I sent an email response to Roger Dickinson, Supervisor, Sacramento County regarding the need for the arena complex in the city. Following is his email response to me and quite a lot of others who apparently emailed him.
**************************************************************
Thank you for your email regarding the proposed quality of life ballot measure. Since I have received nearly one thousand communications on this matter, I hope you will understand that it is not possible to reply individually to each one. I do appreciate the fact that you have taken the time to share your views with me.
The basic question presented is whether the public should support measures which would provide funding of at least $1.2 billion over 15 years for a variety of public improvements and programs throughout Sacramento County, potentially including a new publicly-owned sports and entertainment facility downtown. This money would be generated by an additional ¼ cent sales tax for 15 years. The added cost would be 25 cents for each $100 of taxable purchases or, perhaps, about the cost of a cup of coffee a month. While the sales tax is not the most desirable of taxes, it is the only one available to local government which generates a significant amount of revenue at a relatively small cost to individuals. The regressive nature of the sales tax, often cited by opponents, is also heavily reduced by the exemptions for such things as food and necessities of life.
The ballot measure proposed would require a simple majority for passage. Because there has been so much discussion of a sports and entertainment facility being financed by the proceeds, some feel the measure should be subject to a 2/3 majority vote. However, the measure is a general tax which is unallocated and both County Counsel and outside counsel have advised the Board that such a measure is permissible, in their opinion, with a simple majority vote. Contrary to circumventing the law, we are attempting to precisely follow the law.
Of course, the bulk of the comments I received related to the issues of financing, constructing, and operating a sports and entertainment facility. We have the opportunity to replace a private, aging, never adequate, suburban facility with a new state of the art publicly-owned downtown facility which can act as a catalyst for billions of dollars of private investment.
As can be seen all over the country, in places such as Cleveland, Indianapolis, Denver, Washington, D.C., San Diego, Phoenix, San Francisco, and Baltimore, downtown sports and entertainment facilities attract surrounding housing, shops, and restaurants. In just one case in Washington, D.C., over $2.7 billion in private investment occurred after the MCI (now Verizon) Center was located in a dilapidated and struggling intercity neighborhood.
The preferred location for a new sports and entertainment facility in Sacramento is in the rail yards adjacent to downtown. While this area has languished for years, the public investment in a sports and entertainment facility can jump start us on the way to a vital and vibrant addition to downtown for years to come. One of the significant advantages of a downtown location is that a high percentage of people will arrive and leave by public transportation or on foot, thereby reducing the traffic compared to a suburban location and creating ready-made customers for surrounding restaurants and shops.
The cost of the project, including site acquisition, infrastructure, and parking garage costs is estimated to range from $470 to $540 million, including projected inflation. While the City and the County will take responsibility for cost increases, we also maintain ultimate control over the design and construction of the building, which gives us the ability to control costs. In addition, while all revenues from the facility will go to the building operator, presumably Maloof Sports and Entertainment (MSE), all the risk of making enough money to pay the obligations on the facility plus other team and facility costs is borne by MSE. We get a first class sports and entertainment facility which can host the best performing artists in the world, major conventions, ice shows, graduations, and a host of other activities and events, and MSE gets the challenge of booking the building for the 200-225 days a year roughly necessary to at least break even on the cost of running it.
The quality of life measures offer much more, however, than just a new sports and entertainment venue. I anticipate that more than half the money will be available to the cities of the county and the county itself to use for long needed, but unfunded, programs and projects to improve such things as libraries, parks, public safety, and senior and children’s programs and services. This money will allow the people of each city and the county to determine their priorities to make their community an even better place.
I know I have not answered every one of the questions in this response which have been raised, but, I would summarize the matter in the following way. In the final analysis, the question is not about the Maloof family or “the deal;” it is about us. It is about what we want for our future and what kind of public investment we are willing to make to realize that future. We know the return on the investment will not only bring dramatic private investment in our downtown and needed improvements throughout our county, but it will provide a source of unparalleled community pride and enhanced civic identity around the nation and the world. I believe Sacramento is a great place to live, and our potential to enjoy all the elements that comprise the highest quality of life is bound only by the limits we impose on ourselves. We deserve the very best, and these ballot measures give us a seminal opportunity to invest in our future. We should not forfeit this chance.
ROGER DICKINSON
Supervisor, District One
Sacramento County
**************************************************************
Thank you for your email regarding the proposed quality of life ballot measure. Since I have received nearly one thousand communications on this matter, I hope you will understand that it is not possible to reply individually to each one. I do appreciate the fact that you have taken the time to share your views with me.
The basic question presented is whether the public should support measures which would provide funding of at least $1.2 billion over 15 years for a variety of public improvements and programs throughout Sacramento County, potentially including a new publicly-owned sports and entertainment facility downtown. This money would be generated by an additional ¼ cent sales tax for 15 years. The added cost would be 25 cents for each $100 of taxable purchases or, perhaps, about the cost of a cup of coffee a month. While the sales tax is not the most desirable of taxes, it is the only one available to local government which generates a significant amount of revenue at a relatively small cost to individuals. The regressive nature of the sales tax, often cited by opponents, is also heavily reduced by the exemptions for such things as food and necessities of life.
The ballot measure proposed would require a simple majority for passage. Because there has been so much discussion of a sports and entertainment facility being financed by the proceeds, some feel the measure should be subject to a 2/3 majority vote. However, the measure is a general tax which is unallocated and both County Counsel and outside counsel have advised the Board that such a measure is permissible, in their opinion, with a simple majority vote. Contrary to circumventing the law, we are attempting to precisely follow the law.
Of course, the bulk of the comments I received related to the issues of financing, constructing, and operating a sports and entertainment facility. We have the opportunity to replace a private, aging, never adequate, suburban facility with a new state of the art publicly-owned downtown facility which can act as a catalyst for billions of dollars of private investment.
As can be seen all over the country, in places such as Cleveland, Indianapolis, Denver, Washington, D.C., San Diego, Phoenix, San Francisco, and Baltimore, downtown sports and entertainment facilities attract surrounding housing, shops, and restaurants. In just one case in Washington, D.C., over $2.7 billion in private investment occurred after the MCI (now Verizon) Center was located in a dilapidated and struggling intercity neighborhood.
The preferred location for a new sports and entertainment facility in Sacramento is in the rail yards adjacent to downtown. While this area has languished for years, the public investment in a sports and entertainment facility can jump start us on the way to a vital and vibrant addition to downtown for years to come. One of the significant advantages of a downtown location is that a high percentage of people will arrive and leave by public transportation or on foot, thereby reducing the traffic compared to a suburban location and creating ready-made customers for surrounding restaurants and shops.
The cost of the project, including site acquisition, infrastructure, and parking garage costs is estimated to range from $470 to $540 million, including projected inflation. While the City and the County will take responsibility for cost increases, we also maintain ultimate control over the design and construction of the building, which gives us the ability to control costs. In addition, while all revenues from the facility will go to the building operator, presumably Maloof Sports and Entertainment (MSE), all the risk of making enough money to pay the obligations on the facility plus other team and facility costs is borne by MSE. We get a first class sports and entertainment facility which can host the best performing artists in the world, major conventions, ice shows, graduations, and a host of other activities and events, and MSE gets the challenge of booking the building for the 200-225 days a year roughly necessary to at least break even on the cost of running it.
The quality of life measures offer much more, however, than just a new sports and entertainment venue. I anticipate that more than half the money will be available to the cities of the county and the county itself to use for long needed, but unfunded, programs and projects to improve such things as libraries, parks, public safety, and senior and children’s programs and services. This money will allow the people of each city and the county to determine their priorities to make their community an even better place.
I know I have not answered every one of the questions in this response which have been raised, but, I would summarize the matter in the following way. In the final analysis, the question is not about the Maloof family or “the deal;” it is about us. It is about what we want for our future and what kind of public investment we are willing to make to realize that future. We know the return on the investment will not only bring dramatic private investment in our downtown and needed improvements throughout our county, but it will provide a source of unparalleled community pride and enhanced civic identity around the nation and the world. I believe Sacramento is a great place to live, and our potential to enjoy all the elements that comprise the highest quality of life is bound only by the limits we impose on ourselves. We deserve the very best, and these ballot measures give us a seminal opportunity to invest in our future. We should not forfeit this chance.
ROGER DICKINSON
Supervisor, District One
Sacramento County