Excerpt from Breton's article, re: Arena Initiative 2006
- Thread starter Geoff
- Start date
kennadog
Dog On It!
Well, the Maloofs were demanding a lot of the revenue. That much is true. But it is not true that they ever said they would pay no money toward construction. They just refused to specify how much. That was a big part of the problem with the measures. They put the cary before the horse. Something like th Taylor?ICON analysis coming up, should have come first.
Finlly, the reason the Maloofs bowed out at the last minute, is that Stern, Moag and the Maloofs had been told by the city that the city had the infrastructure funds committed for the rail yards. Thomas, the developer of the rail yards at the time, told the Maloofs and the NBA that the city did not have the funds committed. In fact, at that point in time, the city had no idea where they were going to get the money for the infrastructure. Can't build an arena with no infrastructure.
It was just a poorly thought out mess. I wouldn't have voted for it.
Finlly, the reason the Maloofs bowed out at the last minute, is that Stern, Moag and the Maloofs had been told by the city that the city had the infrastructure funds committed for the rail yards. Thomas, the developer of the rail yards at the time, told the Maloofs and the NBA that the city did not have the funds committed. In fact, at that point in time, the city had no idea where they were going to get the money for the infrastructure. Can't build an arena with no infrastructure.
It was just a poorly thought out mess. I wouldn't have voted for it.
My impression of that situation is that there was a rush to get the measures on the ballot and the negotiations between the city and the Maloofs simply ran out of time before they'd agreed on anything. Without any strong supporters (and the usual vocal detractors), the measures failed predictably and everyone sort of slunk away from the negotiating table with their tail between their legs. The Railyards project wasn't really nailed down at that point either which just added to the uncertainty.
Which is a shame because that set the precedent that taxes were not an option. If they'd just waited another year and got all the details worked out first it would have had a better chance of passing, but I'm still not sure it would have passed. A lot of people in Sacramento don't think the city should pay anything to keep the Kings and refuse to concede that the NBA might provide some kind of economic benefit to the region. There's no way to argue with that kind of absolutism. The conversation is dead before it even gets started.
Furthermore, there's been a whole lot of media hyperbole confusing the issue -- this article being one further example. Were the Maloofs ever asking for the city to "gift them a huge swath of land"? Not that I remember. They were asking for a significant chunk of arena related revenue and they wouldn't agree to a plan that drastically reduced what they currently collect on parking. Looking at what they would be agreeing to in the move to Anaheim it's easy to say now that they probably could have made some more concessions back then and still come out of it with a better deal than they're getting now. But the same blame could be leveled at the city for taking a hardline negotiating stance at almost every opportunity to the point of daring the Maloofs to look elsewhere.
The hope now is that both sides might be more amenable to compromise. But they're going to have to do it with private financing because of the Q and R ballot failures and also because of California's ongoing economic problems. There's no public money to get at this point, probably there never was. This is all just my personal take on what happened -- and it comes from collectively scanning all the articles released over the years and trying to filter out the editorial slant. There's been a lot of chances to make something work in Sacramento but no one's been willing to step up and play the needed leadership role.
I had some hope initially that Kevin Johnson might be that guy -- maybe he still could be if he's willing to back off the aggression a bit following April 18th. What we need to happen is (1) April 18th comes and goes without the Maloofs filing for relocation, and then (2) All relevant parties come to the table for real and negotiate in good faith toward a Sacramento solution that everyone can agree to. My dad reminded me the other day that the Giants were 90% gone for Tampa Bay before they got AT&T park built in San Francisco. Until they're officially gone there's still some hope to get something done -- as long was the Maloofs want to stay and the city wants to keep them.
Which is a shame because that set the precedent that taxes were not an option. If they'd just waited another year and got all the details worked out first it would have had a better chance of passing, but I'm still not sure it would have passed. A lot of people in Sacramento don't think the city should pay anything to keep the Kings and refuse to concede that the NBA might provide some kind of economic benefit to the region. There's no way to argue with that kind of absolutism. The conversation is dead before it even gets started.
Furthermore, there's been a whole lot of media hyperbole confusing the issue -- this article being one further example. Were the Maloofs ever asking for the city to "gift them a huge swath of land"? Not that I remember. They were asking for a significant chunk of arena related revenue and they wouldn't agree to a plan that drastically reduced what they currently collect on parking. Looking at what they would be agreeing to in the move to Anaheim it's easy to say now that they probably could have made some more concessions back then and still come out of it with a better deal than they're getting now. But the same blame could be leveled at the city for taking a hardline negotiating stance at almost every opportunity to the point of daring the Maloofs to look elsewhere.
The hope now is that both sides might be more amenable to compromise. But they're going to have to do it with private financing because of the Q and R ballot failures and also because of California's ongoing economic problems. There's no public money to get at this point, probably there never was. This is all just my personal take on what happened -- and it comes from collectively scanning all the articles released over the years and trying to filter out the editorial slant. There's been a lot of chances to make something work in Sacramento but no one's been willing to step up and play the needed leadership role.
I had some hope initially that Kevin Johnson might be that guy -- maybe he still could be if he's willing to back off the aggression a bit following April 18th. What we need to happen is (1) April 18th comes and goes without the Maloofs filing for relocation, and then (2) All relevant parties come to the table for real and negotiate in good faith toward a Sacramento solution that everyone can agree to. My dad reminded me the other day that the Giants were 90% gone for Tampa Bay before they got AT&T park built in San Francisco. Until they're officially gone there's still some hope to get something done -- as long was the Maloofs want to stay and the city wants to keep them.
kupman
Starter
Very well written.
If you went to work for the Bee you would be their best writer on day one - LOL.
Heh, thanks. A lot of this seems so common-sense that it's frustrating the same basic problems keep getting turned over again and again. It reminds of the one time I attempted to volunteer for a pep rally in high school. I walked into that gym and within a minute I could see a half dozen things they could be doing instead of what they were doing that would save time but everyone I talked to just looked at me confused and then ignored me so I eventually gave up and left. That's politics on a micro-scale. There's so many people with so many opinions that it's a minor miracle when anything collaborative manages to happen at all. It's too bad none of us have a spare $500 million to just build the darn arena ourselves and get it over with.
Siranthony
Starter
Good point about getting people together on opinions on what to do. That is what is wrong with the rail yards IMO. Yes it would be nice to fix up downton and have a riverwalk etc. But it complicates things. The city wants to kill two or three birds with one stone. Clean up a toxic rail yard, build an arena, fix up downtown and bring tourism. It will only cost $500 mil. It's too comlicated and too much money unless someone can do a real great sales pitch to the taxpayers.
I say keep it simple and as cheap as possible. Build it in Natomas on the current Kings property.
I say keep it simple and as cheap as possible. Build it in Natomas on the current Kings property.
And then they would have to let him go. Can't have any quality writers on the staff, you know. Makes everyone already there look bad.
Similar threads
