NBA lawyer, city/county consultant work toward arena deal

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#31
AS - You asked where people would draw the line. I'm simply responding, saying I personally won't draw lines in the sand until I know what I'm deciding.

And I'm quite serious when I say you're pulling those figures out of the air. They may be close or they may not be. We don't know. At this point, I would PERSONALLY rather err on the side of caution than throw out numbers that could easily be misconstrued by an uninformed public. There's been too much of that already, IMHO.

Why the haste? Why not wait just a little longer and see what they propose? You'll be on firmer ground and you'll have actuals to talk about instead of hypotheticals.

As far as what Robby Waters said two years ago, that's an eternity in this kind of thing. You have an overwhelmingly negative attitude about this whole scenario, and I just find it somewhat baffling.

Are you going to open a bike shop? Have you ever considered doing such a thing? How do you know and why would you assume the Maloofs would find that to be adverse to an arena? If they have shops, restaurants, etc. inside the arena and don't want specific competition within a block or two, I'd think it was reasonable.

But, bottom line, it's irrelevant right now, at least to me. I much prefer to deal in real points in situations like this. The rest is just "what if" and actually serves in many instances to derail real talking points.

But if others want to respond, they're more than free to do so. Hopefully, people won't just glance at your figures and take them for gospel.

Peace.
 
#32
1) If we're raising taxes using some ballot measure and it's a "general purpose" tax hike, and another measure that specifies that we're building an arena, how can proponents not claim that the two measures are not linked, thus making the tax hike a special tax and triggering the 2/3 vote requirement? I think you can look for someone (SCTRL and PUBS) to sue over that one, especially given the number of times Fong, Steinberg and Dickinson have said on camera that the two measures ARE linked. In past cases, the courts have not looked positively on this tactic (look for Proposition 218 on Google for more information).
What they said was that the arena can't happen without a yes vote on the sales tax. They are linked in that sense. The arena vote is an "advisory" vote. Of course, I can't imagine some people will vote yes for the arena proposal and no to the sales tax increase. That would be a non-starter.

I think this was done for the San Jose arena (Sharks-Art Savage). It was reported in the Bee that it had been done, anyway and that is the model for this proposal. That doesn't mean it won't be challenged, however. My guess is the Maloofs will require a timeline for performance, so they have the option to move the franchise, if things don't move along in a reasonable time period.
 

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#35
I'll donate one - provided someone can come up here and get it, including sneaking it past the ranger station.

:p
 
#36
People United - union activists, environmentalsits and affordable housing advocates.

I have nothing more to say...

;)
There's certainly nothing wrong with supporting any of those things. I personally support those ideals and I'm also for a new arena, assuming the proposal is reasonable.

I think PU is jumping the gun on their opposition, and I suspect it has more to do with the individuals running the organization than any of the things you listed. I'm also fairly confident that they would oppose the arena no matter if the Maloofs paid for it and bought every Sacramentan a pony.