whatever they want. They will also draw a line in the sand. By the way, not that it matters much at this point, but the Pond only has 4,000 spots of on site parking and the Maloofs probably would not get 100% of the revenue from that parking.


Another thought: many people, Grant, Mike Lamb, AS and many others on this board etc., state that the public cannot be expected to vote Yes on Q&R if the details of the arena are not first outlined in a MOU. The arena portion already seems to be very well detailed relative to the ambiguous use of the other $600 million going to other "civic improvement." Nobody points to the lack details of the other $600 million. Doesn't the public often vote on measures that are yet to be detailed dollar per dollar, point by point? The recent stem cell measure voted by CA comes to mind.
 
#16
The public does not vote on how to specifically spend every cent of revenue raised by the government. The vote is to raise taxes if its for general use. If a tax IS designed to be spent for a specific one purpose, it requires a 2/3's vote.

I actually don't think Las Vegas would be as good a market as Sacramento at this time. But first, why should other casino owners help the Maloofs out by taking the financial hit of removing NBA betting from their books? I also don't think they really want 41 events a year that could potentially take customers/money away from them, even if only for a few hours. It would be a hard sell.


Secondly, there is a lot more choices in Las Vegas than Sacramento for how to spend disposible income.
 
#17
This article is from last Feb. I was not a regular here at that point, so I do not know if it came up here. It shows that Vegas is ready, I would imagine that means that the local casino owners are on board. It seems that Stearns is more of the hold up.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/16/AR2006021602538.html?nav=rss_sports

"With the local casinos placing bets on every game played, Las Vegas has long been viewed, as the forbidden fruit of professional sports, but that image appears to be beginning to fall. With the stigma surrounding gambling fading in recent years -- with state lotteries, casinos on Native American reservations, Internet gambling, video poker and fantasy sports -- an NBA team in Las Vegas could be a good bet. (the WNBA's Connecticut Sun already plays at the Mohegan Sun Casino in Uncasville, Conn.)"

"When the Jazz played in Las Vegas 22 years ago, the NBA had a no-gambling agreement with the casinos to prevent betting on those games. And Stern required the provinces of British Columbia and Ontario to abolish any wagering on NBA games before the 1995-96 season. In British Columbia that meant removing NBA contests from the provincial government-controlled Sports Action betting games, in which players who correctly predicted the point spreads of at least three NBA games won cash prizes. In 1993, British Columbian bettors shelled out some $1.56 million Canadian on NBA games.
Goodman, a 66-year-old Philadelphia native who admits that he would bet on anything -- including the direction a cockroach would turn -- said the prevalent perceptions of gambling and sports are archaic. He considers Las Vegas the "safest" place to play games; that it would be wrong to look at the city and "think of anything untoward or unseemly, about accepting bets on games. We're the only state in the union, the only place in the world, that regulates the games."
The Nevada Gaming Control Board regulates sports bookmaking, which is legal, and the casinos were instrumental in uncovering a point-shaving scheme at Arizona State in 1994. Goodman added that worries about any potential connections between organized crime and professional sports are also unfounded. "I know because I'm criminal defense lawyer and I used to defend all the guys who used to fix the games. They're all gone," said Goodman, whose most notorious clients were Frank "Lefty" Rosenthal and Anthony "Tony the Ant" Spilotro, who was portrayed by Joe Pesci in the 1995 film "Casino."

I have to wonder if Vegas will be ready by the time Arco is no longer an option.
 
#18
I remember reading that article. Could happen, but I'll believe it when I see it. And I'll probably never believe there aren't people out there tryng to "fix" games. It may be more regulated in Vegas, but "appearances" are everything and Stern knows that.

You are right about the potential issues with Anaheim and KC, altho KC has most definitely said they'd like the Kings back. In Anaheim, there is so much more total revenue available, it may not be as big an issue as it seems.
 
Last edited:

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#19
This article is from last Feb. I was not a regular here at that point, so I do not know if it came up here. It shows that Vegas is ready, I would imagine that means that the local casino owners are on board. It seems that Stearns is more of the hold up.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/16/AR2006021602538.html?nav=rss_sports

"With the local casinos placing bets on every game played, Las Vegas has long been viewed, as the forbidden fruit of professional sports, but that image appears to be beginning to fall. With the stigma surrounding gambling fading in recent years -- with state lotteries, casinos on Native American reservations, Internet gambling, video poker and fantasy sports -- an NBA team in Las Vegas could be a good bet. (the WNBA's Connecticut Sun already plays at the Mohegan Sun Casino in Uncasville, Conn.)"

"When the Jazz played in Las Vegas 22 years ago, the NBA had a no-gambling agreement with the casinos to prevent betting on those games. And Stern required the provinces of British Columbia and Ontario to abolish any wagering on NBA games before the 1995-96 season. In British Columbia that meant removing NBA contests from the provincial government-controlled Sports Action betting games, in which players who correctly predicted the point spreads of at least three NBA games won cash prizes. In 1993, British Columbian bettors shelled out some $1.56 million Canadian on NBA games.
Goodman, a 66-year-old Philadelphia native who admits that he would bet on anything -- including the direction a cockroach would turn -- said the prevalent perceptions of gambling and sports are archaic. He considers Las Vegas the "safest" place to play games; that it would be wrong to look at the city and "think of anything untoward or unseemly, about accepting bets on games. We're the only state in the union, the only place in the world, that regulates the games."
The Nevada Gaming Control Board regulates sports bookmaking, which is legal, and the casinos were instrumental in uncovering a point-shaving scheme at Arizona State in 1994. Goodman added that worries about any potential connections between organized crime and professional sports are also unfounded. "I know because I'm criminal defense lawyer and I used to defend all the guys who used to fix the games. They're all gone," said Goodman, whose most notorious clients were Frank "Lefty" Rosenthal and Anthony "Tony the Ant" Spilotro, who was portrayed by Joe Pesci in the 1995 film "Casino."

I have to wonder if Vegas will be ready by the time Arco is no longer an option.
Yes, this topic was discussed back then. And, although the Washington Post thinks it's viable, David Stern has steadfastly maintained that he does not want to put a team in Vegas.
 
#20
Kennadog,

your avatar has gone from a "Pro Q&R" to something much more sinister looking....please explain.....are you o.k.?