I can't believe that someone has not posted this yet. It contains what may be the best paragraph printed in the Bee in years.
http://www.sacbee.com/content/sports/story/14314447p-15222721c.html
Marcos Bretón: Arena issue requires Maloofs to walk soft
By Marcos Bretón -- Bee Sports Columnist
September is traditionally the start of football season and a prelude to baseball's postseason. But around here, in California's ultimate political town, it's election season. It's the beginning of the real campaign to sell Sacramento County on the idea of a taxpayer-subsidized downtown arena.
t's a time when it will be revealed in election finance statements just how much the Kings owners -- the Maloof family -- want to stay in Sacramento.
They say they do, but those words will be meaningless without a million dollars or more in Maloof funding for the massive arena-sell job.
In years past, this column has also advocated that the Maloofs take a lead role in promoting a new arena but, upon reflection, that seems like a bad idea.
If they want to win in November, the Maloofs should stay in the background, preaching only to their base of season-ticket holders or like-minded locals.
Everyone else is mad at them, doesn't trust them, sees them as carpetbaggers reaching into the meager wallets of the poor and of aggrieved residents deprived of vital municipal services.
This is partly because of mistakes they've made and partly because being disliked is endemic to being rich guys. Either way, the Maloofs are lightning rods to those who oppose a quarter-cent sales tax to fund a $500 million downtown arena -- and who say "the Maloofs should pay for it themselves!"
Maybe they should. And maybe, if the Maloofs ever left, another sports owner would come into Sacramento and pay the full freight for a new sports and entertainment facility here.
And maybe -- just maybe -- pigs will fly out of my nose, too.
For better or for worse, the Maloofs are the face of pro sports ownership today. They are like owners in Indianapolis, Phoenix, Memphis and Charlotte who improved their bottom lines with big taxpayer subsidies.
The Maloofs are no worse. And really, in terms of putting a good product on the floor -- and building a WNBA championship team in the Monarchs -- the Maloofs are better than many other owners.
So why not trot them out more to sell this arena deal? Because their Las Vegas personas -- and the image of the Palms Casino as a virtual mint -- gets in their way.
People see their billionaire businesses and wonder why they can't just cut a check of their own?
Many people don't want to hear the Maloofs won't do it because their NBA owner buddies wouldn't do it either. That goes against the credo of monopoly in pro sports.
People also are loathe to talk about how other cities such as Anaheim likely are whispering in the Maloofs' ears, making promises if Sacramento votes them down Nov. 7.
In fact, to bring that up is to enrage some voters and prompt them to toss around words such as "blackmail" and "extortion." There is even a local politico dead-set against the arena who asserted pro sports are supposed to be about fair play. How dumb can you be? Pro sports have nothing to do with fair play.
And personally, this is my problem with the often naïve, often shrill and paper-thin arguments against the arena. They are too often based on ivory-tower philosophy or class warfare.
For example, we all should be voting against the arena because we need more Sacramento cops -- as if one issue would in any way impact the other. And even the cops union said they could support the arena -- instead of opposing it -- if they got staffing concessions from the city.
That little revelation says there is plenty of duplicity on the anti-arena bandwagon -- it's not all on the pro side.
So it's time to talk about what's real in the arena deal, and that requires a level of straight talk from which the Maloofs have shied away.
Maybe they are right. Maybe there is no way they can come across well before a hostile audience transfixed on their bulging wallets.
Maybe other surrogates, such as Vice Mayor Rob Fong, Supervisor Roger Dickinson and River Cats owner Art Savage, should talk about what an arena would do for Sacramento, while the Maloofs open their wallets to fund a big part of the campaign.
To do otherwise is to likely bring defeat -- and questions of whether that was the objective all along.
http://www.sacbee.com/content/sports/story/14314447p-15222721c.html
Marcos Bretón: Arena issue requires Maloofs to walk soft
By Marcos Bretón -- Bee Sports Columnist
September is traditionally the start of football season and a prelude to baseball's postseason. But around here, in California's ultimate political town, it's election season. It's the beginning of the real campaign to sell Sacramento County on the idea of a taxpayer-subsidized downtown arena.
t's a time when it will be revealed in election finance statements just how much the Kings owners -- the Maloof family -- want to stay in Sacramento.
They say they do, but those words will be meaningless without a million dollars or more in Maloof funding for the massive arena-sell job.
In years past, this column has also advocated that the Maloofs take a lead role in promoting a new arena but, upon reflection, that seems like a bad idea.
If they want to win in November, the Maloofs should stay in the background, preaching only to their base of season-ticket holders or like-minded locals.
Everyone else is mad at them, doesn't trust them, sees them as carpetbaggers reaching into the meager wallets of the poor and of aggrieved residents deprived of vital municipal services.
This is partly because of mistakes they've made and partly because being disliked is endemic to being rich guys. Either way, the Maloofs are lightning rods to those who oppose a quarter-cent sales tax to fund a $500 million downtown arena -- and who say "the Maloofs should pay for it themselves!"
Maybe they should. And maybe, if the Maloofs ever left, another sports owner would come into Sacramento and pay the full freight for a new sports and entertainment facility here.
And maybe -- just maybe -- pigs will fly out of my nose, too.
For better or for worse, the Maloofs are the face of pro sports ownership today. They are like owners in Indianapolis, Phoenix, Memphis and Charlotte who improved their bottom lines with big taxpayer subsidies.
The Maloofs are no worse. And really, in terms of putting a good product on the floor -- and building a WNBA championship team in the Monarchs -- the Maloofs are better than many other owners.
So why not trot them out more to sell this arena deal? Because their Las Vegas personas -- and the image of the Palms Casino as a virtual mint -- gets in their way.
People see their billionaire businesses and wonder why they can't just cut a check of their own?
Many people don't want to hear the Maloofs won't do it because their NBA owner buddies wouldn't do it either. That goes against the credo of monopoly in pro sports.
People also are loathe to talk about how other cities such as Anaheim likely are whispering in the Maloofs' ears, making promises if Sacramento votes them down Nov. 7.
In fact, to bring that up is to enrage some voters and prompt them to toss around words such as "blackmail" and "extortion." There is even a local politico dead-set against the arena who asserted pro sports are supposed to be about fair play. How dumb can you be? Pro sports have nothing to do with fair play.
And personally, this is my problem with the often naïve, often shrill and paper-thin arguments against the arena. They are too often based on ivory-tower philosophy or class warfare.
For example, we all should be voting against the arena because we need more Sacramento cops -- as if one issue would in any way impact the other. And even the cops union said they could support the arena -- instead of opposing it -- if they got staffing concessions from the city.
That little revelation says there is plenty of duplicity on the anti-arena bandwagon -- it's not all on the pro side.
So it's time to talk about what's real in the arena deal, and that requires a level of straight talk from which the Maloofs have shied away.
Maybe they are right. Maybe there is no way they can come across well before a hostile audience transfixed on their bulging wallets.
Maybe other surrogates, such as Vice Mayor Rob Fong, Supervisor Roger Dickinson and River Cats owner Art Savage, should talk about what an arena would do for Sacramento, while the Maloofs open their wallets to fund a big part of the campaign.
To do otherwise is to likely bring defeat -- and questions of whether that was the objective all along.
Last edited by a moderator: