Group files papers to stop Sacramento from funding arena

[GameBall]

The article from the Sacramento Bee: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/03/21/4356704/group-files-papers-to-stop-sacramento.html

I'm curious to know what the tone is from Kings fans and arena supporters regarding this. I haven't heard much reaction to this on the radio or through Twitter.

Are you nervous that they may get enough signatures to force a public vote, effectively killing this arena deal? Or are you confident that there's no chance they'll get enough signatures, and this is just a last gasp by the CAVE people?

 

[BMiller52]

A prominent lawyer says there's no way they can stop anything, only slightly delay.

 

[GameBall]

By the way, I saw Leonard Padilla yesterday as I was walking around downtown during lunch. I had nothing nice to say, so I didn't say anything and just walked past him.

 

[The Hammer]

By the way, I saw Leonard Padilla yesterday as I was walking around downtown during lunch. I had nothing nice to say, so I didn't say anything and just walked past him.

You should've said the non-nice thing.

 

[JB_kings]

The article from the Sacramento Bee: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/03/21/4356704/group-files-papers-to-stop-sacramento.html

I'm curious to know what the tone is from Kings fans and arena supporters regarding this. I haven't heard much reaction to this on the radio or through Twitter.

Are you nervous that they may get enough signatures to force a public vote, effectively killing this arena deal? Or are you confident that there's no chance they'll get enough signatures, and this is just a last gasp by the CAVE people?

Not enough info there to say whether they are trying to get this on as an advisory measure. In which case the council still gets the final say. 30,000 is a LOT of valid signatures to get in approx. 60 days time. They can always stand out there and misrepresent their reason for requesting a signature for sympathy. But they would have to pay these guys to stand out in front of a lot of stores since they probably wont have enough volunteers. It's tougher to do and make sure you have valid city residents signing too. So they would likely have to have 40,000 and hope 3/4 of them are valid residents who are registered. Not as easy as it sounds.

 

[VF21]

Not enough info there to say whether they are trying to get this on as an advisory measure. In which case the council still gets the final say. 30,000 is a LOT of valid signatures to get in approx. 60 days time. They can always stand out there and misrepresent their reason for requesting a signature for sympathy. But they would have to pay these guys to stand out in front of a lot of stores since they probably wont have enough volunteers. It's tougher to do and make sure you have valid city residents signing too. So they would likely have to have 40,000 and hope 3/4 of them are valid residents who are registered. Not as easy as it sounds.

Agreed. I think most professional signature gathering operations actually shoot for double the required number. Depending on the issue involved and the locations where signatures are collected, the invalid percentage can equal or exceed 40-50%.

 

[JB_kings]

Agreed. I think most professional signature gathering operations actually shoot for double the required number. Depending on the issue involved and the locations where signatures are collected, the invalid percentage can equal or exceed 40-50%.

I just read another Bee article and the numbers are confusing. That one says they are shooting for 30,000 because they need about 9,000. So the number needed is a lot less than what the original article states, but they obviously know that most signatures are not going to be legit if they think they need a buffer of 21,000. And they would need some funding for the signature gathering process. These typically don't succeed unless well funded.

And again, might all be for not if all they can push is an advisory measure.

Just did some searching. It looks like a recent petition for another ballot measure done last December for a 2012 vote required 32,230 valid city voters to sign the petition. So forget the 9,000 because it looks like they will need over 32,000. Damn I wish the Bee would do some research and not be so confusing. The recent population of the districts that make up the city of Sacramento is about 466,488 according to the last redistricting numbers in 2011. Who knows what percentage of that are registered voters. So as you can see, the math is working against them to come up with enough signatures.

 

[The Hammer]

I just read another Bee article and the numbers are confusing. That one says they are shooting for 30,000 because they need about 9,000. So the number needed is a lot less than what the original article states, but they obviously know that most signatures are not going to be legit if they think they need a buffer of 21,000. And they would need some funding for the signature gathering process. These typically don't succeed unless well funded.

And again, might all be for not if all they can push is an advisory measure.

Just did some searching. It looks like a recent petition for another ballot measure done last December for a 2012 vote required 32,230 valid city voters to sign the petition. So forget the 9,000 because it looks like they will need over 32,000. Damn I wish the Bee would do some research and not be so confusing. The recent population of the districts that make up the city of Sacramento is about 466,488 according to the last redistricting numbers in 2011. Who knows what percentage of that are registered voters. So as you can see, the math is working against them to come up with enough signatures.

It's likely a hopeless enterprise, at least for the money anyone might be willing to invest in getting the sigs.

Why oh why would anybody spend the money to get over 30k sigs on this thing??? All the monied interests are on the side of the Kings!!

Not gonna happen. Personally, I'll enjoy seeing it fail to reach the ballot.

 

[Mike0476]

"Will they (opposition) stop it (arena process)? No. Do they have standing to stop it? No." - Ken Rosenfeld, Attorney on @FOX40 (Feb 28, 2012) #FANS

 

[itzcoatl]

I don't know much about the process CAVE people will need to go through this, but the BEE says this is the language of the measure:
"The City shall provide no financial support for the development of an Entertainment and Sports Complex (ESC) in the Downtown Railyards site without the approval of a majority of voters."

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/03/21/4356704/group-files-papers-to-stop-sacramento.html#storylink=cpy

The language is pretty sloppy. The article says the City Attorney's Office has to "vet the measure's wording" in two weeks. I wonder if the City Attorney will send it back or clean-up the language? It looks like the wording is bad enough that they might have to re-do the whole thing in a couple weeks.

 

[Bricklayer]

"Will they (opposition) stop it (arena process)? No. Do they have standing to stop it? No." - Ken Rosenfeld, Attorney on @FOX40 (Feb 28, 2012) #FANS

Hmm...well, he is right on the standing issue...but standing should only come up if they tried to file a lawsuit to stop it. that's the whole point of standing -- do you have "standing" to sue whoever. And the courts have been very consistent that taxpayers can't sure their own governments to stop them from taking actions.

But the problem is that this isn't a lawasuit. The problem is this is once again California's bat**** insane initiative process that has really damaged your state. The limits to what people can **** up through ignorance via that ridiculous system have yet to be found. And there is no standing issue in an initiative process.

 

[JB_kings]

If they had some money to pay some pros who are masterful at deceitful tactics to gather signatures, then they might stand a small chance. For instance I see guys standing out in front of a store asking you to sign a petition for cheaper healthcare. Then some fools will walk by and sign the dang thing without even reading what they are signing. The trouble in this case is that they will need to get probably 1 out every 8 valid registered residents in the city to sign. If they take a few weeks to get the wording correct, it allows them 40-50 days to get enough. Just don't see that happening.

 

[Kings Faithful]

This really scares me honestly... even if it is a small chance it will happen. Some people are just so spiteful they would do anything to impose their will.

 

[itzcoatl]

I've never heard of the group "Sacramento Taxpayers Opposed to Pork." Is this a new thing? Can a group of citizens make up a name for some brand-new organization and just file a measure? Or do they have to go through some more formal steps first (i.e. have the group formed as a non-profit, or corporation, or whatever, etc.)?

 

[Brac-o-matic]

This doesn't really scare me too much, although fear the CAVE people's tactics. They have proven that they will say whatever they can to make their points, no matter how factually bereft they are. The city attorney can control the wording of the petition, but they can't control the lies that will be told by the petitioners...

 

[Bricklayer]

I've never heard of the group "Sacramento Taxpayers Opposed to Pork." Is this a new thing? Can a group of citizens make up a name for some brand-new organization and just file a measure? Or do they have to go through some more formal steps first (i.e. have the group formed as a non-profit, or corporation, or whatever, etc.)?

If this thing heats up the first thing that some of you are going to have to do is make some signs/pillory that group as Sacramento Taxpayers Opposed to Progress. Its just too damn easy a twist, and making your opponent a mockery is always a good strategy.

BTW their signature gaining pitch is going to be "we just want a say in how our money is spent", "no no, this isn't a vote against the arena, its a vote to let we the taxpayers have a voice, afterall its our money", "once its on the ballot people are free to vote however they want, and if the taxpayers like having their money spent this way then we'll accept that, we just think that on a deal so huge for the city lasting 30 years, that there should at least be a vote". Otr at least that would be the saavy softsell version. Now if you are lucky, they are stupid and rabid rather than saavy and carry around signs with the S.T.O.P. sign on them, cnhanting no new arena! etc. and chase people off. Zealots have a notoriously hard time taking off their own tinted goggles and looking at things from other people's point of view.

 

[kennadog]

Hmm...well, he is right on the standing issue...but standing should only come up if they tried to file a lawsuit to stop it. that's the whole point of standing -- do you have "standing" to sue whoever. And the courts have been very consistent that taxpayers can't sure their own governments to stop them from taking actions.

But the problem is that this isn't a lawsuit. The problem is this is once again California's bat**** insane initiative process that has really damaged your state. The limits to what people can **** up through ignorance via that ridiculous system have yet to be found. And there is no standing issue in an initiative process.

Amen. Honestly the State so wrapped up, twisted around and screwed up by the initiative process in this State. Any idiot can put just about anything on the ballot, if they can get enough signatures. Most are poorly written, ill-conceived and the process has been mostly high-jacked by big corporations and/or big money. Having said this, I honestly don't know if California's initiative process is only at the State level or if it applies to local governments, as well. An important blank in my knowledge.

Yes STOP is brand new, created just to try and get this on the ballot. I'm sure groups will be trying a lot of avenues to stop the arena from being built. In my experience groups like this just throw up a lot of s**t and hope something sticks. Has happened with some of my affordable housing projects. Even if all of it fails, it ties things up, which ends up making the project cost more in the end. In the development world, time really is money.

I expected this. I just hope the d**n thing doesn't get on the ballot. Believe it or not, if it actually gets on the ballot, they may have a shot at getting enough votes. All the pro-arena people need to get an even bigger educational campaign going on this. I am still dumb-founded by the total misconceptions and misinformation flying around about this deal. There are definitely things that need to be clearly answered, but we still don't have details, only a non-binding term sheet, a sort of general outline of a deal.

Maybe it will be like the petition to stop Arco II in Natomas and they'll have so many unqualified signatures, they'll fail. I do wish more regional governments had stepped up. West Sacramento owes Sacramento for stepping up on Raley Field. As it stands, if a ballot measure gets done, only the City of Sacramento residents will have any say. Heck, even most of the years my address said Sacramento, I was living in the unincorporated county areas and wouldn't have been able to vote.

Now we'll have to sweat it out until the end of May and wait for a review of the signatures. As it says, if they do win a ballot vote, the city would be forced to put a measure on the ballot asking if the citizens support the deal. We'd never get to that, because I think the NBA would let the Kings go, if STOP actually accomplishes this.

I'm tired, so I'm not sure I've written this very coherently. That and I'm pi**ed off about it.