Predict the Vote

Predict the Vote

  • Total voters
    32
T

The Hammer

All-Star
#1
#1
I'm calling 8-1, with an outside chance it goes 9-0.

Share yours below for a shot at glory (or at least fun).

Also, I'm not local to Sac, so am not up on the details of city council members, other than through tales told here... so if you want to include reasoning behind your prediction, you'd be enlightening me, as well as many others I'd bet.

Thanks and enjoy the Countdown to the Vote. :D
 
T

The Hammer

All-Star
#10
#10
Makes sense to add a poll.

It would be cool to get an accurate percentage of the public opinion, so feel free to vote even if you already listed your prediction.
 
kennadog

kennadog

Dog On It!
#15
#15
If we want his vote, I guess we should spell his name right - Schenirer. ;)

I changed my mind when I voted. 7-2. The more I read about the deal, the better chance I think they might get Pannell on board.
 
J

jgladding

Guest
#16
#16
Am I the only one nervous about Tuesday? It seems to me it's simply not a done deal until this point, and things could unravel. I am not sure even a groundbreaking will make me happy with all the sue-happy types in this city.

Of course, I was also skeptical about Pac Bell Park until the day they actually played a game there. Having lived through their almost move to Tampa in 1993, I knew how close the Giants were to leaving. That was not even close to the diving catch Mayor Johnson made about a year ago.
 
T

The Hammer

All-Star
#20
#20
Circa_1985_Fan said:
After talking with my bosses today, I believe this will now pass either 8-1 or even 9-0.
Click to expand...
This has been my gut feeling all along.

I actually now believe it will be 9-0.

The political tide is really starting to turn, after that news10 thing the other night... you'd really be looking like a seriously small minded person if you didn't vote for this. I think the political risk and liability in doing so is huge. During the meeting it is going to be thoroughly explained how zero money will come from the general fund, zero taxpayer dollars will be spent... etc... I just have a feeling it's going to be so well argued for... all the potential arguments against have been exposed, I think they've been waiting to deliver the knockout punch of exactly all the positives and rebuttals to all potential arguments against, for the maximum possible effect. Tomorrow will be that time. The CAVERS will have no time to whip up a frenzy, once all the positives are stated thoroughly and completely in the public forum, and then a vote happens immediately.
 
Capt. Factorial

Capt. Factorial

ceterum censeo delendum esse Argentum
Staff member
#21
#21
Circa_1985_Fan said:
Without revealing who I work for, lets just say it sounds like Sheedy, Fong and Pannell have been shown the light.
Click to expand...
If Sheedy votes "yes", there would be absolutely no scene more precious to me than the look of rage on the faces of the Sac Bee trolls. They champion her as their knight in shining armor - if she betrays them, oh wow!
 
Warhawk

Warhawk

Give blood and save a life!
Staff member
#22
#22
Capt. Factorial said:
If Sheedy votes "yes", there would be absolutely no scene more precious to me than the look of rage on the faces of the Sac Bee trolls. They champion her as their knight in shining armor - if she betrays them, oh wow!
Click to expand...
Agreed. Someone text me the vote results when it happens, will ya? I'm not taking a laptop with me. ;)
 
kennadog

kennadog

Dog On It!
#27
#27
Circa_1985_Fan said:
Gotta love Jim Crandell banging the pessimistic drum saying 'even if the vote is 9-0 there's still a chance this doesn't happen'. Lol
Click to expand...
Well, we do need to temper ourselves a bit. The term sheet is a non-binding agreement. Signing it, does move us further along, but is not an ironclad guarantee.

The vote we should probably pay more attention to is the vote on whether they will go out to bid for a parking lessor, or somebody to pay for the city's parking assets up front in return for a lease of some term. The council they might vote no. The other option, then, is for the city to sell municipal bonds based on future parking revenues to pay the bond debt. Or they may shelve that RFP for some time to explore the bond option, because the city has made it clear that is a possible alternative to giving up city parking to the control of a lessee.

I certainly want the term sheet passed and would consider it a big victory, but I also understand the limits of it. It doesn't get us all the way there. And that's why they might get a unanimous vote. Because it's not a binding agreement on any of the parties.

On the other hand, I don't care for Crandall's style. If you want to say how you think the vote might go, then say it. Otherwise, just say we'll all know tomorrow night. Some times he's just too "cutsie," for me.
 
Last edited:
John Galt

John Galt

Starter
#29
#29
I voted for 8-1 because I don't want to jinx a unanimous vote. I think all but Sheedy are too smart to lay in front of this train. Sheedy... I'm afraid will go down with the ship. Hope I'm wrong though it would be a great scene to have a 9-0 approval and everyone bury the hatchet on this one.
 
B

Brac-o-matic

G-League
#30
#30
John Galt said:
I voted for 8-1 because I don't want to jinx a unanimous vote. I think all but Sheedy are too smart to lay in front of this train. Sheedy... I'm afraid will go down with the ship. Hope I'm wrong though it would be a great scene to have a 9-0 approval and everyone bury the hatchet on this one.
Click to expand...
Sandy Sheedy has nothing to worry about...she's a 'lame duck'. However, for the rest of them, they should see voting against this as a very bad political move. One more probably will anyways. so, 7-2.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.