Voisin: Arena financing talks revived

[NoBonus]

http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/14276464p-15085854c.html

Arena financing talks revived

Informal discussions lead to meeting Tuesday in Las Vegas

By Ailene Voisin -- Bee Sports Columnist
Published 12:01 am PDT Monday, July 10, 2006

Two weeks after intense negotiations on a private/public financing plan for a new Sacramento arena collapsed in frustration, talks have been resurrected.

Representatives of the Kings, the city of Sacramento and Sacramento County, along with officials from the NBA, are scheduled to meet Tuesday in a last-second effort to reach agreement and secure a ballot measure in time for the November election.
The most recent proposal would require voter approval for an increase in Sacramento County's sales tax. The revenue would help pay for a sports/entertainment complex to replace 18-year-old Arco Arena, along with other community projects for cities within the county.
Though the participants remain divided on some fundamental issues -- foremost among them the cost of construction and the percentage of public and private contributions -- ongoing informal talks prompted a renewed, if tempered, sense of optimism and led to the upcoming meeting at the Palms in Las Vegas.
"We've got a chance now," Sacramento Vice Mayor Rob Fong said Sunday, "and we're not walking out of that room until we have something we can take to the voters.
"We all know what the deal is. Everyone recognizes how important the Kings are to our community, and in our recent conversations with the league, we made it very clear that Sacramento is committed to remaining an NBA city."
Since talks were suspended June 29, with the parties splitting amicably but dispersing nonetheless, the following has occurred:
• A group consisting of Fong, Assistant City Manager John Dangberg and county economic development director Paul Hahn flew to New York last Thursday and asked NBA executives to intervene. (County Supervisor Roger Dickinson participated via speaker phone). NBA Commissioner David Stern, who is overseas on vacation and unable to attend, monitored developments and directed league attorneys Harvey Benjamin and possibly Joel Litvin to participate in Tuesday's gathering at the Palms.
• Fong, Dangberg and Hahn flew to Memphis on Friday and toured the FedEx Forum, the Grizzlies' home court that is serving as the model for a Sacramento-area building. And this sticker shock provides the jolt: Completed in 2004, before the cost of materials and construction skyrocketed -- and disregarding the significantly higher prices in the western United States -- the 18,119-seat Memphis facility was financed for approximately $250 million, well below the Maloofs' projections for a similar Sacramento structure.
• Joe and Gavin Maloof, co-owners of the Kings and Monarchs, initiated Tuesday's session and suggested they be held in Las Vegas to ensure the presence of George Maloof, the younger brother and brainchild of the family's hotel-casino operation. The other Kings officials expected to attend are team President John Thomas and former Assemblyman Darrell Steinberg, who has been hired by the organization on a short-term basis. The city/county interests will be represented by Fong, Dangberg, Hahn and arena and stadium consultant Dan Barrett.
In order to qualify for the November ballot, the proposal has to be approved by county supervisors and the ballot language submitted in early August. If the parties don't reach agreement in this time frame, they will have to wait until 2008 before they can place a financing proposal before voters.
"Sacramento is a big city," said Joe Maloof, contacted Sunday in Las Vegas, "and regardless of who owns the team, it needs a new arena. We all have be realistic and find a way.
"It's not just about the Kings and the Monarchs. You're talking about concerts and other events, and having to compete with cities all over the country that have modern facilities and great sound systems and other physical amenities. That's what we're dealing with here. And the longer we wait, the higher constructions cost will go. Copper, steel, they're already astronomical. We just can't wait another two years (for 2008 ballot)."
More quietly, he added, "but I'm more optimistic than I was the other day. Let's just get an agreement and let the people vote on it. We're not trying to hide anything. Once we get this on the ballot, we'll explain everything. People have to trust us."
"They have to look at how we run our business. Ever since we came to Sacramento, we've put a great product on the court. But after all these years of back and forth, we've got to get something done. It's time."

About the writer:

• Reach Ailene Voisin at (916) 321-1208 or avoisin@sacbee.com. Back columns: www.sacbee.com/voisin.

 

[Warhawk]

Good to hear. Sounds like the City and County may finally be seriously thinking about the cost to build a new, needed arena WITHOUT help from the Maloofs and don't like what they see. I hope they can finally hash something out.

 

[NewMonkey]

And here's the bottom line:
And the longer we wait, the higher constructions cost will go. Copper, steel, they're already astronomical. We just can't wait another two years (for 2008 ballot)."

 

[DocHolliday]

It's great to here that they are talking again and that NBA officials will be involved.

They can't compare the $250 Million dollar arena in Memphis, TN to the building and permitting costs in California though. That's absurd.

 

[kennadog]

It's great to here that they are talking again and that NBA officials will be involved.

They can't compare the $250 Million dollar arena in Memphis, TN to the building and permitting costs in California though. That's absurd.

I think that's why they said "sticker shock." The Sacramento reps know that was an arena completed 2 years ago in a much cheaper market.

Heck, the "remodeling" of the Madison Square Gardens in 1991 cost $200 million.

 

[kennadog]

Well it might turn out "great," but I'm not holding my breathe that the voters will approve a sales tax increase. A no vote likely would be the end then.

 

[G_M]

Well it might turn out "great," but I'm not holding my breathe that the voters will approve a sales tax increase. A no vote likely would be the end then.

I've followed this for a long time and I'm hoping they are working on something more creative than a generic tax increase. As others have pointed out it (TAX INCREASE) simply is NOT going to pass in this area.

Unfortunatley, the entire debate is framed as subsidzing an arena for BILLIONAIRE owners. The Bee just recently stoped referring to them, except for Graswich who still uses the term, as BILLIONAIRE owners. The PR has been horrible and mostly non-existant.

I hope I'm wrong but I think it has to be private or something way outside the box.

 

[BigWaxer]

I am very glad the talks are back on. Seems like some positive/encouraging news. Lets cross our fingers!

 

[VF21]

I'm cautiously optimistic because it seems they're serious about getting everyone, including the NBA, involved. I also, shockingly, was very pleased to see Ailene Voisin, who at least recognizes the Maloofs on sight, write the article and not one of the fledgling reporters who have been doing some of this stuff.

If they do come out with any kind of proposal, I'm sure going to do whatever I can to help promote and explain it.

This sounds hopeful for both the Kings and the city I will always call home, regardless of where I actually live.

 

[Arena Skeptic]

Frankly, when Joe Maloof says things like "People have to trust us" and "Once we get this on the ballot, we'll explain everything," they don't really need the Bee to generate bad publicity. They're doing just fine on their own.

I don't have to trust Joe Maloof. I just don't. You can't make me. And after Robert Fong's CASA debacle, well, I don't have to trust him, either. Robert has no accounting skills, obviously, so if you tell me I HAVE to trust him, do your research before saying that.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: If any measure put before us voters does not say the Maloofs have to pay for 30% of it, plus cost overruns, plus pay off the existing loan, then I cannot vote for it. I don't think that's an unreasonable stance at all.

Just a quick thought: I think it's dead if the Maloofs don't pay for at least 40% of it (my tolerance is 30% or more). The voters will reject it if it doesn't, ESPECIALLY out in rural Sacramento County, where very conservative voters want tax cuts, not tax hikes. So while it's good to see them talking, you have to remember that politicians who want to be re-elected are negotiating this.

How in the world does your average Courtland resident benefit from this? And, remember: There may be fewer of "them" than "us", but the conservative and liberal voters out there will reject any involvement by a good 10-1 margin, AND they vote in much higher percentages.

 

[BMiller52]

Frankly, when Joe Maloof says things like "People have to trust us" and "Once we get this on the ballot, we'll explain everything," they don't really need the Bee to generate bad publicity. They're doing just fine on their own.

I don't have to trust Joe Maloof. I just don't. You can't make me. And after Robert Fong's CASA debacle, well, I don't have to trust him, either. Robert has no accounting skills, obviously, so if you tell me I HAVE to trust him, do your research before saying that.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: If any measure put before us voters does not say the Maloofs have to pay for 30% of it, plus cost overruns, plus pay off the existing loan, then I cannot vote for it. I don't think that's an unreasonable stance at all.

Just a quick thought: I think it's dead if the Maloofs don't pay for at least 40% of it (my tolerance is 30% or more). The voters will reject it if it doesn't, ESPECIALLY out in rural Sacramento County, where very conservative voters want tax cuts, not tax hikes. So while it's good to see them talking, you have to remember that politicians who want to be re-elected are negotiating this.

How in the world does your average Courtland resident benefit from this? And, remember: There may be fewer of "them" than "us", but the conservative and liberal voters out there will reject any involvement by a good 10-1 margin, AND they vote in much higher percentages.

And if all that happens will you vote for it?

 

[Warhawk]

Frankly, when Joe Maloof says things like "People have to trust us" and "Once we get this on the ballot, we'll explain everything," they don't really need the Bee to generate bad publicity. They're doing just fine on their own.

I don't have to trust Joe Maloof. I just don't. You can't make me. And after Robert Fong's CASA debacle, well, I don't have to trust him, either. Robert has no accounting skills, obviously, so if you tell me I HAVE to trust him, do your research before saying that.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: If any measure put before us voters does not say the Maloofs have to pay for 30% of it, plus cost overruns, plus pay off the existing loan, then I cannot vote for it. I don't think that's an unreasonable stance at all.

Just a quick thought: I think it's dead if the Maloofs don't pay for at least 40% of it (my tolerance is 30% or more). The voters will reject it if it doesn't, ESPECIALLY out in rural Sacramento County, where very conservative voters want tax cuts, not tax hikes. So while it's good to see them talking, you have to remember that politicians who want to be re-elected are negotiating this.

How in the world does your average Courtland resident benefit from this? And, remember: There may be fewer of "them" than "us", but the conservative and liberal voters out there will reject any involvement by a good 10-1 margin, AND they vote in much higher percentages.

I don't see how you have such a negative view of all this, especially with no information to go on.

When he says to trust them, to me it means don't bash the proposal until you've heard it, because whatever they come up with will be negotiated with the city and county and have the Maloofs paying their fair share.

An arbitrary value of 30% established with no information on the negotiations or costs or risk allocation is just plain silly. Until we see what the proposal is, how can you determine if it is fair or not? How do we know who will own the arena, who will make the profit, what the lease terms will be, who gets parking proceeds, where the rest of the money raised will go after the arena is built, etc, etc.? Your "line in the sand" mentality is nothing but negativity and counterproductive to getting an arena deal done. Negotiating in bad faith gets you nowhere and leaves you with no arena whatsoever. I'm sure you'd consider that a much better option, right?

Your average Courtland resident will want to attend events like concerts, Kings games, circuses, monster truck rallies, regional sport championship matches, etc, as much as your resident of any other city or town.

 

[VF21]

Frankly, when Joe Maloof says things like "People have to trust us" and "Once we get this on the ballot, we'll explain everything," they don't really need the Bee to generate bad publicity. They're doing just fine on their own.

I don't have to trust Joe Maloof. I just don't. You can't make me. And after Robert Fong's CASA debacle, well, I don't have to trust him, either. Robert has no accounting skills, obviously, so if you tell me I HAVE to trust him, do your research before saying that.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: If any measure put before us voters does not say the Maloofs have to pay for 30% of it, plus cost overruns, plus pay off the existing loan, then I cannot vote for it. I don't think that's an unreasonable stance at all.

Just a quick thought: I think it's dead if the Maloofs don't pay for at least 40% of it (my tolerance is 30% or more). The voters will reject it if it doesn't, ESPECIALLY out in rural Sacramento County, where very conservative voters want tax cuts, not tax hikes. So while it's good to see them talking, you have to remember that politicians who want to be re-elected are negotiating this.

How in the world does your average Courtland resident benefit from this? And, remember: There may be fewer of "them" than "us", but the conservative and liberal voters out there will reject any involvement by a good 10-1 margin, AND they vote in much higher percentages.

No one proposal will ever please everyone.

I find the idea that you have a cast-in-stone figure which you use to determine whether or not you would vote for something to be pretty close minded, especially since NONE of the details have actually been released yet. And, for the record, the Maloofs HAVE (time and time again) indicated they do want to pay for a portion of the structure.

Houston and San Antonio faced the same hurdles and enough of their citizens, thankfully, were able to be logical about the whole thing and voted their approval.

If you cannot be even slightly encouraged by this latest news, then I have to wonder if it's more because it's not what you would prefer and so you're just not going to give it any chance whatsoever.

All anyone right now is asking is that you keep an open mind until the details are released. Is that too much to ask?

 

[BigWaxer]

I have been vocal in being personally against a general sales tax only, but like War said we have no idea what the plan is or will be, so your post is all speculation Arena...

 

[kupman]

I don't see how you have such a negative view of all this, especially with no information to go on.

.....I think he works for the Bee.

 

[thelonegunman]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: If any measure put before us voters does not say the Maloofs have to pay for 30% of it, plus cost overruns, plus pay off the existing loan, then I cannot vote for it. I don't think that's an unreasonable stance at all.

Just a quick thought: I think it's dead if the Maloofs don't pay for at least 40% of it (my tolerance is 30% or more).

[FONT=&quot]It's ignorance like this that really pisses me off.

Please explain to me why the Maloofs should be responsible to pay ANYTHING towards a new arena? Why should THEY have to foot the bill for this City's entertainment? Is it because they happen to be the richest guys in town?

It's an arena for an entire community, not solely for a basketball team that will only occupy the facility for 11% of an entire calendar year.

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Do you also expect [/FONT]Barnum & Bailey[FONT=&quot], [/FONT]Ringling Bros, [FONT=&quot]Disney On Ice, John Hancock Presents, and every concert act that comes to town to pay a percentage of the cost for the new arena too?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
If the Kings franchise leaves town 10-years from now, the community will still have the facility. That's NOT the case with the current ARCO Arena, which is privately owned. If the Maloofs leave town now, the Arena will likely be leveled and the land sold to help pay off the remaining debt owed to the City of Sacramento.

What are you left with then?

A community without any type of Sports/Entertainment facility in which to host a myriad of events.

What happens then?

The masses finally realize, two or three years down the road, that they need a state-of-the-art facility to bring top-notch entertainment back to the Capital City.

Then what?

The community ends up paying the entire cost for a brand new arena and at a much higher price than it would have cost them several years earlier.

What's the end result?

You now have a state-of-the-art facility (cost likely exceeding 500M) that will attract a myriad of top notch events/concerts but is void of a professional sports franchise that can occupy the facility for over 40 dates a year AND you had to front 100% of the costs to build it.

So let's weight the options .....

Option A:

Finance an arena right now for around 300-400 Million. As a result, you'll get to keep your existing (and only) professional sports franchise in town, attract marquee entertainment events that have recently been skipping town for greener pastures, and hey ... the owners of the Sacramento Kings will even kick in a few million dollars to help with the project.

OR

Option B:

Refuse to finance an arena for the foreseeable future. As a result, you'll get to see your only professional sports franchise join the ranks of the other marquee events that are currently skipping your town for greener pastures. Next, you'll realize what a bored idiot you are and pony up whatever it takes to finally breathe some life back into your dead city. All told, you'll end up financing 100-200 Million dollars more than you should have had to AND you'll be hoping the LA Clippers move to town or the NBA grants you a crappy expansion team.

What option are you gonna choose?[/FONT]

 

[Fresno King]

Here's an example of what a brand new arena can do for a community.

Fresno State's Save Mart Center opened in 2003. It was privately financed for $103 million and seats 16,116 for basketball. The following people wouldn't have come to Fresno if it wasn't for our new arena:

Andrea Bocelli
Britney Spears
Madonna
Elton John
Dave Chappelle
Aerosmith
The Rolling Stones
The Black Eyed Peas
Kings vs. Lakers (NBA preseason)

You mean to tell me Fresno's getting these people to come here and Sacramento isn't? (excluding the Kings and Lakers, of course).

I know taxpayers will have to foot some of the bill for a new arena in Sac, but my point is you can't have marquee names come to town without a first-class facility. I would hate to see Sacramento lose the Kings and miss out on quality entertainment because an agreement to build a new facility couldn't be reached. I agree that the Maloofs should help pay for it, but they should also get a piece of the entertainment pie if that happens. I'm sure they have long-term plans of getting their entertainment side of their business beefed up to help bring the big names to Sacramento... IF a new arena is built. And the Maloofs do great things for the community. I think they've earned our trust.

Bottom line: Sacramento, not just the Kings, needs a new arena. Everyone out there deserves one... at the right price.

If Fresno has one... you should too!

 

[Arena Skeptic]

The reason the Maloofs must pay for at least 30% of it are many:

1) The voters will reject it if they don't. Just look at the polls.

2) Because Kings games are responsible for at least 30% of the revenues at the current arena.

The problem with the negotiating team they sent (Fong for the City, Steinberg for the Maloofs and Dickenson for the County) is that all three of these players are completely interchangable. I've met all three of these people (Fong I met at Cal Junior High in about 1973, Dickenson I've talked to for about 12 seconds, and Steinberg a lot, since our sons played soccer together), and from what I can tell, politically, all three are on the same (very liberal) page. Likewise, I am a Clinton Democrat (and proud of it).

What they need as part of the negotiation team is someone who, if not an actual opponent, can at least TRY to be a Devil's Advocate, and in that, I am very surprised at the reactions I'm getting here.

I'm just trying to tell you all like it is: If the Maloofs don't agree to pay for at least 30% of the facility, polls show us this could easily fail by a margin of 3 or 4 to 1. Don't you at least want someone to PRETEND to show you what the objections are?

I'm not pretending, of course. I'm saying, 30%, or I vote no. Frankly, at 30%, around here, I think you're looking at losing HUGE. So deal with it.

Fong, Steinberg and Dickenson are very, very likely to come back with a plan where the taxpayers foot the entire bill, and you folks are not going to believe by how large a margin that will lose. Judging by the reaction here, I can tell folks are having a hard time living in the "real world", where our cars aren't all purple and the big-screen TV can't possibly be on "some other TV station", or where folks listen to something other than Napear or Carmichael Dave from time to time. Kingsfans does NOT represent a cross-section of Sacramento County opinion. You need to open your eyes to the larger community.

The one where people like me WOULD vote for a sales tax hike if it went entirely to transportation projects.

I ask, simply: What would motivate the average John Q Republican in Fair Oaks to vote for this? The guy who, like me, has seen his City utility bills go from $30 in 1992 to $90 today, and is now asking, "Why should I send more?". The guy who, like me, avoids ice shows like the plague.

And I've been to Monarchs games.

About that...

If the owners (County?) charged the same rent for all events, the Maloofs would fold the Monarchs. I say that because the revenues raised at a Monarchs game would pay neither the rent nor the salaries, much less both.

 

[VF21]

The reason the Maloofs must pay for at least 30% of it are many:

1) The voters will reject it if they don't. Just look at the polls.

2) Because Kings games are responsible for at least 30% of the revenues at the current arena.

The problem with the negotiating team they sent (Fong for the City, Steinberg for the Maloofs and Dickenson for the County) is that all three of these players are completely interchangable. I've met all three of these people (Fong I met at Cal Junior High in about 1973, Dickenson I've talked to for about 12 seconds, and Steinberg a lot, since our sons played soccer together), and from what I can tell, politically, all three are on the same (very liberal) page. Likewise, I am a Clinton Democrat (and proud of it).

What they need as part of the negotiation team is someone who, if not an actual opponent, can at least TRY to be a Devil's Advocate, and in that, I am very surprised at the reactions I'm getting here.

I'm just trying to tell you all like it is: If the Maloofs don't agree to pay for at least 30% of the facility, polls show us this could easily fail by a margin of 3 or 4 to 1. Don't you at least want someone to PRETEND to show you what the objections are?

I'm not pretending, of course. I'm saying, 30%, or I vote no. Frankly, at 30%, around here, I think you're looking at losing HUGE. So deal with it.

Fong, Steinberg and Dickenson are very, very likely to come back with a plan where the taxpayers foot the entire bill, and you folks are not going to believe by how large a margin that will lose. Judging by the reaction here, I can tell folks are having a hard time living in the "real world", where our cars aren't all purple and the big-screen TV can't possibly be on "some other TV station", or where folks listen to something other than Napear or Carmichael Dave from time to time. Kingsfans does NOT represent a cross-section of Sacramento County opinion. You need to open your eyes to the larger community.

The one where people like me WOULD vote for a sales tax hike if it went entirely to transportation projects.

I ask, simply: What would motivate the average John Q Republican in Fair Oaks to vote for this? The guy who, like me, has seen his City utility bills go from $30 in 1992 to $90 today, and is now asking, "Why should I send more?". The guy who, like me, avoids ice shows like the plague.

And I've been to Monarchs games.

About that...

If the owners (County?) charged the same rent for all events, the Maloofs would fold the Monarchs. I say that because the revenues raised at a Monarchs game would pay neither the rent nor the salaries, much less both.

We get it, Arena Skeptic. We just don't agree with you.

This is about an arena. It's not about transportation projects. It's not about other problems Sacramento may be facing.

You've made your point perfectly clear. And for the record? We here at Kingsfans are not attempting to represent a cross-section of Sacramento County opinion. We're - brace yourself - KINGS FANS, first and foremost. Since I've seen NOTHING from you about the team and only your negativity about the arena, I suspect you are not a Kings fan, or - if so - only a casual one. That's fine, but YOU need to open your eyes to the name of this board.

And you are entirely WRONG about the Maloofs once again. They have NEVER said they wanted to taxpayers to foot the entire bill for a new arena. NOT ONCE. I dare you to find something that says that.

You've made your point repeatedly. Thank you. You can quit looking down your nose now at those of us who actually enjoy our Kings (and the Monarchs) and want them to stay.

I'm trying to remain respectful even though it's become very clear you have no respect for anyone's opinion but your own.

Have a nice day.

 

[G_M]

Don't you at least want someone to PRETEND to show you what the objections are?

I think I have fairly good grasp on the objections. I would simply add this. Let's say no deal is in place and the Kings leave in 2008. To fulfill their obligation to the city and payoff the balance on their loan the Maloofs demolish the existing Arco Arena and sell the land for development using part of the profit to repay the loan.

Or, even if Arco is not demoslished that soon it will not last because it was built cheap and is falling apart. Additionally, even now there are groups and events that bypass Arco because it is not a 1st class facility, it has poor acoustics and is not centrally located.

So the Kings leave and now what? The issue is does the city, county and greater Sacramento area want a 1st class facilty for concerts, events, convenstions etc...If the answer is YES then who pays for it since the Maloofs and their share, whatever it may be is gone.

 

[JB_kings]

The problem is that the skeptics are looking at the small picture and there's just a whole lot more at stake. What thelonegunman stated above is right on the money. If you think your wallet is going to take a hit on a new arena, just wait until you have to build one to try and get a team to move here.

 

[kupman]

GM and "thelonegunman," have pretty much outlined the future of entertainment and arenas in Sac. if a deal does not get done and the Kings leave. It is good future oriented thinking. I wish the arena skeptic could also offer some future oriented thinking. All I read from this guy is "how it will never work." Please, offer me some kind of alternative other than no new arena, no more Arco, no more Kings, no more concerts. Do you have any ideas for the future of Sac?

 

[kennadog]

So the Kings leave and now what? The issue is does the city, county and greater Sacramento area want a 1st class facilty for concerts, events, convenstions etc...If the answer is YES then who pays for it since the Maloofs and their share, whatever it may be is gone.

Exactly, if we want such a sports/entertainment venue, regardless of a pro sports team, if the Maloofs leave, it would HAVE to be 100% public funds. We would have just thrown away the money the Maloofs would have paid toward building an arena.

BTW Arena Skeptic:

Of course I am a Kings fan. However, even if I knew the Kings were leaving Sacramento tomorrow, I would still want a new sports/entertainment venue here. And I say this as a resident of the Sacramento region since 1967.

So my opinion in this matter is not solely based on being a fan of the Kings. As a matter of fact I'd say my fandom is less important to how I feel about this issue than my long time residency and love of this area.

Of course I know that people here in kingsfans are not a "cross-section" of the general populace. Pardon me, but duh. I express my support here on this board as only one way to put my opinion as a resident out there and this is a place where I can express the Kings fan side of my feelings.

If you will look at studies of comparable arenas (6) built recently per the city study, the public contribution ranged from 75%-85%. Expecting 30% just is not going to work.

So let's say by the time the arena gets built (cost goes up daily) it costs $500 million. Let's say the Maloofs provide 20% or $100 million. If we do vote no, then we are just throwing away $100 million dollar investment in our city and would have to pay the whole thing publicly, if we still want such a venue.

If someone said they pay 20% of the cost of a new car for you, would you say no I'd rather pay the whole 100% myself?

 

[Prophetess]

I ask, simply: What would motivate the average John Q Republican in Fair Oaks to vote for this? The guy who, like me, has seen his City utility bills go from $30 in 1992 to $90 today, and is now asking, "Why should I send more?". The guy who, like me, avoids ice shows like the plague.

I asked, he said yes.

I, having lived in Fair Oaks and now in Rancho, would gladly pay to get better concerts here in Sac instead of having to travel to S.F., Fresno or to the outdoor ampitheatre(name escapes me at the moment). The last concert I went to was Rush at said ampitheatre. They haven't had any that would come to Arco that would interest me. There's at least 5 on Fresno Kings list that I would have gone to if I didn't have to travel to another town.

I have to say the potential revenue for the town in new business, tourism, etc to me is worth it.

 

[Wert]

And for the record? We here at Kingsfans are not attempting to represent a cross-section of Sacramento County opinion. We're - brace yourself - KINGS FANS, first and foremost.

This is from a person who always says "It's not just about the Kings!" The self same person who is affiliated with a site entitled saveourkings.com ? I guess it's nice that those rose colored glasses let you have it both ways eh?

If one is going to ask all of Sacramento county to support a new arena, don't you think common sense would suggest that taking an insular "real fans only" view is kind of short sighted and not necessarily reflective of reality?

Since I've seen NOTHING from you about the team and only your negativity about the arena, I suspect you are not a Kings fan, or - if so - only a casual one.

It's quite possible to be a Kings fan and not be a fan of certain plans to finance a new arena. For the record there are many serious Kings fans who do not live here and will not have to be taxed for a new arena. I consider myself a "real" kings fan because I've been willing to pay to see live games, followed them rabidly for many years, and so on. I was a serious fan for years before I even came to live in the Sacramento area, so I guess I know what it's like to be a Kings fan who lives elsewhere. (It's fine!) But you know what? If they move to another city, that won't change. It's nice to have them here locally, but it's not going to make me any less of a fan if they decide to go to another city. I feel sorry for those who can't be a fan of a sports team unless it's local.

That's fine, but YOU need to open your eyes to the name of this board.

Yes, I've come to the conclusion that any discussion here will pretend to be about benefiting the community at large while in actuality being primarily all about the Kings. Nice to see it spelled out so bluntly even though you (and others) try to spin it otherwise (ie "It's not just about the Kings!"). Meh.

And you are entirely WRONG about the Maloofs once again. They have NEVER said they wanted to taxpayers to foot the entire bill for a new arena. NOT ONCE. I dare you to find something that says that.

Polls have shown the taxpayers would aren't too keen on paying that much for a new arena from public funds. A clear majority (54%) prefers the arena to be financed with purely private funds. 34% support a mix of public/private funds, yet I have no doubt that number would fall if it comes out that that the Maloofs end up wanting to contribute a very small fraction of the total costs.

It's seems particularly odd to cover one's ears and think "neener neener neener, polls don't count, the taxpayers need this and are just too dumb to know it!" while a seemingly well run poll says just the opposite.

Remember when the Maloofs stormed out of that meeting when a cap was brought up? I'm not convinced that they want to be pinned down for any real percentage of the cost. I'm betting that even the smallest contribution from them will come with a demand for a substantial cut of the other (i.e. non kings) entertainment revenue and potentially a requirement that their loan be excused.

You've made your point repeatedly. Thank you. You can quit looking down your nose now at those of us who actually enjoy our Kings (and the Monarchs) and want them to stay.

Disagreeing isn't "looking down one's nose". You need to grow a thicker skin if you want honest discourse here. I mean it's cool to drink the kool-aid and take a "fans first" approach if that's what one wishes, but I'm not sure that it's nice to mix up big batches of that same kool-aid and expect other thinking folks to imbibe it without thought.

It's amusing (and sort of pathetic) that anyone who doesn't join the herd attitude here (be it the Sac bee or just Sac Taxpayers), is automatically labelled "ignorant", have their motivations questioned in some way, or are denigrated as not being "real" kings fans.

I'm actually quite happy that it remains a possibility that there might be on the ballot this November. I'm more than happy to let the taxpayers have the final say.

I'm trying to remain respectful ...

You've failed.

Now I'll wait the few minutes it takes VF21 to either censor or delete this post as she has in the past.

Let the cheerleading continue....

 

[VF21]

This is from a person who always says "It's not just about the Kings!" The self same person who is affiliated with a site entitled saveourkings.com ? I guess it's nice that those rose colored glasses let you have it both ways eh?

If one is going to ask all of Sacramento county to support a new arena, don't you think common sense would suggest that taking an insular "real fans only" view is kind of short sighted and not necessarily reflective of reality?

It's quite possible to be a Kings fan and not be a fan of certain plans to finance a new arena. For the record there are many serious Kings fans who do not live here and will not have to be taxed for a new arena. I consider myself a "real" kings fan because I've been willing to pay to see live games, followed them rabidly for many years, and so on. I was a serious fan for years before I even came to live in the Sacramento area, so I guess I know what it's like to be a Kings fan who lives elsewhere. (It's fine!) But you know what? If they move to another city, that won't change. It's nice to have them here locally, but it's not going to make me any less of a fan if they decide to go to another city. I feel sorry for those who can't be a fan of a sports team unless it's local.

Yes, I've come to the conclusion that any discussion here will pretend to be about benefiting the community at large while in actuality being primarily all about the Kings. Nice to see it spelled out so bluntly even though you (and others) try to spin it otherwise (ie "It's not just about the Kings!"). Meh.

Polls have shown the taxpayers would aren't too keen on paying that much for a new arena from public funds. A clear majority (54%) prefers the arena to be financed with purely private funds. 34% support a mix of public/private funds, yet I have no doubt that number would fall if it comes out that that the Maloofs end up wanting to contribute a very small fraction of the total costs.

It's seems particularly odd to cover one's ears and think "neener neener neener, polls don't count, the taxpayers need this and are just too dumb to know it!" while a seemingly well run poll says just the opposite.

Remember when the Maloofs stormed out of that meeting when a cap was brought up? I'm not convinced that they want to be pinned down for any real percentage of the cost. I'm betting that even the smallest contribution from them will come with a demand for a substantial cut of the other (i.e. non kings) entertainment revenue and potentially a requirement that their loan be excused.

Disagreeing isn't "looking down one's nose". You need to grow a thicker skin if you want honest discourse here. I mean it's cool to drink the kool-aid and take a "fans first" approach if that's what one wishes, but I'm not sure that it's nice to mix up big batches of that same kool-aid and expect other thinking folks to imbibe it without thought.

It's amusing (and sort of pathetic) that anyone who doesn't join the herd attitude here (be it the Sac bee or just Sac Taxpayers), is automatically labelled "ignorant", have their motivations questioned in some way, or or denigrated as not being "real" kings fans.

I'm actually quite happy that it remains a possibility that there might be on the ballot this November. I'm more than happy to let the taxpayers have the final say.

You've failed.

Now I'll wait the few minutes it takes VF21 to either censor or delete this post as she has in the past.

Let the cheerleading continue....

Wert - My comments were addressed to Arena Skeptic, who has not ever posted anything except in the ARENA forum. I was not addressing you, but I won't expect you to let that get in your way of attacking my point of view.

You can come to any conclusions you wish. If trying to tear down my posts makes you feel better, go right ahead.

Have a nice evening.

 

[Wert]

Wert - My comments were addressed to Arena Skeptic, who has not ever posted anything except in the ARENA forum. I was not addressing you, but I won't expect you to let that get in your way of attacking my point of view.

Ah, so your comments are simply off limits since I'm not the one you were addressing.

Gotcha.

Pretty transparent way to avoid actually addressing some of the points made.

You can come to any conclusions you wish. If trying to tear down my posts makes you feel better, go right ahead.

I realize that some have emotionally invested in "saving our Kings!", but that shouldn't mean we have to take honest discourse or rational thought off the table.

Thanks for not deleting my post though. I enjoy the thought of people coming here being able to see some actual debate rather than just a cheerleading session. (though it seems cheerleading is what the mods here would prefer).

Here's hoping that we get a chance to vote on this in the fall. I'm quite interested to see what proposal comes out of today's meeting and how they intend to sell it to the public.

 

[VF21]

Okay, I'll try to explain it very simply.

1. You have been a member of a Kings message board since October 2004.

2. During that time you have at least shown an interest in the team and the personnel.

3. Arena Skeptic, on the other hand, recently joined.

4. Arena Skeptic has not been active in ANY other discussion.

5. This board is KINGSFANS.com It is a place where Kings fans come to discuss all the various topics pertaining to their favorite team.

6. I may not agree with any of your stances about the arena but I respect you more for being a Kings fan when you make them.

7. I have no idea what Arena Skeptic's intentions are since he is only here arguing against an arena.

8. Yes, I'm emotionally vested in saving the Kings. I have NEVER said otherwise.

9. I'm also vested in seeing Sacramento retain a venue for sporting events, concerts, etc. because I firmly believe there is a real and significant need for such a place.

10. Items 8 and 9 are NOT mutually exclusive.

11. If you look at the explanation of the New Arena forum, there is a basic concept posited. It says, and I quote... "Sacramento needs a new arena!!!!" That is the basic premise upon which the particular forum was created. And I didn't do that. Jeremy - the BOARD OWNER - did.

Any questions?

 

[kennadog]

Polls have shown the taxpayers would aren't too keen on paying that much for a new arena from public funds. A clear majority (54%) prefers the arena to be financed with purely private funds. 34% support a mix of public/private funds, yet I have no doubt that number would fall if it comes out that that the Maloofs end up wanting to contribute a very small fraction of the total costs.

Personally, I read the questions in the poll. Polls are entirely dependent upon how they are worded. You can almost predetermine a certain outcome. I probably would have said no based on the way some of the questions were worded.

Remember when the Maloofs stormed out of that meeting when a cap was brought up? I'm not convinced that they want to be pinned down for any real percentage of the cost. I'm betting that even the smallest contribution from them will come with a demand for a substantial cut of the other (i.e. non kings) entertainment revenue and potentially a requirement that their loan be excused.

You may believe that, but it is based on zero information or fact. Also, the cap was not on the Maloofs percentage, it was on total arena price, which was wildy unrealistic, unless we built another really cheap venue (why bother?). I do know that the Maloofs have always said they will pay off the current debt, altho I suspect they will want to roll it into the new funding structure, like a house refinance.

Disagreeing isn't "looking down one's nose". You need to grow a thicker skin if you want honest discourse here. I mean it's cool to drink the kool-aid and take a "fans first" approach if that's what one wishes, but I'm not sure that it's nice to mix up big batches of that same kool-aid and expect other thinking folks to imbibe it without thought.

This isn't "looking down one's nose" dismissively? Don't think that all people who don't agree with your perception and feelings are unthinking and "drinking kool-aid". You've dismissed my views, because you're positive I'm driven by Kings fandom. It is possible to be a Kings fan AND want a sports/entertainment venue for the region, with or without the Kings,

I'm actually quite happy that it remains a possibility that there might be on the ballot this November. I'm more than happy to let the taxpayers have the final say.

I'll be happy if everyone is able to get up from the table with some kind of reasonable proposal. I'm for a sports/entertainment venue whether the Kings are here or not. If the arena deal gets voted down and Arco is closed with no replacement, I'll be saddened by that.

 

[Wert]

Even though a arena skeptic is a new member here, I think it unfair to assume that a new member is somehow less of a fan or has questionable motivations just because they're not going along with the herd here.

I don't completely agree with all of arena skeptics points either (I favor a mix of public/private financing with the Maloofs paying a fair share. Though I doubt what I consider "fair share" is what the Maloofs would consider "fair share".)

If the concern was equally strong for non Kings entertainment events, I somehow think Jeremy's site (which you seem to strongly support) would have been "saveourArena" or "saveOurEntertainmentEvents" rather than SaveOurKings.com. Pretending that it's equally about non sports events strikes me as disingenuous and not convincing at all.

You are right in that wanting the kings to stay and wanting an arena isn't mutually exclusive. Heck I tend to feel the same way myself, but I disagree with the way I think folks here want it to be financed. And I think it's quite fair (since I am a taxpayer here) to be able to express those concerns without being automatically labelled as "ignorant" and so on just because I have a view that isn't in the majority here. (but does seem to be in the majority of folks in Sacramento County).

But if it doesn't come to pass, I'm not convinced that lack of a sports arena is the end of the world here. Acts will still be available at sleeptrain and other venues, larger events will still be available in san fran, tahoe, reno, etc. (and it amuses me that thousands commute to San Fran every day, but it's somehow an insane thing to have to drive there for a large event).

Since this is a forums for Kingsfans, I'd like to see an acknowledgment that wanting an arena is primarily about keeping the Kings around. Throwing in "It's not just about the Kings" and blathering on about ice capades and circuses as if they're even remotely as important just doesn't cut it.

I doubt many of the proponents here would be fighting nearly as hard if it wasn't keeping the Kings here wasn't involved. If the Kings were out of the picture and the need was only for an entertainment facility, I doubt the "saveourkings.com" site would even exist.

Oh, for those interested, news 10 just had a new poll that shows the older poll numbers still hold.
http://www.news10.net/news/specials/Arena/Arena_poll_071106.htm

News10/Survey USA Poll
(500 adults interviewed, margin of error of +/-4.5 percent)

Do you think the Sacramento Kings basketball team needs a new arena?

40% Yes
55% No
5% Not Sure

If a new arena is built for the Kings, do you think it should be entirely paid for with public money? Entirely paid for with private money? Or a combination of both?

3% All Public Money
50% All Private Money
45% Both
2% Not Sure

How much of the total cost of the arena do you think should be paid for with public money?

16% 10%
24% 20%
22% 30%
9% 40%
24% 50%
1% 60%
1% 70%
0% 80%
0% 90%
2% Not Sure

Do you think the question of whether or not public money should be used to build a new arena for the Kings should? Or should not? Appear on the ballot this fall?

58% Should
39% Should Not
3% Not Sure

Interesting numbers show that only two percent(!) favor public funding of 60% or more for a new arena and that a majority of folks definitely want to vote on the issue.

Of course, I'm sure we'll hear "neener neener, Polls bad! Questions bad! People not know what people really need! Ugh"