Don't Close the Book just Yet
- Thread starter Tetsujin
- Start date
I thought at the time, and continue to think, the sudden arrival of a company willing to invest $150mil in the region to run a theme park could be mana from heaven. It was $150 mil -- at least a third and maybe even half of a new arena's costs -- that was not there before. But somebody somewhere has to have the clout to ram a deal through using that money, and Sacramento seems absolutely pathetic when it comes time to make any decisions.
I was lucky tnough to work with/for (I was young so more the latter) several prominent big city mayors back here who launched major revitalization projects during their tenures that launched them to national prominence. One of the defining traits was having the clout that when something had to be done, it got done. They went about it different ways -- one kissed babies, wheedled, massaged, cut deals, and was amazing at getting everybody onboard, the other would just club you over the head, threaten to arrest your children and get the bank to foreclose on your home if you did not give your support, but both were extremely effective. Sacto is so broken up into little fiefdoms its a wasteland in comparison. Sometimes decentralization is NOT a good thing. Sometimes you need someone with the power to get things done.
I was lucky tnough to work with/for (I was young so more the latter) several prominent big city mayors back here who launched major revitalization projects during their tenures that launched them to national prominence. One of the defining traits was having the clout that when something had to be done, it got done. They went about it different ways -- one kissed babies, wheedled, massaged, cut deals, and was amazing at getting everybody onboard, the other would just club you over the head, threaten to arrest your children and get the bank to foreclose on your home if you did not give your support, but both were extremely effective. Sacto is so broken up into little fiefdoms its a wasteland in comparison. Sometimes decentralization is NOT a good thing. Sometimes you need someone with the power to get things done.
I have not given up hope, because it seems like everyone has needs in this situation and everyone could stand to gain a ton. This includes, Cal Expo, the taxpayers of Sacramento and CA and the Kings.
It seems like a true convergence plan would work even better. That is, place the arena, vision maker site and Cal Expo all in the same place - the railyards. That way, instead of trying to develop 2 sites by selling land from 1 big site, you are only developing 1 site from 2 pieces of land - one big (Cal Expo) and one medium (Arco site).
Put the whole thing in the railyards and develop an area for an arena + convention center/Expo hall. Do this in the same model as Omaha did with Quest.
http://www.qwestcenteromaha.com/def...sn3opt=1&bldgopt=3&month=9&year=2010&newsID=0
Placing this grand structure amongst a resort style development by vision maker and downtown Sac would instantly become a destination for tourists and conventions from all over the country - perhaps the world. Cal expo could use the arena and convention center/expo hall, and amusement park 3 weeks out of the year. There is no way they could do this on their own.
The money would come from selling all of current Cal Expo and Arco sites, as well as 150 million from vision maker. Perhaps another 150 - 300 million from ESR?
I am thinking big.
It seems like a true convergence plan would work even better. That is, place the arena, vision maker site and Cal Expo all in the same place - the railyards. That way, instead of trying to develop 2 sites by selling land from 1 big site, you are only developing 1 site from 2 pieces of land - one big (Cal Expo) and one medium (Arco site).
Put the whole thing in the railyards and develop an area for an arena + convention center/Expo hall. Do this in the same model as Omaha did with Quest.
http://www.qwestcenteromaha.com/def...sn3opt=1&bldgopt=3&month=9&year=2010&newsID=0
Placing this grand structure amongst a resort style development by vision maker and downtown Sac would instantly become a destination for tourists and conventions from all over the country - perhaps the world. Cal expo could use the arena and convention center/expo hall, and amusement park 3 weeks out of the year. There is no way they could do this on their own.
The money would come from selling all of current Cal Expo and Arco sites, as well as 150 million from vision maker. Perhaps another 150 - 300 million from ESR?
I am thinking big.
You know, if a new theme park was built in Natomas, Cal Expo will really have screwed themselves over. Why go to the dumpy state fair, that they are not going to make any major changes to, when you have a shiny new, exciting theme part to go to instead? Rides are probably the biggest draw at Cal Expo and this would have to hurt them....a lot.
I have not given up hope, because it seems like everyone has needs in this situation and everyone could stand to gain a ton. This includes, Cal Expo, the taxpayers of Sacramento and CA and the Kings.
It seems like a true convergence plan would work even better. That is, place the arena, vision maker site and Cal Expo all in the same place - the railyards. That way, instead of trying to develop 2 sites by selling land from 1 big site, you are only developing 1 site from 2 pieces of land - one big (Cal Expo) and one medium (Arco site).
Put the whole thing in the railyards and develop an area for an arena + convention center/Expo hall. Do this in the same model as Omaha did with Quest.
http://www.qwestcenteromaha.com/def...sn3opt=1&bldgopt=3&month=9&year=2010&newsID=0
Placing this grand structure amongst a resort style development by vision maker and downtown Sac would instantly become a destination for tourists and conventions from all over the country - perhaps the world. Cal expo could use the arena and convention center/expo hall, and amusement park 3 weeks out of the year. There is no way they could do this on their own.
The money would come from selling all of current Cal Expo and Arco sites, as well as 150 million from vision maker. Perhaps another 150 - 300 million from ESR?
I am thinking big.
It seems like a true convergence plan would work even better. That is, place the arena, vision maker site and Cal Expo all in the same place - the railyards. That way, instead of trying to develop 2 sites by selling land from 1 big site, you are only developing 1 site from 2 pieces of land - one big (Cal Expo) and one medium (Arco site).
Put the whole thing in the railyards and develop an area for an arena + convention center/Expo hall. Do this in the same model as Omaha did with Quest.
http://www.qwestcenteromaha.com/def...sn3opt=1&bldgopt=3&month=9&year=2010&newsID=0
Placing this grand structure amongst a resort style development by vision maker and downtown Sac would instantly become a destination for tourists and conventions from all over the country - perhaps the world. Cal expo could use the arena and convention center/expo hall, and amusement park 3 weeks out of the year. There is no way they could do this on their own.
The money would come from selling all of current Cal Expo and Arco sites, as well as 150 million from vision maker. Perhaps another 150 - 300 million from ESR?
I am thinking big.
I wonder if the city council would have a huge heart attack over letting loose a state fairgrounds, arena and theme park in the railyards? All those plans for tax revenue generating condos and retail down the tubes. But maybe there is an opportunity in there. I have to say that Thomas look like he is playing shell games and doesn't appear to have the resources to make that vision happen there. The land could default back and then it would be open for purchase. But that all could take time while Thomas is delaying things. It would take a lot of money to pay him off and get the land.
I think the city planners had the wrong vision of trying to build new homes in the yards. It sounds nice and means well, but it's not the only thing that can work there. You need big anchor drawing activities to draw the people down there. Employment comes from those enterprises. If you create jobs down there, condos will pop up from redevelopment of exisiting downtown real estate. The engine that drives all this is getting some business started up down there. Jobs before homes.
I think the city planners had the wrong vision of trying to build new homes in the yards. It sounds nice and means well, but it's not the only thing that can work there. You need big anchor drawing activities to draw the people down there. Employment comes from those enterprises. If you create jobs down there, condos will pop up from redevelopment of exisiting downtown real estate. The engine that drives all this is getting some business started up down there. Jobs before homes.
I couldn't agree more! Name the Roller Coaster "Kings Thunder" and you tie it all in quite nicely, too.
you know, that might just have to be the most flimsy excuse I have yet seen on this board to post a picture of a hot babe, including my own.
I highly approve.
I highly approve.
They will build homes down there. They want the area to be be a mix and I think that's good. Makes an area more of a daytime and nightime place with people around. Downtown Sac is a graveyard at night right now. A lot of the money the city is getting from the State requires affordable housing to be built, too.
Hey, I work in affordable housing! Have you checked out the cost of some of the newer downtown housing? I earn good money and I couldn't afford a place at the prices or rent they are asking.
Believe me for an elderly person living on $900/month or less, there isn't much affordable. Also, not much available for a family making only $20,000 annually, either or even at about $32,000, which is two people at minimum, wage. A lot of low-income people pay as much as 45-65% of their gross salary on housing. Often on unsafe, decrepit housing. But I digress. Housing will have to be in the mix at the railyards and I think its good for downtown vibrancy.
Believe me for an elderly person living on $900/month or less, there isn't much affordable. Also, not much available for a family making only $20,000 annually, either or even at about $32,000, which is two people at minimum, wage. A lot of low-income people pay as much as 45-65% of their gross salary on housing. Often on unsafe, decrepit housing. But I digress. Housing will have to be in the mix at the railyards and I think its good for downtown vibrancy.
Last edited:
I agree and think it is actally what needs to happen. I went to the state fair last year and we spent $50 on tickets for rides (for my nephew and my girlfriens's daughter), and I couldn't believe it when they went on 3 rides and we had to buy more tickets so they could go on a fourth. The rides aren't even that good, so paying that kind of money for them is ludicris. I had been there a few years prior and don't remember them costing nearly as much.
If that was directed at my post, I was referring to kupman's idea about making the railyards home to the new home of the Cal Expo/Theme park and new arena. This would take up lots of land and leave little for the current planned housing and retail. But if you ask me, they need to renovate and exploit the existing properties downtown for housing and retail they already have. The current railyards plan doesn't help with an aging downtown mall and K street. And there are lots of exisiting downtown properties to turn into lofts or condos, returants and retail.
If you are going to build something new, make sure it puts people downtown after 5 pm. A theme park, arena and exhibit halls for conventions do just that. Grow the reason for being there first, not the end result housing. Hotels and housing will pop up all over the downtown area and the whole city will be better for it - not just the railyards. Otherwise it's like repeating the suburburban sprawl where new neighborhoods outdate the older ones. They have an opportunity with huge a huge downtown lot. And the want to build a newer version of what is already there. Not very big picture.
If you are going to build something new, make sure it puts people downtown after 5 pm. A theme park, arena and exhibit halls for conventions do just that. Grow the reason for being there first, not the end result housing. Hotels and housing will pop up all over the downtown area and the whole city will be better for it - not just the railyards. Otherwise it's like repeating the suburburban sprawl where new neighborhoods outdate the older ones. They have an opportunity with huge a huge downtown lot. And the want to build a newer version of what is already there. Not very big picture.
Awesome. I was starting to put the nail in the coffin and now we have new hope. Then again, the original Cal Expo deal got me excited until the recession ruined any hope and then I thought the convergence had a shot. Is this new plan reasonable? Does it pencil out? I just don't want us getting let down again.
Or you could do what one person suggested on the Bee:
"Until then, the City should make sure they get that property, and then plant a bunch of trees and grass and turn the entire former UP yard into a municipal park. Not a fishing store. Not an arena. Not an entertainment district. Just, grass, trees, benches and maybe a safe way for cyclists and joggers to get through."
Yeah, he has a vision and skills.
The Bee and News 10's FB page has readers who are unreal. It seems to me a lot of their readers have dead end jobs that doesn't pay well, but they have a lot of time on their hands to show their general dislike for those who are more successful than they are (Maloofs). It's just status quo for them and to leave their tax dollars out of it yet none of them will complain about their hard earned tax dollars going to those who abuse the welfare system, etc. Maybe it's because they're on it. Who knows? Who cares.
"Until then, the City should make sure they get that property, and then plant a bunch of trees and grass and turn the entire former UP yard into a municipal park. Not a fishing store. Not an arena. Not an entertainment district. Just, grass, trees, benches and maybe a safe way for cyclists and joggers to get through."
Yeah, he has a vision and skills.
The Bee and News 10's FB page has readers who are unreal. It seems to me a lot of their readers have dead end jobs that doesn't pay well, but they have a lot of time on their hands to show their general dislike for those who are more successful than they are (Maloofs). It's just status quo for them and to leave their tax dollars out of it yet none of them will complain about their hard earned tax dollars going to those who abuse the welfare system, etc. Maybe it's because they're on it. Who knows? Who cares.
I'd also like to point out that New York has a football stadium. A baseball stadium, and Madison Square garden. St. Louis has Forest Park right in the middle of the city and its the third largest city park in the United States right after Central park and Lincoln park in Chicago. But Chicago and St Louis both have baseball and football stadiums as well as Chicago having a basketball arena.
The point is that parks have nothing to do with stadiums and arena's. And having one shouldn't be at the expense of the other. As Confucius said, "He who lives in the past, has no future" Thats the city of Sacramento. Always looking backwards to see where they've been.
The point is that parks have nothing to do with stadiums and arena's. And having one shouldn't be at the expense of the other. As Confucius said, "He who lives in the past, has no future" Thats the city of Sacramento. Always looking backwards to see where they've been.
Sacramento already has its huge city park, its called the River/Bike Trail. So check on that front. Not so check on all the modern city amusements.
Every podunk town bigger than Mayberry has its parks. Only the major ones have major entertainemtn venues like arenas. Heck even Stockton got itself together for that.
Every podunk town bigger than Mayberry has its parks. Only the major ones have major entertainemtn venues like arenas. Heck even Stockton got itself together for that.
http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/news/story?id=5700193
Magic cashed out with the Lakers. Just a guess, but he probably buys back in somewhere else. The Pistons are going to have new ownership, but his name came up before here. Who knows?
Magic cashed out with the Lakers. Just a guess, but he probably buys back in somewhere else. The Pistons are going to have new ownership, but his name came up before here. Who knows?
They were actually talking about this on LA radio today. Everyone's best guess is that he'll wind up being a Piston minority owner with Mike Ilitch owning a majority of the team.
For those that aren't familiar with Ilitch, he's also the owner of the Tigers and Red Wings and he is currently the exclusive negotiator for buying the Pistons. Davidson's widow has agreed to sell the team to him but they still need to come up with a price. Knowing that the Pistons are currently the only team up for sale, Magic's 5% sale has led to speculation that he's doing it to join up with Ilitch.
Ilitch wants a new arena for the Red Wings and wants to bring the Pistons home as well. Most people feel that he'll have the Wings and Pistons share the Palace at Auburn Hills until they find a way to finance a new downtown arena.
For those that aren't familiar with Ilitch, he's also the owner of the Tigers and Red Wings and he is currently the exclusive negotiator for buying the Pistons. Davidson's widow has agreed to sell the team to him but they still need to come up with a price. Knowing that the Pistons are currently the only team up for sale, Magic's 5% sale has led to speculation that he's doing it to join up with Ilitch.
Ilitch wants a new arena for the Red Wings and wants to bring the Pistons home as well. Most people feel that he'll have the Wings and Pistons share the Palace at Auburn Hills until they find a way to finance a new downtown arena.
hantimte blog
David Stern offered a bottom-line (flat-line?) statement on the future of the Kings in Sacramento during his annual preseason conference call with the media Friday, saying his hopes for a new arena there have “faded completely.” It just wasn’t an original statement.
Stern sent the exact same message when the league said it would no longer have an active role in the negotiations going nowhere fast. That was about a month ago, and that was the moment the relationship between the team and the city went on life support, not Friday.
Why did some so wrongly portray this as a watershed moment? Maybe because Stern’s words sounded so ominous. Or maybe because there were Stern words attached to it at all. But it was more re-stating the obvious than sending a message to a city.
The city had already gotten that message, no matter what some may think from afar. Brian Robinson, for one, wrote on SonicsCentral.com that “We’d been asleep at the wheel during the negotiation time,” apparently referring to fans in Seattle, and that the Stern comment signaled how Sacramento just lost its team even though “I doubt they know it yet.” Wrong. Among the many who may be saddened by developments, it’s impossible to imagine anyone shocked after what has been an exhaustive process there.
Robinson had been among the most visible Sonics fans during the packing-up days and his passion is exemplary, but to compare Seattle and Sacramento is connecting two situations that have no connection. Same league, around the same time, but that’s it. The Sonics were one of many prominent businesses in a region with an international corporate reach, the Kings are the only major-league team in a town that regards them as part of the identity. The Kings were not sold to an ownership group from a place trying to land a pro franchise, as was the case with Clay Bennett and his hometown of Oklahoma City. There is zero chance the Sacramento arena issue gets any play at the state level, unlike the Sonics and Washington. With the Kings, it’s a local issue and nothing more.
Whatever happened in Seattle, and it’s easy to find fans there still seething about being double-crossed, there have not been misleading statements from the league regarding the future of the Kings in Sacramento. In truth, they’ve been there this long only because of Stern – if the commissioner had told the Maloof family to move years ago, the team would have moved. Pulling out of the negotiations and appearing Friday to napalm remaining hope came only after countless failed arena proposals and years of mismanagement by the city and the team. When he thought there was hope, he said so. Now that he doesn’t think there is hope, he said so.
Is it a done deal the Kings are leaving? No. If some new plan unexpectedly poofs into a realistic option, the Maloofs will listen and the NBA will surely listen. Stern does not want to leave a market that has been a proven success for more economic uncertainty elsewhere. But are the Kings leaving? Probably. And that was the case before Friday.
The greatest hope to re-igniting the former love affair of team and city, strangely, has nothing to do with how either side looks at the other. Leaving is one thing but ending up somewhere is something else, and the Kings simply do not have an option that guarantees a better future. Seattle and Las Vegas have major arena headaches of their own and there are doubts whether Kansas City, with a building in place, can sustain an NBA franchise.
One member of the Board of Governors was asked about the dilemma: Are there any sound options for relocation, for the Kings or anyone?
“I would say none,” came the answer.
That is the last best hope for the Kings to stay – that everywhere else has problems too. It’s not much, but it’s something. Actually, it’s all Sacramento has right now
David Stern offered a bottom-line (flat-line?) statement on the future of the Kings in Sacramento during his annual preseason conference call with the media Friday, saying his hopes for a new arena there have “faded completely.” It just wasn’t an original statement.
Stern sent the exact same message when the league said it would no longer have an active role in the negotiations going nowhere fast. That was about a month ago, and that was the moment the relationship between the team and the city went on life support, not Friday.
Why did some so wrongly portray this as a watershed moment? Maybe because Stern’s words sounded so ominous. Or maybe because there were Stern words attached to it at all. But it was more re-stating the obvious than sending a message to a city.
The city had already gotten that message, no matter what some may think from afar. Brian Robinson, for one, wrote on SonicsCentral.com that “We’d been asleep at the wheel during the negotiation time,” apparently referring to fans in Seattle, and that the Stern comment signaled how Sacramento just lost its team even though “I doubt they know it yet.” Wrong. Among the many who may be saddened by developments, it’s impossible to imagine anyone shocked after what has been an exhaustive process there.
Robinson had been among the most visible Sonics fans during the packing-up days and his passion is exemplary, but to compare Seattle and Sacramento is connecting two situations that have no connection. Same league, around the same time, but that’s it. The Sonics were one of many prominent businesses in a region with an international corporate reach, the Kings are the only major-league team in a town that regards them as part of the identity. The Kings were not sold to an ownership group from a place trying to land a pro franchise, as was the case with Clay Bennett and his hometown of Oklahoma City. There is zero chance the Sacramento arena issue gets any play at the state level, unlike the Sonics and Washington. With the Kings, it’s a local issue and nothing more.
Whatever happened in Seattle, and it’s easy to find fans there still seething about being double-crossed, there have not been misleading statements from the league regarding the future of the Kings in Sacramento. In truth, they’ve been there this long only because of Stern – if the commissioner had told the Maloof family to move years ago, the team would have moved. Pulling out of the negotiations and appearing Friday to napalm remaining hope came only after countless failed arena proposals and years of mismanagement by the city and the team. When he thought there was hope, he said so. Now that he doesn’t think there is hope, he said so.
Is it a done deal the Kings are leaving? No. If some new plan unexpectedly poofs into a realistic option, the Maloofs will listen and the NBA will surely listen. Stern does not want to leave a market that has been a proven success for more economic uncertainty elsewhere. But are the Kings leaving? Probably. And that was the case before Friday.
The greatest hope to re-igniting the former love affair of team and city, strangely, has nothing to do with how either side looks at the other. Leaving is one thing but ending up somewhere is something else, and the Kings simply do not have an option that guarantees a better future. Seattle and Las Vegas have major arena headaches of their own and there are doubts whether Kansas City, with a building in place, can sustain an NBA franchise.
One member of the Board of Governors was asked about the dilemma: Are there any sound options for relocation, for the Kings or anyone?
“I would say none,” came the answer.
That is the last best hope for the Kings to stay – that everywhere else has problems too. It’s not much, but it’s something. Actually, it’s all Sacramento has right now
