My friend and co-worker Marv wrote this email to R.E. Graswich. I felt it was a well written letter and just thought I would share. Graswich's response is also attached.
I realize I may be wasting my time addressing this issue with you, but I am hopeful that you are open to a true, honest debate on this issue, and that you are willing to consider other opinions before you publicly state your own.
Let me start off by saying that I live in El Dorado Hills, work in Sacramento County, and own part of a Kings season ticket package. There, full disclosure made. I would guess that my profile is not that much different then many Kings supporters.
Yes, I cannot vote on this, and the ¼ cent sales tax might not impact me as much as most. But, I do know that every workday, I buy my lunch in Sacramento. Every Christmas, birthday and anniversary, I buy my presents in the Downtown Plaza, or at Arden Fair. My wife and I do all of our weekend shopping in Folsom because that is where Costco, Walmart, Sam's Club, Home Depot, Lowe's, Target, etc., etc., are. We even buy our gas in Sacramento County. I also know that the family that is not as well off as me that might live in Sacramento County does not get taxed when they buy groceries and pharmaceuticals or pay their rent. In short, my family and I will pay quite a bit towards this arena.
There really are three clear, and distinct choices here. Choice number one, is to do nothing. If we make that choice, the Kings will go elsewhere, and in a few years, they will knock down the arena and sell that huge parcel of land off for residential or commercial development. The land is worth much, much more sold off that way then it will be with a largely empty arena without a major tenant. We will as a community be left with no major entertainment venue, and no major league sport team. We will be by far the largest community in the United States without a major entertainment venue, and our largest facility will be the community center, which seats maybe 2,000 people. Even Stockton has a beautiful, new facility. So does Davis. It is impossible to calculate the impact that this will have on this metropolitan area in terms of the loss of entertainment opportunities. Major corporations that might be looking to locate jobs here factor things like this into their decision, again impossible to quantify.
What is clear though, is that if you love Garth Brooks, the Eagles, Promise Keepers or the circus, Ice Capades or American Idol tour, Faith Hill and Tim McGraw, NCAA playoffs, Disney on Ice, etc., etc., you will be driving to Stockton, Oakland, or San Francisco. It is clear that if you love the NBA, and you are passionate about the Kings, that you will be devastated by this choice.
Choice number two, is to do nothing initially. Again, the Kings leave. Again eventually, the arena closes, either because it becomes too obsolete to use, or the Maloofs decide to sell off the property for development. When the community then realizes that we must have a major entertainment venue if we are to be taken seriously as a large metropolitan area in America, we attempt to do this on our own. Of course, the building will be even more expensive to build, you will not have a major tenant, and you will not have any financial contribution like the Maloofs are willing to make. We will end up with something like Stockton has. A nice, decent building, but not a major facility capable of holding major events. And, I will bet you, that waiting ten years to do this will end up making it cost almost as much as the current proposal will be, with much less of a building resulting from the effort.
Choice number three of course is to embrace the proposal on the table. Build it in the railyards, keep the Kings, have a beautiful, new facility, and have $700 million or so to spend on other projects throughout Sacramento County. This is not a "subsidy" for a bunch of billionaires, this is building a facility that is needed in this area, and getting a financial contribution from your largest tenant for that construction, and yearly rent. This is no different then when a developer builds a mall and convinces Macy's to become a tenant. In fact, this deal is much better for Sacramento then most of the other NBA arenas that have been built recently.
I think that in your evaluation of this project, you do not give enough importance to the location of this facility. Anyone who has lived here any length of time [I have been in this area since 1989] recognizes that the river area is an incredible opportunity, and that it has been shockingly neglected even though the potential is obvious. I am sure you have seen the river walk area of San Antonio. Many other American cities that have a major river running through them have done beautiful jobs creating a true entertainment/tourist district that embraces the river. For the most part, we just have empty land.
Imagine a beautiful boardwalk/promenade along the river. Outdoor cafes and bistros. Outdoor musical venues. Fine dining restaurants just a few paces from the river. Marinas along the shore so that boaters can cruise right up to the boardwalk to partake of the many entertainment choices. High rise condos take advantage of the view and the entertainment opportunities, and bring people and life back into the largely vacant downtown area. Because there are higher quality housing opportunities, these people that buy these high rise condos are high income people, paying more taxes.
The arena would be a wonderful part of this development, bringing millions of people each year into the area. Some of these people will be Sacramento County residents, some won't, but they will all be bringing money, eating in the restaurants, shopping in the stores, paying to park, etc.
I have heard you say that the railyard "is not downtown", and that this will do nothing to revitalize downtown. You are wrong about that. First of all, consider that every major city has more then one downtown area. LA has the area around city hall, the garment district, etc. They also have Century City, nowhere near the traditional downtown, and then there is also the Venice / Santa Monica area. San Francisco has the area around City Hall and the shopping that can be found there, and then the area by the piers. New York has all the different burroughs, each with their distinct, separate flavor.
Consider also the proposed "people mover" moving sidewalk that is a part of the rail yard development plan, and the fact that the promenade along the river will encourage people to stroll north and south along the river, taking their time, listening to music, buying food and shopping. If you determine that the Downtown plaza or Old Sac are the current traditional downtown area now, recognize that the railyards are only about 4 blocks north of this area. Some people don't mind that kind of distance, especially while taking a leisurely stroll along the river on a sultry Sacramento summer night.
Years ago, I went to a Kings game with you and my friend Dan McGrath. We saw the Utah Jazz. The Kings got killed. You were then the Kings columnist, and Dan was writing a non-sports column. After the game, we went out for a beer, which turned into two or three beers.
I listened as you and Dan talked about the Kings and how horrible they were. I remember thinking to myself that it was a shame. I presumed that at one time, you had both been passionate sports fans, but that your jobs had put you in the position of becoming critics. I thought how sad it was, that you had both lost the ability to go to an NBA game and simply enjoy the beauty and athleticism of the game, looking instead at the failures of the Kings to put a decent team on the court. I thought that you had both been transformed from fans into dispassionate grumps, at least as to the Kings. I remembered thinking that you guys could never be Chicago Cubs fans [how ironic now, given where Dan is and what he is doing].
You wield a great deal of influence as a columnist and radio commentator. Please consider that this is not just about the Sacramento Kings. This is about the fabric of a community, and what makes a city distinct and fun to be in. This is about whether we are a major American community, or just a lot of people who happen to live in the same area, but choose to remain parochial in scope, interested only in the newest grocery store or mall. To do as you propose would relegate this community to forever being less then we should be. Please rethink your position.
Thank you for your time.
Thanks for the note... I appreciate your position, and think it's a shame we have to subsidize to the tune of 96 percent a very wealthy family in order to maintain our entertainment interests... I could live with a subsidy similar to those given to local hotel and redevelopment projects, but those represent vastly smaller percentages of the overall investment... As for the other $500-plus million generated by this boondoggle, we have no way of knowing what the pols will do with the dough, making it a "trust us" scam... They can't tell us, because it would trigger the 3/4 approval requirement as required by state law... Don't know about you, but I'm not willing to "trust them" with no strings attached, but that's the proposal on the table... I thnik it's an insult to voters to even put this nonsense on the ballot... Best all, bob graswich
I realize I may be wasting my time addressing this issue with you, but I am hopeful that you are open to a true, honest debate on this issue, and that you are willing to consider other opinions before you publicly state your own.
Let me start off by saying that I live in El Dorado Hills, work in Sacramento County, and own part of a Kings season ticket package. There, full disclosure made. I would guess that my profile is not that much different then many Kings supporters.
Yes, I cannot vote on this, and the ¼ cent sales tax might not impact me as much as most. But, I do know that every workday, I buy my lunch in Sacramento. Every Christmas, birthday and anniversary, I buy my presents in the Downtown Plaza, or at Arden Fair. My wife and I do all of our weekend shopping in Folsom because that is where Costco, Walmart, Sam's Club, Home Depot, Lowe's, Target, etc., etc., are. We even buy our gas in Sacramento County. I also know that the family that is not as well off as me that might live in Sacramento County does not get taxed when they buy groceries and pharmaceuticals or pay their rent. In short, my family and I will pay quite a bit towards this arena.
There really are three clear, and distinct choices here. Choice number one, is to do nothing. If we make that choice, the Kings will go elsewhere, and in a few years, they will knock down the arena and sell that huge parcel of land off for residential or commercial development. The land is worth much, much more sold off that way then it will be with a largely empty arena without a major tenant. We will as a community be left with no major entertainment venue, and no major league sport team. We will be by far the largest community in the United States without a major entertainment venue, and our largest facility will be the community center, which seats maybe 2,000 people. Even Stockton has a beautiful, new facility. So does Davis. It is impossible to calculate the impact that this will have on this metropolitan area in terms of the loss of entertainment opportunities. Major corporations that might be looking to locate jobs here factor things like this into their decision, again impossible to quantify.
What is clear though, is that if you love Garth Brooks, the Eagles, Promise Keepers or the circus, Ice Capades or American Idol tour, Faith Hill and Tim McGraw, NCAA playoffs, Disney on Ice, etc., etc., you will be driving to Stockton, Oakland, or San Francisco. It is clear that if you love the NBA, and you are passionate about the Kings, that you will be devastated by this choice.
Choice number two, is to do nothing initially. Again, the Kings leave. Again eventually, the arena closes, either because it becomes too obsolete to use, or the Maloofs decide to sell off the property for development. When the community then realizes that we must have a major entertainment venue if we are to be taken seriously as a large metropolitan area in America, we attempt to do this on our own. Of course, the building will be even more expensive to build, you will not have a major tenant, and you will not have any financial contribution like the Maloofs are willing to make. We will end up with something like Stockton has. A nice, decent building, but not a major facility capable of holding major events. And, I will bet you, that waiting ten years to do this will end up making it cost almost as much as the current proposal will be, with much less of a building resulting from the effort.
Choice number three of course is to embrace the proposal on the table. Build it in the railyards, keep the Kings, have a beautiful, new facility, and have $700 million or so to spend on other projects throughout Sacramento County. This is not a "subsidy" for a bunch of billionaires, this is building a facility that is needed in this area, and getting a financial contribution from your largest tenant for that construction, and yearly rent. This is no different then when a developer builds a mall and convinces Macy's to become a tenant. In fact, this deal is much better for Sacramento then most of the other NBA arenas that have been built recently.
I think that in your evaluation of this project, you do not give enough importance to the location of this facility. Anyone who has lived here any length of time [I have been in this area since 1989] recognizes that the river area is an incredible opportunity, and that it has been shockingly neglected even though the potential is obvious. I am sure you have seen the river walk area of San Antonio. Many other American cities that have a major river running through them have done beautiful jobs creating a true entertainment/tourist district that embraces the river. For the most part, we just have empty land.
Imagine a beautiful boardwalk/promenade along the river. Outdoor cafes and bistros. Outdoor musical venues. Fine dining restaurants just a few paces from the river. Marinas along the shore so that boaters can cruise right up to the boardwalk to partake of the many entertainment choices. High rise condos take advantage of the view and the entertainment opportunities, and bring people and life back into the largely vacant downtown area. Because there are higher quality housing opportunities, these people that buy these high rise condos are high income people, paying more taxes.
The arena would be a wonderful part of this development, bringing millions of people each year into the area. Some of these people will be Sacramento County residents, some won't, but they will all be bringing money, eating in the restaurants, shopping in the stores, paying to park, etc.
I have heard you say that the railyard "is not downtown", and that this will do nothing to revitalize downtown. You are wrong about that. First of all, consider that every major city has more then one downtown area. LA has the area around city hall, the garment district, etc. They also have Century City, nowhere near the traditional downtown, and then there is also the Venice / Santa Monica area. San Francisco has the area around City Hall and the shopping that can be found there, and then the area by the piers. New York has all the different burroughs, each with their distinct, separate flavor.
Consider also the proposed "people mover" moving sidewalk that is a part of the rail yard development plan, and the fact that the promenade along the river will encourage people to stroll north and south along the river, taking their time, listening to music, buying food and shopping. If you determine that the Downtown plaza or Old Sac are the current traditional downtown area now, recognize that the railyards are only about 4 blocks north of this area. Some people don't mind that kind of distance, especially while taking a leisurely stroll along the river on a sultry Sacramento summer night.
Years ago, I went to a Kings game with you and my friend Dan McGrath. We saw the Utah Jazz. The Kings got killed. You were then the Kings columnist, and Dan was writing a non-sports column. After the game, we went out for a beer, which turned into two or three beers.
I listened as you and Dan talked about the Kings and how horrible they were. I remember thinking to myself that it was a shame. I presumed that at one time, you had both been passionate sports fans, but that your jobs had put you in the position of becoming critics. I thought how sad it was, that you had both lost the ability to go to an NBA game and simply enjoy the beauty and athleticism of the game, looking instead at the failures of the Kings to put a decent team on the court. I thought that you had both been transformed from fans into dispassionate grumps, at least as to the Kings. I remembered thinking that you guys could never be Chicago Cubs fans [how ironic now, given where Dan is and what he is doing].
You wield a great deal of influence as a columnist and radio commentator. Please consider that this is not just about the Sacramento Kings. This is about the fabric of a community, and what makes a city distinct and fun to be in. This is about whether we are a major American community, or just a lot of people who happen to live in the same area, but choose to remain parochial in scope, interested only in the newest grocery store or mall. To do as you propose would relegate this community to forever being less then we should be. Please rethink your position.
Thank you for your time.
Thanks for the note... I appreciate your position, and think it's a shame we have to subsidize to the tune of 96 percent a very wealthy family in order to maintain our entertainment interests... I could live with a subsidy similar to those given to local hotel and redevelopment projects, but those represent vastly smaller percentages of the overall investment... As for the other $500-plus million generated by this boondoggle, we have no way of knowing what the pols will do with the dough, making it a "trust us" scam... They can't tell us, because it would trigger the 3/4 approval requirement as required by state law... Don't know about you, but I'm not willing to "trust them" with no strings attached, but that's the proposal on the table... I thnik it's an insult to voters to even put this nonsense on the ballot... Best all, bob graswich
