Maloofs agree to show Kings financial data to arena task force

Mike0476

Mike0476

Starter
Tetsujin said:
One step closer, just about 3 months later than we would have liked this to happen.
Click to expand...
Yeah but on the bright side the way they went about this bought us a few extra months and shifted much of the anti-Maloof sentiment from "Screw you guys, build your own damn arena" to "Screw you guys, you aren't moving MY team". Those two items alone seem to have moved this deal from the "longshot" to "maybe we'll really do this" category.
 
This is the real crunch time. We won an amazing battle, but we haven't won the war yet. Its hard work to keep momentum going. It'll take the effort of a lot of pepole to actually get a new arena.

I am excited to hear the Taylor/ICON group's presentation on the 26th. I'm taking the day off to be there. If they say its feasible, then it'll be council meetings and campaigning that will be critical. I don't want to go through another agonizing good-bye.
 
kennadog said:
This is the real crunch time. We won an amazing battle, but we haven't won the war yet. Its hard work to keep momentum going. It'll take the effort of a lot of pepole to actually get a new arena.

I am excited to hear the Taylor/ICON group's presentation on the 26th. I'm taking the day off to be there. If they say its feasible, then it'll be council meetings and campaigning that will be critical. I don't want to go through another agonizing good-bye.
Click to expand...

Agree ... but I think this turns almost purly on the numbers. There was a point where the public was going to have to be swayed to put pressure on the council. At this point, council wants this as a driver and know they have enough public cover thier buts ... if the numbers work.

The Bee just had a story about the city's huge deficit. I think Sacramento is banking on West Sac to help as well as Sac county (Bee story says Sac county has a deficit of 90 million).

To be clear, I'm not playing the we can't afford this or we should spend elsewhere cards. Instead, I'd put it like this. The city wants to buy season tickets and they think they can probably get that done with a partner or two. But they've got to look over the budget and see what they can really afford. Maybe they can cut out the Starbucks and cut back the cable and get this done, but they can't cut out the power bill. So Sac's numbers have to work ... and thus, while support matters ... its really all about the numbers at this point. How painful the numbers will be for counsel turns the votes.

And Sac is planning on splitting the tickets a few ways. If West Sac says, "Man I thought I could take 15 games, but its going to be more like 7," and the county says "Sorry, I've got to pull out. Times are tough."

Well, if you've split tickets you know what that does to your plans.

This can happen. People should still show support and attend the meetings ... but at this point, it lives or dies on the city's budget numbers. They want to do it - the question is can we afford to do it.

I don't think you have to convince they city to buy the tickets, its down to whether we can pay for them.
 
It all depends on what revenue streams end up being proposed for ensuring a bond or bonds get paid back. They could decide to raise hotel, rental car, food and beverage taxes to cover city services instead of an arena, but I think that's unlikely.

It would certainly help to have more local government entities on board. The more areas, the greater area from which to draw amounts of revenue that that could be of much less impact per person, than just what Sacramento City can accomplish. The bulk of season ticket holders and Kings fans live outside the city, too, for what that's worth. Sacramento is really small in terms of square miles, leaving them such a small revenue base. That's why the rail yards development is so big for the city. They've got to do it right, as it will generate so much more revenue for the city from construction on forward.

Planning with vision is critical to the city and not just for an arena. The boost to convention business would likely be quite significant, too.

The question also has to be, how much can Sacramento afford to lose? We just won't know what's possible or who or what the possible funding sources are yet. We have no idea how much any party is going to contribute. I know there was a third party (Webber's contacts) that were willing to refinance the city's current loan. That would be huge. Instant reduction in the city's current and future liability. There's just too many factors in play and we haven't seen ICON's feasibility study yet. I can wait to see that. At least then will have some substance to talk about.
 
kennadog said:
It all depends on what revenue streams end up being proposed for ensuring a bond or bonds get paid back. They could decide to raise hotel, rental car, food and beverage taxes to cover city services instead of an arena, but I think that's unlikely.

It would certainly help to have more local government entities on board. The more areas, the greater area from which to draw amounts of revenue that that could be of much less impact per person, than just what Sacramento City can accomplish. The bulk of season ticket holders and Kings fans live outside the city, too, for what that's worth. Sacramento is really small in terms of square miles, leaving them such a small revenue base. That's why the rail yards development is so big for the city. They've got to do it right, as it will generate so much more revenue for the city from construction on forward.

Planning with vision is critical to the city and not just for an arena. The boost to convention business would likely be quite significant, too.

The question also has to be, how much can Sacramento afford to lose? We just won't know what's possible or who or what the possible funding sources are yet. We have no idea how much any party is going to contribute. I know there was a third party (Webber's contacts) that were willing to refinance the city's current loan. That would be huge. Instant reduction in the city's current and future liability. There's just too many factors in play and we haven't seen ICON's feasibility study yet. I can wait to see that. At least then will have some substance to talk about.
Click to expand...

The biggest factor is if they want the railyards to be successful then the arena is the first priority. Get an arena there and everything else will fall into place quickly. Without an arena it will take decades before it gets developed.
 
Section 101 said:
The biggest factor is if they want the railyards to be successful then the arena is the first priority. Get an arena there and everything else will fall into place quickly. Without an arena it will take decades before it gets developed.
Click to expand...

Last year nearly 2 million people attended almost 200 events at Arco Arena. Considering that this was probably one of their worst performing years, I think a downtown railyards arena will surpass those numbers every year. Figure that 2 out 3 nights, there will be some sort of event happening at the arena and putting people in the railyards. Where the people go, so follows the dining, entertainment and transportation options to get them there.
 
Last edited:
Section 101 said:
The biggest factor is if they want the railyards to be successful then the arena is the first priority. Get an arena there and everything else will fall into place quickly. Without an arena it will take decades before it gets developed.
Click to expand...
The ICON people are going to report on 1) is an arena feasible at this time 2) where is an arena feasible, and what are the financing options (in the form of a menu of selections).

I'm assuming (since they went to NY with KJ) the haven't decided an arena is just not feasible at all right now.

So I'm interested in how many sites they anayze and how they compare feasibility of each site. The city wants it dowtown, but ICON said its feasibility study would not be confined to that site only. Should be interesting to hear.
 
Last edited:
kennadog said:
The ICON people are going to report on 1) is an arena feasible at this time 2) where is an arena feasible, and what are the financing options (in the form of a menu of selections).

I'm assuming (since they went to NY with KJ) the haven't decided and arena is just not feasible at all right now.

So I'm interested in how many sites they anayze and how they compare feasibility of each site. The city wants it dowtown, but ICON said its feasibility study would not be confined to that site only. Should be interesting to hear.
Click to expand...

KJ said it's only being done for the railyards.
 
JB_kings said:
Last year nearly 2 million people attended almost 200 events at Arco Arena. Considering that this was probably one of their worst performing years, I think a downtown railyards arena will surpass those numbers every year. Figure that 2 out 3 nights, there will be some sort of event happening at the arena and putting people in the railyards. Where the people go, so follows the dining, entertainment and transportation options to get them there.
Click to expand...

Yah that has me excited enough to move downtown if we get an arena. Think about the open air farmers market downtown every Thursday then walking over to the Arena or IMAX theater for a concert or movie.. It's a great plan to revitalize downtown and it's long overdue. Hope this also makes it feasible to expand the light rail into places like Elk Grove..
 
Gary said:
Yah that has me excited enough to move downtown if we get an arena. Think about the open air farmers market downtown every Thursday then walking over to the Arena or IMAX theater for a concert or movie.. It's a great plan to revitalize downtown and it's long overdue. Hope this also makes it feasible to expand the light rail into places like Elk Grove..
Click to expand...

Yes! And like I've always said...getting a new arena/entertainment district in Downtown would be the greatest thing to EVER happen to the city of Sacramento.
 
I thought the big pitch from the Natomas people was that a new arena would be "shovel ready" in the event that they decided to build there. Is that not the case? If they have to do an EIR, it would take at least a year plus there is the building moratorium. Were they just throwing bs our way when they said it was "shovel ready"?
 
It would be beyond ridiculous to not build the arena downtown. And I mean even beyond Sac politics ridiculous.

This will be my mantra during this process:

Downtown, downtown, downtown.
 
JB_kings said:
So much for the Natomas quotes on being "shovel ready".
Click to expand...

Unless the EIR would be a simple, streamlined one due to the fact that we would be replacing one such facility with another at essentially the same location?
 
Warhawk said:
Unless the EIR would be a simple, streamlined one due to the fact that we would be replacing one such facility with another at essentially the same location?
Click to expand...

Till they find some mold that only grows around arco that we cant let go extinct because it will destroy the enviroment.
 
Is Natomas under water if a levee breaks? Is part of the moratorium because the powers that be don't want any more non water absorbing concrete being laid in Natomas? As I understand it, some of the flood risk in the area is because grass has been substituted with concrete and buildings. Areas that once would never flood in a normal hard rain now are vulnerable as drainage has been disrupted.

And what is "intermodal" while I am asking questions? I hear words and concepts that I just don't understand and I suspect I'm not the only one especially those from waaaay out of the area.
 
Intermodal refers to multiple means of transportation. Presumably car, bike, light rail, bus and even pedestrian traffic.
 
pdxKingsFan said:
Intermodal refers to multiple means of transportation. Presumably car, bike, light rail, bus and even pedestrian traffic.
Click to expand...

It's a good idea that might rub against the average Californians total dependency on the car. I got lost once in Kyoto but with the bus connections to the trains, etc. it was easy to get about and soon lost was found. :) In other words, they had multiple intermodals in one city that tied everything together in a wonderful way. If I can get around easily in a city where I don't speak the language and didn't have to ask questions, it's a great thing. I fear this country and California has simply gone in a different direction and trying to change that will take a lot of effort. Bus schedules have been cut back or at least in my area they have been. It still leaves the car as the #1 means of transportation.

It's a good idea, long story short.
 
Glenn said:
Is Natomas under water if a levee breaks? Is part of the moratorium because the powers that be don't want any more non water absorbing concrete being laid in Natomas? As I understand it, some of the flood risk in the area is because grass has been substituted with concrete and buildings. Areas that once would never flood in a normal hard rain now are vulnerable as drainage has been disrupted.

And what is "intermodal" while I am asking questions? I hear words and concepts that I just don't understand and I suspect I'm not the only one especially those from waaaay out of the area.
Click to expand...

The moratorium is because the feds (FEMA) determined the levee's are not up to code. The levee's need to be fixed before permits can be issued.
 
The Hammer said:
... and California High Speed Rail, of course.
Click to expand...

My best friend is a lobbyist for the railroads. He points out that the normal objection that taxpayers shouldn't pay for such things, they should pay for themselves, ignores the idea that tax payer money pays for the roads we drive on.
 
Warhawk said:
Unless the EIR would be a simple, streamlined one due to the fact that we would be replacing one such facility with another at essentially the same location?
Click to expand...
Exactly, there are usually few to no issues environmentally with replacing a building with another building for the same purpose. Same goes for flood zones. When I worked on NEPA reviews. you couldn't build new in certain flood zone areas, but you could replace something already in those zones. I don't thinkg their would be that many issues in Natomas.

Of course, the railyards would be under as much as 20 feet of water if a levee broke. My house isn't in a flood insurance-required area, because its "protected" from 100 year flooding by a levee. I find that very amusing. The levee broke twice just across the river in fairly recent times.

I recently read that the Netherlands have already started improving their flood control system to 10,000 year flood protection due to the predictions about rising sea levels. If the oceans rise 3 feet, Sacramento and the delta are is serious trouble. We'll have to row to work. ;)
 
kennadog said:
Exactly, there are usually few to no issues environmentally with replacing a building with another building for the same purpose. Same goes for flood zones. When I worked on NEPA reviews. you couldn't build new in certain flood zone areas, but you could replace something already in those zones. I don't thinkg their would be that many issues in Natomas.

Of course, the railyards would be under as much as 20 feet of water if a levee broke. My house isn't in a flood insurance-required area, because its "protected" from 100 year flooding by a levee. I find that very amusing. The levee broke twice just across the river in fairly recent times.

I recently read that the Netherlands have already started improving their flood control system to 10,000 year flood protection due to the predictions about rising sea levels. If the oceans rise 3 feet, Sacramento and the delta are is serious trouble. We'll have to row to work. ;)
Click to expand...

So this global warming, whether man made or not, is a risk to Sacramento.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Mike0476
Kings owners need to do it differently this time, mayor says
Replies
8
Views
1K
kennadog
kennadog
Ryan
Kings Could Stay Without Arena Deal
Replies
17
Views
3K
swisshh
S
Mike0476
City task force chooses developer David Taylor as best person to build arena
2
Replies
40
Views
3K
Arena Skeptic
A
Mike0476
City And Kings Talks On Arena Heating Up
Replies
17
Views
2K
Mike0476
Mike0476
Circa_1985_Fan
LA Times: 'Honda Center owners, Anaheim start project to lure Sacramento Kings.'
Replies
8
Views
2K
kennadog
kennadog
Back
Top