Breton: 'No' on arena isn't 'yes' to all good things

[LPKingsFan]

After all the harping around here that the Bee has a V for vendetta against the arena deal, a positive column comes out and no one posts it?

It actually refutes a lot of anti-arena arguments out there, that there are more pressing needs than an arena, etc.

http://www.sacbee.com/content/sports/story/14287424p-15107128c.html

Marcos Bretón: 'No' on arena isn't 'yes' to all good things
By Marcos Bretón -- Bee Sports Columnist
Published 12:01 am PDT Friday, August 4, 2006
Story appeared in Sports section, Page C1


It's three months until Election Day and yet it's clear that the most divisive local measure on the ballot will revolve around a quarter-cent sales tax to build a downtown arena.
Enemies are massing already, threatening lawsuits and citing societal shortcomings as reason to vote no.

The arguments against the proposed $500 million arena in the Union Pacific railyard start from the ground up. Hit a pothole lately?
That means you'll vote no on the arena, if my e-mails are any judge.

Same goes if your kid's classroom is too jammed, if the county is tardy in collecting your trash or if your house and station in life don't meet your expectations.

The subtext of these arguments is starting to sound like this:

Do you want to combat poverty in Sacramento? Vote no on the arena. Do you want to keep traffic jams from occurring in downtown Sacramento? Vote no on the arena.

Do you want to stop bullets from flying in the most desperate corners of town? Vote no on the arena. Do you want to plug budget shortfalls in Sacramento County? Vote no on the arena.

It's a good thing Election Day is Nov. 7 instead of Aug. 7, because all these no votes for all these reasons could well end in disappointment if cast now.

This because voting no on the arena isn't going to stop bullets from flying in Sacramento. It won't prevent traffic jams or stop kids from being abused. It's not going to put a chicken in your pot. And a no vote won't plug budget shortfalls in Sacramento County or markedly change any of the service-oriented grievances you have against local governments.

Yet it's as if the downtown arena is becoming a target for emotions in a way similar to the anti-illegal immigration measure called Proposition 187.

Remember that one in 1994 and how it never got implemented because parts of it were unconstitutional and because there were already laws on the books to combat illegal immigration?

Instead of dealing with core immigration issues, 187 was all about emotion.

Now we're here, considering an arena in downtown Sacramento, and we're rife with side issues when this all turns on a very simple question: Do you want an arena as a major piece in a new downtown Sacramento? Yes or no?

The cost will be roughly $500 million. The Kings owners -- the Maloof family -- will keep all arena revenues. This is similar to deals in Indiana, Memphis and Charlotte. Sports owners generally keep the revenues whether they pay a dime or the full freight for new buildings.

Many of you say the the Maloofs will get everything in this deal and Sacramento will get nothing.

I say you're wrong. I've been to Detroit recently and seen a burned-out downtown remade by a baseball stadium and football stadium paid largely by taxpayers. Same goes for downtown Denver and the downtown in the city where I grew up -- San Jose.

Is there a lot to dislike in a quarter-cent sales tax to fund an arena in Sacramento? Yes. Could the Maloofs be contributing a lot more than $4 million per year in rent and $20 million to an arena repair fund? Yes.

And if you oppose the arena on these grounds, there is no argument here. Just understand that if you say no because of owner greed, you might be saying no to pro sports in Sacramento because pro sports are fat with greed.

It's one side of a very human equation, the other being the excitement of the home team on a roll and playing in a central gathering point in a remade downtown.

Arenas and stadiums are costly and don't solve societal issues, but they can bring quality-of-life benefits. I've seen it.

You can ignore the positive side of this imperfect coin or hold out for some pristine priority out there that trumps the arena.

But polls show that statewide measures to fix levees, schools, roads and housing face tough battles in the November election.

It paints a picture of people who are against things, which is fine. But what are you for?

 

[kupman]

It is like a breath of fresh air.......ahhhhh

I do wish he would have taken the focus off the Kings a bit. The proposal is only 42% arena. Other civic improvement constitutes the other 58%, but is rarely mentioned. Of the 42% arena, only 15-17% of that will be the Kings, yet that is all that is discussed.

 

[slugking50]

After all the harping around here that the Bee has a V for vendetta against the arena deal, a positive column comes out and no one posts it?

It actually refutes a lot of anti-arena arguments out there, that there are more pressing needs than an arena, etc.

http://www.sacbee.com/content/sports/story/14287424p-15107128c.html

Marcos Bretón: 'No' on arena isn't 'yes' to all good things
By Marcos Bretón -- Bee Sports Columnist
Published 12:01 am PDT Friday, August 4, 2006
Story appeared in Sports section, Page C1


It's three months until Election Day and yet it's clear that the most divisive local measure on the ballot will revolve around a quarter-cent sales tax to build a downtown arena.
Enemies are massing already, threatening lawsuits and citing societal shortcomings as reason to vote no.

The arguments against the proposed $500 million arena in the Union Pacific railyard start from the ground up. Hit a pothole lately?
That means you'll vote no on the arena, if my e-mails are any judge.

Same goes if your kid's classroom is too jammed, if the county is tardy in collecting your trash or if your house and station in life don't meet your expectations.

The subtext of these arguments is starting to sound like this:

Do you want to combat poverty in Sacramento? Vote no on the arena. Do you want to keep traffic jams from occurring in downtown Sacramento? Vote no on the arena.

Do you want to stop bullets from flying in the most desperate corners of town? Vote no on the arena. Do you want to plug budget shortfalls in Sacramento County? Vote no on the arena.

It's a good thing Election Day is Nov. 7 instead of Aug. 7, because all these no votes for all these reasons could well end in disappointment if cast now.

This because voting no on the arena isn't going to stop bullets from flying in Sacramento. It won't prevent traffic jams or stop kids from being abused. It's not going to put a chicken in your pot. And a no vote won't plug budget shortfalls in Sacramento County or markedly change any of the service-oriented grievances you have against local governments.

Yet it's as if the downtown arena is becoming a target for emotions in a way similar to the anti-illegal immigration measure called Proposition 187.

Remember that one in 1994 and how it never got implemented because parts of it were unconstitutional and because there were already laws on the books to combat illegal immigration?

Instead of dealing with core immigration issues, 187 was all about emotion.

Now we're here, considering an arena in downtown Sacramento, and we're rife with side issues when this all turns on a very simple question: Do you want an arena as a major piece in a new downtown Sacramento? Yes or no?

The cost will be roughly $500 million. The Kings owners -- the Maloof family -- will keep all arena revenues. This is similar to deals in Indiana, Memphis and Charlotte. Sports owners generally keep the revenues whether they pay a dime or the full freight for new buildings.

Many of you say the the Maloofs will get everything in this deal and Sacramento will get nothing.

I say you're wrong. I've been to Detroit recently and seen a burned-out downtown remade by a baseball stadium and football stadium paid largely by taxpayers. Same goes for downtown Denver and the downtown in the city where I grew up -- San Jose.

Is there a lot to dislike in a quarter-cent sales tax to fund an arena in Sacramento? Yes. Could the Maloofs be contributing a lot more than $4 million per year in rent and $20 million to an arena repair fund? Yes.

And if you oppose the arena on these grounds, there is no argument here. Just understand that if you say no because of owner greed, you might be saying no to pro sports in Sacramento because pro sports are fat with greed.

It's one side of a very human equation, the other being the excitement of the home team on a roll and playing in a central gathering point in a remade downtown.

Arenas and stadiums are costly and don't solve societal issues, but they can bring quality-of-life benefits. I've seen it.

You can ignore the positive side of this imperfect coin or hold out for some pristine priority out there that trumps the arena.

But polls show that statewide measures to fix levees, schools, roads and housing face tough battles in the November election.

It paints a picture of people who are against things, which is fine. But what are you for?

Wow! Im shocked..........

 

[BigWaxer]

This because voting no on the arena isn't going to stop bullets from flying in Sacramento. It won't prevent traffic jams or stop kids from being abused. It's not going to put a chicken in your pot. And a no vote won't plug budget shortfalls in Sacramento County or markedly change any of the service-oriented grievances you have against local governments.

Exactly, the social services argument from the no votes is one I think I have heard the most. I think Marcus summed it up perfectly in that paragraph.

We cannot help our cities officials cannot manage the money they do get.

 

[kennadog]

Exactly, the social services argument from the no votes is one I think I have heard the most. I think Marcus summed it up perfectly in that paragraph.

We cannot help our cities officials cannot manage the money they do get.

I honestly do not believe that city "officials" do that bad a job. If person is a citizen who runs for office and is elected, the minute they are sworn in do they suddenly become evil, stupid, untrustworthy villians? That's ridiculous, and its a wonder we have anybody willing to run for public office.

I wouldn't. I work in government and have for a long time. Honestly, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't, regardless of how upstanding, hard-working and honest a person you are.

The bottom line, is everyone has there pet cause or their pet axe to grind and you can never please everyone. The essence of democracy is that you can't please everyone all the time. Eveyone has to compromise, so that hopefull everyone gets something of what they need or want.

And this proposal has been set up to try and allow for funding of a variety of needs, including the ones that people out there are screaming about. On the other hand, I think an arena is a valid need in a population the size of Sacramento. I believe it will bring many benefits.

I wish the Bee would share recent stories from other cities and how they feel about their new arenas. I'dd like to know if there are many in those cities who see it as mostly a negative.

 

[VF21]

I honestly do not believe that city "officials" do that bad a job. If person is a citizen who runs for office and is elected, the minute they are sworn in do they suddenly become evil, stupid, untrustworthy villians? That's ridiculous, and its a wonder we have anybody willing to run for public office.

I wouldn't. I work in government and have for a long time. Honestly, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't, regardless of how upstanding, hard-working and honest a person you are.

The bottom line, is everyone has there pet cause or their pet axe to grind and you can never please everyone. The essence of democracy is that you can't please everyone all the time. Eveyone has to compromise, so that hopefull everyone gets something of what they need or want.

And this proposal has been set up to try and allow for funding of a variety of needs, including the ones that people out there are screaming about. On the other hand, I think an arena is a valid need in a population the size of Sacramento. I believe it will bring many benefits.

I wish the Bee would share recent stories from other cities and how they feel about their new arenas. I'dd like to know if there are many in those cities who see it as mostly a negative.

Great idea. Maybe you should drop a line to Terri Hardy at the Bee. I think she was the one Warhawk sent an email to who said she had a couple of arena stories she was working on...

 

[BigWaxer]

I honestly do not believe that city "officials" do that bad a job. If person is a citizen who runs for office and is elected, the minute they are sworn in do they suddenly become evil, stupid, untrustworthy villians? That's ridiculous, and its a wonder we have anybody willing to run for public office.

I wouldn't. I work in government and have for a long time. Honestly, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't, regardless of how upstanding, hard-working and honest a person you are.

The bottom line, is everyone has there pet cause or their pet axe to grind and you can never please everyone. The essence of democracy is that you can't please everyone all the time. Eveyone has to compromise, so that hopefull everyone gets something of what they need or want.

And this proposal has been set up to try and allow for funding of a variety of needs, including the ones that people out there are screaming about. On the other hand, I think an arena is a valid need in a population the size of Sacramento. I believe it will bring many benefits.

I wish the Bee would share recent stories from other cities and how they feel about their new arenas. I'dd like to know if there are many in those cities who see it as mostly a negative.

I agree KD. I think there are great officials out there. I will try to relate this to steroids. After Bonds, Consec.. Palmaro etc.. If anyone gets accused these days I am less likely to give them that benefit IE: Landis... before it was flaxseed oil I can buy that. In fact I am suspicious of any craziness these days. Fool me once shame on me... You cannot blame anyone for being suspicious in the political climate either. There is so much money/donations and looking out for ones political longevity then doing what they were elected to do. Serve the people.

How will this money help social issues? My main point was Marcus was 100% correct in that quoted statement... People are using this as an excuse to vote yes or no.... I am kind of getting off focus here but tossing money at social programs is not the answer to solve them, its a way to hide them. Voting no is not going to change anything either.

I expect the BEE will never give us anything regarding fair journalism. It will continue to be "Maloofs are screwing us" junk from RE and co. I would love to see real studies/articles from various cities and their downtown arena's. Only thing I have read so far seems to be biased.

I am specifically interested in studies regarding Conseco and Memphis.

 

[diggining]

That was a fantastic article. Personally, one way to organize the arguments is as follows:

Economic arguments

1. People for the arena deal argue that building an arena brings more business to Sacramento, leading to various economic benefits such as revitalizing downtown and increasing the amount tax revenue the county will receive. Moreover, the leftover revenue from the sales tax can help fund city projects and keep up the city's infrastructure. Finally, the Kings may leave if we don't build the arena. The Kings leaving Sacramento may also negatively impact the local economy.

2. People against the arena deal makes 2 different sorts of counterarguments:

2a. The tax money used to fund the arena can be used in other fashions (for example, schools or infrastructure) that may lead to even greater economic benefit.

2b. Raising the sales tax may decrease the amount of money people can spend, which in turns slows down the economy.

Now these to me are the strictly economic arguments that people tend to make--I'll deal with the social/sentimental arguments later.

2b: Most people in the region seem to agree that the negative effect of 2b is insignificant compared to the positive effects of 1. And history seems to prove them right: the economic benefit bestowed by the arena have outweighed the drawback outlined in point 2b in cities such as Memphis, Los Angeles, and I think San Antonio. (This seems to overwhelmingly be the case when I looked online for various economic impact analysis of various arenas built in cities in similar situations as Sacramento. People can look it up for themselves to see if it's true; the internet is a wonderful thing.) If anything, given that NBA is the only major professional sport in town, it seems that the economic benefit of that sports team in that arena may be [FONT=&quot]disproportionately great compared to that of other cities.[/FONT]

2a: What this article addresses is point 2a: the idea is that it's not true that if we don't use the money to fund the arena, we can use the money to fund other things that may directly benefit the economy more than the arena does. It may be true that using the money for education or infrastructure may lead to greater economic benefit in the future than no increased sales tax or funding an arena, but if the people will not agree to raising the sales tax just to pay for the schools or the roads, this point is moot.


Social arguments

3. People who are pro-arena deal argue that the Kings have social value to citizens of Sacramento. They are the source of great civic pride, and people really do enjoy having a major professional sports team to root for and follow.

4. People who are against the can offer several counterarguments:

4a. They shouldn't be forced to pay taxes for something they may or may not want, i.e. the Kings. That's basically the libertarian argument that taxation is like forced labor or stealing from the people.

4b. The sales tax is regressive. It's unfair to tax the people who can't afford to pay to go see the Kings anyway.

4c. Only the people of Sacramento County is paying for the arena. But people from neighboring regions such as Yolo, El Dorado, and Placer counties also benefit from the arena. It's unfair for just people in the Sacramento County to pay for the arena.

Here's my take on the various social arguments:

3 - well, I think that given that this is a forum for Kings fans, I think we can all see why we want the Kings is Sacramento . No need to preach to the choir here.

4a - This is the manifestation of the deep philosophical difference between liberals and libertarians regarding distributive justice; great philosophers have given great arguments for why such tax may be just or unjust. Obviously, I have my own views on this, but a forum like this is not really the place to discuss such an issue. I would, however, make two comments: i) the people who are passionately against just the idea of taxes itself are very much in the minority; most people agree that having some taxes is just in some situations; ii) I am just talking about the social argument here, not the economic. I think that the economic argument does have a covincing answer--see 2b.

4b - Unlike 4a, it seems that most people agree that taxing the people who can't pay to get in the arena is unfair at least to some extent. I think that's certainly true, and should be taken into account. I would, however, also argue that most people do have the time and access to watch the Kings on TV (not just cable!), whereas if the Kings leave, I highly doubt that we'll see the Kings much if someone can't afford cable or a dish.

4c. This is another argument that I think most people agree in that taxing just the people in Sacramento county is unfair to the people in Sac to some extent. I also think that we do have to take this into account.


Conclusions:

Personally, I think that economically, there is good reason to believe that the positive benefits will outweigh the negative ones. Socially, I personally value having the Kings in Sacramento very highly, but I can understand why making those who can't afford a Kings ticket or just the people in Sacramento County pay for the arena is unfair to some extent, and I would understand if someone in Sacramento County who doesn't follow the Kings to be against the arena. In the ideal world, we would structure the tax in a less regressive fashion, and people in the entire region would pitch in on the arena. But realistically, there is a limited time for us to get an arena deal done and approved before the Kings might actually leave us , and this is the hand that we've been dealt, so personally I'm inclined to call rather than pass.

 

[diggining]

Sorry for going kind of off-topic there. To make it clear, the reason why I think this article is so awesome is that it convincingly addresses counterargument 2a, a counterargument that people often make but the pro-arena crowd have often ignored.

 

[VF21]

You made some excellent points, diggining. I plan on utilizing your breakdown classification of arguments, as a matter of fact.

Where would you place the "toxic waste" argument?

 

[diggining]

Well, to me, it seems that the "toxic waste" argument is mostly an economic one (all things equal, making use of land that would otherwise be toxic waste is probably better economically for the city than just regular land), so it would fall under argument 1--the idea that building the arena brings forth various economic benefits.

I don't know much about the whole "toxic waste" deal though, so I won't comment any further on that.

 

[1kingzfan]

Well stated, diggining, and while you touched on some major points of discussion with this Quality of Life Measure, the issues are far greater than what you have portrayed.

Here are a few more critical issues specific to our situation to fit in with your assembled presentation. The issues that must be addressed publicly include, in general, why is a rew arena a necessity and not just a nicety, why did the government come up with the "deal" with the Maloofs that it did, why did the financing go the way it did, and why is this deal good for ALL citizens, whether or not they ever go downtown or use the arena.

The list of more specific additional issues below is not meant to be exclusive, but it's late and I ran out of gas:

1. 2. Economic Issues

1a. If the Kings are forced to leave, the Maloofs own Arco and the best financial recovery mechanism for them is to demolish Arco and sell the land to help them, in part, pay back the $70+ million loan. Sacramento would soon be without even a sub-standard arena in which to sponsor major events, a devastating blow to the local economy.

1b. The "learned scholar" economic analyses do not consider the intangible benefits of building a new arena (and keeping the Kings) and the costs of failing to construct a new SOTA facility in downtown, in addition to the major economic impacts of losing the Kings.

2c. Numerous research reports by university professors with supposed expertise in economic development question whether downtown sports arenas truly have a robust economic impact.

2d. The Maloofs are super-wealthy and will make a lot more money from this deal. They should have (privately) financed the new arena 100%.

2e. Other financial mechanisms should have been used which have lesser to minimal impact on local taxpayers, such as, hotel tax increase, rental car tax increase, and/or airport landing fee increase.

2f. There is no money for the community projects in this measure until the arena loan is paid off, estimated at 5-8 years. That's too long, even though it's recognized that the government wants to pay off the arena loan as soon as possible to minimize loan interest costs.

3. 4. Social Issues

3a. A new SOTA arena will create more diverse and desirable events for Sacramento and surrounding region residents to attend, thus keeping more local resident spending in the local economy (rather than SF, LA, Tahoe) for entertainment.

3b. Residents of any community pay sales and property taxes for all services that the government sees fit and must provide in order to maintain and improve the quality of life. This Quality of Life Measure is no diffferent and is one of a number of things that a growing major City needs to fund and complete in order to keep growing.

5. 6. Arena Management Issues

5a. The City is not in the arena management business and thus should not be involved in arena operations. Since the Maloofs then bear all the operating costs and all the risks for conducting the arena business, it only makes sense that they, too, keep all of the profits from this business. The City wins big with the ancillary development, business growth, and additional tax revenue generation from the new arena in downtown.

6a. The City should run the arena itself and take the profits generated within. Let the Maloofs and Kings use the facility, but the City should control its operations and profit generation.

6a. Even if the Maloofs run the new arena, the City should get some of the profits generated at the arena itself. Not doing so is giving way too much to the Maloofs.

7. 8. Environmental Issues

7a. The Railyard site is being cleaned up under the watchful eye of Federal and state environmental regulators and top-notch specialty cleanup companies. It will be safe to occupy the site.

8a. How can you build an arena on a toxic waste dump site? These sites are never cleaned up and thus people occupying the Railyard redevelopment will be at risk.

Ok, I know there is a lot more, but that's all from me for now.

Christine, this is nice start to the project you are leading.

 

[diggining]

1kingzfan, thanks for taking the time to make this list of more specific issues that came to your mind. imo, it could be very helpful to link to various websites relating to the issue at hand for some of these issues (for example, papers on the economic analysis of other arenas, studies on the state of the railyard site) --would it be doable, and would it be appropriate (for this forum) for people more in the know to put in these links?