http://www.sacbee.com/351/story/42942.html
Critics fry brothers' Carl's Jr. burger commercial, tax plan
By Mary Lynne Vellinga - Bee Staff Writer
Last Updated 12:59 am PDT Friday, October 20, 2006
Katherine Maestas mocks a Carl's Jr. ad featuring the Maloofs as the Hispanic chamber's John Rueda and Marcia Fritz of the Citrus Heights chamber, second from left, watch.
Taking aim at the Maloofs for flaunting their wealth in a new Carl's Jr. commercial, a half-dozen small-business people on Thursday hoisted hamburgers from the fast-food chain to punctuate their opposition to raising sales taxes for a new Kings arena.
They also criticized the city for keeping secret the draft proposals going back and forth between local officials and Kings owners in an effort to finalize an arena deal. In a court brief filed Wednesday, the city reiterated its position that such documents should be kept private.
At Thursday's news conference, Katherine Maestas, who owns a political consulting firm, said the Carl's Jr. commercial -- in which the billionaire Maloof brothers wash down Six Dollar Burgers with a bottle of wine worth nearly $6,000 -- is "like a slap in the face to our community."
The press event was another in a series staged by opponents of the arena plan in the weeks leading up to the Nov. 7 vote on Measures Q and R, which would raise the Sacramento County sales tax by a quarter cent and bless spending up to $600 million on a new sports and entertainment facility and another $600 million on community projects throughout the county.
The business people in attendance Thursday cited the lack of a signed deal between the city, the county and the Maloofs to build an arena as a major reason to vote no, and criticized local governments for keeping draft proposals made in negotiations a secret.
"People are voting (absentee) as we speak without knowing the terms they're voting on," said lawyer John Rueda, a member of the Sacramento Hispanic Chamber of Commerce's political action committee, which opposes the project.
Marcia Fritz, president of the Citrus Heights Chamber of Commerce, said her group opposes Q and R because it would create a situation in which the sales tax charged for goods in Citrus Heights would be three-quarters of a penny higher than in neighboring Placer County.
Standing on Seventh Street in front of the shuttered Texas Mexican Restaurant, which was recently closed to make way for a planned retail development on the K Street Mall, the news conference participants also criticized the city's overall redevelopment strategy for downtown.
Doug Elmets, a spokesman for the Q&R campaign, called the anti-arena news conference "one more example of a publicity stunt in what has now become a circuslike atmosphere of the no campaign."
He noted that much of Sacramento's business establishment, including the Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, backs Measures Q and R.
"The yes side has so many large and small-business owners, all of whom realize the economic benefit of revitalization of the railyard," he said. "Jobs are going to be created, restaurants are going to be opened, hotels are going to be built."
Elmets defended the city and county's decision not to publicly release draft proposals traded with the Maloofs as the two sides struggle to agree on the terms of an arena deal in the downtown railyard.
After six weeks of speaking only through lawyers, the Maloof brothers met Wednesday with railyard developer Stan Thomas and negotiators for the city and county in a meeting convened by a high-ranking National Basketball Association executive. The meeting produced no agreement, however.
The city on Wednesday filed a response to a lawsuit by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association that seeks to force the release of a draft memorandum of understanding it sent to the Maloofs almost three weeks ago.
A hearing on the matter is scheduled for Oct. 26.
In the city's response, filed in Sacramento Superior Court, lawyers argue that the public interest would not be served by releasing draft documents, and that the Maloofs have "essentially rejected" the city's proposal anyway.
According to the city's response, the latest city proposal was "essentially the same document" as a term sheet previously signed by the Maloofs, the city and the county and released to the public.
About the writer:
Critics fry brothers' Carl's Jr. burger commercial, tax plan
By Mary Lynne Vellinga - Bee Staff Writer
Last Updated 12:59 am PDT Friday, October 20, 2006
Katherine Maestas mocks a Carl's Jr. ad featuring the Maloofs as the Hispanic chamber's John Rueda and Marcia Fritz of the Citrus Heights chamber, second from left, watch.
Taking aim at the Maloofs for flaunting their wealth in a new Carl's Jr. commercial, a half-dozen small-business people on Thursday hoisted hamburgers from the fast-food chain to punctuate their opposition to raising sales taxes for a new Kings arena.
They also criticized the city for keeping secret the draft proposals going back and forth between local officials and Kings owners in an effort to finalize an arena deal. In a court brief filed Wednesday, the city reiterated its position that such documents should be kept private.
At Thursday's news conference, Katherine Maestas, who owns a political consulting firm, said the Carl's Jr. commercial -- in which the billionaire Maloof brothers wash down Six Dollar Burgers with a bottle of wine worth nearly $6,000 -- is "like a slap in the face to our community."
The press event was another in a series staged by opponents of the arena plan in the weeks leading up to the Nov. 7 vote on Measures Q and R, which would raise the Sacramento County sales tax by a quarter cent and bless spending up to $600 million on a new sports and entertainment facility and another $600 million on community projects throughout the county.
The business people in attendance Thursday cited the lack of a signed deal between the city, the county and the Maloofs to build an arena as a major reason to vote no, and criticized local governments for keeping draft proposals made in negotiations a secret.
"People are voting (absentee) as we speak without knowing the terms they're voting on," said lawyer John Rueda, a member of the Sacramento Hispanic Chamber of Commerce's political action committee, which opposes the project.
Marcia Fritz, president of the Citrus Heights Chamber of Commerce, said her group opposes Q and R because it would create a situation in which the sales tax charged for goods in Citrus Heights would be three-quarters of a penny higher than in neighboring Placer County.
Standing on Seventh Street in front of the shuttered Texas Mexican Restaurant, which was recently closed to make way for a planned retail development on the K Street Mall, the news conference participants also criticized the city's overall redevelopment strategy for downtown.
Doug Elmets, a spokesman for the Q&R campaign, called the anti-arena news conference "one more example of a publicity stunt in what has now become a circuslike atmosphere of the no campaign."
He noted that much of Sacramento's business establishment, including the Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, backs Measures Q and R.
"The yes side has so many large and small-business owners, all of whom realize the economic benefit of revitalization of the railyard," he said. "Jobs are going to be created, restaurants are going to be opened, hotels are going to be built."
Elmets defended the city and county's decision not to publicly release draft proposals traded with the Maloofs as the two sides struggle to agree on the terms of an arena deal in the downtown railyard.
After six weeks of speaking only through lawyers, the Maloof brothers met Wednesday with railyard developer Stan Thomas and negotiators for the city and county in a meeting convened by a high-ranking National Basketball Association executive. The meeting produced no agreement, however.
The city on Wednesday filed a response to a lawsuit by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association that seeks to force the release of a draft memorandum of understanding it sent to the Maloofs almost three weeks ago.
A hearing on the matter is scheduled for Oct. 26.
In the city's response, filed in Sacramento Superior Court, lawyers argue that the public interest would not be served by releasing draft documents, and that the Maloofs have "essentially rejected" the city's proposal anyway.
According to the city's response, the latest city proposal was "essentially the same document" as a term sheet previously signed by the Maloofs, the city and the county and released to the public.
About the writer:
- The Bee's Mary Lynne Vellinga can be reached at (916) 321-1094 or mlvellinga@sacbee.com.
Last edited by a moderator:
