New arena plan?

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#1
I'm watching Boston Legal on Ch. 10. They just had a news teaser. It said something about the Kings playing their first game tonight, blah, blah, blah and then said something about a new plan for building the arena and they even showed a quick video clip of a piece of undeveloped property.

They said details at 11...

Just putting it out there for whatever it's worth. I don't have a lot of faith in news teasers any more.

;)
 

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#3
The report says Angelo Tsakapoulos is behind a new private funding plan. Interestingly enough, AT is looking at the thousands of acres he owns in the eastern part of the county, near Folsom...

The Folsom mayor says "it could work with proper planning."

The reporter says no one will talk on the record. He said a spokesman for AT was told to say absolutely nothing...

They also said there would be a lot of roadblocks to building it in Folsom and then touted tomorrow's Bee, saying there would be an in-depth story in the morning paper.
 

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#4
http://www.sacbee.com/content/sports/story/13698828p-14541554c.html

Developer proposes another arena plan
By Mary Lynne Vellinga -- Bee Staff Writer
Published 7:57 pm PDT Tuesday, October 11, 2005
Local developer Angelo K. Tsakopoulos has been working for months on a new proposal to finance an arena for the Kings by developing land he owns in rural eastern Sacramento County, say several people who have been involved in the talks.

In addition, Tsakopoulos has approached area Indian tribes, flush with casino profits, to ask for their help in financing a new Kings facility.

The idea is not to build an arena in eastern Sacramento County, an area of rolling grassland and oak trees, but to provide money to build an arena elsewhere, most likely North Natomas, the sources said.

Some local leaders said Tsakopoulos' latest plan would be more difficult to pull off than his previous arena financing proposal, which collapsed in February. Nonetheless, they said, the idea seems to be the most viable thing going at the moment.

Howard Dickstein, an attorney who represents several Indian tribes, said Tuesday his clients are interested in helping keep the Kings in Sacramento. Details of their participation have not been worked out.

"We've been having discussions with the interested parties for a long time," said Dickstein, who represents the Rumsey Band of Wintun Indians, the United Auburn Indian Community and the Jackson Rancheria Band of Miwok Indians, all of whom operate casinos in the area.

"So far, nothing has come together," Dickstein added. "The interested parties appear to be Angelo, his company and the Sacramento Kings. I wish there were more interested parties, but there aren't."

The specifics of Tsakopoulos' latest proposal remain unknown. Steve Capps, spokesman for Tsakopoulos' AKT Development, said the developer would have no comment.

Kings co-owner Joe Maloof said he and his brother Gavin have been approached by "a couple of people who are in private business. Angelo's one of them. There are others.

"Angelo has been working very diligently on this, (but) if it doesn't work out with Angelo, it doesn't mean that the whole thing is in deep trouble. … We're still trying. Still trying," Joe Maloof said.

Tsakopoulos controls thousands of acres in eastern Sacramento County - south of Highway 50 and between Rancho Cordova and the El Dorado County line. Those briefed on his current proposal say the land he is seeking to develop lies outside the urban growth boundary in the county's general plan.

Much of this land recently was left as open space by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments when it crafted a long-term growth blueprint for the region.

Tsakopoulos also has discussed the possibility of including some of his western El Dorado County holdings in the deal, said those involved in the talks.

Some local leaders say they've told the developer that any proposal to open eastern Sacramento County to building would stir opposition from environmentalists and would face numerous logistical hurdles, including the lack of adequate roads, water and other infrastructure needed to serve new homes.

"It's outside the urban services boundary, there are huge infrastructure issues. … It's years away, at best," Sacramento County Supervisor Roger Dickinson said.

Mike McKeever, executive director of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments, said Tsakopoulos' previous arena proposal - although it failed - was more realistic.

It would have involved rezoning much of the remaining farmland in North Natomas. That land, unlike the east county, had been earmarked for eventual growth by the city and county.

The North Natomas proposal collapsed in February after several property owners, including the prominent Ose family, said they would not participate. As conceived by Tsakopoulos, the plan asked landowners to commit 20 percent of their profits from development to an arena.

McKeever said he had "some regrets" that the North Natomas proposal fell apart. He thinks it would take years to sort out the transportation, air quality and open space issues in the east county.

"I think Angelo has done the region a service by pursuing this, but I think this latest iteration is probably a 10 out of 10 in degree of difficulty, and maybe it's time to think of other ways that are not connected to land use to save the Kings," McKeever said.

The Kings owners have made it clear they're impatient for an arena deal. They haven't set a deadline, but they've repeatedly stressed that Arco is obsolete.

"We don't know what the timetable is," Maloof said Tuesday. "We've been at this for six years now, and (prior owner) Jim Thomas was at it for four years before us. Who knows what the timetable is? Something has to get done sooner or later, we all know that."

Some Kings fans, including the tribes represented by Dickstein, fear that the team will leave Sacramento if a state-of-the-art arena is not built. Sacramento's elected officials have been largely silent on the topic in recent months.

"The tribes, like a lot of residents in the area, are concerned that this could be the 11th hour and that the Kings will be forced to take other opportunities because of the lack of responsiveness from this community," Dickstein said.

The Bee's Mary Lynne Vellinga can be reached at (916) 321-1094 or mlvellinga@sacbee.com. Bee columnist Mark Kreidler contributed to this report.
 

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#5
Hey, wait a minute!

That was my idea. I proposed the ARCO Thunder Valley Casino and Arena over a year ago!!!

:D
 

Bricklayer

Don't Make Me Use The Bat
#6
Perhpas I am a little biased since I have met the man, but sounds like Angelo Tsakopoulos might be the one power in Sacramento without his head thoroughly up his *** when it comes to keeping the Kings.
 
#8
VF21 said:
Hey, wait a minute!

That was my idea. I proposed the ARCO Thunder Valley Casino and Arena over a year ago!!!

:D
Marv Albert: "And a spectacular day for basketball as we come to from the capitol city of Sacramento in the beautiful Cache Creek Center!" :eek:

*wishes there was a barfing emoticon*

But in seriousness, I do appreciate the sentiment in Tsakopoulos' plan as well as his diligence, but I'm pretty wary of the involvement of Indian tribes with vested interests in their casinos. What do they have to gain out of this? Would they be the ones getting the land that would be opened for development? I almost feel guilty that my love for the Kings seems to outweigh my appreciation as a citizen of Sacramento. But then I think about the nimrods on the City Council. And all is well in my little world once again.
 

Bricklayer

Don't Make Me Use The Bat
#9
PT Cruiser 9ROC said:
I almost feel guilty that my love for the Kings seems to outweigh my appreciation as a citizen of Sacramento.
Well, I would say if things keep on going the way they are that you will probably be relieved of your conflict within 3 years or so on the outside. And while I really should not care from 3000 miles away, the Sacramento connection is why I first became a Kings fan and has to some degree kept it alive despite numerous geographical shifts. Still home base for the family. I/when they leave, not sure I will be into them enough to moderate a board for the Kansas City Kings.
 
#11
VF21 said:
Hey, wait a minute!

That was my idea. I proposed the ARCO Thunder Valley Casino and Arena over a year ago!!!

:D
NOOOOOO!!!!!! I hate to be selfish here. But I live in doggone Elk Grove!!!! That is a long way from me. And I am a Monarchs supporter that goes to 12-15 games a summer. Oh well, anything to keep them here.:eek:
 
#12
Bricklayer said:
Perhpas I am a little biased since I have met the man, but sounds like Angelo Tsakopoulos might be the one power in Sacramento without his head thoroughly up his *** when it comes to keeping the Kings.
If a deal is to be had it will most certainly have to exclude dealing with the city of Sacramento. So, hopefully AT can pull together the right mix to get this done! If this does not work out I just don't see anything getting done.
 
#13
Wouldn't make sense to build in Folsom since the Kings represent Sacramento CITY and not the county. North Natomas is part of the city of Sacramento.
 
#15
Tease post. It's going to flounder once this proposal asks for tax dollars. The Kings still owe 50+ million dollars in a loan from the city of Sacramento.

At least if the arena is built Sacramentans can look forward to ticket prices rising every year for the next 20 years.
 
#18
My dad still has one of the best ideas for private funding. Southwest Airlines. Their headquarters are right here in Sacramento. Southwest Airlines Arena anybody? But, then you still need to find somewhere to build it, and I'm sure Southwest couldn't be the only contributor.
 
#19
DocHolliday said:
My dad still has one of the best ideas for private funding. Southwest Airlines. Their headquarters are right here in Sacramento. Southwest Airlines Arena anybody? But, then you still need to find somewhere to build it, and I'm sure Southwest couldn't be the only contributor.
Well, actually the Southwest headquarters are in Dallas. And the selling of the naming rights arent enought to build an arena...they usually are in the neighborhood of about $10million tops for naming rights for a sporting venue. The city and owners still have to front most of the bill. We're at square one still of this process, which I dont see moving on to square two any time soon, if ever.:(
 
Last edited:
#20
Actually Pepsi paid $68 million for naming rights in Denver. Problem is, Sacramento does not have a strong corporate base. This limits quite a bit the revenune they can get from naming rights and luxury boxes.
 
#22
AT is famous in this region for "working" local governments. He would like to build thousands of new houses in that rural area between White Rock Road and Highway 50. I'll bet he sees some leverage-potential with the public interest in a new arena. I wonder how the eminent bursting of the housing bubble will impact his plan to build thousands of new houses in the eastern county. Highway 50 is already like a Los Angeles freeway. The famous Serano development has been developed into a very pricey surburban ghetto; over-crowded and ugly.

Despite my desire to see the Kings stay in Sacramento, we need more houses up here like a hole in the head.
 
#23
The comments are accurate. It would likely take years to get approval for any development out there, assuming its even possible. Right now, I can't imagine how his land out there can be leveraged to help the arena deal. (Is he thinking of selling some of the land to the city or county for preservation and using the proceeds to build the arena? Or agreeing to give the land to the city for public purposes if they will, in return, pony up a big contribution toward the arena? My wild musings only.) I really am trying to imagine what could be done that would help in the near term. Getting any of that area approved for development in a realistic timeframe is unimaginable. The environmental impact reports, the endless public hearings, the likely lawsuits.....

At least the land in the Natomas area is already planned for future development and the idea was only to speed up the process.

AT paid for the the complete remodeling of Sac State's track facility, so they could get and try to keep the Olympic Track and Field trials and other big track and field events. He's probably the biggest mover and shaker in the region, for sure. Actually, in much of the State. He is a likely person to try and figure this out, but he is looking out for what he can get out of it.

Actually Quickdog, what the Sacramento region needs is more "affordable" housing being built anywhere, not more "unaffordable without making a deal with the devil" housing. True in most of California. And better planning, but most people won't accept "different" housing from what they're used to. Good planning losses out to developer money and influence almost everytime.
 
Last edited:

Warhawk

The cake is a lie.
Staff member
#24
kennadog said:
Actually Quickdog, what the Sacramento region needs is more "affordable" housing being built anywhere, not more "unaffordable without making a deal with the devil" housing. True in most of California. And better planning, but most people won't accept "different" housing from what they're used to. Good planning losses out to developer money and influence almost everytime.
Everyone is a big proponent of affordable housing until it is plunked down next to your house and maket values in the area plummet.... :(

The other big problems are transportation and lawsuits. You need to have mass transit nearby because of the large number of people in a small area - roads get even more impacted than with "conventional" housing. Also, condo units, for example, are rarely built anymore because of the numbers and types of lawsuits filed by the buyers, higher and more expensive than traditional homes.
 
#25
I could show you "affordable" housing you would never guess is affordable and I would not mind living in at all. Also, there have been at multiple studies done that debunk the "lowers property values" myth. It's off topic so this will be it (promise VF21 and Brick), but here's some pics of projects my Department has helped finance (and a report).....

http://www.hcd.ca.gov/feature/murphyranch.html

http://www.hcd.ca.gov/feature/JingleTown.html

http://www.hcd.ca.gov/feature/GlenBerry.html

http://www.hcd.ca.gov/feature/Sycamore_Homes.html

http://www.hcd.ca.gov/feature/views.html

http://www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/mythsnfacts.pdf
 
#26
Has anyone pointed out how stupid it would be for the City of Sacramento to just let a professional sports franchise (and a good one at that) just slip away? Or is there something I'm missing?
 
#28
I found this article earlier today, which was written in 2001. I found it to be one of the most balanced looks at public money and stadiums/arenas and the value of a major league sports franchise to a city. The part I like best it that it tries to quantify the value of adding to the "quality-of-life" of a city. And it goes on to state that this is rarely discussed in reports on deals. But it certainly explains something that I have found hard to explain in arena discussions, because it is such an intangible.

It is interesting that one of the conclusions is that most cities value a major league sports franchise much more after they've had one and lost it (esp football). And some cities spend a whole lot more money getting another team than it would have cost them to keep the first team. I'm afraid that is what could happen here. It is hugely long so I won't paste it here.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3699/is_200101/ai_n8942029
 

Warhawk

The cake is a lie.
Staff member
#29
kennadog said:
I could show you "affordable" housing you would never guess is affordable and I would not mind living in at all. Also, there have been at multiple studies done that debunk the "lowers property values" myth. It's off topic so this will be it (promise VF21 and Brick), but here's some pics of projects my Department has helped finance (and a report).....

http://www.hcd.ca.gov/feature/murphyranch.html

http://www.hcd.ca.gov/feature/JingleTown.html

http://www.hcd.ca.gov/feature/GlenBerry.html

http://www.hcd.ca.gov/feature/Sycamore_Homes.html

http://www.hcd.ca.gov/feature/views.html

http://www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/mythsnfacts.pdf
Off topic, I know, I know....

Some of those look great. Unfortunately, most "affordable housing" is still duplex-looking duplexes and traditional condo-type construction....

When my wife and I were house shopping in 2001, homes adjacent to apartment complexes, etc., were cheaper than identical homes a few blocks away. I don't care what all the "studies" say, I know what I see when looking at homes and prices in the real world.

I am not against affordable housing - I am just against government deciding that they are going to place it where it isn't wanted by the locals. If they don't want it there, and the land wasn't originally zoned for it, it shouldn't go in.