Anyone want to tackle these two comments?
Sure. here ya go...
The new arena won't benefit me at all because I can't afford to use it, downtown gridlock (even up to my neighborhood) before and after games, will be an absolute nightmare, more police will have to be hired to deal with the large crowds of people downtown, and my rent will go up.
Furthermore, large numbers of homeless people will be arrested in sweeps to "clean up" downtown, downtown and midtown rents will skyrocket, the already overburdened light rail service will see even more riders and the tremendous increase in downtown and midtown traffic will necessitate more frequency road repairs, thus causing even more girdlock.
I'm paying for this, but how does any of this benefit me?
The new arena benefits you even if you don't use it. It will benefit the local economy with continuing to fuel growth which leads to greater opportunity which leads to a higher standard of living for all. It will promote expansion of downtown, helping both new and existing businesses (including your employer's business). It will stimulate more businesses to locate to SAC, therefore many more jobs (and higher pay...supply:demand economics). It will thus create more opportunities for area residents, ecomomically. Culturally, it will provide more "experiences" for Sacramentans, both the arena events themselves and surrounding cultural developments (that might be cheaper to experience than going to the arena for those that can't afford it). Overall, this vibrant downtown will have a spillover effect on the surrounding communities. That will positively affect property values over the long haul.
As in any growing economy, eventually prices of goods and services will follow wage increases, true. But hey, if you want to live in a stagnant part of the U.S. rather than a growing one, you have that choice. If you move, don't expect your wages to escalate in a flat economic region that is not growing. So if you can handle your standards of living in that situation, by all means, go for it.
Personally, I WANT to live in an area of high growth and am willing to accept the "risk" of higher prices in exchange for greater opportunities, greater wages, and greater entertainment and recreational choices.
You have cited some potential problems with ANY City growth scenario... more police, more road maintenance, more infrastructure to accommodate the growth, etc. It is up to the governments to address these issues to make things as good as they can be for residents.
Obviously, I don't want to go to a Kings game in a downtown arena if it takes me 2 hours to get to a freeway afterwards. Government officials and planners understand this and other critical issues, including some of the ones you mentioned, and they will hire people, plan accordingly, build infrastructure, etc. whatever it takes to so that the growth can be accommodated.
I don't support spending taxpayer money to fund a private business.
It happens all the time with every government, everywhere. There are many services which governments provide in which they are not adept at staffing the service and providing it directly with government employees. Or sometimes the government just doesn't want to hire and get in a certain business.
For example, many consultants (lawyers, engineers, etc) make their entire living on taxpayer dollars. Many governments hire another company to operate their water and wastewater treatment plants.
An even better analogy are those private companies that run the government office cafeterias. They pay nothing for the building, lay out some rent (or perhaps a flat royalty), provide the equipment and employees and food, and get to keep whatever they make, or lose whatever they lose.
So let's get rid of all those cafeteria operators for governments?
Hardly. The governments do NOT want to be in the food business. Local government here does NOT want to be in the arena business. However, they highly covet what the new arena will do overall for the community and local business, and so they cut a deal with someone that knows the arena business.
I don't believe that huge sums of taxpayer money should be spent on projects that benefit only a small percentage of the population.
Well, here's where the education part needs to come in for those that don't see it. From my vantage point, the benefit is far-reaching beyond residents that will enter the arena.
Our elected officials will need to outline for you what they foresee as the beneficial impacts on all residents, even for residents that never set foot in downtown or the arena itself. Be open to LISTENING to what they have to say when the time comes.
The Maloofs have plenty of money, and I'm sure that the Palms has good corporate credit, if they want an new arena they should finance it themselves and borrow the rest of the money from the bank like any other person or business would have to.
Impractical and NOT the precedent set for most major arena projects in recent years. Do you expect the Maloofs to be responsible for much, much more than private stakeholders in the successful arena deals in other major metro areas? Hold on for more education, because I believe that our elected officials really need to outline how the last 4 or 5 major U.S. arena deals have gone down from a financing standpoint.
I think the most overlooked fact in this whole issue is that the Maloofs apparently don't want to own an arena, and this should be a clear indication to everyone that the keeping the Kings in Sacramento is strictly a limited engagement. If they were really serious about keeping the Kings here, they would have no problem owning the arena instead of leasing it. Yes, they signed a 30 year lease, but this means nothing. Even if they moved the Kings, they could still make money from hosting events at the new arena.
I really don't think the Maloofs would have gone through all this mess with the intent to move the team any time soon. What's their motivation to leave after this deal is done?
I'm wondering if there's a clause in the agreement requiring the Maloofs to keep the Kings in Sac for a set period of time. I'd bet everything that I own that there is no such clause.
We'll know soon enough.
