News10: Arena Deadline Passes Without Agreement

[Cerwindel]

Arena Deadline Passes Without Agreement
Written for the web by George Warren, Reporter

Story Found here: http://www.news10.net/storyfull2.aspx?storyid=20527A self-imposed deadline to have an agreement in place for a new downtown Sacramento arena passed Friday with both sides still far apart on critical issues.

\When the city and county of cramento and the owners of the Sacramento Kings signed a preliminary term sheet in August, they set October 6 as the deadline to finalize the details in a memorandum of understanding (MOU).

The October date was to allow absentee voters time to digest the agreement before casting their ballots. Nearly a quarter-million absentee ballots will be mailed by county elections officials beginning next Tuesday.

Measures Q and R on the November 7 ballot would boost the local sales tax by one-quarter percent for fifteen years, raising an estimate $1.2 billion. Roughly half would be spent to build a new sports and entertainment facility, presumably in the downtown railyards. The other half would be spent by the cities and the county as they see fit.

Negotiations over the new arena broke down September 5 over several key provisions. The Maloof family claimed the city and county, along with railyards developer Thomas Enterprises, backed away from agreements that had already been reached.

Last week, railyards developer Thomas Enterprises presented a revised site plan to the Maloof family which addressed concerns about the size of the arena.

But unresolved issues remain. The Maloofs appear unwilling to lose 6,000 paid parking spaces in a move from Natomas to the railyards. And they've insisted on a 1,000 foot "buffer zone" around the new arena to protect them from competing businesses. Members of the city/county negotiating team call the buffer zone alone a potential deal-killer.

Despite no recent face-to-face talks, both sides express optimism.

"I'm hopeful we will find a way to conclusion," Sacramento County Supervisor Roger Dickinson told News10. "We don't, in some respects, have all that far to go."

John Thomas, the president of Maloof Sports and Entertainment, issued a statement to News10.

"We remain hopeful that we can finalize and sign an MOU that accurately reflects the terms of the agreement we successfully negotiated with the city and county through months of hard work this summer," Thomas wrote. "We need to get it out to the voters before Election Day so they can make a fully informed decision."

But with more than 200,000 absentee ballots going into the mail, time is quickly running out.

 

[love_them_kings]

Someone help me here. I have been very supportive of a new arena. Heck, we just got season tickets after two years on the waiting list... I'd like to be able to use them for more than a year (although we will be selling the majority of the seaon to be able to afford them!)

I agree that the developers blindsighted the Maloofs by changing the plan. I believe that the Maloofs should have more parking spots. I believe the Maloofs should not pay for a new arena when there are plenty of places that would build one for them. But, the 1,000 foot "buffer" zone around the new arena?? They are willing to walk away over that??? I don't get that. If the idea is to revitalize downtown, let's not start setting limits on it. People are always going to eat/drink at the game. I don't think we should have to limit the reshaping of downtown to maximize the Maloofs profits.

Does anyone know if any arena has that kind of "buffer" zone? Because frankly, it just seems odd to me.

 

[kupman]

Someone help me here. I have been very supportive of a new arena. Heck, we just got season tickets after two years on the waiting list... I'd like to be able to use them for more than a year (although we will be selling the majority of the seaon to be able to afford them!)

I agree that the developers blindsighted the Maloofs by changing the plan. I believe that the Maloofs should have more parking spots. I believe the Maloofs should not pay for a new arena when there are plenty of places that would build one for them. But, the 1,000 foot "buffer" zone around the new arena?? They are willing to walk away over that??? I don't get that. If the idea is to revitalize downtown, let's not start setting limits on it. People are always going to eat/drink at the game. I don't think we should have to limit the reshaping of downtown to maximize the Maloofs profits.

Does anyone know if any arena has that kind of "buffer" zone? Because frankly, it just seems odd to me.

Well, as I understand it, it is unusual.

Again, I think everyone has a line that they will not cross. It is interesting to me that I hear people like you, people who strongly support the Maloofs begin to think that they are "crossing the line." Maloof support has steadily dropped in the past 3 months. They must know it, but we hear nothing about them changing their stance.

 

[love_them_kings]

Well, as I understand it, it is unusual.

Again, I think everyone has a line that they will not cross. It is interesting to me that I hear people like you, people who strongly support the Maloofs begin to think that they are "crossing the line." Maloof support has steadily dropped in the past 3 months. They must know it, but we hear nothing about them changing their stance.

I guess I'm just trying to understand the situation. Like I said, I understand the Maloofs not paying for an arena. Why should they? They wouldn't have to pay for one in another city. But if they move the team, are they going to get a non compete buffer of 1,000 ft in Anaheim, Kansas City or wherever they end up? If it's not the "norm", then are they just getting greedy at our expense? And if they are willing to move the team because they can't get a noncompete zone, even though they wouldn't get one somewhere else, are they really as committed to Sacramento as we like to believe?

I don't know. It's a frustrating situation. I am one of those people that want to keep the Kings here, period. I love having a local team. I can't vote on the issue because I'm in Placer County, but I've always assumed I would vote Yes on the measures if I was given a choice.

Like you said, there's a limit to everyone's patience. While I've disagreed with some of the Maloofs' decisions over the past years, I have always maintained that we have some of the best owners in the NBA. Right now I am struggling to understand their actions, because despite my belief that they the Maloofs want to keep the team in Sac, their actions are starting to make me wonder.

 

[Warhawk]

I do live in the County, and Kings or no, we need a facility of this size and type. I am voting yes because it's good for Sacramento whether the Kings stay or leave.

 

[kupman]

I guess I'm just trying to understand the situation. Like I said, I understand the Maloofs not paying for an arena. Why should they? They wouldn't have to pay for one in another city. But if they move the team, are they going to get a non compete buffer of 1,000 ft in Anaheim, Kansas City or wherever they end up? If it's not the "norm", then are they just getting greedy at our expense? And if they are willing to move the team because they can't get a noncompete zone, even though they wouldn't get one somewhere else, are they really as committed to Sacramento as we like to believe?

I think we are all trying to understand the situation. The parking and the sphere of influence that the Maloofs are asking for here are beyond what they could expect anywhere else. In fact. I think it goes well beyond what they could expect somewhere else.

The parking issue is what got me....for you it is the sphere of influence. It does not really matter. What matters is that people like you and me probably support the Maloofs and the arena more than 90% of the people in the county and we are starting to have our doubts.

I really do not think the Maloofs want the arena downtown...that is very obvious and very dissappointing to me. How bad do they want to stay in Sac?....time will tell.

 

[VF21]

The Maloofs may well want to stay in Sacramento but not like the railyards idea as much as the city/county. That's understandable. This whole thing has become so convoluted it's almost impossible to get a real feel for the concepts involved.

 

[voteno]

I will vote no.. No details for the public less than a month from the vote. A MOU that has expired, allowing the county to spend and give whatever they want to the Maloofs to appease them. It is time that the voters simply say no. Sac is a greta market, but the Maloofs are shooting themselves in the foot with their ridiculous demands.

 

[VF21]

I will vote no.. No details for the public less than a month from the vote. A MOU that has expired, allowing the county to spend and give whatever they want to the Maloofs to appease them. It is time that the voters simply say no. Sac is a greta market, but the Maloofs are shooting themselves in the foot with their ridiculous demands.

Wrong, wrong and wrong. If you want to vote no, that's entirely up to you. BUT you're wrong about the MOU expiring. There never has been a real MOU. There was an interim TOA (or draft or whatever you want to call it) that said they wanted to formalize a MOU by Oct. 6.

Since there has not been an MOU, the idea the county can now spend and give whatever they want to the Maloofs is not only ridiculous, it's flat out wrong.

The Maloofs are negotiating, which they have every right in the world to do. I may or may not agree with some of their concerns, but the piont it they should not have to just lie down and play dead because of the pending vote. That's extortion - by the city/county NOT the Maloofs.

These ballot measures most likely should never have made it to print. Not because of the measures themselves but because of the myriad of unanswered questions.

1. The developer doesn't even have title to the land.
2. To avoid the absurd (and I still believe unconstitutional) 2/3 vote requirement on tax increases for specified use, the ballot measures couldn't be too specific.
3. The local media has given the public the notion that they (the public) have the right to review ongoing negotiations between the city/county and private businesses, such as MSE. They don't. Making those kinds of things public is restraint of trade. It could seriously hamper the ability of ANY of those parties to iron out a deal. It's like trying to build an elephant by committee.
4. The proponents of the measures didn't start with a good foundation. They should have made sure the public understands WHY Arco needs to be replaced...and fairly soon. It's not because of the greed of the Maloofs. It's a rapidly-aging structure, with conceptual flaws that preclude it being renovated. This could have been explained clearly - it never has been.
5. The proponents of the measures didn't even come out with ANY kind of advertising until this month. That's way too late. And the one advertisement they have come out with is one of those things that just doesn't get a message across that voters are truly going to understand or respond to. The arena and the Maloofs are all over the news and yet the one commercial doesn't even mention the arena at all until the last few seconds.

There are a lot of reasons to vote no; there are reasons to vote yes. Either way, you should make sure you have your facts straight.

 

[voteno]

facts are straight

arena deal is poorly written, no guarantee that it will be built where it claims it will be, no agreement as they never came to terms by the expiration date.

Many more reasons to vote no. I have not seen a good reason yet to vote yes.

I have the courage to stand up to the Maloofs and vote NO. The supervisors and public officials who crafted this deal need to be voted out next time that they come up for reelction.

 

[BMiller52]

arena deal is poorly written, no guarantee that it will be built where it claims it will be, no agreement as they never came to terms by the expiration date.

Many more reasons to vote no. I have not seen a good reason yet to vote yes.

I have the courage to stand up to the Maloofs and vote NO. The supervisors and public officials who crafted this deal need to be voted out next time that they come up for reelction.

Yeah because Sacramento turning into an even smaller market is going to be a good thing

 

[VF21]

Anyone with the user name "voteno" is not going to listen to any kind of reasoning, BMiller52.

 

[VF21]

arena deal is poorly written, no guarantee that it will be built where it claims it will be, no agreement as they never came to terms by the expiration date.

Many more reasons to vote no. I have not seen a good reason yet to vote yes.

I have the courage to stand up to the Maloofs and vote NO. The supervisors and public officials who crafted this deal need to be voted out next time that they come up for reelction.

Courage to stand up to the Maloofs? Who are you, R.E. Graswich? [If you are, have the cahones to register under your real name. It's not like you're a regular person putting forth an opinion. If you ARE Graswich, you've made your dislike and distrust (and might I say possibly jealousy) of the Maloofs incredibly obvious for years.]

It's not about standing up to the Maloofs. Never has been. If that's your take, I really question your agenda. The people of Sacramento and the owners of the Sacramento Kings/Monarchs can work together to achieve something that will benefit all of us. The people of Houston did it with the Rockets. The people of San Antonio did it with the Spurs. It can be done, if nay-sayers will put aside their petty grievances against the rich and quit hating them because of what they've been able to accomplish.

And, as I pointed out above, there are reasons to vote no. There are reasons to vote yes. If you believe in the idea and trust that the parties involved will work everything out, vote yes. If you know the arena needs to be replaced to go forward, vote yes (whether the Kings are here or not). Those two alone are sufficient for a number of people. If I could vote, I would vote YES. I believe in people like Roger Dickinson. I believe he and others can come to a reasonable accord about doing this project, should the measure pass. If the developer doesn't obtain title to the railyards, then they'll find somewhere else. The main point will be to build a state-of-the-art entertainment facility that will enable the Sacramento region to continue to draw a variety of attractions.

Sacramento needs it. Those of us who live outside of Sacramento need it. The Kings need it. The Monarchs need it.

If you don't trust your elected officials to do the right thing, you should consider removing them from office.

 

[JB_kings]

arena deal is poorly written, no guarantee that it will be built where it claims it will be, no agreement as they never came to terms by the expiration date.

Many more reasons to vote no. I have not seen a good reason yet to vote yes.

I have the courage to stand up to the Maloofs and vote NO. The supervisors and public officials who crafted this deal need to be voted out next time that they come up for reelction.

Your facts are weak. If you sign a legal agreement that says you have to buy my house with no escape clause. I will throw a party because I just became very rich man. Thomas Ent. already started throwing around figures like 5.5 million dollars an acre near the station. Only a few short years ago that price was supposed to be nearly free. Sorry, but you aren't very good at this.

 

[voteno]

whats weak is simply:

he supervisors who crafted this whole deal in the first place. The maloofs for expecting and demanding that the public build them a new arena. The peolpe who claim that this will revitalize the downtown area. It will never be built there as the railyard has tons of contamination that needs to be cleaned up. It has already taken years to do and is nowhere near being completed. I have worked on that site doing environmental cleanup. It is a mess and has lots of work still to be done.

I dont dislike the Maloofs because they are rich, great for them. I think they are blackmailing the city. The maloofs are demeanding that WE, the taxpayers build them a new arena. I dislike the way that they do business and walk out of meetings, crying that they are not getting their way. Thats not the manner of professional businessmen. I recall that they had the same tantrum before when they were asked to pay for half of the arena. They said NO, which they have a right to. The now expect that the public pick up the entire cost of the arena and pay less for its lease than they are currently paying in use tax. Who is trying to ripoff the public here. The Maloofs.. simple and matter of fact.

A new arena paid entirely for by the public under these terms is bad for the area. If they agree to pay more for the lease, or put more money into it, more people would be willing to pay additional taxes for it. Furthermoe, the sphere of influence is stupid. Are they afraid of competition... you bet they are.

 

[BMiller52]

Greenking must have created a new screenname:

he supervisors who crafted this whole deal in the first place. The maloofs for expecting and demanding that the public build them a new arena. The peolpe who claim that this will revitalize the downtown area. It will never be built there as the railyard has tons of contamination that needs to be cleaned up. It has already taken years to do and is nowhere near being completed. I have worked on that site doing environmental cleanup. It is a mess and has lots of work still to be done.

 

[kennadog]

The Kings pretty much are at a disadvantage by being in Sacramento in the first place. Small market and very little corporate base. The franchise has lost money 4 years out of the 8 they've been owned by the Maloofs. The Maloofs are conservatively estimating they will lose money 15 out of the 30 years of the lease. Yet they've still contributed over $11 million to local charities.

The only ways to keep the franchise fiscally functional is to raise ticket prices (that can't continue); cut salary (meaning player salary); or minimize operating expenses; or increase revenue. If they cut player salary much more, they know the team could not remain competitive. You can argue that player salaries shouldn't be that high, but that's not something the Maloofs can control.

The idea of a new arena and public financing is to enable them to get more revenue; reduce maintenance costs; keep debt service or lease payments in a price range that means the team can remain competitive (a good product on the floor).

Now you may say tough, if that's what it takes let them go. I can't argue with that opinion.

What I disagree with is your argument they are blackmailing the city. That's just ridiculous. A businessman says, if I can't minimize my losses in this market, then I have to go where I can put out a good product and at least minimize my losses. How is that blackmail? That's good old American captalism at work. You can't honestly expect any businessman to voluntarily lose money, just because you think they should?

I disagree they are demanding anything. They don't have to demand a damn thing. They are simply saying, this is what we need to make it financially viable for us to remain. Sacramentens have the right to say we simply can't do that and then we'll just have to understand that the Maloofs have a right to go where they can get what they need to keep their team financially viable and competitive in a pro sports league. No hard feelings. That's business.

As I've already said, this may not have been the best method of financing an arena. I think it was just an eleventh hour attempt without any real planning. That probably dooms it. I just hope there is still time for someone to come up with a better deal all around with some creative thinking about financing that could be acceptable to both sides.

Otherwise, Sacramento likely loses the Kings and Monarchs and any arena. I would regreat the loss of the teams, but probably would regret the loss of an entertainment/sports venue even more. A real loss for the capitol of California, a sizeable city and a city I love.

Stockton and Fresno have nice arenas. Witchita, Orlando and Kansas City are building nice new arenas. Phoenix, San Antonio, Denver, Memphis, Charlotte and Indiannapolis have relatively new arenas. Sacramento will have none.

So don't vote for any public financing for an arena, ever, if that's how you feel. Just don't act like the Maloofs are bad guys, if they decide at some point they can't stay in Sacramento anymore, because its not good for the bottom line of their business. No hard feelings, it was great while it lasted. That's all you could reasonably feel.

 

[VF21]

he supervisors who crafted this whole deal in the first place. The maloofs for expecting and demanding that the public build them a new arena. The peolpe who claim that this will revitalize the downtown area. It will never be built there as the railyard has tons of contamination that needs to be cleaned up. It has already taken years to do and is nowhere near being completed. I have worked on that site doing environmental cleanup. It is a mess and has lots of work still to be done.

I dont dislike the Maloofs because they are rich, great for them. I think they are blackmailing the city. The maloofs are demeanding that WE, the taxpayers build them a new arena. I dislike the way that they do business and walk out of meetings, crying that they are not getting their way. Thats not the manner of professional businessmen. I recall that they had the same tantrum before when they were asked to pay for half of the arena. They said NO, which they have a right to. The now expect that the public pick up the entire cost of the arena and pay less for its lease than they are currently paying in use tax. Who is trying to ripoff the public here. The Maloofs.. simple and matter of fact.

A new arena paid entirely for by the public under these terms is bad for the area. If they agree to pay more for the lease, or put more money into it, more people would be willing to pay additional taxes for it. Furthermoe, the sphere of influence is stupid. Are they afraid of competition... you bet they are.

So are you Graswich? Yes or no?

The Maloofs are NOT demanding the public do anything. What they're saying - as owners of the NBA franchise Sacramento Kings and WNBA franchise CHAMPION WINNING Sacramento Monarchs - is that they need a new arena to continue to operate in this market. That's not blackmail. It's not extortion. It's FACT. And it's fact supported by David Stern.

You can cry foul all you like. You can hide behind alleged concern for the people of Sacramento. You can declare the sky is falling.

The Maloofs have done a lot for the city. They have done a lot that doesn't get publicized. They are NOT evil-doers and they are not flim-flam men. They are trying to work with the city/county to find a way to reach an accord that will be acceptable to all. It's not that someone has to win and someone has to lose.

Does the word compromise mean anything to you? Do you understand the relationship between a major professional sports franchise in a small market and the area they cover?

We aren't Los Angeles. We aren't even Orlando. We're Sacramento. The Maloofs don't want to leave but they have to receive certain consideratons to stay.

For about the gazillionth time, the new arena would NOT be completely paid for by the public. The Maloofs have said they would sign a 30-year lease. That's 30 bleeping years. That's a pretty significant commitment to Sacramento. If they're willing to do that, and to keep providing the ancillary revenues that derive from having the Kings and Monarchs in Sacramento, I firmly believe the city/county can/should find a way to work with them.

 

[JB_kings]

A new arena paid entirely for by the public under these terms is bad for the area.

You don't get off easy on that blanket statement. What is bad for the area? So far all anyone can say is that the Maloofs make a profit on this deal. Well yes they do or they shouldn't agree to the deal. Would you sign a 30 year lease if your business could lose millions of dollars every year? How does it make the area better if they lose money? How does the city lose money if the building is backed by tax dollars? How much in taxes will the city lose if the Kings leave? There are bunch of questions that are really important and all we get from the Bee columnists is a bunch of rhetoric about police and flood protection. Like that is an either or issue. The Bee coverage by their columnists has done a disservice to the community as much as the failure to get a firm deal agreed upon. As far as being a bad thing for the area, name me one NBA city that built an arena to keep it's team that has regretted that they did so. I'll bet you can't name one.

 

[VF21]

JB - I think, for fairness, we need to clarify that not ALL Bee columnists are doing a disservice.

Ailene Voisin - excellent articles.
Mark Kreidler - puts the facts out there and lets his readers decide.
Terri Hardy and Mary Lynne Vellinga - done a lot of digging to get to the crux of the matters.
Marcos Breton - I'm not quite sure what he's trying to do.
R.E. Graswich - This man, single-handedly, is responsible for more misinformation and misconceptions about the Kings, the Maloofs and this entire deal than anyone else at the Bee, IMHO. He's spewing vitriol at every turn and he's disgracing the field of journalism every time he does so.

The local broadcast media has not always taken the high road either. It's real easy to show a sound byte or two of the Maloofs out of context. It makes for a riveting tease for their news. Oft times, what I see when I actually turn in is something that's merely a rehash of old stuff, etc.

News10 has done a better job than the others. Ch. 40 tends to want to run with rumors, presenting them at times as though they're proven fact. Ch. 3 is always tailing the pack.

There's a lot of blame to go around right now. Although it's always easy to point the finger at the Bee - and they've made a sport of hitting at the Maloofs in the past - I really think, for the most part, the current group handling the arena story is honestly trying to be fair, to make sure voices from every point on the spectrum are being heard.

 

[voteno]

arena to be paid by the public

So are you Graswich? Yes or no?


For about the gazillionth time, the new arena would NOT be completely paid for by the public. The Maloofs have said they would sign a 30-year lease.

I am not Graswich:

The arena construction would be paid ENTIRELY by the public. Are there any numbers anywhere that say the Maloofs will pay for part of the construction? NO.. they have agreed to lease the facility. That does not equate to paying for the construction. That is leasing the facility. You have a few things to learn if you beleive that they are paying part of the facility. The NBA and the Maloofs are telling Sacramento that the area needs a new arena for the Kings to stay here. Why does the public have to foot the bill? Is the arena VITAL for public service? Does there product and existence help to better are youth and keep the area safe. NO they do not. An arena is for entertainment and a place for large gatherings to meet. If they want and need an arena, thats fine, but dont demand that the public pay for the whole thing. Make the people who use the arena pay a surcharge on their tickets of a couple of dollars.. The Maloofs should kick in some money. The NBA should kick in $ for a new arena. I do agree with you that this was a deal made quckly. It should never have been done quickly. The maloofs need to simply state that they will put up x number of dollars for an arena and the rest needs to come from other sources. Then you ask the public to pay some of it. That is how you will get a deal done that the public will support. By the way, if a new arena is built, you can expect that tickets and parking fees will go up.

 

[VF21]

I'll try and make this as simple as possible.

The costs of the construction will be covered by loans, Those loans will be paid off by a combination of funds from the sales tax increase AND the lease payments by the Maloofs.

What part of that don't you understand?

Your shtick has grown tiresome. You don't want to look at the whole issue with anything other than your own bias. You've consistently distorted the facts and taken only the parts that would serve your case.

We have nothing further to discuss.

Have a nice day.

 

[voteno]

the lease payments are nothing

the lease payments are a small amount compared to the overall loan payment and will only cover the interest for these loans. Is this forum for people to tlak about the issues or only the ones that you want to show up?

 

[1kingzfan]

I am not Graswich:

Sure you are, even if your last name is not Graswich. You ignore the issues, just like RE.

You have a few things to learn if you beleive that they are paying part of the facility.

You have a few things to learn about monetary commitment by the Maloofs that you continue to conveniently ignore:

$20 million - up front payment
$70 million - immediate loan payoff (that could be strung out for way, way, way cheaper under the current payback plan)
$ 4 million/year - average lease payment

Why does the public have to foot the bill?

Why do you live in a metropolitan city's County?
Why pay for light rail, if you don't use it?
Why pay for roadway and related transportation improvements, if you don't commute, don't use them, or don't care about their condition?
Why pay for programs and shelters for the homeless, if you or a family member is not homeless?
Why pay for school improvements or measures to reduce overcrowding in classrooms, if you don't go to school or have kids in school?
Why pay for local levee improvements, if you don't live in a flood plain?
Why pay for museums or art galleries or preservation of local historical sites, if you never visit them?
Why pay for parks and playgrounds and community landscaping?
Why care about the quality of life in Sacramento?
Why pay anything at all extra for anything, for that matter?

So again, why even live in a major metro area?

Why not go live in a rural area, get your "vital services" from the County, and just worry about fighting state bond measures that might affect you?

Is this forum for people to tlak about the issues or only the ones that you want to show up?

It is indeed for discussion, and this site generally does a great job of that, but those that continually don't want to discuss the issues and become to me, MORE than tiresome. It's a waste of cyberspace.