Voisin: It's really all about the political arena

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
http://www.sacbee.com/100/story/33074.html

Ailene Voisin: It's really all about the political arena
The team's future weighs heavily on the Kings, who open training camp today.
By Ailene Voisin - Bee Sports Columnist
Last Updated 12:19 am PDT Tuesday, October 3, 2006

There are job postings all over the practice facility. At shooting guard. At power forward. In the backup positions. There is also a new head coach and an old arena, and as the Kings embark on the 2006-07 NBA preseason, there is pressure to succeed that is both enormous and unusual.

This is not just another season.

The thorny arena issue -- the upcoming election that includes ballot measures partly designed to help finance a modern facility -- is squeezing members of the organization like a too-tight jersey. Players routinely are asked whether they're coming or going. Executives shelve their scouting reports to attend news conferences. Heck, before conducting his first scrimmage, incoming coach Eric Musselman stepped into the muck at the railyard, lingering in the background during the news conference that no longer matters.

Sports and politics. Owners and politicians. Arenas and taxes and millions in costs.

Kings-Lakers is a lovefest by comparison.

Yet while Geoff Petrie and Musselman attempt to shield their players, urging the Kings to keep their eyes riveted on the 94 feet between the lines, the matter is unavoidable, and the potential for distraction inevitable.

"We've talked about it," Petrie acknowledged during the opening media availability session Monday, "especially the possibility of that happening before the vote. It's omnipresent. It's always going to be a topic of conversation. But we've got a season to play, a team to coach, and the excitement of all that. I don't think it will be a major issue."

And of course it will. The Kings -- and Monarchs -- can lose at the ballot box -- and based on internal and external polling, they undoubtedly will. But they can't get swept. They can't afford the type of lethargic, dispassionate performances that characterized the first half of the 2005-06 season. This is about staying power, about perseverence. The Kings. Their owners. Their city.

These arena deals usually take years to finalize, sometimes requiring exhaustive negotiating sessions, various incarnations and numerous plans submitted to the voters.

In light of recent developments -- and an accord has yet to be finalized -- most critical to the Kings and their owners and the community is this: That the parties reach agreement before the games behind the scenes overshadow the performances on the court. And even more importantly, before civic leaders and local entrepreneurs in some place like Las Vegas beat them to a new building.

"People are always coming up and asking me, 'Do you want to go to Anaheim?' " related Kevin Martin, "and I say, 'No, I want to start and finish my career in Sac.' But this season, there is a little bit more pressure. It would be nice going into Election Day if we're 11-0. That would make everything more exciting."

In fact, these next several weeks will be about invigorating the public, affirming a 21-year bond that started when the Kings moved here in 1985, capitalizing on the momentum that was generated with the midseason acquisition of Ron Artest and remembering why any of this matters.

Remembering the Kings.

Remember the Kings?

Eight consecutive postseasons. The longest sellout streak in the league. Owners who swear -- and again, we can only take them at their word -- that they have no intention of relocating. Owners, nonetheless, who need a new facility to remain competitive with their 29 other colleagues.

Pressure? What pressure? Young Mr. Musselman has no idea what he stepped into. Or perhaps he does. During Monday's gathering, Musselman was as polished as any of the modern sports facilities. Among other things, he mentioned the passionate nature of Kings fans. He insisted the arena dilemma is unrelated to basketball. He chatted candidly about personnel matters, the duel at power forward, the vacancy at shooting guard, the three-point shooting of center Brad Miller.

But he also recalled the days of the San Diego Clippers and how miserable he felt when Donald Sterling relocated the franchise to Los Angeles in 1984.

"A team leaving is kind of a shock," Musselman said. "I was actually a ballboy when (Bill) Walton played there. Nick Weatherspoon. I can go on and on. You just wake up, and it happens. So for all the kids in San Diego, all the basketball fans, it was a shock."

Asked to relate his experiences to the Kings' current predicament, Musselman, whose two young sons live in the Bay Area, added, "Speaking as coach of the Kings, we've got great fans. The sellout streak speaks for itself. We hope that continues. We look forward to playing here for many years. It's a premier place to play."

He wasn't referring to the old barn of a building, but rather to a community that because of its old-school passion and loyalties has long been known as a unique basketball destination. So, now it's time for the young coach and his players to make their own contributions.

No one is asking for handouts. Just energetic and inspired efforts, and when out at the mall or the restaurant, the occasional handshake. Just a reminder of why all this matters.

About the writer: Reach Ailene Voisin at (916) 321-1208 or avoisin@sacbee.com.
 
Ok, biggest problem is that most season ticket holders and people who want these proposals to pass don't live in the Sac County district.

I live here, but the majority of pro-Arena all live outside the area and their enthusiam won't influence the vote one bit unfortunately. The simple fact is that these people can't vote.

It sucks, but I don't see the measures passing.

The people who are pro-arena are mostly residents of El Dorado, Granite Bay and Roseville etc...... meaning that they have more $$$ than than average Sac City voter.

People who don't go to the arena really don't give a crap about the initiative (meaning most Sac residents).

It's sad but true.

Since the big arena proponents have no voice in the matter, I expect that the measures will be shot down, and for that matter not even close.

I hope I'm wrong, but I just don't see it happening.
 
hoops4kings, you are right, this will fail. If the "Yes on Q & R" types had been able to get a campaign together by now to explain to Sac residents WHY they would want a new area, and disspell the lies and misinformation ("Arco Arena is just fine", "This is just public financing for billionaires", "This will kill the poor", "If the Maloofs want an arena so bad, they can build it themselves!" etc), then who knows what could've happened.

It just doesn't seem like there's enough time anymore.
 
Ok, biggest problem is that most season ticket holders and people who want these proposals to pass don't live in the Sac County district.

I live here, but the majority of pro-Arena all live outside the area and their enthusiam won't influence the vote one bit unfortunately. The simple fact is that these people can't vote.

It sucks, but I don't see the measures passing.

The people who are pro-arena are mostly residents of El Dorado, Granite Bay and Roseville etc...... meaning that they have more $$$ than than average Sac City voter.

People who don't go to the arena really don't give a crap about the initiative (meaning most Sac residents).

It's sad but true.

Since the big arena proponents have no voice in the matter, I expect that the measures will be shot down, and for that matter not even close.

I hope I'm wrong, but I just don't see it happening.
Actually, season ticket holder geographic info was in one of the City documents prepared regarding an arena. The vast majority of season ticket holders live in Sacramento County. Don't have time to search for it right now.

EDIT: Found my post in an earlier thread, here's the info. It is old, but doubt its changed drastically.

Location of ARCO Arena Patrons (should say season ticket holders):

Sacramento County - 6,871 (59.9%); Placer County - 1,216 (10.6%); Bay Area - 1,002 (8.7%); San Joaquin County - 493 (4.3%); El Dorado County -372 (3.2%); Yolo County - 306 (2.7%); Sutter County - 108 (0.9%); Yuba County - 28 (0.2%); Other* - 1,067 (9.3%).

*dispersed throughout the remainder of California

Source: Sacramento Kings & Monarchs Season Ticket Holder Data (2001/2002)

http://www.cityofsacramento.org/SED/North_Natomas_Adaptive_Reuse.pdf
 
Last edited:
After reading this data kennadog found, I have to say it'd probably be outright wrong to involve other counties. Almost as many from "Bay Area" as Placer, for Pete's sake. So does that mean we should extend a tax to include SF as well?

("Bay Area" is a bit nebulous. I have to assume most of those are from Contra Costa. But in any case, this doesn't change my point a bit. I mean, shoot, I bet the Warriors have a few fans in Yolo and Sacramento counties, too, so should we be taxed for Oakland Arena improvements? I don't think so.)

Unfortunately, from these numbers, I'd have to say that a multi-county effort involving Yolo, El Dorado, Sacramento and Sutter counties would result in an even larger loss at the ballot box. Remember, if you're going to take money from Yolo, there has to be something in it for Yolo. You can't just say, "You got access to a great venue!". Doesn't work. They'd need PROFITS from that venue, not just ACCESS to it.

Most telling is Ailene's comment:

And of course it will. The Kings -- and Monarchs -- can lose at the ballot box -- and based on internal and external polling, they undoubtedly will. But they can't get swept. They can't afford the type of lethargic, dispassionate performances that characterized the first half of the 2005-06 season. This is about staying power, about perseverence. The Kings. Their owners. Their city.

Sounds to me as though Ailene doesn't see this passing, or of the Kings leaving as a result of that. Actually, it seems like she's saying that losing 55-45 means they'll try again, but a blowout loss of 80-20 means they're gone for sure.
 
Arena Skeptic: These are just Kings season ticket holders. Not numbers on non-season ticket holder addresses, not on the geographic location of patrons of non-Kings events. Don't go overboard.

When Sacramento people go to entertainment in the Bay Area, which may become the only choice for big ticket stuff, they will be paying for improvements in the bay area...instead of here.
 
I have to think the percentage of attendees from Sacramento = the percentage of season ticket holders; in other words, if 60% of season ticket holders live in Sac, about 60% of people at any given event are from Sac.

Regardless of that, though, it doesn't really change my point. If you spread out a sales tax over 4 counties for this arena, then the other 3 counties will clearly want something over and beyond "access to a world-class facility." They won't raise sales taxes in their own counties without getting a financial reward. They need a tangible in return.

Example: Yolo might say, "Sure, we'll participate, and in return, we get a light rail line from downtown Davis to downtown Sacramento."

If you did raise taxes over a 4 county area, unless those counties got financial benefits for doing so, those county's voters would simply reject it, and in an even bigger way than pollsters think we're about to in Sac.

Whether it's for a game, Andre Rieu, Stars on Ice, Scamway or a "Large Christian Gathering", that point holds true.

As an aside, I got my sample ballot in the mail yesterday. My absentee ballot is on the way. I am sort of thinking of holding off voting until after the 13th, to see what kind (if any) MOU they can put together. I think there are clauses that automatically kick in on the 6th, but the language is just convoluted enough to be hard to figure out.
 
They've avoided the multi county involvement for a reason. I don't believe it will work. Like it or not folks, one of the best solutions is going to be on your ballot next month. It's too bad that it has been so poorly presented that failure is almost assured. If folks are waiting for a better deal, you are likely waiting for nothing.
 
They avoided the multi-county approach, regardless of the revenue source, because it woould take state legislation. Something they had no time to accomplish.

Makes you wonder why joint power, multi-county sports authorities seem to work elsewhere, tho.
 
Sounds to me as though Ailene doesn't see this passing, or of the Kings leaving as a result of that.

I got somewhat the same impression. Of course, that's just Ailene's guess. No one really knows what the Maloofs are thinking, including (I fear) themselves sometimes.
 
Last edited:
Oops. I should have cut off the last part of that quote. I'll correct that.
 
Back
Top