Education Points

[kupman]

I'm pretty right wing conservative and I'm not anti-tax. This isn't about Republican or Democrat and we need to really concentrate on not making that a divisive issue here.

I believe 1kingzfan has made some excellent points about what needs to become focal points and I hope people will look at them and not any possible political affliliations. This is NOT about party politics, or at least I sincerely hope it isn't.

Let me add another perspective. Many people are anti-big goverment/anti-big tax dollars going to the federal goverment or even the state government. I understand that perspective. This is different. This is very local money going to a very local cause...i.e. we trust our local officials to spend our money much more wisely than those living in D.C. Correct me if I am wrong, but that perspective is pretty old-school republican.

 

[JB_kings]

Here's your uphill fight. Already on the Fox 40 news they put up inaccurate numbers. Numbers that were put in print for all to see were obviously tossed. Just put the darn numbers your being shown and quit being smart. Then they trotted out the Sac State poll at the end which is about as current now as the Red Sox winning the World Series.

 

[VF21]

Of all the channels so far, I believe News10 is actually doing the best job. They're putting the facts out there, they're showing clips of Roger Dickinson and Darrell Steinberg explaining how the proposal will work, AND they're talking about the positive aspects.

I think Fox40 trotted out the Sac State poll because they didn't do a poll of their own and they certainly didn't want to quote KCRA's straw poll.

 

[Chris Cobb]

As a resident of the hated Los Angeles, I have never been happier that I kept my voter registration in Sacramento.

In keeping with the topic of this thread, knowing some actual facts about the effects of the tax increase is the key to getting the ballot measure approved. I have nothing to give in that respect yet as I am still researching this proposed deal. But I think one important key in persuading naysayers is to listen to their comments and actually address them. Dont turn every discussion into a plea to save the Kings. Once the discussion points have been discussed here, bring those points to everyone you know. With the facts behind us, we can persuade our friends, family, coworkers, classmates, neighbors, and even complete strangers. I will be discussing this ballot measure with anyone that will listen and I hope that you will all do the same.

 

[VF21]

Good points, CC.

Be sure and check out the information at www.news10.net They've got some good info.

 

[bibbinator]

Taxes are the price of civilization. You don't want your civilzation being determined by the low bidder, do you?

I have been lukewarm on the new stadium, but on first pass I like this deal a lot. I like it because it's going to give a boost to downtown Sac. I like it because the Maloofs aren't trying to ream the city. I like it because it's going to bring in some needed tax revenues.

I suppose that makes me an oddball to be pro-tax in America. The thing is I known and worked with all sorts of government employees: city attorneys, teachers, social workers, policy analysts, engineers, planners, scientists, military, even DGS fleet workers. Sure there are bad apples among them, but for the most part these people are smart and very dedicated to serving their community. Good government services are an incredible investment. They lay the groundwork that makes people feel secure about investing in the future, be it families or businesses. When they are not good it is our job as citizens to demand accountability and reform, not to starve the beast.

 

[Carole]

Of all the channels so far, I believe News10 is actually doing the best job. They're putting the facts out there, they're showing clips of Roger Dickinson and Darrell Steinberg explaining how the proposal will work, AND they're talking about the positive aspects.

Actually, this morning I wrote Channel 10 News an email in protest because they keep calling it a Kings arena. No mention of the other benefits and that it's really a Sacramento arena, and that the Monarchs are there, too! I think the populace will be more in favor of the idea if the arena is touted as having benefits for more than just Kings fans! All of Sacramento will benefit, and limiting it to a "Kings" arena will not please 90% of the voters!!! And that Dave (Marquez?) mentioned about the Maloof's Deep Pockets.They need to start slanting this the right way rather quickly. November is coming up.

 

[D-Mass]

Taxes are the price of civilization. You don't want your civilzation being determined by the low bidder, do you?

I have been lukewarm on the new stadium, but on first pass I like this deal a lot. I like it because it's going to give a boost to downtown Sac. I like it because the Maloofs aren't trying to ream the city. I like it because it's going to bring in some needed tax revenues.

I suppose that makes me an oddball to be pro-tax in America. The thing is I known and worked with all sorts of government employees: city attorneys, teachers, social workers, policy analysts, engineers, planners, scientists, military, even DGS fleet workers. Sure there are bad apples among them, but for the most part these people are smart and very dedicated to serving their community. Good government services are an incredible investment. They lay the groundwork that makes people feel secure about investing in the future, be it families or businesses. When they are not good it is our job as citizens to demand accountability and reform, not to starve the beast.

Well said...my sentiments exactly.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Actually, this morning I wrote Channel 10 News an email in protest because they keep calling it a Kings arena. No mention of the other benefits and that it's really a Sacramento arena...

As a non-local, I think that this is a very important point; in trying to appeal to the "fence" voters and non-sports fans, those here lobbying for a new arena should try to emphasize how a new arena will mean more revenue for the city (county?) of Sacramento, completely independent of the Kings and Monarchs. And, if there's anyone here who has the ear of the news media, they should try and convince them to portray the matter thusly.

 

[DocHolliday]

Ok R.E. Graswich was on KHTK this morning. He said basically the maloofs are paying rent, putting up the 20 mill for future repairs to start with, but not paying any of the building costs. This isn't correct is it?? I thought they were paying rent, the 20 million dollar bond up front, and paying somewhere around 100 mill of the building costs.

 

[1kingzfan]

I think Dickinson confused the masses somewhat yesterday in his PC remarks, because he had his list of "points" ... and he mentioned the $4 mil/yr lease payments in one point, the $20 mil up front for repairs/renovation in another, and the $142 mil, 26-30% contribution in a third.

It appears that the total Maloof commitment is $142 mil which amounts to the announced % of construction costs. Graswich is saying that the Maloofs are REALLY paying only a small % of construction costs, since their up front amount is just the $20 mil.

However, keep in mind, they are also paying off the $70+ mil loan on Arco (improving the City's debt standing, and potential bond ratings, since they are on the hook if the Maloofs would default) and some new arena deals involve NO RENT by the occupying pro sports franchise.

So the way I look at it is that the Maloofs get to string out their 25% contribution to arena construction by this deal rather than toss it in the pot up front. 6 of one, half dozen of another, although the Maloofs gain the time value of money in the deal.

Someone please correct me if I have this wrong.

 

[DocHolliday]

The way it was originally stated though is the maloofs were putting up the 20 million bond, 30 year lease of a 122 million AND 25%-30% of the FINAL cost of the facility. The facility is estimated between 470 and 540 mill. So on the high side the maloofs would be putting in about 26% and on the low side closer to 30%. So, the way I understand it they are doing the 142 mill PLUS 25%-30% of the FINAL cost of the facility.

The facility estimate also includes demolition of the old Arco arena, and clean up of the land in the railyard where the arena will sit. The land Arco now sits on would be sold, and part of that money goes to pay the loan off, the rest of the Maloofs pocket.

One interesting thing I learned last night which I never knew is. The loan the Maloofs assumed when buying the Kings is NOT owed to the City or the County. It's a normal financing/creditor the City are just co-signers on the loan. So, in case the Maloofs were to defaul the City is on the hook for it. That's NEVER been said, I've always heard the Maloofs owe that money to the City. Not to mention the Maloofs have NEVER missed a payment, and made a large balloon payment last year that they were not required to make.

 

[JB_kings]

The Maloofs actually are getting hurt on part of this and getting some relief in other ways. On the 73 million loan payback they are trading 30 year long term low interest financed debt into a lump sum payoff. While that is probably a good idea to Joe Sixpack to pay off his '05 4x4, it's a bad idea for the Maloofs. To pay off something that big is a whole different deal. For one thing, inflation outpaces the low interest on loan payback. It's also a double whammy because it forces the Maloofs into selling off property at current value. Property values almost always perform better over time than just about any other low risk investment. So this locks them into selling 85 acres in the near future instead of sitting on it until it doubles or triples in value.
As far as the 4 million a year for 30 years, that's a good deal for the Maloofs if you consider that would hurt to pay up front. But also remember that three out of the last four arena deals in other cities required no money from their team owners. And the other deal was similar in percentage to this deal. I think this is a win-win for the Maloofs and the city.

 

[Warhawk]

The way it was originally stated though is the maloofs were putting up the 20 million bond, 30 year lease of a 122 million AND 25%-30% of the FINAL cost of the facility. The facility is estimated between 470 and 540 mill. So on the high side the maloofs would be putting in about 26% and on the low side closer to 30%. So, the way I understand it they are doing the 142 mill PLUS 25%-30% of the FINAL cost of the facility.

The facility estimate also includes demolition of the old Arco arena, and clean up of the land in the railyard where the arena will sit. The land Arco now sits on would be sold, and part of that money goes to pay the loan off, the rest of the Maloofs pocket.

One interesting thing I learned last night which I never knew is. The loan the Maloofs assumed when buying the Kings is NOT owed to the City or the County. It's a normal financing/creditor the City are just co-signers on the loan. So, in case the Maloofs were to defaul the City is on the hook for it. That's NEVER been said, I've always heard the Maloofs owe that money to the City. Not to mention the Maloofs have NEVER missed a payment, and made a large balloon payment last year that they were not required to make.

There seems to be a bit of confusion here, but it appears that 1kingzfan is right. This is my understanding:

The Maloofs pay $20 million up front

They sign a 30-year lease to keep the Kings and Monarchs here through 2040 (building completed in 2010)

They pay just over $4 million per year in "rent" - total of about $122 million

They pay off the loan, probably using money from the sale of the land they own where ARCO is now

Their total commitment to the new arena construction cost is about $142 million ($20 million plus $122 million = 30% of $470 million minimum estimated cost - including infrastructure, parking structure, land acquisition, and demolition of old ARCO costs)

They pay ongoing costs for running the facility estimated at $10-12 million per year

Structure design and costs controlled by city/county, not the Maloofs, so the Maloofs are not responsible for changes/overruns

They benefit from the parking, revenues, and naming rights but also assume risks for events not selling out, etc.

http://www.kingsfans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14199

 

[1kingzfan]

I think that's right, Warhawk.

So a new education point becomes:

Why didn't the City force the Maloofs to pay more up front for construction, since the Maloofs will reap any direct profits from arena operations?

By cutting a no-rent deal for 30 years and having the Maloofs pony up the whole $142 mil up front, the City could have relieved the taxpayers of 25% (Maloof share of arena construction) of the 50% (proportion of the new tax revenue for the new arena) of the 1/4% proposed sales tax increase.

So, in the end, perhaps the duration of the sales tax increase could have been shortened somewhat.

 

[JB_kings]

I got out the calculator yesterday. I know, dangerous thing.
The 30% number is this: 474 million final cost. 122+20=142 million. The 142 million is 30 percent of 474 million.
The 26% number is this: 540 million final cost. 122+20=142 million. 142 million is 26 percent of 540 million.
And there you have it. Not fuzzy at all.

 

[DocHolliday]

I got out the calculator yesterday. I know, dangerous thing.
The 30% number is this: 474 million final cost. 122+20=142 million. The 142 million is 30 percent of 474 million.
The 26% number is this: 540 million final cost. 122+20=142 million. 142 million is 26 percent of 540 million.
And there you have it. Not fuzzy at all.

Ok I wanted to be clear on those numbers. Thanks. It's still more money then most owners are willing to pay to stay in a city.

 

[1kingzfan]

Fence-dwellers and naysayers also need to keep in mind a huge point:

The CITY controls the design and construction of the arena.

So, if the City's politicians, engineers, architects, and construction managers do their jobs, the Maloofs will wind up ultimately bearing 30% of the new arena cost. Naturally, the Maloofs will need to have input on the design, but they don't control the process and thus do not control the ultimate price tag.

 

[kennadog]

I think that's right, Warhawk.

So a new education point becomes:

Why didn't the City force the Maloofs to pay more up front for construction, since the Maloofs will reap any direct profits from arena operations?

By cutting a no-rent deal for 30 years and having the Maloofs pony up the whole $142 mil up front, the City could have relieved the taxpayers of 25% (Maloof share of arena construction) of the 50% (proportion of the new tax revenue for the new arena) of the 1/4% proposed sales tax increase.

So, in the end, perhaps the duration of the sales tax increase could have been shortened somewhat.

This is true and will be why the anti side will argue they are only contributing $20 million to build the arena. I think the actual arena cost were said to be about $377 million, the rest is infrastructure. So its like less than a 10% downpayment. If you count the full cost its even lower. That's how the anti side will likely present this.

Someone said the city pays a full dollar to build and the Maloofs pay in future dollars that are worth less. This is true. So the $142 million over time isn't actually worth that in today's dollars. A rough projection would be that the value of the dollar the Maloofs pay in 30 years is worth about 10 cents today (It declines over time.)

Its true, but that leaves out the fact that building an arena also gets more expensive to build every year. In 30 years, the value of that land alone in downtown Sacramento could easily be worth more than we spend today to get an arena. And the city will own it, not some private land owner. I think its significant for the city to have control over that large a chunk of property in the heart of downtown.

 

[kupman]

This is true and will be why the anti side will argue they are only contributing $20 million to build the arena. I think the actual arena cost were said to be about $377 million, the rest is infrastructure. So its like less than a 10% downpayment. If you count the full cost its even lower. That's how the anti side will likely present this.

The rebuttal would be that the Maloofs contribution is not a “down payment.” It is a contribution to something that they will never own.

 

[DocHolliday]

One thing I thought that is cool, is included in that cost estimate is the clean of the land on the site where the new arena would be built, AND the demolition of the current Arco Arena to prepare that land for sale. When you consider ALL that will get done AND the new Arena built for that cost it's a pretty good deal.

 

[Arena Skeptic]

Where I agree with all of you (GASP!) is that you are right when you say this isn't all about the Kings and Monarchs (although, having been to a few Monarchs games, I honestly cannot see how anyone's making money there. Sheesh... I've never seen 7,000 people look so similar to 3,000 people. The bottom bowl is NEVER even half-full).

This isn't all about the Kings and Monarchs. There. I've repeated myself.

However... A couple points.

1) This is all about the Maloofs. They control 100% of the arena revenue. So they don't own the building, they simply own 100% of the events in that building. Given that they are paying 30% of the construction costs, I think that's an excellent deal for them.

2) Since the County will own the building, there will be NO property tax to pay. Now, I have no idea how much the tax bill on a $500 million building (or $377 million building) is, but I have to assume it's about what I pay, in terms of percentages, or about 1% per year. So doesn't that mean the County is depriving itself of that 1%? That's pretty close to paying the rent, so the County is depriving itself of income in an amount equal to the rent. In my mind, you have to subtract that out from the total Maloof contribution.

3) This is a SICKENING circumvention of State law, Proposition 218, which requires a 2/3 vote of the public prior to raising special taxes. I believe quite strongly that we would not be voting to raise taxes if it wasn't tied to this arena. If nothing else, you ought to honestly ask yourself that question. Would we be raising taxes right now if not for this arena proposal? No. Not at all. I sincerely think you're going to see a legal challenge on these grounds.

All in all, at first glance, I thought this was better than what they did in Charlotte, Memphis, and so forth... But those feelings are evaporating. It is 100% true that the Maloofs do not own the building, but they do own 100% of the TIME in that building. $3 million bucks a year, plus zero propery tax, to own all the TIME in a $377 millon building someone else is paying for (remember, their 30% contribution INCLUDES the rent, so I can say that) is a deal the Maloofs would have been complete fools to decline. So this truly isn't all about the Kings; it is, however, all about the Maloofs. They are the beneficiaries of this sales tax increase.

At first, I wondered why the Maloofs would put the wrecking ball to the old arena, and then it hit me: It's because they don't want competition. The current arena and its land are certainly worth more NOT knocked down, so why plow it under and then sell it? Well, the answer is easy: They don't want competition. They don't want, say, BGP to come along and rent it out for less than they could rent nights at the new joint. So, fine, knock it down and take $30 million less for it, because they'll get all that back when they own a monopoly. Very clever.

I think you guys just went car shopping and decided to have the salesman on your side, "negotiating" with his own manager... And you believed every word both of them said. You're being had, and you don't even know it.

Once a cow-town, always a cow-town.

 

[kennadog]

Arco is not economically feasible to maintain. It is rapidly losing big-ticket events and will lose its biggest tenant. The Maloofs own it and I doubt they are going to keep pouring money into that rat hole. Right now it needs a new roof that would cost millions.

You say its because of the competition, but if they moved the team, Arco would undoubtedly still be torn down, because its reached the point at which high maintenance costs and declining big-ticket events just don't make it a finanacially feasible business to run.

I've been to other arena venues. Arco is a dump. I love it, because of the memories, but it is a dump. The Maloofs pour money into maintenance every year to cover that fact as best they can.

That's why the consultants say the building is at the end of its economic lifespan. Not too mention that the land is worth too much developed for other uses at this point. If its a money pit, its a waste of land close to downtown.

And quit implying that if we support this we are all stupid or being taken in. I won't deny this is a good deal for the Maloofs. Why else would they do it? Why would any businessman make a bad deal, if they have half a brain? The Maloofs, however, could have gone elsewhere and paid zero, nada, zip for any arena. That would be a much better deal. (Kansas City with a brand, spanking new arena who would love the Kings back comes to mind.) So if they're as rapacious as you believe, they would leave.

Personally, I'd rather have my taxes go to an arena in my hometown, that to businesses making far more off of my taxes, like Halliburton or giant ag corporations.

 

[D-Mass]

I think you guys just went car shopping and decided to have the salesman on your side, "negotiating" with his own manager... And you believed every word both of them said. You're being had, and you don't even know it.

Once a cow-town, always a cow-town.

Bleh. Here's how I see it...I look at it purely from a personal standpoint. You can gripe over and over about the numbers and the particulars of the deal itself. But what does it mean for ME? I pay $0.25 for every $100 I spend (or $25 per $10,000) and I get my favorite team in town for a LONG time to come, a new and vibrant community full of shops, restaurants, and housing. I get millions of dollars going to all sorts of community projects throughout the county. I get all of the concerts and events of any major city in the U.S., and I get to see a community take a big step forward in becoming a city with an identity...not just the capital of California. Worth every penny.

 

[Warhawk]

1) This is all about the Maloofs. They control 100% of the arena revenue. So they don't own the building, they simply own 100% of the events in that building. Given that they are paying 30% of the construction costs, I think that's an excellent deal for them.

2) Since the County will own the building, there will be NO property tax to pay. Now, I have no idea how much the tax bill on a $500 million building (or $377 million building) is, but I have to assume it's about what I pay, in terms of percentages, or about 1% per year. So doesn't that mean the County is depriving itself of that 1%? That's pretty close to paying the rent, so the County is depriving itself of income in an amount equal to the rent. In my mind, you have to subtract that out from the total Maloof contribution.

3) This is a SICKENING circumvention of State law, Proposition 218, which requires a 2/3 vote of the public prior to raising special taxes. I believe quite strongly that we would not be voting to raise taxes if it wasn't tied to this arena. If nothing else, you ought to honestly ask yourself that question. Would we be raising taxes right now if not for this arena proposal? No. Not at all. I sincerely think you're going to see a legal challenge on these grounds.

All in all, at first glance, I thought this was better than what they did in Charlotte, Memphis, and so forth... But those feelings are evaporating. It is 100% true that the Maloofs do not own the building, but they do own 100% of the TIME in that building. $3 million bucks a year, plus zero propery tax, to own all the TIME in a $377 millon building someone else is paying for (remember, their 30% contribution INCLUDES the rent, so I can say that) is a deal the Maloofs would have been complete fools to decline. So this truly isn't all about the Kings; it is, however, all about the Maloofs. They are the beneficiaries of this sales tax increase.

At first, I wondered why the Maloofs would put the wrecking ball to the old arena, and then it hit me: It's because they don't want competition. The current arena and its land are certainly worth more NOT knocked down, so why plow it under and then sell it? Well, the answer is easy: They don't want competition. They don't want, say, BGP to come along and rent it out for less than they could rent nights at the new joint. So, fine, knock it down and take $30 million less for it, because they'll get all that back when they own a monopoly. Very clever.

1. They also are responsible for 100% of the operating expenses (over $10 million a year), booking events, and risk on ticket sales. Other arenas have been 100% publicly funded and they are paying for up to 30%. The last 4 arenas built have been easier on the team owners than this deal. Sounds reasonable if you look at what the market bears instead of some fanciful hypothetical, doesn't it?

2. The county won't own the building. It is commonly thought of that they will, but it will actually be owned by a "new public joint powers authority, which would control the building's construction and design" (according to the Bee). Why should the Maloofs pay tax on a building they don't own? Would you like to pay tax on a structure that isn't yours?

3. Over 1/2 of the tax is for general purpose use. Less than 1/2 goes to the arena. There is no conflict with the law, as previous arrangements of a similar nature have been found to be completely legal.

The lease payments are over $4 million per year, not $3 million.

Any building that is built and leased out is not "owned" by the leasee but the leasee "owns" 100% of the time for the structure. Other leasee's do not normally pay a $20 million deposit just to use the facility either, as the owner is responsible for mintenance and improvements.

The building is going to be demolished because the land is worth more than the land and the building together and the Maloofs need to pay off the loan taken out by the previous owners.

What "competiton" is there going to be with an obsolete entertainment center when a modern one is available? Acts are already skipping Sacramento because of the lack of facilities. Do you think they'd rush to use ARCO when a newer, nicer facility is available for a top flight event (concerts, ice dancing, etc.)? Keep dreaming.

 

[kupman]

Where I agree with all of you (GASP!) is that you are right when you say this isn't all about the Kings and Monarchs (although, having been to a few Monarchs games, I honestly cannot see how anyone's making money there. Sheesh... I've never seen 7,000 people look so similar to 3,000 people. The bottom bowl is NEVER even half-full).

This isn't all about the Kings and Monarchs. There. I've repeated myself.

However... A couple points.

1) This is all about the Maloofs. They control 100% of the arena revenue. So they don't own the building, they simply own 100% of the events in that building. Given that they are paying 30% of the construction costs, I think that's an excellent deal for them.

2) Since the County will own the building, there will be NO property tax to pay. Now, I have no idea how much the tax bill on a $500 million building (or $377 million building) is, but I have to assume it's about what I pay, in terms of percentages, or about 1% per year. So doesn't that mean the County is depriving itself of that 1%? That's pretty close to paying the rent, so the County is depriving itself of income in an amount equal to the rent. In my mind, you have to subtract that out from the total Maloof contribution.

3) This is a SICKENING circumvention of State law, Proposition 218, which requires a 2/3 vote of the public prior to raising special taxes. I believe quite strongly that we would not be voting to raise taxes if it wasn't tied to this arena. If nothing else, you ought to honestly ask yourself that question. Would we be raising taxes right now if not for this arena proposal? No. Not at all. I sincerely think you're going to see a legal challenge on these grounds.

All in all, at first glance, I thought this was better than what they did in Charlotte, Memphis, and so forth... But those feelings are evaporating. It is 100% true that the Maloofs do not own the building, but they do own 100% of the TIME in that building. $3 million bucks a year, plus zero propery tax, to own all the TIME in a $377 millon building someone else is paying for (remember, their 30% contribution INCLUDES the rent, so I can say that) is a deal the Maloofs would have been complete fools to decline. So this truly isn't all about the Kings; it is, however, all about the Maloofs. They are the beneficiaries of this sales tax increase.

At first, I wondered why the Maloofs would put the wrecking ball to the old arena, and then it hit me: It's because they don't want competition. The current arena and its land are certainly worth more NOT knocked down, so why plow it under and then sell it? Well, the answer is easy: They don't want competition. They don't want, say, BGP to come along and rent it out for less than they could rent nights at the new joint. So, fine, knock it down and take $30 million less for it, because they'll get all that back when they own a monopoly. Very clever.

I think you guys just went car shopping and decided to have the salesman on your side, "negotiating" with his own manager... And you believed every word both of them said. You're being had, and you don't even know it.

Once a cow-town, always a cow-town.

First, that last paragraph is untrue and a little disrespectful.

Moving on:

Point #1) This is a good deal for the Maloofs; however, it is also a good deal for this community. The Maloofs should control all of the revenue. They hold the responsibility of running the joint, including paying all of the bills. Therefore, if they are able to turn a profit at the end of the day, then so be it. I asked earlier on this board for an estimation what the profit margin might be, but I have not received an answer. It is tough question I know, but maybe it is not as easy to turn a profit as one might think. The city should not expect to control the revenue unless they run the place and pay the bills and, quite frankly, I think the Maloofs are able to run a place like this better than just about anybody.

Point #3) This is not a SICKENING circumvention of State law, Proposition 218. As you probably know it has been done before. Plus, less than ½ of the taxes will be going to the arena. This project is much bigger than the arena and more important than the Kings and the Maloofs. It is about the revitalization of the city’s central core. Of course, a new state of the art entertainment venue would give a much bigger reason for people all over the region to visit downtown, but the bigger picture is that we need to give people better reasons for visiting the core of our city.

Lastly, you really have to ask yourself what the city’s central core will look like in 2011 with and without this deal. With the deal, you probably have a vibrant city core that offers some of the best entertainment that can be found anywhere. Without the deal? – well, you tell me. Give us some kind of idea of what your vision for the future of this is.

(By the way, in 2011 Arco probably will not exist with or without the new arena…and if it does exist, we will be hard pressed at getting any decent entertainment there).

 

[Arena Skeptic]

Oh, no way, I've been to Monarchs games, and even the total die-hard fans always ask: Where do they get those attendance figures? I tell you, I've been to PLENTY of games where they announce 7,000, but the upper bowl is blocked off, and the lower bowl is less than half full. I mean no disrespect, but come on, SOMEONE is inflating attendance figures. I have no idea why, either. It makes no sense to me. And yet, there it is. Go to several games as I have. This isn't a disrespectful claim at all, it is pure fact.

1) Right now, they pay property tax. If they were building this privately, they'd pay property tax. But, lo and behold, they now have an arrangement where they DO NOT pay property tax, and miracle of miracles, the property tax they're NOT paying on a structure they CONTROL (but don't own; they merely CONTROL it!) is roughly equal to the tax payment. Those property tax payments go right to the County, by the way.

2) Doesn't matter. They don't own the building, so they don't pay taxes. A public entity other than them owns it. So they don't own the concrete and steel, only the stuff INSIDE the concrete and steel.

3) We will see, for sure. But, again, I refer you to Santa Clara Measure A, June 2006, where the voters had the opportunity to vote for something much, much more worthwhile than an arena (transportation is a mess in Santa Clara), and the voters saw right through the tactic and rejected it. Good for them. Had they done it the honest way and tried for 2/3, a lot of people who voted against it because of this attempt to break the spirit of the law would have voted for it. You will definitely see the same thing happen here. Kingsfans is a relatively blindered view of the world, and I don't think people here realize how ticked others are at this circumvention.

Can you show me the case where this tactic has worked, by the way? I have looked and looked and looked, and the only case I could find was Measure A, which was reeeejected.

By the way, my salesperson analogy is about perfect. Fong used to represent the Maloofs; now he moved to the City side. Total conflict of interest. You can be entirely, 100% certain that the Maloofs paid him well while he represented them, and I believe he's quite friendly with them.

Here's another one I'm sure we'll all agree on: Listening to Lamm last night, and what a doofus. To one caller, "Where did you get the idiotic notion this will be two measures?", and to the same caller, "Fong never worked for the Maloofs!".

I mean, WRONG and WRONG. I try to avoid Napear's show, so I don't know... Is Lamm ALWAYS this stupid?? Or just when it comes to politics?

 

[Wert]

Is Lamm ALWAYS this stupid??

I'd say yes.

 

[kupman]

A.S. - your comments have gone from constructive and thought provoking to really just insulting. I now have the feeling that you will be against a new arena unless the Maloofs provide the city with a $500 million gift and then promise to the city all the profits from the arena. You call us all here stupid and ignorant when you have never been able provide one new idea yourself. I'm done.

 

[Mike0476]

Anyone want to tackle these two comments? -

All projects funded and undertaken by a local muncipality are by definition, "community projects". Building the new arena is techinically a "community project". A community project is any local project that taxpayer money is spent on, because supposedly all taxpayer money is supposed to benefit the community equally. Of course, we all know this is bull****. 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?

==========

I don't support spending taxpayer money to fund a private business. I don't want to see the Kings leave Sac, and this deal seems to be the best one that the lame city council will be able to pull, but I still disagree with the whole thing based on principle.

I don't believe that huge sums of taxpayer money should be spent on projects that benefit only a small percentage of the population.

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.

I think it's bullXXXX to borrow public funds to build an arena that will put huge amounts of money in the pockets of people who could just have easily borrowed the money from a bank.

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'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.