Rumor about November ballot proposition
- Thread starter VF21
- Start date
I am not sure if I understood it the same way. What I heard (may be wrong it happens sometime 
)
There would be two measures on the ballot, one for the tax increase and one that says "should the tax money be used for a new arena" Now don't quote me on that but thats what I thought was happening.
)There would be two measures on the ballot, one for the tax increase and one that says "should the tax money be used for a new arena" Now don't quote me on that but thats what I thought was happening.
And I'm sure the only way other cities and the county were willing to participate is because they are being promised a piece of the sales tax pie for projects in their jurisdictions. They just haven't necessarily identified a particular use at the time of this ballot.
Last edited:
I am not saying I dont believe u vf21 cause I know most of ur things u have posted on here have turned out true except the Whisnent thing which I am glad about, anyway Eric hogue has a political type talk show on 1380 here in Sac and he has "inside sources" with the politicians here in Sacramento and they said or actually he said last week that this issue will for sure be on the ballot in November.
Doesn't thrill me either and it may not end up that way. The idea is to avoid having to get a 2/3rds vote on a sales tax increase that would be for an arena and an arena only.
I hate the 2/3rds requirement. Its so undemocratic and leads to a tyranny of the minority. There have been measures that passed with well over 50% or even 60%, but don't get that 2/3rds.
I hate the 2/3rds requirement. Its so undemocratic and leads to a tyranny of the minority. There have been measures that passed with well over 50% or even 60%, but don't get that 2/3rds.
I get a sinking feeling everytime I hear a 'nay' sayer on the radio, because for every 1 of them on the air, theirs 1000 just like each one that doesnt care about any facts, and will vote 'no' regardless of what they heard. It's just not fair, us losing our heart...our only team. And I would NEVER support an expansion team if the NBA wanted to give that to us down the road...if this fails and the Kings leave...I'm moving...dont know where, but I'm moving.
Ok, a couple of items:
There is nothing "wrong" with the foundation supporting the existing structure. It isn't "lousy". It just wasn't engineered, designed or built to handle a structure renovation, with the additional dead and live loads and probable increased seismic loading due to California Building Code and Uniform Building Code updates and more modern design practices and analysis.
Also, as I understand it, there are two issues to be on the ballot (if this gets hammered out), unless things have changed recently. As stated here:
http://www.sacbee.com/content/sports/basketball/kings/story/14261224p-15074828c.html
Beyond funding an arena, backers are expected to propose using the funding plan to pay for a host of other civic improvements around the region.
While technical, the question of whether the proposed sales tax increase is for general or specific purposes is a crucial one. Arena team members acknowledge that achieving a two-thirds vote for any tax, whether it's for schools, police protection or arenas, has proved exceedingly difficult in California.
Following the example of Santa Clara County, arena supporters said they planned to put two questions on the ballot for voters. One would be a binding question, asking whether voters would approve a general sales tax increase. The second would be a companion advisory question on whether voters would support certain projects, including an arena.
Ryan said in this way, the sales tax increase would be for general purposes and only require a majority vote. In a precedent-setting case, the state Supreme Court in 1998 upheld a Santa Clara County sales tax increase passed for no specified purpose on a simple majority vote. The same ballot included a separate measure that said extra sales tax funds should be used for transportation improvements.
There is nothing "wrong" with the foundation supporting the existing structure. It isn't "lousy". It just wasn't engineered, designed or built to handle a structure renovation, with the additional dead and live loads and probable increased seismic loading due to California Building Code and Uniform Building Code updates and more modern design practices and analysis.
Also, as I understand it, there are two issues to be on the ballot (if this gets hammered out), unless things have changed recently. As stated here:
http://www.sacbee.com/content/sports/basketball/kings/story/14261224p-15074828c.html
Beyond funding an arena, backers are expected to propose using the funding plan to pay for a host of other civic improvements around the region.
While technical, the question of whether the proposed sales tax increase is for general or specific purposes is a crucial one. Arena team members acknowledge that achieving a two-thirds vote for any tax, whether it's for schools, police protection or arenas, has proved exceedingly difficult in California.
Following the example of Santa Clara County, arena supporters said they planned to put two questions on the ballot for voters. One would be a binding question, asking whether voters would approve a general sales tax increase. The second would be a companion advisory question on whether voters would support certain projects, including an arena.
Ryan said in this way, the sales tax increase would be for general purposes and only require a majority vote. In a precedent-setting case, the state Supreme Court in 1998 upheld a Santa Clara County sales tax increase passed for no specified purpose on a simple majority vote. The same ballot included a separate measure that said extra sales tax funds should be used for transportation improvements.
A lot of this vote will depend on the how this is presented to the voters. There is a real and tangible negative impact to the city if this gets voted down. It shouldn't be soft peddled as I promise you more than 50% of the voters won't like the result after the fact. This could likely cost the city more money in the long run. There's just way too many people in this region to NOT have an arena to host events. Show the people what they are getting with the railyard and sports district included. Show them how downtown will look like in just a few short years because the arena will accelerate the development. Show them that there will be other public projects besides the arena that will be included. Show them that this will only cost 25 pennies for every 100 taxable dollars they spend. Even a poor family probably realizes that they lose more in loose change in their couch. Remember, groceries are not taxed in CA. They can feed their families and do pretty much the same things they already are doing. They aren't being asked to pay more than anyone else. If they buy a new TV for $300, it will only cost them an extra 75 cents. They aren't likely to go buy a $3000 plasma tv and pay the extra $7.50. I think if they educate the voters, it should pass with room to spare.
Last edited:
If - and that's still a fairly big IF - the Kings leave, the NBA won't even consider putting another team here until and unless there is a suitable facility in place.
Naysayers don't necessarily vote in any larger numbers than those that would support the project. In fact, a lot of times people who scream NO the loudest figure they don't have to vote.
This will be a matter of getting out the vote; making sure the people who support the project actually follow through on election day. I may even volunteer to come down to Sacramento and spend the day helping to get out the vote. And I'm serious. Although I now live 2 hours away, Sacramento is still my home. I've talked to a number of people up here. Almost without exception, they've traveled to Sacramento for events and lots of them have attended functions in Arco. This is important, not only to Sacramento itself, but to anyone within a couple of hours travel distance.
Not to mention the ... erm ... burial grounds?
Naysayers don't necessarily vote in any larger numbers than those that would support the project. In fact, a lot of times people who scream NO the loudest figure they don't have to vote.
This will be a matter of getting out the vote; making sure the people who support the project actually follow through on election day. I may even volunteer to come down to Sacramento and spend the day helping to get out the vote. And I'm serious. Although I now live 2 hours away, Sacramento is still my home. I've talked to a number of people up here. Almost without exception, they've traveled to Sacramento for events and lots of them have attended functions in Arco. This is important, not only to Sacramento itself, but to anyone within a couple of hours travel distance.
Not to mention the ... erm ... burial grounds?
If - and that's still a fairly big IF - the Kings leave, the NBA won't even consider putting another team here until and unless there is a suitable facility in place.
Naysayers don't necessarily vote in any larger numbers than those that would support the project. In fact, a lot of times people who scream NO the loudest figure they don't have to vote.
This will be a matter of getting out the vote; making sure the people who support the project actually follow through on election day. I may even volunteer to come down to Sacramento and spend the day helping to get out the vote. And I'm serious. Although I now live 2 hours away, Sacramento is still my home. I've talked to a number of people up here. Almost without exception, they've traveled to Sacramento for events and lots of them have attended functions in Arco. This is important, not only to Sacramento itself, but to anyone within a couple of hours travel distance.
Not to mention the ... erm ... burial grounds?
Naysayers don't necessarily vote in any larger numbers than those that would support the project. In fact, a lot of times people who scream NO the loudest figure they don't have to vote.
This will be a matter of getting out the vote; making sure the people who support the project actually follow through on election day. I may even volunteer to come down to Sacramento and spend the day helping to get out the vote. And I'm serious. Although I now live 2 hours away, Sacramento is still my home. I've talked to a number of people up here. Almost without exception, they've traveled to Sacramento for events and lots of them have attended functions in Arco. This is important, not only to Sacramento itself, but to anyone within a couple of hours travel distance.
Not to mention the ... erm ... burial grounds?
You might tell them that MSG was massively renovated in 1991 to the tune of $200 million. That's $200 million 16 years ago!
EDIT: Unfortunately, more than one engineer has determined that due to the lousy foundation put in for Arco, renovation of the existing arena is out of the question.
EDIT: Unfortunately, more than one engineer has determined that due to the lousy foundation put in for Arco, renovation of the existing arena is out of the question.
Because it was built cheaply in the first place. The foundations were designed specifically for the structure planned without regard to renovations or improvements at a later time. It's like taking a Yugo and wanting to cram a V-8 engine under the hood vs. taking a pickup designed to handle multiple engine configurations and being able to use either a V-6 or V-8 in it. Yugos weren't designed to handle those, but they could handle the planned engines just fine. It's an engineering decision made by the owner/designer/builder. It can serve it's purpose, but don't expect more out of it.
And I am not necessarily saying the other arena was specifically planned to be renovated and all this flexibility was "planned in" ahead of time, but some foundation designs are inherently more tolerant of additional loading (high-capacity end-bearing piles, etc) and can handle the additional loads without distress.
And I am not necessarily saying the other arena was specifically planned to be renovated and all this flexibility was "planned in" ahead of time, but some foundation designs are inherently more tolerant of additional loading (high-capacity end-bearing piles, etc) and can handle the additional loads without distress.
