http://www.sacbee.com/content/sports/story/14280444p-15088832c.html
It seems like a great deal for the Maloofs, but take a harder look.
By Marcos Bretón
Published 12:01 am PDT Friday, July 21, 2006
Let the people decide. There is no better way to determine whether Sacramento should build a downtown arena at the abandoned Union Pacific railyards to house the Kings.
That's why Thursday was a great day when word came the Kings and the city and county of Sacramento had agreed on an arena financing plan to put before voters in November.
Language for such a measure still needs to be approved by the County Board of Supervisors -- the issue will be heard Tuesday and Aug. 2 -- but our local destiny seems clear:
Unless supervisors prevent an arena measure from going forward, we have an important decision to make this fall. It's a choice that could change the face of downtown Sacramento and determine whether the Kings will stay put or leave.
This won't be an easy sell.
There are already legitimate concerns being voiced by sincere residents opposed to public money being spent on a building where all profits would go to the Kings.
We're not just talking basketball games, either. The Maloof family would get the revenues from all concerts, shows, conventions, tournaments, whatever.
And that's not just concessions but parking and every dime spent at a new downtown arena, and adjoining parking structure, which could cost between $470 million and $542 million.
In addition, the city and county would pay for 70 to 75 percent of the the new arena through a quarter-cent sales tax. And taxpayers would be responsible for all cost overruns on the new arena.
In return, the Maloofs would sign a 30-year lease that would silence the whispers and screams that the Kings will bolt from Sacramento.
They would pay $4-million-a-year rent, or $120 million, over 30 years. And they would pay $20 million up front to the project. They would pay $10-12 million a year to operate the arena.
There are estimates that the Maloof contribution to the new arena will be between 26 and 30 percent, but that math could prove to be fuzzy.
The Maloofs' commitment is spread over 30 years while the quarter-cent sales tax to fund the new arena -- and an an additional half billion dollars for other county-wide projects -- has a proposed life span of 15 years.
In addition, the Maloofs would keep all the proceeds from the sale of the 85 acres they own in Natomas, site of Arco Arena and the Kings' practice facility.
Once they sell that land and demolish Arco Arena -- and sell the naming rights to a new arena -- their financial risk in a new deal will be lessened.
They are taking a financial risk, but the city and county are taking a bigger one.
Does that sound like a good deal to you?
It would be easy to say no if only considering hard numbers, but there is much more here.
First and foremost, the Maloofs will pay off the Kings' $71 million loan from the city in one lump sum as early as next year -- much faster than the terms of a loan they inherited from a previous Kings owner.
And the city and county secured a major concession from the Maloofs, one that most if not all NBA owners get to keep.
Namely, Sacramento will control the design and construction of the new arena as opposed to the Kings' owners, the last stumbling block to this deal.
The Maloofs wouldn't pay cost overruns, so Sacramento officials said: OK, but we control construction costs.
In other NBA markets, owners pick their own architects and then pass the inflated tabs over to governments.
Then there is the larger issue of downtown redevelopment to consider, of creating a central hub of energy where there is only a crater of wasted property.
We can easily rail at the Maloofs, but we can also remember that no public-works project or redevelopment plan is clean or pristine.
From the Eiffel Tower to Disneyworld to the Brooklyn Bridge, every monument or attraction is rife with human frailty, cunning and greed.
You want Utopia? Or do you want a real-world idea to consider?
How about this one: Are cities about more than just bricks and mortar? Are they also about spirit and a place to feel the pulse of a community?
A revived downtown with an arena as an anchor could answer those questions affirmatively.
But now comes the hard part -- deciding what we want.
Reach Marcos Bretón at (916) 321-1096 or mbreton@sacbee.com. Back columns: www.sacbee.com/breton.
It seems like a great deal for the Maloofs, but take a harder look.
By Marcos Bretón
Published 12:01 am PDT Friday, July 21, 2006
Let the people decide. There is no better way to determine whether Sacramento should build a downtown arena at the abandoned Union Pacific railyards to house the Kings.
That's why Thursday was a great day when word came the Kings and the city and county of Sacramento had agreed on an arena financing plan to put before voters in November.
Language for such a measure still needs to be approved by the County Board of Supervisors -- the issue will be heard Tuesday and Aug. 2 -- but our local destiny seems clear:
Unless supervisors prevent an arena measure from going forward, we have an important decision to make this fall. It's a choice that could change the face of downtown Sacramento and determine whether the Kings will stay put or leave.
This won't be an easy sell.
There are already legitimate concerns being voiced by sincere residents opposed to public money being spent on a building where all profits would go to the Kings.
We're not just talking basketball games, either. The Maloof family would get the revenues from all concerts, shows, conventions, tournaments, whatever.
And that's not just concessions but parking and every dime spent at a new downtown arena, and adjoining parking structure, which could cost between $470 million and $542 million.
In addition, the city and county would pay for 70 to 75 percent of the the new arena through a quarter-cent sales tax. And taxpayers would be responsible for all cost overruns on the new arena.
In return, the Maloofs would sign a 30-year lease that would silence the whispers and screams that the Kings will bolt from Sacramento.
They would pay $4-million-a-year rent, or $120 million, over 30 years. And they would pay $20 million up front to the project. They would pay $10-12 million a year to operate the arena.
There are estimates that the Maloof contribution to the new arena will be between 26 and 30 percent, but that math could prove to be fuzzy.
The Maloofs' commitment is spread over 30 years while the quarter-cent sales tax to fund the new arena -- and an an additional half billion dollars for other county-wide projects -- has a proposed life span of 15 years.
In addition, the Maloofs would keep all the proceeds from the sale of the 85 acres they own in Natomas, site of Arco Arena and the Kings' practice facility.
Once they sell that land and demolish Arco Arena -- and sell the naming rights to a new arena -- their financial risk in a new deal will be lessened.
They are taking a financial risk, but the city and county are taking a bigger one.
Does that sound like a good deal to you?
It would be easy to say no if only considering hard numbers, but there is much more here.
First and foremost, the Maloofs will pay off the Kings' $71 million loan from the city in one lump sum as early as next year -- much faster than the terms of a loan they inherited from a previous Kings owner.
And the city and county secured a major concession from the Maloofs, one that most if not all NBA owners get to keep.
Namely, Sacramento will control the design and construction of the new arena as opposed to the Kings' owners, the last stumbling block to this deal.
The Maloofs wouldn't pay cost overruns, so Sacramento officials said: OK, but we control construction costs.
In other NBA markets, owners pick their own architects and then pass the inflated tabs over to governments.
Then there is the larger issue of downtown redevelopment to consider, of creating a central hub of energy where there is only a crater of wasted property.
We can easily rail at the Maloofs, but we can also remember that no public-works project or redevelopment plan is clean or pristine.
From the Eiffel Tower to Disneyworld to the Brooklyn Bridge, every monument or attraction is rife with human frailty, cunning and greed.
You want Utopia? Or do you want a real-world idea to consider?
How about this one: Are cities about more than just bricks and mortar? Are they also about spirit and a place to feel the pulse of a community?
A revived downtown with an arena as an anchor could answer those questions affirmatively.
But now comes the hard part -- deciding what we want.
Reach Marcos Bretón at (916) 321-1096 or mbreton@sacbee.com. Back columns: www.sacbee.com/breton.