Minnesota Vikings have agreement for new stadium
- Thread starter Superman
- Start date
I don't know if i would say dumb. Just self-absorbed. You say, "let's build an arena for everyone" and they say, "What about me?" So they don't really care about the community. If there is nothing to personally gain from it right this moment (instant gratification), they'd rather say that they support the fireman to cover up their selfishness.
The fact is that even propositions and measures to helps schools, police and fire services tend to get shot down in public votes too. So they say one thing and then at the polls they just vote no on any tax increase. It's funny though, put up a general population tax for building roads and bridges and the overwhelming support pours out.
I think I feel pretty confident in saying that the type of public support for the new arena will not come in the way of increased taxes like sales tax or any other type of general population tax. And I feel petty sure they will focus on transient and facility user taxes that impact those who use the arena, hotels and rental cars and whatever else. Basically anything that would not require a public vote.
So for those who are concerned that they are being squeezed to build a new arena, I can say that you have nothing to worry about. Don't attend events there and instead go buy some milk and bread for your family. They won't hold a gun to your head and make you pay.
I think I feel pretty confident in saying that the type of public support for the new arena will not come in the way of increased taxes like sales tax or any other type of general population tax. And I feel petty sure they will focus on transient and facility user taxes that impact those who use the arena, hotels and rental cars and whatever else. Basically anything that would not require a public vote.
So for those who are concerned that they are being squeezed to build a new arena, I can say that you have nothing to worry about. Don't attend events there and instead go buy some milk and bread for your family. They won't hold a gun to your head and make you pay.
First, no one has ever said they are relying totally on the public to get this done. Second, anyone who thinks an arena will get built with only private funds is a fool. Any sports team in the NFL, MLB, NBA or NHL can almost always get a better deal from some other city and almost all sports venues are partly or wholly funded with public funds. Kansas City built their beutiful arena with no pro-sports teams. The Honda Center in Anaheim was built and is owned by the city of Anaheim. Orlando's new arena was built and is owned by Orlando. Charlotte's arema was built and is owned by the city. All public/private partnerships. Stockton built and owns their new arena. The list is practically endless.
I understand all the issues that exist in California. However, not building an arena is not going to mean we have any more money to spend on roads, police, fireman, schools, etc. The only way we are going to solve or at least ameliorate some of those problems is by voting to raise taxes or otherwise creating a better tax base. Eventually new development creates all kinds of revenue for the city. There are permit fees, plan check fees, inspection fees, etc during construction. There will be property taxes paid eventually by all that improved property. They'll be sales taxes from the businesses and jobs, which will mean people paying taxes.
An arena will draw people from the region who will come down for a game and maybe shop and eat in restaurants. That means money from outside of Sacramento being brought into Sacramento. One argument against arenas is that people will still spend those entertainment dollars somewhere. What they fail to acknowledge is that many Kings fans don't live in Sacramento City or County. I may spend my entertainment dollars elsewhere, but it may not be in Sacramento or be greatly reduced in Sacramento, if there's no Kings games.
If you live in Sacramento, are you upset that public financing was part of what got the Hyatt, Embassy Suites and the Citizen Hotel built downtown? Are you upset that public financing helped build the new Dive Bar on K Street and the restaurant next to it? Public money partners with private money every day to build things and help businesses. I know because my federal agency does loans to private business all the time and have for decades. Ditto the City of Sacramento and the State.
I understand all the issues that exist in California. However, not building an arena is not going to mean we have any more money to spend on roads, police, fireman, schools, etc. The only way we are going to solve or at least ameliorate some of those problems is by voting to raise taxes or otherwise creating a better tax base. Eventually new development creates all kinds of revenue for the city. There are permit fees, plan check fees, inspection fees, etc during construction. There will be property taxes paid eventually by all that improved property. They'll be sales taxes from the businesses and jobs, which will mean people paying taxes.
An arena will draw people from the region who will come down for a game and maybe shop and eat in restaurants. That means money from outside of Sacramento being brought into Sacramento. One argument against arenas is that people will still spend those entertainment dollars somewhere. What they fail to acknowledge is that many Kings fans don't live in Sacramento City or County. I may spend my entertainment dollars elsewhere, but it may not be in Sacramento or be greatly reduced in Sacramento, if there's no Kings games.
If you live in Sacramento, are you upset that public financing was part of what got the Hyatt, Embassy Suites and the Citizen Hotel built downtown? Are you upset that public financing helped build the new Dive Bar on K Street and the restaurant next to it? Public money partners with private money every day to build things and help businesses. I know because my federal agency does loans to private business all the time and have for decades. Ditto the City of Sacramento and the State.
People have a real hard time seeing that an arena is an investment that will pay its way back to the city. It is seldom mentioned by citizens who wish to comment. Perhaps as a general rule, people get more vocal about negatives than positives. An extra effort needs to be made to mention the positives and curiously Stern in his Bee editorial seemed to have nailed it better than locals.
I'll bet no one knew about the city involvement in the hotels until you mentioned it a while back. I sure didn't.
I'll bet no one knew about the city involvement in the hotels until you mentioned it a while back. I sure didn't.
This is the reason I posted this thread. The economy is bad in Minnesota just like it's bad in California. They have a sizable budget deficit that they're trying to fix. They have infrastructure issues (remember the collapsed bridge a few years ago?) No matter where you try this type of project, it's not easy to generate $300 million in public funds. That's not the question.
The question has been and remains to be "do you want to keep the Kings in Sacramento?" Because if you do, you're going to need public funds. It's as simple as that. If Sacramento won't, someone else will. If people didn't realize that before, surely they must now, after the team was this close to moving to Anaheim. This is what the residents of Twin Cities realized. There are a number of cities out there that will gladly accept your team, have an arena built, and love them like they're own. We debated here for months whether Anaheim would be a viable destination for the Kings, but it doesn't matter, because the Kings will move if Sacramento doesn't step up to the plate. That much is clear. So if you want to keep them, the debate has to move past whether you are willing to put up public funds or not. It has to simply be whether you CAN put up public funds or not. And that question will be much more front and center after May 26.
The question has been and remains to be "do you want to keep the Kings in Sacramento?" Because if you do, you're going to need public funds. It's as simple as that. If Sacramento won't, someone else will. If people didn't realize that before, surely they must now, after the team was this close to moving to Anaheim. This is what the residents of Twin Cities realized. There are a number of cities out there that will gladly accept your team, have an arena built, and love them like they're own. We debated here for months whether Anaheim would be a viable destination for the Kings, but it doesn't matter, because the Kings will move if Sacramento doesn't step up to the plate. That much is clear. So if you want to keep them, the debate has to move past whether you are willing to put up public funds or not. It has to simply be whether you CAN put up public funds or not. And that question will be much more front and center after May 26.
To me its not actually just about keeping the Kings. If no new sports/entertainment venue gets built in Sacramento we'll lose all of the events that could stay in Sacramento. Events for different people with different tastes. No more circuses, no more ice shows, no more rodeos or PBR, no pay-per-view boxing or MMA, no indoor motocross, no major name concerts; no NCAA regional tournaments (already gone) and the list goes on and on. Kings basketball is less than 50 games a year, counting pre-season. There's about 200 events a year at PBP/Arco. There could be even more events at a new arena.
As to benefits, the head of the tourism and convention bureau said at a city council meeting that he getws calls all the time asking if Sacramento is going to build a downtown arena. Apparently it would enhance the appeal of Sacramento to convention planners, becasuer it would privde more and addtional space for conventions. However, they want it in downtown, close to hotels and the Convention Center. Natomas doesn't appeal to them at all. More and bigger conventions would be a huge boon the the city.
So it isn't just about keeping the Kings, although having an anchor tenant really helps. I want this for Sacramento. And I want to take my grandkids to see things like the circus and Disney on Ice right in Sacramento.
And people need to stop thinking of this as building an arena for the Maloofs. It is likely to be structured as the city owning the arena and the Kings paying for a lease to be there. MSE would probably manage the arena for the city. That's the siuation at a lot of NBA arenas and is just like the Honda Center.
As to benefits, the head of the tourism and convention bureau said at a city council meeting that he getws calls all the time asking if Sacramento is going to build a downtown arena. Apparently it would enhance the appeal of Sacramento to convention planners, becasuer it would privde more and addtional space for conventions. However, they want it in downtown, close to hotels and the Convention Center. Natomas doesn't appeal to them at all. More and bigger conventions would be a huge boon the the city.
So it isn't just about keeping the Kings, although having an anchor tenant really helps. I want this for Sacramento. And I want to take my grandkids to see things like the circus and Disney on Ice right in Sacramento.
And people need to stop thinking of this as building an arena for the Maloofs. It is likely to be structured as the city owning the arena and the Kings paying for a lease to be there. MSE would probably manage the arena for the city. That's the siuation at a lot of NBA arenas and is just like the Honda Center.
