Details on Kamilos-Taylor plan (split)

[DocHolliday]

I'm thoroughly convinced that Fake Injury is eithe R.E. Graswich or one of the people that posts on the website of the bee on a regular basis that never has anything good to say.

I used to work at an auto shop when I was 19. There was this customer that the owner had bent over backwards for and the customer kept on and kept on.

Finally the owner said calmly, "I could set this place on fire and slit my throat and you still wouldn't be happy"........that pretty much sums it up.

 

[Circa_1985_Fan]

I'm thoroughly convinced that Fake Injury is eithe R.E. Graswich or one of the people that posts on the website of the bee on a regular basis that never has anything good to say.

I used to work at an auto shop when I was 19. There was this customer that the owner had bent over backwards for and the customer kept on and kept on.

Finally the owner said calmly, "I could set this place on fire and slit my throat and you still wouldn't be happy"........that pretty much sums it up.

You aren't kidding! I have no problem with Fake Injury or anyone else having opposition to anything on this board...and everyone pretty much knows I'm a pessimistic optimist...but I will look at ALL the negatives and look at them AGAIN, just to see if there is ANYTHING that would be 'sticking it to me and the rest of the honest folk' of Sacramento, and the positives DEFINITELY outweigh the negatives of this deal. Downtown Sacramento and the entire region NEED this. I'd like to know what the nay sayers have to say about the $100 million Crocker Art Museum expansion(which I was totally in favor of, btw)...everyone always screams 'What about our schools...what about the roads...what about the arts!!'...Well, there's plenty of money being dedicated from the city's General Fund that goes to these departments. What about SMART CIVIC GROWTH?!? What about transforming the entire Downtown region into a bustling, thriving marketplace and entertainment district that it so desperately needs to become?? In order to grow, you must partake in challenges as a community. Ask the city of San Francisco what it thinks about AT&T Park and the surrounding areas...what was it BEFORE?? CORRECT...it was GARBAGE! And now...it's an incredibly vibrant area filled with culture that it never had before. Look at other cities that went out on a limb to transform their downtown areas in the same fashion we're looking to do...San Antonio, Austin, Indianapolis, Cleveland(Jacobs Field area was the SLUMS), Los Angeles(Staples Center area was the PITS before), and Memphis. THIS is what all the nay sayers need to look at!! Growth people...GROWTH!!!

 

[Larry David]

At this point, we've passed the Fake Injury and Circa debate (no offense to either of you).

While there are still other hurdles, like making sure the financing is firm, ect ... there is one key tipping point.

No matter where you stand on this ... the state vote is where the project lives or dies. If they get the state to sign off on this swap, there is a really strong chance this gets done. If the state says no, this plan is totally dead in the water.

No matter what you have to say about the good or bad of this project ... that's really where it stands.

Above I explained why it's going to be hard to get a majority vote for this ... our best shot is for Steinberg to roll it into a larger bill. I cannot see this passing on its own.

 

[kennadog]

No matter where you stand on this ... the state vote is where the project lives or dies. If they get the state to sign off on this swap, there is a really strong chance this gets done. If the state says no, this plan is totally dead in the water.

I completely agree. That's the bottleneck, or maybe dam, to get through.

 

[Circa_1985_Fan]

I completely agree. That's the bottleneck, or maybe dam, to get through.

Indeed...anyone know what the timeline is, as far as when the state would vote on this??

 

[Trueblood]

Indeed...anyone know what the timeline is, as far as when the state would vote on this??

On July 15th of this year, the state will introduce it into legislature and I think the actual final vote would be a year and a half later, on December 11th of 2011. That's according Larry David's thread starter on this thread.

 

[kennadog]

On July 15th of this year, the state will introduce it into legislature and I think the actual final vote would be a year and a half later, on December 11th of 2011. That's according Larry David's thread starter on this thread.

State Legislature vote date (above)

By December 5, 2011:
Cal Expo Board must vote to approve the deal.
State legislature must vote to: (1) swap the 350 acres of developable land at Expo for 188 acres in Natomas; and (2) designate the Cal Expo site as a special tax district – were the taxes from new housing, businesses, and retail development would help pay for the construction debt.
Governor must sign the law.

 

[Circa_1985_Fan]

I just hope that whoever is Governor then will have a heart for Sacramento and make a push to the legislature. Still on the fence about the candidates...I guess Jerry Brown and a Democratic legislature would be better for getting this thing done...but who knows.

 

[Larry David]

I wouldn’t worry about the Gov at this point (but he/she will need to sign in the end). They can get somebody local to throw this into the hopper and Steinberg has the ability and will most likely push this … the problem is that, at least on some level: (1) the state is trading an asset for a lesser one; which (2) enables one California city to get a new sports/entertainment facility. There will be a lot of representative that say, the state isn’t in the business of financing arenas … period. I can’t imagine a rep from anywhere in the Bay Area or San Diego voting for this due to their arena problems.

The fan’s reaction is – why not give something up to improve the state fair. The problem is – a rep with the concern above would say “Fine, let’s do the first Cal Expo project without the arena and we’ll use the profits to improve that location. Or we sell Expo and build a new state fair on another outskirt of Sacramento – (ie the convergence plan without an arena)” Plus, it’s not exactly like improving the fair has been an urgent matter for the state.

It’s possible, but this is going to be some really tough sledding. I wouldn’t count on a newly elected governor pushing for the benefit of one city. I’d plan on Steinberg doing the heavy lifting and he’s capable if this is doable. Whether it’s doable … we’ll know by late fall.

Keep this in mind, there will might/probably will be a couple of cracks at this: (1) they call it a swap and they go for tax zone; (2) the drop the tax; and (3) they try to pick this up as a sale with conditions on the types of bids.

 

[kupman]

December 2011 seems like very long time from now. It makes me very nervous to think that this could be on the table to 2 years and a simple "no thank you" vote would abruptly end it.

I sure hope that there is a Plan B.

 

[Larry David]

http://www.sacbee.com/2010/06/25/2850084/talks-okd-to-study-plan-for-state.html

Still moving forward. This would appear to be the first of two agreements with Expo. They study. If OK, they lock arms in the fall.

The task force call for legislation by next month - with the mother of all budget fights and the deal not final with Expo ... you would have to think that's also going to run into the fall.

And the legislation is where this lives or dies.

 

[Emma]

Ahhhhhhh crap, Larry David did an arena post so I gotta come running to see what it is!

Interesting.

Oh my goodness, almost made a fatal mistake and skimmed the comments of a Bee article. I pulled away just in time.

 

[kennadog]

http://www.sacbee.com/2010/06/25/2850084/talks-okd-to-study-plan-for-state.html

Still moving forward. This would appear to be the first of two agreements with Expo. They study. If OK, they lock arms in the fall.

The task force call for legislation by next month - with the mother of all budget fights and the deal not final with Expo ... you would have to think that's also going to run into the fall.

And the legislation is where this lives or dies.

Yes. Even if the Cal Expo Authority buys into the plan, the legislature is the touchiest part of the whole deal.

 

[stevetaebo]

http://www.sacbee.com/2010/06/25/2850084/talks-okd-to-study-plan-for-state.html

Still moving forward. This would appear to be the first of two agreements with Expo. They study. If OK, they lock arms in the fall.

The task force call for legislation by next month - with the mother of all budget fights and the deal not final with Expo ... you would have to think that's also going to run into the fall.

And the legislation is where this lives or dies.

Boy this is so slow, it feels like a mega version of a short sale deal on a house where you don't have a decision by the bank until 3 months later.

So I'm guessing if legislation says NO. Could Kamilos-Taylor rethink their deal to sweeten it and resubmit?

 

[Larry David]

Sure, but if the State says no … it could be fatal. If it fell in a close vote and there was enough profit to make it worth the state’s while … then I have no doubt they would take another run at it. And perhaps that works, but I think the first shot is the strongest.

Also, I don’t think the 49ers and Santa Clara vote helps the process. If I was say the representative from say Fresno, and I wanted to argue against the state getting involved in this … it would go a little something like this:

We cannot open this Pandora’s box. We have more pressing needs as a state, and we cannot afford to get involved in this process. There are cities in this state that have agreed to tax themselves to build a new sports stadiums (Santa Clara); when that isn’t viable, sports teams have privately funded a stadium to stay in a city (Giants); often, it’s a combination of both (Staples, ect.); and there are cities that appear unable to arrange financing for a new stadium and consequently, their teams might move away. (Chargers, A’s.) This is a situation that continuously repeats itself throughout the state. When that situation arises, the team and citizens of each region determine what they can afford to spend to keep the team in town.

It’s been that way for 60 years and it will continue for the foreseeable future. The state has never been in the business of helping to finance a venue for a particular team in a town. Why are we helping keep the Kings in Sacramento, but not the Chargers in San Diego? Why is Santa Clara paying from their stadium, but not Sacramento? What happens the next time a team needs a new stadium and they ask the state? Why are we cutting state services left and right and paying for a city to have a luxury item. Thus, vote no.




Now do I believe this should carry the day – no – but mostly for self serving reasons. However, the state does projects all the time where the money for all benefits some for good reason. But that is what the Convergence plan is up against.

My point is this – if the representative is “buying into” that argument above. I’m not sure another 4% to the state wins them over. To that person, the state is just getting back more of what they already own (100% of Expo.)

 

[Nikefutbolero]

Santa Clara didn't agree to tax themselves. Taxes didn't go up for a 49ers stadium. A Hotel tax was put into place by a hotel committee, and let's be honest, the people paying for that are visitors and not residents of Santa Clara.

 

[kennadog]

Santa Clara didn't agree to tax themselves. Taxes didn't go up for a 49ers stadium. A Hotel tax was put into place by a hotel committee, and let's be honest, the people paying for that are visitors and not residents of Santa Clara.

And if the Kings leave and we go to the Bay or San Jose area for the types of events we now see at Arco, we'll just be contributing to the economy of those other areas through various kinds of taxes and money to private businesses. Yippee! We can help pay for some other areas' arena, stadium or entertainment center.

 

[Nikefutbolero]

And if the Kings leave and we go to the Bay or San Jose area for the types of events we now see at Arco, we'll just be contributing to the economy of those other areas through various kinds of taxes and money to private businesses. Yippee! We can help pay for some other areas' arena, stadium or entertainment center.

Yay!