Be aware that tonight's vote was symbolic. They did not "approve" anything. Basically, because there is nothing to approve yet. According to KJ many of the local governments in the region are also passing resolutions this week supporting every reasonable effort to keep the Kings and build a new arena, because they are important assets to the whole region.
The biggest item that will have to be voted on is again authorizing the use of parking facilities/revenues to raise up to $255 million as the city's contribution. By the way, the city has not made any final determination on whether they will sell a long term lease of certain city parking facilities to a private company or whether the city might just continue to own and operate themselves. The first option means a private company pays for the whole lease up front (say 30 years). The city would then have cash for their contribution to the deal. I'm assuming that if they'd rather keep operating the parking themselves, they might vote to issue revenue-backed bonds.to raise the city funding amount. Parking revenues would then be committed first to making the bond payments.
It will have to be voted on again, because the parties to the deal are different than one year ago. No more Maloofs. So last year's approval is not the same deal.
Actually, most see the changes on the city council as strengthening KJ's position. Hansen and Warren are seen as less antagonistic and closer to KJ in viewpoint.Of course, that remains to be seen. If a good solid deal can be had for a new arena to keep the Kings, I have faith the council will vote yes, although probably not unanimously.
What bothered me tonight about Hansens' comments at the end, was he characterized the speakers as made up of people against any public funds for an arena and people wanting an arena and the Kings at any cost. To me, that was a gross misstatement of Crown Downtown's position. Actually we want a downtown arena for basketball and all the other events we'll lose. I would be heartbroken if we lose the Kings, but I'd be even more heartbroken if Sacramento no longer has an arena venue for all the events we get at the arena.
If we lost the Kings, I'd still want a new arena downtown. The fact is, and AEG confirmed this, Sacramento can't get an arena deal that will pencil out without an anchor tenant like the Kings already on board. My city stands to lose a whole lot more than a basketball team.
However, I do not support keeping the Kings at any cost to the city. If the city can't get a deal that is soundly underwritten on conservative projections, that sufficiently ties the Kings to Sacramento for a long time and that protects the general fund, then I'm not going to be in favor of it either.
