Build The Arena

(sigh)

2006-09-22T13:25:00.000-07:00

Well, its getting more and more difficult to stay fired up when the participants in the pro-arena side can't even get their shit together. I'm not sure if anyone even reads this. If so, feel free to send me a message so I can post something different than my rambling!!

Until then, unless the Maloofs and City decide that an actual deal might sell better than this 'vision', there's not much to support. Someone has informed them that there's like, what, 6 weeks before the election!?!?! Right???

Anarchy

2006-08-31T07:51:00.000-07:00

Misinformation, partial information. Why bother with the facts? On cue after my post yesterday regarding the arena opponents' contention that voters are being asked to trade police protection for a shiny arena, good ol' assemblyman Dave Jones is at it again.

In today's Sacramento Bee, we learn the Sacramento County Police Officers Association opposes the arena ballot measures because it does not guarantee increased police services. I'm not sure how many measures to build projects actually include guarantees for the exact number of police poistions to be allocated for such projects, but this is the big, scary arena deal, so the bad guys must be stopped!! Jerry Camous, president of the Association, took a concrete stand against the measures:

"If they built that(guaranteed police staffing) in somehow, we wouldn't stand in opposition"

Wow. Strong stand dude. Why not just hand the city an empty envelope?

Assemblyman Dave Jones sits next to Mr. Camous at the press conference put together before the police union even met with the city or county. Apparently the poor opponents of the measures, who remind us in every article and interview how poorly funded they are, will resort to any tactic necessary to confuse the public. And, of course, the hard-hitting Bee will be there every time.

In the article, Vice Mayor Rob Fong went as far as to mention the inappropriateness of Mr. Camous' informal offer of trading the union's support for the measure for police positions.

"They did initiate discussions about staffing and staffing level guarantees, and I told them it was absolutely inappropriate to have those kinds of conversations," Fong said. "It's inappropriate to suggest if they gave something you'd give them something. That's called quid pro quo."

So now that we know the law enforcement endorsement is for sale, at least we can work on the proper bribe amount, which should make things easier. And being the lover of all things anti-arena, Mr. Jones used the police union's bribe request as an opportunity to spill a little more misinformation about the arena.

Mr.Jones is pissed that the city and county would lose $6 million per year in possessory interest tax by the city owning the arena but renting it to the Maloofs. In theory, that extra money could be used to save baby seals or protect our ozone layer. Or we could put together a police force strong enough to protect the public from the evils of building an arena. Of course, the $6 million amount is wrong, but why let facts get in the way. It sounds dramatic, which is really the point. The fact that it's up to ten times the estimated amount provided by the assistant city manager really shouldn't matter either. And Mr. Jones isn't worried about dropping the $6 million amount, even though it's double what the Giants pay for their expensive stadium deal in expensive San Francisco. Details.

This guy is unbeleiveable. I'm seriously expecting him to show up at the maternity ward of Mercy General next week, letting the public know that if the arena is built, these babies will be sold to Maloof factories overseas. Nurses will cry in their opposition, then ask for a 10% raise in exchange for supporting the ballot measure. Then Jones will tell everyone that the Maloofs and the city will be cutting down trees in local parks to use as building materials. Baby trees, to make matters worse. Of course, the Bee will be there soaking up the story and slapping it on the front page.

Vision

2006-08-30T13:04:00.000-07:00

The Sacramento Bee unveiled the first billboards from the proponents of the arena issue. An artist’s vision of a downtown arena as the centerpiece of a bustling downtown. For those without the vision, take a realistic look at what it offers. A vision of a downtown economy booming. A vision of families and couples turning 41 home games into downtown events, supporting local restaurants and shops. A vision of a community rallying behind it’s beloved Kings What this comes down to is whether the community of Sacramento and surrounding cities can take this image and visualize it as a reality a few years down the road. Open those closed minds and have some fun thinking about how great the area can be. . Several years ago, the San Francisco Giants nearly moved to Florida. The team was floundering, and attendance was low despite San Francisco’s reputation as a world-class tourist attraction and big time city. The new stadium is built, and the entire area is then rejuvenated and shows no signs of slowing down anytime soon. The examples go on and on. Cleveland, Los Angeles, San Diego……all examples that this WILL work.

The negativity and pessimism from the opponents is loud, extreme, and at times, misinformed. Apparently, none of them rent movies, not when those four dollars could be applied to their kids’ college funds. None of them would dare go out to pizza when they clearly could bake a frozen pizza for a fraction of the cost and apply the difference to establishing a neighborhood watch program. Movies, sports, extracurricular activities? Hell no. Rainy day funds and IRA’s need all money not going to the bills. Does this seem realistic? To me, the answer is a resounding NO. At some point, quality of life and entertainment has to be accepted for what it is: difficult to quantify, but nonetheless important.

Can you argue that an arena is more important that a new police or fire station or a new library or recreation center for disadvantaged youths? Supporting millionaire ballplayers and billionaire owners is really more important than fixing our schools and cleaning up our streets? These are the moral options the arena opponents want the public to struggle with. Never mind the fact that this is a NEW tax that would be specifically earmarked to build the arena without touching the budgets for any of these services. Its not like the area has a giant box of money and the Maloofs are grabbing all of it before the police and fire chiefs can get their share. This area CAN have an arena and still enjoy police and fire protection. Crazy, isn’t it? The schools and roads need work whether the arena is built or not. I know this slap of reality must sting for the opponents, but it’s true, and NO ONE has shown that the arena ballot measure will affect any public services, whether it passes or not. Opponents, spend your time and energy talking to your elected officials about fixing these problems instead of making sure an arena isn’t built. Sort of makes you wonder what the real motive of the opponents is.

It’s a tax. Nobody likes a tax, nobody wants to pay a tax. They are a necessary evil to finance needs and wants of the real world. This vote is to build an arena, period. I’m not going to lie and pretend this is some area-wide improvement tax and the arena just happens to be included. I’m not naïve, and it’s clear that this ballot measure was beefed up to include spending money for all the participating cities and counties. This is really about building an arena and keeping the Kings. Any additional funds acquired are considered icing on the cake. Look at the examples, look at the Sacramento area, then have SOME vision. If you believe that this is a great area to live and raise a family, then invest in it. Better the downtown area for generations by grudgingly accepting to pay an additional quarter for every hundred bucks you spend. Really, is it too much to ask for that minimal investment for the potential rewards it offers? When a tax is proposed to increase the police force, or to better the condition of schools, we’ll address those issues with relevance.

E-mail Rebuttal

2006-08-13T00:44:00.000-07:00

The following is a reply to the previous post. Thanks to Mark (asked that his last name not be given) for yhe following thorough reponse:

I appreciate you offering the opportunity to those who both oppose and support the Arena Initiative, I am writing this in repsponse to the emails from Lisa and Aaron, both whom oppose the initiative. I hope they, and others who are currently opposed to this initiative will take a moment and read this with an open mind as both of them make valid and accurate points in their emails.

Lisa commented on San Francisco and Los Angeles being cities that have refused large publicly funded stadiums, and those are accurate points. However what she failed to do was completely summarize those two cities. San Franciscos two stadiums were both outdoor facilities. A Football stadium for the 49ers would provide very little opportunities for any other sort of activities and would only be used between 20-30 dates per year. This is basically a 100 sports stadium near the current Candelstick pinte and provides LITTLE if any incentive to the city with regards to redevelopment or anything outside of the 49ers. The baseball stadium was finally built using almost 100% private funds...this supports her statement. Yet she convienantly leaves out the following facts...the land the stadium sits on was worth a few million dollars when the city gave it to the Giants back in 1999. The likely value of this property is now probably 10 times its value just 7 years ago. The city of SF also estimates an INCREASE IN TAX REVENUE OF NEARLY 5 MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR....not a bad return. As for LA, yes the cit of LA taxpayers have voted down a few referendums that would have built a football stadium in LA. SO she is correct there, she forgot o mention that the Rams and the Raiders left LA primarily because they had no current State of the Art stadium to play in. Where Lisa's examples also fall VERY SHORT is that she is comparing an indoor ARENA with outdoor stadiums. The only correlation is that professional sports teams are tenants, outsodie of that, there is very little in common. The Arena here in Sacramento would house the Kings and the Monarchs approx 80 dates a year, that is likely in the neighborhood of 40-50% of events (expected numbers vary but the Bee reports estimates in the 160-200 dates a year). Lisa also fails to report that the Lakers and the Clippers both siad they needed to move out of the Forun and the Sports Arena (respectively)...which is similiar to what is happening here with the Kings. She also failed to mention that the owners in LA DID NOT PAY A SINGLE PENNY towards the Staples Center. LA had the benefit of having enough large corpoarte tenants to cover the neccesary funding. Here is where things are even more OFFLINE in her comparison. LA has (and I am guessing here) at least 10-15 venues within 30 miles that could host all of the things that we currently use Arco Arena for (ie...concerts, large religious gatherings, circus, large boxing/wrestling/motocross events etc...). Not having a new football stadium in LA has zero effect on the citys ability to recruit conferences, new businesses, commerce, etc. Not having an arean in Sacramento would mean a huge hit (likley not to hit us til 2010 or so) to the City and Countys economy. So before you accuse others of not being totally upfront...consider your own one sided point of view.

I do understand that in a perfect world perhaps the Arena deal would be set up a bit different, guess what...its not a perfect world. What bothers me is the apparent shortsightedness of so many on both sides. First, while I am fortuante enough that the slight increase will have no effect on my annual income...I believe no one is in the position to laugh lightly at those who are no as well off. There is a VERY SMALL percent of Sacramentans that will be negatively affected by this tax. Its very small...but bottom line is there are those who can barely afford bus money and this new tax may just add to there problems. With that said, most who are complaining....are short sided. Aaron claims to live in downtown....I'll bet Aaron had found an occasion to eat at one of the number of restaurants who are tenants in buildings owned by millionaires who~~~GASP~~~, received city redevelopment money to build their buildings on "The Cheap".. Look it up, the city paid for nearly 70% of the cost to develop the old Daugherty Chevy dealership on 16th & J (now the home to PF Chang's, Mikuni, Office Tenants, and 2 floors of high end lofts). Well guess what, those developers made A KILLING on that deal...who cares. Look at how that has positively effected the city....a new building has now gne up next door, restaurants popping up all over that area and property values have skyrocketed! The city makes money on property taxes and I'd be willing to bety my last 1/4% increase that the City has recouped that investement 10 times over.

Aaron asks why the Maloofs dont just build in Natomas "at a fraction of the cost". Well afew things, "A fraction" is a huge overexageration, but we will let that slide. However, a big problem is that it takes a few years to build an arean, meaning the Kings would have to reloacte and everything else that uses ARCO would have to skip Sacramento for a few years, meaning tons of lost revenue for the city.

My biggest problem is that so many are pointing fingers at the Maloofs as though they are the bad guys. The Maloofs have DONATED more to Sacramento's well being since their arrival 8 years ago, than most of us will do in our lifetime. I wonder if the residents of the Airport Area of Sacramento will vote down this eferendum as their children play at the park and ballfields paid for with a $125,000 donation from the Maloofs. The Maloofs and their employees (approx 200 Sacramentans who would lose jobs....gee, anyone ever discuss that???) donate time, energy and ALOT of money annually to those who NEED IT!!! The Maloofs could leave Sac now, and get a BETTER DEAL than if this referendum passes. This is not about the rich getting richer....that is gonna happen either way...whether you vote YES or NO. This is not about the levees, or better schools, or more police officers. In fact, one could easily argue that at least a YES vote here will provide the opportunity for some extra money to find its way into the individual cities, and districts...albeit 6-8 years down the road. This is about what the fac of Sacramento will look like 10-15 years from now. A No vote will mean this...*everyone will continue to pay 7.75% sales tax. Sacramentans will continue to vote down school, road and police referendums as they have done so often for the past 10 years. The Kings will leave town in 2010 when there lease expires and the Maloofs will likely tear down Arco and sell the land to developers in order to pay off their loan to the city. Sacramentans will miss out on events that can ONLY use a large indoor arena. We will lose approx $500,000 a year in hotel revenue just from having no NBA team (has anyone ever discussed LOST revenue???). That does not include lost revenue from WNBA, circus, concerts and any other events that will no longer schedule Sacramento as a stop once ARCO is gone. If you question, my numbers....its simple math. Approx 75 overnights a year for visiting teams, referees, fans, and media. The teams lone reserve 18-20 rooms (average room at the Sheraton or Hyatt...call it $200) so thats $6000 a night, just for the teams. Throw in referees, media, fans, etc....How much is being lost. THe shortsighted nature of those who are voting NO is what bothers me. Could the deal have possibly been built a bit better for the city....sure. BUt perhaps that wouldn;t have worked. We now face a situation with two options. A Yes vote keeps the revenue here. Keeps the Kings for at least 30 more years. Helps push redevelopment in one of the worstparts of town. Pushes up the value of my home...how about yours? Shows that Sacramentans are forward thinking. Encourages continued growth of our economy, and gives us a JEWEL to call our own. I just dont see how a NO vote helps the city in anyway. I really don't.

And yes I realized this email is rambled a bit. Its late...and I am so worried that REAL information isnt getting out because of our ONE PAPER town.

-Mark

(please do not give my last name...THX)

The Other Side....

2006-08-11T20:40:00.000-07:00

I offered to post if anyone e-mailed me, so here we go. While I am admittedly in favor of the arena plan, I'll be fair and respectful to other opinions. The point of this blog is to give the other side of the anti-arena rhetoric being discussed daily, mostly by the Sac Bee.

This is an e-mail from a woman named Lisa. She asked that I not edit her e-mail or give her info out. No problem, Lisa...here ya go:

Build The Arena,

You claim to be fair. Yet how quick are you to judge those of us trying to be fiscally responsible for the rest of the commumity blinded by their allegiance to the Kings. Recent history shows that while some communities pay plenty for arenas, many others are responsible enough to stand firm and make the team pay for where it plays. San Francisco has done it in California with the Giants and Niners. L.A. did it with the Lakers. I understand the corporate structure isn't the same, but is it so lopsided that the SAcramento has to pay for 90% of this thing and allow the Maloofs to be the ones profiting? It's just ransom. Give us a half-billion dollar arena or we move the team. Nice. Sounds like the type of people we should be trying to support.

Lisa

Yes, I bit my tongue while cutting and pasting it here, but I did it anyway. Another anti-arena e-mail I got was from Aaron in downtown Sacramento:

If the city and the Maloofs were serious about keeping the Kings here, they'd be building the new arena on the current arena's property. An arena there would cost a fraction of the same building on the railyard property. This isn't about a new arena, it's about Sacramento wanting a new toy. Sacramento has felt like a JV town to the bay area forever, now is embarrassingly unrealistic. This town is conservative. Why do you think it took this long to get the downtown arena on the ballot? City politicians know this won't pass, yet they didn't have the balls to admit it and tell the Maloofs to plan on staying in Natomas. When the Kings go, blame the greed and procrastination of the politicians and the Maloofs, not the voters smart enough to call them on it.

Aaron (Downtown Sac)

OK, now maybe this thing heats up a little!!! I like it! The other e-mails were positive and share my views, so I wanted to offer an opposing viewpoint. I'll even hold off on my response to each, but if anyone wants to chime in, please do so respectfully. Rude or profane comments will be deleted. Lisa, Aaron, thanks for taking the time to message me with your thoughts.

Anyone wanting to e-mail me can reach me at sbaland@gmail.com

But the Money Should Be Used For (insert here)

2006-08-10T11:27:00.000-07:00

This is a biggie. I mean, how in the world can I vote for a tax increase that'll further line billionaires' pockets while our levees are poor and and our schools in disrepair? I'm sure all of us have heard this question, or one like it, since this tax increase was proposed last month. On the night of the Supervisors' meeting, I saw at least two local news reports on the street asking citizens about their thoughts. Almost every vote 'against' was because they felt there were needs more critical than financially assisting the Maloofs with an arena. The Maloofs will be a topic soon enough, but this post will be directed at this widely-held argument against the proposal.

No one is asking that money earmarked for levee repair be transferred to the arena fund. This isn't an 'either-or' situation. The levees are funded and regulated by the State of California. Both CSAC (California State Association of Counties) and Department of Water Resources are responsible for overseeing the state's flood control areas and levees.

Assemblyman Dave Jones has been the most vocal political critic of the sales tax increase. In an article written by Mr. Jones, he seems irritated that the arena/tax increase will distract us idiot voters from his $4.1 billion flood control bond. Apparently the voters are too stupid to be able to handle multiple items on the same ballot. One is a local issue, one is statewide. And neither have anything to do with each other. Mr. Jones is concerned that he'll have to answer other politicians when they ask why Sacramento is more concerned about the arena that flood-protection. My question is why Mr. Jones, the author of the bond, is more concerned about the arena than flood control. We can have our levees repaired and have our arena, too. If the flood control bond is well-written, it should pass regardless of the arena issue. I'd be in favor of keeping Sacramento valley from flooding and keeping our NBA team(crazy thought, I know). If flooding or other issues are still of concern to the local governments, they'll have almost $600 million from the tax increase to throw any direction they want. It appears that if Mr.Jones has done an adequate job on his bond measure, the area's levee system will be safer for everyone. On that front, support the guy's effort to protect the area.

Now that we're all safe from floating to Napa, we should figure out why voters should build an arena instead of fixing the schools and fighting crime. Again, voting for the arena isn't voting against funding for these areas. The State budget addresses both issues in the new budget. The state budget signed last month includes $55.1 billion for education, and increase of over $3 billion from this year. The budget also allows for an additional $196 million for law enforcement for the new fiscal year. Other increases in the state budget:

$220 million in disaster preparedness
$22.6 million in public health funds
$1.4 for transportation, which includes road maintenance

Obviously, these funds are distributed statewide, so the Sacramento area may be affected differently for each topic. But these issues are being addressed from the state level.

The arena won't be sitting in the middle of a flooded, crime-ridden neighborhood with potholes and potheads. Voting against the tax increase isn't going to clear the streets of crime or litter. Apples and oranges, again. How about we have a nice arena in a revitalized downtown AND have a secure levee system to protect it? Just vote yes for the arena, and vote yes for the flood-protection bond, that is if you can remember how to vote on two separate issues. My guess is you can.

1/4 of 1%

2006-08-09T13:36:00.000-07:00

1/4 of 1%. That’s what this measure is asking for in a sales tax increase. The new sales tax would be 8%, but does anyone know what the 7.75% we’re already paying is specifically going to? I have no idea. This would be the most famous fraction of a percent in Sacramento tax history ( I took that class once, not as exciting as one would think). Since I probably won’t sell people on the ‘lets save decimal points’ bandwagon, I thought a few real world examples of this tax increase might demonstrate how severe this tax increase would be.

You walk into a local electronics store and pick out a sweet high-def TV for the upcoming NBA season. You buy this bad boy today, and you’re dropping a total of $2155 after sales tax. If this ¼ cent increase goes through, and then you buy the same TV, you’re going to be spending…...(dramatic pause)……are you ready? Five bucks more. Buy it now and you can basically get the remote control batteries with the difference.

You’re grocery shopping, and you’ve got an even $100 worth of taxable groceries in your basket. The pimple-faced cashier gives you’re the total of $107.75. Buy that same cartload of groceries next year, and you’ll pay an extra….(dramatic pause, you know the drill)…..twenty-five cents. Now your kid can get that gumball on the way out of the store, just like you’ve always dreamed you could provide.

Now you’re a big spender. You’re trying to impress your new girlfriend, who loves modern art. You go to a local gallery and buy a life-size paper mache sculpture of R.E.Graswich (hopefully made from his columns in the Bee) for a whopping $25,000. If you buy it today, you’re writing a check for $26937.50. A year from now? You’ll need $62.50 more.

¼ of 1% is nothing. You’ll never notice it. Seriously, they could have been charging us this for months, and we’d never know it. The articles and news stories tell the tales of poor single moms in Oak Park, and how they won’t be able to buy milk. The tax increase on a $4 gallon of milk would be one penny. Somehow I don’t think anyone will starve. ¼ of 1% of a 24 hour day is three minutes. ¼ of 1% of the height of the Empire State Building is a fraction over three feet. You could jump over ¼ of 1% of the freaking Empire State Building (unless you’re Brad Miller).

The point of this post is to allow you to visualize what this arena measure is asking for. You won’t go broke or hungry, you’ll never notice the difference. In return, you get a great new arena, your NBA team locked up for the next 30 years, plus an estimated $600 million for the local cities and counties. Betcha notice those.

That's All I Can Stand, I Can't Stands No More!!

2006-08-08T20:26:00.000-07:00

OK, this blog was started today, August 8, 2006. Thank the Sacramento Bee. Two articles in today's issue regarding the arena proposal. If you know The Bee, you know which way they're leaning on the issue.....but this is ridiculous.

First, there's the Daniel Weintraub article. We're all supposed to be awed by the way this Kings deal doesn't compare favorably to other deals regarding costs and sharing of the financing. The fact that none of the deals mentioned took place in the last few years is glossed over. Oh, and none of the deals were for arenas to be built in the notoriously expensive and strict California. Just forget about those facts though. Somehow apply what San Antonio did six years ago, or what Memphis did in hopes of luring an NBA team, to Sacramento's situation. Apples and oranges, Daniel, apples and oranges. Conduct any of your deals in California circa 2006, and the deals differ significantly. If your numbers are accurate, the Maloofs pay slightly less than these other owners percentage-wise, but they'll be paying more in total than these other owners. Again, glossed over. Unbelievable. Maybe mention what any arena in Sacramento will cost five years from now, with inflation AND no NBA team sharing the costs.

Next, there's the Pulitzer-worthy article by Alison apRoberts. This fun little gem is about potential names for the arena that the Bee apparently doesn't want. Surely the Bee must have recieved some legitimate names, or even some both funny AND in favor of the arena. No, rather than something humorous...or fun...or interesting, it's just another article bashing the arena proposal. To read it from this article, the Maloofs are actually pickpocketing old women and evicting the poor to finance a giant gold statue of themselves.

The Bee is out of control. I'll admit I'm a Kings fan who really wants this arena built and our team to stay. I'm allowed to be biased, I'm a fan. The newspaper, however, should at least present the issues, not choose sides and bash at every opportunity. You'd think the paper would be in favor of a professional team remaining in Sacramento, but its becoming increasingly clear that it's motives are elsewhere.

I'm writing this blog in hopes of coordinating those of us who want a fair depiction of the arena issues. Anyone who wants to comment is welcome, regardless of your stance. Just be fair and respectful. Anyone who wants to write and vent, please do so and e-mail it to me. If I can, I'll post what you write in a new topic. Above all, invite everyone to read and join in!! Hopefully we can link with other groups to educate local voters. If it makes the difference between 49.99% and 50.01%, it'll be worth it. Let's get this arean ballot passed!!