Kings arena deal dead??
- Thread starter Ryle
- Start date
LMM
Starter
Plan scrapped to build privately-funded Kings arena
http://www.sacbee.com/content/sports/basketball/kings/story/12434054p-13290238c.html
Plan scrapped to build privately-funded Kings arena
By Terry Hardy - Bee Staff Writer
Published 1:13 pm PST Wednesday, February 23, 2005
A plan to build a privately-funded arena for the Sacramento Kings is dead, scrapped after a group of North Natomas landowners brokering the deal concluded that they could not raise enough money for the multimillion dollar project.
In a hurriedly-called press conference Wednesday, a member of the landowners group said they tried to make the plan work, but were acknowledging failure because the Kings organization needed to know now whether a new arena was in the offing. Former councilman Jimmie Yee, another group spokesman, said he feared this had been the best hope to keep the King's in the city.
"The Kings may be history in Sacramento. I really feel that way," Yee said. "Arco Arena is only good for another five years."
Steve, Thurtle, a member of the landowners group and senior vice president of Richland Planned Communities, said he too believed that this could mean the basketball team would look to relocate.
"It's my understanding the Kings have other alternatives in other cities beyond Sacramento," Thurtle said.
No Kings representative attended the press conference. Thurtle said they had been notified of the landowners' decision.
Members of the North Natomas landowners group hoped to open up 9,000 acres of farmland north the city of Sacramento to development through an expedited process. They planned to donate a portion of the proceeds to build a new arena and create an endowment fund for the arts and youth sports. But some landowners balked at the plan and the group only collected 5,000 of the 7,000 acres needed to make the deal pencil out.
For more details, return to www.sacbee.com or see Thursday's Bee.
http://www.sacbee.com/content/sports/basketball/kings/story/12434054p-13290238c.html
Plan scrapped to build privately-funded Kings arena
By Terry Hardy - Bee Staff Writer
Published 1:13 pm PST Wednesday, February 23, 2005
A plan to build a privately-funded arena for the Sacramento Kings is dead, scrapped after a group of North Natomas landowners brokering the deal concluded that they could not raise enough money for the multimillion dollar project.
In a hurriedly-called press conference Wednesday, a member of the landowners group said they tried to make the plan work, but were acknowledging failure because the Kings organization needed to know now whether a new arena was in the offing. Former councilman Jimmie Yee, another group spokesman, said he feared this had been the best hope to keep the King's in the city.
"The Kings may be history in Sacramento. I really feel that way," Yee said. "Arco Arena is only good for another five years."
Steve, Thurtle, a member of the landowners group and senior vice president of Richland Planned Communities, said he too believed that this could mean the basketball team would look to relocate.
"It's my understanding the Kings have other alternatives in other cities beyond Sacramento," Thurtle said.
No Kings representative attended the press conference. Thurtle said they had been notified of the landowners' decision.
Members of the North Natomas landowners group hoped to open up 9,000 acres of farmland north the city of Sacramento to development through an expedited process. They planned to donate a portion of the proceeds to build a new arena and create an endowment fund for the arts and youth sports. But some landowners balked at the plan and the group only collected 5,000 of the 7,000 acres needed to make the deal pencil out.
For more details, return to www.sacbee.com or see Thursday's Bee.
Rockmeister
All-Star
If the Kings move out of Sac, guess watching basketball days will be over. Oh well. There's always the Rivercats games.
bdouble013
Bench
That doesn't sound good at all.
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
Sacramento is really making a pretty pathetic showing on this whole deal.
bigbadred00
Starter
Where would they go? What available big city is left for the Kings to goto? Back to KC? St. Louis? Las Vegas? Honestly US wide there aren't that many available sites.....maybe San Fran. Hopefully the Kings stay in Sacto, I bet they'll find a way, teams and cities always find a way especially when the Kings are so well supported. If you have problems like the Hornets or the Grizzles have had with attendance and such then it can become a problem.......it's never been a problem in Sac-Town.
bigbadred00
Starter
The Sacto Newspaper doesn't really help the team. I have never seen a paper take such a negative spin on the local team.
love_them_kings
Starter
KP said:
Yep, most places would jump on the chance to have a great local sports team. The fans here have been great, and that's one of the reasons the Maloofs have put up with this for so long, but there's only so long one of the better teams in the NBA is going to play in one of the worst arenas. I am so disappointed right now. I don't know that there are many options left, and I'd really hate to see them go.
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
bigbadred00 said:
The building is among the oldest and least advanced in the league. There are no luxury boxes. There is no corporate base to provide advertising revenue. The Kings will NOT stay in Sacramento if it means hanging out in a retrograde facility while other cities are lining up to build them new arenas. If Sacto wants to lose the Kings all it has to do is keep on dragging its feet for another 2-3 years and the search will be on full time.
Its a stupid pissing contest. The obvious fact is that sooner or later there HAS to be a new arena. So what's with the pissing and moaning? What, is whining going to make the necessity of a new arena magically go away? Stall, negotiate, break off negotiating, threaten, cajole, while the arena keeps on getting older and older? That's bright. There is no history to Arco -- this isn't the Garden. Its an aging facility built on the cheap in what used to be a cow field and is now a suburban neighborhood. There is absolutely no reason at all for an NBA team to tolerate playing in one of the most primitive facilities in the league as it starts to deteriorate with age.
love_them_kings
Starter
Bricklayer said:
I agree 100%, in fact, I think the Maloofs have been pretty patient about the whole thing. My only question is, do we reallly have 2-3 years to drag our feet? From the Sac Bee article, it sounds like the Maloofs wanted an answer now, which (assuming it's accurate, it is the Sac Bee after all) worries me that time may be running out. It may be put up or shut up time, because the Maloofs are going to make a decision sooner or later.
Ryle
Starter
A point of contention that I have is the Maloof's insistence that the arena be budgeted at $400 million. The new arena in Charlotte was about $260 million, the SBC Center in SA was built for $185 Million and the Fed Ex forum Memphis is being built for about $265 Million. Only arena that was over $400 million was the one in Dallas and that houses both Basketball and Hockey. I realize costs are higher in California than those other cities but do we really need an arena like the AA arena in Dallas??? It would be nice but I also don't my tickets to double in price. From what I understand if the plan would have went through the Maloofs would have controlled the arena and reaped the profits from everything. If that is the case why can't they shell out some money??
From what I gathered the land people were only able to come up with about $230 million for financing if the deal went through. Can't the Maloofs pitch in some cash themselves if they will reap all the benefits of the new arena???
From what I gathered the land people were only able to come up with about $230 million for financing if the deal went through. Can't the Maloofs pitch in some cash themselves if they will reap all the benefits of the new arena???
love_them_kings
Starter
Ryle said:
Well, my thinking (and this is just a guess) is that the Maloofs have an idea what other cities are willing to do to have the Kings there, so they are giving Sacramento the chance to step up, but they're not going to pay that much out of their pocket to keep the Kings here. I mean, what ties do the Maloofs have to Sacramento? It really isn't their speed. Yes, sell out crowds are wonderful, and probably one of the reasons they haven't already bailed, but at the end of the day luxury boxes that can be sold at top $$$ can make up for a few empty seats in the upper deck. We will have to see what happens, but it makes me sick every time I think that they may leave, and I'm disappointed that Sac can't do better.
KP
Starter
Winning fills the stands and the Maloofs have shown they can put a winning team out there ever since they got here. There is something special about Sac fans, but if they continue this kind of success no matter where they go, they won't have trouble selling tickets. If your Brother wanted to sell you a brand new Porshe for 40,000 and a complete stranger was going to give you the same one for free which car would you take?
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
Including gambling -- Stern has avoided that place like the plague for good reason.gman23 said:
My ignorance may be showing here but aren't the Kings really a regional team as opposed to being a metropolitan, City of Sacramento team? Doesn't our fan base stretch from Stockton and beyond to Redding, Tahoe to the coastal range? If so, perhaps a unique situation calls for a unique solution. Why can't residents of outlying counties be welcomed into the process by forming a multi-county/regional planning commission to come up with the remainder of the money needed? I'm sure the Maloofs will put up a large portion as well. What we need is some damn leadership on this issue from someone with the gravitas to pull it off. In exchange the new arena could set aside some of their luxury boxes for different communities who have participated in the financing process to use. Get this team so entrenched in the North State that they'll never think of leaving!!
Ryle
Starter
gman23 said:
Maybe it's just me but I think Vegas is a horrible market. Sure you have the casinos who will buy boxes to entertain their high rollers but once you get beyond that Vegas is pretty much hotel workers and people in the entertainment industry. I think they would have a hard time building a true fan base and keeping the arena full on a nightly basis.
Ryle
Starter
love_them_kings said:
One other point to bring up is the fabulous success that all the teams that have recently moved have enjoyed
New Orleans(granted they are a crappy team) get's maybe 10K a night(at least that's how many have paid but it looks like about 2K actually show up) and Memphis isn't exactly setting any attendance records as well.
SacTownKid
Hall of Famer
Ryle said:
That is untrue. Las Vegas happens to be one of the fastest growing cities in the US. Its amazing when you drive a little ways from the strip, it is no different than any other city.
I am totally and completely disgusted with the Sacramento media over this whole thing. With the exception of a very few writers, and I actually have to include Voisin in the group that HAS been supportive, it seems as though the media has been giggling with glee at every misturn or negative point in the whole arena process.
For example today, when Ch. 3 announced the BREAKING NEWS that Jimmy Yee had announced the negotiations had broken down beyond repair, they also made the additional comment that someone had said it was "obvious the Maloofs had other plans for the team."
I'm sorry but I worked for a lot of years as a management analyst and just becuase these negotiations have broken down doesn't mean the Maloofs have a hidden agenda.
I am NOT going to make an assumption that the Kings are leaving. I am going to enjoy them as long as they are here. I will not be a party to some kind of self-fulfilling prophecy by the media, etc.
On the other hand, if another city is willing to do what apparently Sacramentans are too stupid to do to keep a team, then whatever happens, happens.
I remember another occasion when people simply didn't speak up in time and sometime critical to the region was lost. It was called the Alhambra Theatre and to this day people still regret not taking the action they could have taken in time to save it.
It is my sincere and fervent prayer that people in Sacramento will wake up and smell the blasted coffee before it's too late. If not, I guess Kingsgurl and my road trips for games are going to get a lot longer.
I LOVE THIS TEAM!!!!!
For example today, when Ch. 3 announced the BREAKING NEWS that Jimmy Yee had announced the negotiations had broken down beyond repair, they also made the additional comment that someone had said it was "obvious the Maloofs had other plans for the team."
I'm sorry but I worked for a lot of years as a management analyst and just becuase these negotiations have broken down doesn't mean the Maloofs have a hidden agenda.
I am NOT going to make an assumption that the Kings are leaving. I am going to enjoy them as long as they are here. I will not be a party to some kind of self-fulfilling prophecy by the media, etc.
On the other hand, if another city is willing to do what apparently Sacramentans are too stupid to do to keep a team, then whatever happens, happens.
I remember another occasion when people simply didn't speak up in time and sometime critical to the region was lost. It was called the Alhambra Theatre and to this day people still regret not taking the action they could have taken in time to save it.
It is my sincere and fervent prayer that people in Sacramento will wake up and smell the blasted coffee before it's too late. If not, I guess Kingsgurl and my road trips for games are going to get a lot longer.
I LOVE THIS TEAM!!!!!
Purple Reign
Starter
Rowdyone said:
I think everybody that has been involved with this situation should absolutely be ashamed of themselves. Being a 17 year resident of Sacramento, I can honestly say that I have never seen such an area, a region that is so back-watered and short sighted. There is absolutely no vision in this town. It is like the Sacramento City Council is living in Mayberry in 1950. Those landowners I think meant well, but when Doug Ose pulled his 1,900 acres out of the deal, they thought they could continue. But I guess they counted up the cost and figured out that they did not have enough without Ose. But, I think all is not lost. There is some room here for negotiation. See story below:
EXCLUSIVE REPORTS
From the January 28, 2005 print edition
Ose touts arena alternative
Ex-congressman's version develops land, drops ballot initiative
Mike McCarthy
Staff Writer
[font=Times New Roman,Times,Serif]Developer Doug Ose has come up with his own plan to finance a new arena for the Sacramento Kings and get development approval for roughly 9,000 acres north of Elkhorn Boulevard in North Natomas.
Ose, a former congressman whose family and allied landowners control some 1,900 acres of the Natomas land, said he plans to file an application soon with Sacramento County asking for development approvals for the property.
Ose also proposes that his family and other landowners fund the arena as a "business investment," rather than turn over part of the land's future development revenue to pay for a new arena and support charitable causes.
His plan would pre-empt two planned initiatives supported by developer Angelo Tsakopoulos and other landowners for the November ballot. But the Tsakopoulos group insists it will succeed even without the Ose group's support or land, said Phil Serna, the interim project manager for the larger group.
"Even with that acreage out of play," Serna said, "there remains enough of a critical mass of property owners to accomplish their aims."
Ose's group last week broke away from the arena-financing plan originally proposed by Sheriff Lou Blanas and supported by landowner Tsakopoulos, in alliance with Brookfield Properties and Richland Planned Communities Inc., as well as smaller landowners. The group controls about 6,200 acres.
The Blanas/Tsakopoulos plan calls for financing the new arena by getting the landowners to chip in 20 percent of their future land-sale proceeds in return for a faster entitlement process. Tsakopoulos' plan also calls for two November ballot measures to separately approve the land use and the arena financing.
Ose says his family and landowners Bob Leal and Jeff Norton don't want to give up 20 percent of their land-development profits to the arena and charity. Nor, Ose adds, do they like the estimated $10 million bill the landowners would have to pay to field the initiatives.
But he has another plan to fund both the arena and charities.
Here's the deal
"We'd approach the arena financing on a business basis," Ose said. "If it needs X amount of money, we'll figure out who will invest and go forward. This approach gave us the first two (Kings) arenas. Both were privately financed."
He is referring to the "old" Arco Arena, now a North Natomas office building, and the current Arco. Both were financed by private investors.
"We'd find the property owners more than willing to invest," Ose said. "Private investors would bear the risk. It should be a business decision to invest in the arena. The city and county would have no role in the financing."
The landowners would give their commitment to the city and county to fund the arena and charities, while the municipalities would commit to approving the land for development, said George Phillips, a local land attorney representing Ose.
The commitments would be made in a development agreement. "It's definitely a covenant between the parties," Phillips said.
Using the initiative process to approve entitlements and arena funding, Ose said, could leave taxpayers holding the bag if money from the land proceeds falls short of the new arena's cost.
Ose said he plans to talk with the King's owners about this method of financing.
Reviving a 1996 application
As for land entitlements, Ose wants to use the standard methods. In this case, he plans to reactivate a 1996 application he and other landowners filed asking the county to expand the county's growth limit -- the urban services boundary -- possibly to cover the up to 10,000 acres identified in the Blanas/Tsakopoulos proposal.
Ose estimated that about 8,000 acres would be eligible for development zoning.
The reactivation would also request a specific plan for the area. That's a detailed land-use entitlement that would go hand in hand with the general plan amendment needed to extend the urban services boundary.
The financing scheme would depend on revenue generated by future land sales of the entitled land. Ose and Phillips estimated that the application process could take about 2.5 years, including the necessary environmental studies, work on the development agreement, and the land planning.
At that time, the parties would sign the development agreement and sales could begin, generating funds for the arena.
Ose said that's about the same time frame for funding that Tsakopoulos' group proposes. Funding the arena would depend on land sales.
"You can't build something with nothing," he said. "They (Tsakopoulos' group) have been talking about earlier funding. But the plan is very vague and morphing daily. It's frustrating, especially when we have established ways for privately financing an arena."
Ditching the initiative
Ose's plan would eliminate the need for the landowners to chip in the $10 million that consultants estimate will be needed to get the ballot measures passed. By comparison, the standard processing would cost $3 million to $4 million, Phillips estimated.
"The initiative more than doubles the cost," Ose said.
And his approach eliminates the need for the landowners to forfeit 20 percent of their proceeds up front. The sum could reach $560 million, possibly much more, according to industry estimates.
The arena is likely to cost closer to $300 million.
Ose would also contribute to charities, as Tsakopoulos' group would.
"We remain willing to keep the Kings here and continue our tradition of philanthropy," Ose said. "But we are not going to put the taxpayer at risk."
Not even a hiccup
The Tsakopoulos group is ready to go ahead with the arena funding without Ose's group.
"The big news has been the defection of one big property owner," Serna said. "But that's not even a hiccup to what we're trying to accomplish."
He believes Ose faces a tough climb.
"Anyone who goes through the normal entitlement route in the Sacramento region knows it can be a decades-long endeavor," Serna said. "What we're trying to do is condense that timeline to enable us to fund the arena and the charitable programs."
The Kings, he added, have made it clear they need a stadium by 2009 at the latest, and Ose's way might be overly optimistic about making that deadline. But the initiative-based effort would meet it.
"If I was betting on these two horses," he said, "I'm betting our horse has already left the gate and their horse has already come up lame."
As to charges that taxpayers might be at risk, Serna said, "No public money is involved. No taxpayer money."
Serna also said that, while the 20 percent amount has not "sat well" with the Ose family, the Tsakopoulos group has gone out of its way to prove that the amount is the best way to accomplish the goals of paying for a new arena, giving to arts and other charities, and crafting a new, smart-growth community in accord with the Sacramento Area Council of Governments' Blueprint Program.
[/font]
ReinadelosReys
Starter
Rowdyone said:
No its not ignorance on your part, but rather the imcompetence on the part of the people who are supposed to run the city.
