G_M
Starter
Marcos Bretón: Don't worry, Kings are not leaving
By Marcos Bretón -- Bee Columnist
Published 2:15 am PST Saturday, February 26, 2005
It's a lot easier to trade an overpaid NBA player than to build an overpriced NBA arena.
We learned that in Sacramento this week when the Kings shipped Chris Webber to Philadelphia a few hours after the latest Kings arena proposal imploded. OAS_AD('Button20');
Some wondered whether the two events on one day signaled the end of the Kings in Sacramento - but don't believe that. They aren't going anywhere.
What was revealed were the two sides of the Maloof family - skilled stewards of Sacramento's basketball operations, political bumblers.
For as much as the Maloofs deserve praise for building a winning team, they deserve much blame for the loss of one arena deal after another.
Plainly stated, the Kings won't contribute significant dollars to building a new arena while Sacramento - constrained by budget deficits and poisonous politics - can't get it done alone.
There are many misinformed people who would blast the city for this impasse typical to sports financing deals, but such criticism is ignorant and baseless.
This is California. We don't bankroll arenas here. We don't have a bottomless pit of state money to build facilities that raise the value of NBA franchises.
And we sure don't tax ourselves to improve the bottom line of sports teams, á là Texas, Indiana, Tennessee and other states.
Private money and lots of it is the only sure-fire way of getting a stadium or arena deal done in California.
Yet all we hear from the Maloofs is that maybe they will pay for cost overruns on a new building estimated at $300 million; or maybe they would make lease payments. But that's it.
The Kings owners have taken note of cities such as Memphis, Tenn., and Charlotte, N.C. - communities where most or all of new arenas were publicly financed - and want a similar deal.
While that may make sense from an NBA owner's standpoint, it's a sure-fire loser as a political strategy in California.
Apparently, the Maloofs and their supporters only read the sports page and have never heard of Proposition 13, the landmark tax revolt that makes property issues a blood sport in California.
Meanwhile, they fail to realize that any measure to raise any amount of public money in California requires a two-thirds majority vote - a perilous mountain to climb.
How high?
Just think of how tough a Kings championship has been to achieve and then multiply that by 1,000.
"With voter antipathy, we just can't get there without private financing," said Jeff Raimundo, a political consultant close to the ongoing arena talks.
Until last Wednesday, it appeared some of the biggest developers in town were going to raise the hundreds of millions for an arena - and donate it to the Kings' billionaire owners.
They were rushing to get a ballot measure before voters in November that would have called for hundreds of acres of local land to be opened for development - and the developers then would have slipped some of that windfall to the Maloofs.
But Wednesday, the developers said they were spread too thin - they could raise only about $205 million for an arena, which is about $100 million less than what they needed to get the job done.
"It breaks your heart, it's a huge disappointment," said Steve Thurtle, vice president of Richland Planned Communities, one of the developer groups trying to finance an arena.
Couldn't the Maloofs kick in $100 million to make up the shortfall?
Apparently not.
Thurtle said: "The Maloofs were offering what is considered to be standard for sports teams. I believe they were willing to pay for cost overruns ... (but) almost all arenas are built with public funds and obviously, that is not a popular idea in Sacramento."
So where does that leave us? Are the Kings leaving Sacramento?
Don't bet on it.
This market is a gold mine, and Sacramento has supported the Kings with more passion and money than any other market has supported any team in sports.
Where else could you find a supposedly small town that pays the third-highest ticket prices in the NBA? A city that saved the Kings by floating them $83 million in loans? A city bending itself in knots to make an arena deal while cities such as Oakland practically dare teams like the A's to leave?
Maybe Sacramento could do more, like partner up with the Maloofs to use the 100 acres of city-owned land next to Arco Arena as a revenue generator to get an arena deal done?
Or maybe other landowners could step forward to raise more money for an arena.
But you know what?
The Maloofs could do more too - a lot more.
The owner of the San Francisco Giants bankrolled SBC Park by himself. And the owner of the San Diego Padres matched the $300 million San Diego gave him for Petco Park to build a beautiful neighborhood around that terrific new stadium.
The Maloofs argue they can't put significant money into a new arena because it puts them at a "competitive disadvantage." That doesn't wash. The NBA has revenue sharing, a salary cap and market protections that allow small-city teams to compete with the big boys - protections baseball owners lack.
And yet California's baseball owners stepped up, showed leadership, invested in their own communities - and are making it work great.
That's called being a real civic partner and a far cry from the Maloof strategy of wanting something for nothing. This ain't Memphis.
By Marcos Bretón -- Bee Columnist
Published 2:15 am PST Saturday, February 26, 2005
It's a lot easier to trade an overpaid NBA player than to build an overpriced NBA arena.
We learned that in Sacramento this week when the Kings shipped Chris Webber to Philadelphia a few hours after the latest Kings arena proposal imploded. OAS_AD('Button20');
Some wondered whether the two events on one day signaled the end of the Kings in Sacramento - but don't believe that. They aren't going anywhere.
What was revealed were the two sides of the Maloof family - skilled stewards of Sacramento's basketball operations, political bumblers.
For as much as the Maloofs deserve praise for building a winning team, they deserve much blame for the loss of one arena deal after another.
Plainly stated, the Kings won't contribute significant dollars to building a new arena while Sacramento - constrained by budget deficits and poisonous politics - can't get it done alone.
There are many misinformed people who would blast the city for this impasse typical to sports financing deals, but such criticism is ignorant and baseless.
This is California. We don't bankroll arenas here. We don't have a bottomless pit of state money to build facilities that raise the value of NBA franchises.
And we sure don't tax ourselves to improve the bottom line of sports teams, á là Texas, Indiana, Tennessee and other states.
Private money and lots of it is the only sure-fire way of getting a stadium or arena deal done in California.
Yet all we hear from the Maloofs is that maybe they will pay for cost overruns on a new building estimated at $300 million; or maybe they would make lease payments. But that's it.
The Kings owners have taken note of cities such as Memphis, Tenn., and Charlotte, N.C. - communities where most or all of new arenas were publicly financed - and want a similar deal.
While that may make sense from an NBA owner's standpoint, it's a sure-fire loser as a political strategy in California.
Apparently, the Maloofs and their supporters only read the sports page and have never heard of Proposition 13, the landmark tax revolt that makes property issues a blood sport in California.
Meanwhile, they fail to realize that any measure to raise any amount of public money in California requires a two-thirds majority vote - a perilous mountain to climb.
How high?
Just think of how tough a Kings championship has been to achieve and then multiply that by 1,000.
"With voter antipathy, we just can't get there without private financing," said Jeff Raimundo, a political consultant close to the ongoing arena talks.
Until last Wednesday, it appeared some of the biggest developers in town were going to raise the hundreds of millions for an arena - and donate it to the Kings' billionaire owners.
They were rushing to get a ballot measure before voters in November that would have called for hundreds of acres of local land to be opened for development - and the developers then would have slipped some of that windfall to the Maloofs.
But Wednesday, the developers said they were spread too thin - they could raise only about $205 million for an arena, which is about $100 million less than what they needed to get the job done.
"It breaks your heart, it's a huge disappointment," said Steve Thurtle, vice president of Richland Planned Communities, one of the developer groups trying to finance an arena.
Couldn't the Maloofs kick in $100 million to make up the shortfall?
Apparently not.
Thurtle said: "The Maloofs were offering what is considered to be standard for sports teams. I believe they were willing to pay for cost overruns ... (but) almost all arenas are built with public funds and obviously, that is not a popular idea in Sacramento."
So where does that leave us? Are the Kings leaving Sacramento?
Don't bet on it.
This market is a gold mine, and Sacramento has supported the Kings with more passion and money than any other market has supported any team in sports.
Where else could you find a supposedly small town that pays the third-highest ticket prices in the NBA? A city that saved the Kings by floating them $83 million in loans? A city bending itself in knots to make an arena deal while cities such as Oakland practically dare teams like the A's to leave?
Maybe Sacramento could do more, like partner up with the Maloofs to use the 100 acres of city-owned land next to Arco Arena as a revenue generator to get an arena deal done?
Or maybe other landowners could step forward to raise more money for an arena.
But you know what?
The Maloofs could do more too - a lot more.
The owner of the San Francisco Giants bankrolled SBC Park by himself. And the owner of the San Diego Padres matched the $300 million San Diego gave him for Petco Park to build a beautiful neighborhood around that terrific new stadium.
The Maloofs argue they can't put significant money into a new arena because it puts them at a "competitive disadvantage." That doesn't wash. The NBA has revenue sharing, a salary cap and market protections that allow small-city teams to compete with the big boys - protections baseball owners lack.
And yet California's baseball owners stepped up, showed leadership, invested in their own communities - and are making it work great.
That's called being a real civic partner and a far cry from the Maloof strategy of wanting something for nothing. This ain't Memphis.
