What could go wrong from this point with the new Arena?

nebs

nebs

Starter
Darrell Fong demanded the applause stop when he said he was voting Yes last night.

He then said "You don't know me very well." And went on to add that "believe me I'm going to try and poke holes in this Arena deal."

So my question is what could go wrong? Could it all possibly come crashing down or would/could a problem possibly delay the opening date? What is the worst case scenario? Are there going to be any other votes about anything regarding the Arena?

I don't want to sound negative at all and am happy as heck but I'm the type of person that likes to know all possible outcomes.
 
Enjoy to day as an "Up"... there have been so many "downs"; just enjoy this victory for what it is... this other stuff will come up later.
 
NoBonus said:
Enjoy to day as an "Up"... there have been so many "downs"; just enjoy this victory for what it is... this other stuff will come up later.
Click to expand...

I don't think the OP is putting a negative spin on anything. I am much, much less informed than most on this board regarding the arena issue and would appreciate a "what could still go wrong" explanation, as well. That doesn't mean I'm not enjoying the victory. In fact, I very much am. I am just curious as to the next step in the process of getting the arena done!
 
A lot could go wrong, but the momentum is behind this enough now that the deal killers will be dealt with one by one. I think last night's vote signified the end of the "IF" phase and the real beginning of the "HOW" phase.

If you want to focus on any one thing, watch the parking decision and how it ends up working out. There are a few ways to go and lots of big decisions to be made.
 
JJ22L said:
I don't think the OP is putting a negative spin on anything. I am much, much less informed than most on this board regarding the arena issue and would appreciate a "what could still go wrong" explanation, as well. That doesn't mean I'm not enjoying the victory. In fact, I very much am. I am just curious as to the next step in the process of getting the arena done!
Click to expand...

You could have problems with the bids for the parking and/or too high costs doing the alternative of getting loans based on future parking revenue. Other pots of money coming up short in terms of the sell of land ....................
 
JJ22L said:
I don't think the OP is putting a negative spin on anything. I am much, much less informed than most on this board regarding the arena issue and would appreciate a "what could still go wrong" explanation, as well. That doesn't mean I'm not enjoying the victory. In fact, I very much am. I am just curious as to the next step in the process of getting the arena done!
Click to expand...

I think the next step is for the city to determine exactly how it is going to monetize its parking. There are currently two models on the table, the parking lease and the parking authority.

The lease is a fairly simple idea - give over the operations (and revenue) of the parking to a private vendor for X years (probably 30) subject to certain restrictions for upfront cash. This puts all the risk on the private lessor but reduces the amount of money the city can get. It also would require that some debt (about $50M) on certain garages be paid off, because there are strings to the loans that don't allow the lots to be run privately. If there are parking shortfalls, too bad for the lessor, they get stuck with it. But if there's extra money, they keep it.

The parking authority is a bit more vague to me, but essentially I understand it to be creating a separate city entity that would borrow money against future parking revenue to get the upfront cash for the arena. The city would continue to be in control of the parking, and the debt on the garages would not come due. Also, the city would maximize its profit potential for parking, because the revenue would come in to the city, and any extra revenue that was not required to pay off the loan would be city money that presumably could put back into the general fund. But, of course, if there are shortfalls then the city is on the hook for the money to repay the loan.

I'm getting the feeling that they're leaning toward the parking authority.
 
I'll have to try and come up with a list of the things I think could stop this. Maybe in order of of percieved priority to council members. No time right now. Someone else can take a crack at it, in the meantime.

The short answer is that last night was still a huge victory in the process, but it could still fall apart. In the long run, we may have some who voted yes last night, change to a no at some point. So the fight is to make sure we keep 5 votes to the point of no return.
 
Well, there's always stuff that can go wrong, especially since they aren't scheduled to break ground until later next year. So there's always time for something to go wrong that would kill the arena, but all we can do is think positive and hope nothing like that happens...
 
kennadog said:
I'll have to try and come up with a list of the things I think could stop this. Maybe in order of of percieved priority to council members. No time right now. Someone else can take a crack at it, in the meantime.

The short answer is that last night was still a huge victory in the process, but it could still fall apart. In the long run, we may have some who voted yes last night, change to a no at some point. So the fight is to make sure we keep 5 votes to the point of no return.
Click to expand...

Exactly. We consistently need 5 votes until they break ground basically. This is not even close to being over unfortunately. Next big thing is the RFP I think, basically when they make a decision on who to deal with regarding the parking contract itself.
 
BMiller52 said:
Exactly. We consistently need 5 votes until they break ground basically. This is not even close to being over unfortunately. Next big thing is the RFP I think, basically when they make a decision on who to deal with regarding the parking contract itself.
Click to expand...
Actually they've broken the RFP down into three stages. Last night they approved stage 1. They will accept and review at least preliminary proposals, but will also establish a model for the city to retain the parking and borrow against future revenues. The city's proposal to keep and operate will serve as a "benchmark" to compare to outside proposals. Then will also compare risks and rewards.
 
Capt. Factorial said:
I think the next step is for the city to determine exactly how it is going to monetize its parking. There are currently two models on the table, the parking lease and the parking authority.

The lease is a fairly simple idea - give over the operations (and revenue) of the parking to a private vendor for X years (probably 30) subject to certain restrictions for upfront cash. This puts all the risk on the private lessor but reduces the amount of money the city can get. It also would require that some debt (about $50M) on certain garages be paid off, because there are strings to the loans that don't allow the lots to be run privately. If there are parking shortfalls, too bad for the lessor, they get stuck with it. But if there's extra money, they keep it.

The parking authority is a bit more vague to me, but essentially I understand it to be creating a separate city entity that would borrow money against future parking revenue to get the upfront cash for the arena. The city would continue to be in control of the parking, and the debt on the garages would not come due. Also, the city would maximize its profit potential for parking, because the revenue would come in to the city, and any extra revenue that was not required to pay off the loan would be city money that presumably could put back into the general fund. But, of course, if there are shortfalls then the city is on the hook for the money to repay the loan.

I'm getting the feeling that they're leaning toward the parking authority.
Click to expand...

Great explanation. Thanks Capt!
 
Well one of those members of the council is planning to run against KJ for mayor. And I'm sure she fully intends to do all the harm to this ESC project that she can to serve her own career. Fortunately she is so far making quite the mess of this and has vastly underrated the groundswell of support for the ESC. I don't think she gets many more votes than the ex-con bounty hunter.

The other one who voted no essentially kicked his political career into the dump and likely will be losing his seat on the council.
 
nebs said:
So my question is what could go wrong?
Click to expand...

The infrastructure that raised the entire downtown area of Sacramento up 10 feet could collapse from all the added weight and our arena could become an aquarium.
 
VF21 said:
The infrastructure that raised the entire downtown area of Sacramento up 10 feet could collapse from all the added weight and our arena could become an aquarium.
Click to expand...

Love it! I don't know if you just really know your Sac history or made a good joke. But yes quite a bit of downtown was raised up like 15 feet back in the mid 1800s because of flooding. I learned that one as a youngin' when my family was downtown and they had excavated a lot for a building and you could see the old buried part of town that they just filled over along the edges of the pit. My grandparents used to give me all kinds of history on the city.
 
VF21 said:
The infrastructure that raised the entire downtown area of Sacramento up 10 feet could collapse from all the added weight and our arena could become an aquarium.
Click to expand...

I see what you did there. Heh. Thanks for painting an image of people being crushed to death, Sandy. :p
 
JB_kings said:
Love it! I don't know if you just really know your Sac history or made a good joke. But yes quite a bit of downtown was raised up like 15 feet back in the mid 1800s because of flooding. I learned that one as a youngin' when my family was downtown and they had excavated a lot for a building and you could see the old buried part of town that they just filled over along the edges of the pit. My grandparents used to give me all kinds of history on the city.
Click to expand...

I was in a couple of the tunnels back in the 60s when a friend took me along to one of his heating repair jobs. The boiler was in the basement of a very old building. It was then I learned that said basement had actually been the first floor until the city was raised. :)
 
VF21 said:
The infrastructure that raised the entire downtown area of Sacramento up 10 feet could collapse from all the added weight and our arena could become an aquarium.
Click to expand...

Oh, my. That's funny. Bring scuba gear and look for artifacts.
 
JB_kings said:
Love it! I don't know if you just really know your Sac history or made a good joke. But yes quite a bit of downtown was raised up like 15 feet back in the mid 1800s because of flooding. I learned that one as a youngin' when my family was downtown and they had excavated a lot for a building and you could see the old buried part of town that they just filled over along the edges of the pit. My grandparents used to give me all kinds of history on the city.
Click to expand...

Both. But even I know about the raised buildings because I 'm a nerd like that.
 
This city is truly unique and has some fascinating history. Has been and always will be home to me. It's a rather quirky place that has had too much government employment and the bulk of residents had many decades of riding that gravy train. That's one of the biggest reasons why it's so hard for some of those long timers to think with a pro business sense approach. The whole system has been business unfriendly and got left behind as other states and cities caught on to luring companies to come to your area and employ people was a good thing. The city was way behind on this curve and lets hope it's finally turned that corner.
 
Capt. Factorial said:
I think the next step is for the city to determine exactly how it is going to monetize its parking. There are currently two models on the table, the parking lease and the parking authority.

The lease is a fairly simple idea - give over the operations (and revenue) of the parking to a private vendor for X years (probably 30) subject to certain restrictions for upfront cash. This puts all the risk on the private lessor but reduces the amount of money the city can get. It also would require that some debt (about $50M) on certain garages be paid off, because there are strings to the loans that don't allow the lots to be run privately. If there are parking shortfalls, too bad for the lessor, they get stuck with it. But if there's extra money, they keep it.

The parking authority is a bit more vague to me, but essentially I understand it to be creating a separate city entity that would borrow money against future parking revenue to get the upfront cash for the arena. The city would continue to be in control of the parking, and the debt on the garages would not come due. Also, the city would maximize its profit potential for parking, because the revenue would come in to the city, and any extra revenue that was not required to pay off the loan would be city money that presumably could put back into the general fund. But, of course, if there are shortfalls then the city is on the hook for the money to repay the loan.

I'm getting the feeling that they're leaning toward the parking authority.
Click to expand...
I get that feeling, too, although the city takes on more debt and risk. I think this may have been to gain votes in favor of the plan. It didn't commit the city to either model yet, but it makes sure that the city essentially does it's own proposal ans all other proposals will be compared the that city model.

I think your explanation summed up the idea nicely. :) I think also, that keeping city employess emplyed was part of the reason for wanting to look at a "Parking Authority" deal.
 
@Ryan_Lillis: Update: Sheedy not running. Mayoral and City Council candidates announced.

YAY
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Caccia
What do the individual Kings need to work on this summer?
Replies
11
Views
883
Caccia
Caccia
V
What should a good NBA GM know - and when should he/she know it ? (A LONG read - be warned)
2
Replies
53
Views
4K
Noble
Noble
bajaden
Bajaden's final 2022 mock draft: Part one
2
Replies
37
Views
5K
Telemachus
Telemachus
VF21
Jason Jones on Vlade Divac (excerpt from The Athletic)
2 3
Replies
71
Views
7K
King Baller
King Baller
ockingsfan
How would you spend the Kings $35 million cap space this summer?
3 4 5
Replies
124
Views
10K
Jkbiker
Jkbiker
Back
Top