We're all missing the point: this not an "Arena" deal

[CruzDude]

This public vote in November is not for an Arena. It is for a 1/4% tax for 15 years to pay for a wide range of community projects, one of which is a top notch recreational and cultural facility in the old rail yards.

In fact more of this money will go to other Sacto community projects than will go to this recreational facilty and park downtown aka "arena". Without that 1/4% tax, then the voters do not get those funds and do not get the many other community projects sorely needed around Sacramento.

Kings fans harping on an "Arena" deal can sour a lot of folks who don't go to Kings games and are not into pro-sports. And in a metro area population of more than 1,000,000 there are a lot of those folks and they all vote.

We need to push the community projects that will get first time funding with the tax. And any top notch venue (arena) can accommodate 200+ event dates a year minimum (and the Kings only represent a maximum of 57 home dates preseason, season and playoffs and the Monarchs about 25).

This 1/4% tax will also fill in a toxic dump and major eye sore for the city, the rail yards and provide a regional hub for entertainment, cultural events, dining and a plain fun area to visit by light rail, bus, or Amtrak.

 

[VF21]

We know what you're saying, CruzDude, and have touched upon the very same subject in several different threads.

But, we are on a Kings message board at the moment. We ARE Kings fans. I'm sorry but I'm not going to tip-toe around this. As a Kings fan, I can support the idea of the new arena for a variety of reasons. When I speak to people who aren't necessarily sports fans, I can bring up the myriad of other potential benefits.

Yes, the community projects need to be brought up and I'm sure there will be people to do that. If you check the Education Points thread, for example, I'm sure you'll see your fears may be ungrounded.

 

[1kingzfan]

The additional community projects were added to this "deal" for several reasons.

One was to avoid the 2/3 vote and is perfectly legal since it may turn out that near 60% of the money raised will NOT got to the arena (but in every case more than half).

Another reason was to give this tax increase a wide-ranging appeal to numerous folks who haave varying interests and political views.

Finally, it was a way to appease the incorporated cities (even though unincorporated County locations will also benefit) with giving them something for all that extra tax money collected in their communities.

It was well thought out and a very balanced proposal. Well done.

But ultimately, this is indeed about the new downtown arena, and the measure will pass or fail based primarily on issues and facts surrounding the part of the deal involving the arena.

The biggest problem with the community projects that will need to be addressed is that they do not go, not any of them, until the arena loan is paid off (estimated at 6-8 years). This is a financial decision to minimize the interest payments on the loan to build the arena. So, in reality, even though I called for greater definition (to the extent possible) of these community projects (to address the public trust issue) in the Education Points thread, it really makes little sense to talk about these specifics now, since none of the projects can launch for over half a decade.

My opinion is that this approach is a mistake.

There should be a sliding scale of starting some community projects with the money in year 1, say 10% of the added tax revenues to community projects, 90% to the arena design and loan, and then sliding that scale until the arena is paid off and you hit 100% of the tax for community projects for the life of the tax after that. It's more loan interest to pay, but the residents get to see some other benefits of the tax immediately, and in their own communities, aside from only being able to watch the erection of the new arena.

Even though my proposed revenue distribution approach would take some of the "edge" off the arena focus in this deal (but cost the gov't more in loan interest), there's no way we can get around the fact that this is an arena deal, plain and simple.

 

[CruzDude]

Don't get me wrong. I am 100% a Kings fan and 100% for the arena. My point was there are a huge bunch of Sacramento voters out there who are not Kings or arena fans. To bring them in to support the tax we need to emphasize what they will get out of the tax. And their piece of the pie is bigger than the new Arena.

And yes, this is "an arena deal". But from my view that is not the best way to get the votes necessary to have a new arena. We need a coalition from both sides. Something for everyone. Then the sting (to them) of $$ to billionaires can be mitigated.

Also if this "tax" becomes project specific then the naysayers can invoke the 60% required vote for passage of a tax for a project and jeoperdize the arena we all desparately want.

 

[ShatteredVision]

Is at least 2/3 of Sacramento County Kings fans...?

 

[VF21]

Don't get me wrong. I am 100% a Kings fan and 100% for the arena. My point was there are a huge bunch of Sacramento voters out there who are not Kings or arena fans. To bring them in to support the tax we need to emphasize what they will get out of the tax. And their piece of the pie is bigger than the new Arena.

And yes, this is "an arena deal". But from my view that is not the best way to get the votes necessary to have a new arena. We need a coalition from both sides. Something for everyone. Then the sting (to them) of $$ to billionaires can be mitigated.

Also if this "tax" becomes project specific then the naysayers can invoke the 60% required vote for passage of a tax for a project and jeoperdize the arena we all desparately want.

I think there will be a "coalition of all sides."

I assume you brought this up in reference to the initial email by the Maloofs sent to SEASON TICKET HOLDERS. That's important to note. It would seem bringing the STH on board first would be an easy step. Once you have them, then you can reach out further. It was quickest and easiest to send emails to the "faithful." I really do not think it's going to be the total focus of the Maloofs, or of the city/county of Sacramento.

So, basically we're in agreement, we're just interpreting what was done a little differently.

 

[CruzDude]

Agreed.

And the Warren Smith article in the Bee monday morning (8/7) supports my points.