"Sacramento County residents will vote Tuesday on a pair of vaguely written and controversial tax propositions that would pay for a new arena for their beloved Kings. Slam dunks? Hardly. More likely airballs. You'd be hard pressed to find a sports-related ballot measure anywhere that has more people scratching their heads in confusion." San Francisco Chronicle
"Measures Q and R don't even mention the Kings or the site in question. So residents are being asked to vote on faith on a potential deal between the NBA club and the city and county about who will pay for what on a 242-acre parcel in an abandoned railroad yard just north of downtown Sacramento. But that agreement hasn't been reached, and nobody expects it to be by election day. Even the Kings have withdrawn their support of the measures. As for the city and county officials, it took a court order for them to reveal the details of what they're offering the Kings." San Francisco Chronicle
"Other people, including some in the NBA, wonder if the Kings will stay without a new arena on the horizon. Since the Kings own Arco Arena, skipping town would be easier for them than for other NBA teams bound by leases on public facilities. If they left, the economic effects on Sacramento would be "huge,'' according to Smoley, a season ticket holder. The psychological impact on the city, she said, "would be a debilitating blow.'' San Francisco Chronicle
What I've heard will probably happen is this thing fails, the Maloofs and the city try again to get a better deal and have that up for vote in 2008. It's what I hope too.
I think if the Kings don't get a new arena there will also be a lot of businesses trying to get the Kings a new arena somehow. The Maloofs/kings org does so much for Sacto it's not even funny. I remember reading somewhere they've donated 12 million dollars to Sacramento charities or something like that. The mean to much for the city to let them leave in my opinion.
What I've heard will probably happen is this thing fails, the Maloofs and the city try again to get a better deal and have that up for vote in 2008. It's what I hope too.
I think if the Kings don't get a new arena there will also be a lot of businesses trying to get the Kings a new arena somehow. The Maloofs/kings org does so much for Sacto it's not even funny. I remember reading somewhere they've donated 12 million dollars to Sacramento charities or something like that. The mean to much for the city to let them leave in my opinion.
[size="2"]Proposal Q and R will fail. There are a variety of ways to finance sports arenas. People are so heavily taxed that it is a tough challenge to get public support for needed projects. Much has been learned about how to (and how not to) develop an arena plan which will have a good chance of succeeding.
A new effort should be instigated immediately. Appoint a citizens' committee to explore the best location for a new arena and alternative ways of financing it. When the people are involved in the decision making process, it will be easier to gain the needed public support.
What I've heard will probably happen is this thing fails, the Maloofs and the city try again to get a better deal and have that up for vote in 2008. It's what I hope too.
I think if the Kings don't get a new arena there will also be a lot of businesses trying to get the Kings a new arena somehow. The Maloofs/kings org does so much for Sacto it's not even funny. I remember reading somewhere they've donated 12 million dollars to Sacramento charities or something like that. The mean to much for the city to let them leave in my opinion.
I agree totally with everything BM52 said.
Didn't Memphis figure out a way to have the city finance a new arena without having to go through the whole voting process, I think that would be a better idea. Because we need to get this arena stuff done with so the we can keep our minds on basketbal not politics.
The tax is ridiculously low, I think I heard that its like less than $10 for each person annually. Thats like 1 less trip to mcdonalds per year
But people are too stubborn about not highering traffic, because they dont want to pay more. Im sure the financial impacts of the kings leaving Sac won't effect them. Good job, smartasses
Everything I've read says the arena props will fail with only 40% (i think) people voting yes
This is what I don't understand: No other arena project has been a public decision as far as voting. If public funds were used, it was the government's decision and was not presented to the public. Why can't they do that? If that can't work, why not do the whole thing with private funds?
Think about it: The maloofs don't want to front that kind of money, so why not gather a group of investors to fund a new arena? That way, the Maloofs will have the control they want, and can tell the city of sac to shove it. The city wouldn't own it, or control it.
i am interested in this discussion in general because of what my sonics are going through. i would like to see how sacramento will deal with it all
as much as i love the sonics and would be totally depressed to see them leave-- i am against corporate welfare and cities paying the front money-- in just about any form-- at the expense of the public good when it comes to public works, schools and development for poorer areas
mr starbucks howard shultz wanted a form of corporate welfare-- a new arena payed by a raise in taxes AND control of all the revenue from the new arena (something he did not have with key arena). so the city pays for the expense and the owner reaps the profits
since he didnt get what he wanted and realized that owning an nba club is very different from selling the "coffee experience", he dumps the team to owners from OK. there is a very real chance that the sonics will move
are the maloofs going to invest into a new arena? to me this is a ket question--- if yes, how much?
obviously there are major differences in seattle and sacramento as cities and we will face these challenges differently, but to me these are the general principles involved
Last edited by RainierBeachPoet : 11-05-2006 at 11:43 PM.
i am interested in this discussion in general because of what my sonics are going through. i would like to see how sacramento will deal with it all
as much as i love the sonics and would be totally depressed to see them leave-- i am against corporate welfare and cities paying the front money-- in just about any form-- at the expense of the public good when it comes to public works, schools and development for poorer areas
mr starbucks howard shultz wanted a form of corporate welfare-- a new arena payed by a raise in taxes AND control of all the revenue from the new arena (something he did not have with key arena). so the city pays for the expense and the owner reaps the profits
since he didnt get what he wanted and realized that owning an nba club is very different from selling the "coffee experience", he dumps the team to owners from OK. there is a very real chance that the sonics will move
are the maloofs going to invest into a new arena? to me this is a ket question? if yes, how much?
obviously there are major differences in seattle and sacramento as cities and we will face these challenges differently, but to me these are the general principles involved
The Maloofs will probably invest 25-30% in a new arena. I support public funding because of what they and the Kings have done for the city of Sacramento. They spend a lot of money. They gave boring Northern Cali something to cheer for. They give to charity. All that and people won't vote for a new arena that only costs them as an individual maybe 10 bucks a year? It's not going to stop poor mothers from buying their kids milk because the poor people won't pay much of it anyway because they can't buy many taxable goods(food isn't taxable). It probably won't pass but it might in 08.
Personally I wish they would do something with like funding from one of the casinos. Make it Thunder River Arena(or whatever the name of the casino is). That's got a tight name and they would control it. They're be dealing with businessmen/woman who know wtf they're talking about instead of trying to educate the average person/non kings fan who really doesn't know that much about it. Or I'd be in favor of some businesses helping to get a new arena. I dunno, I don't think they want to be in that railyards area anyway. I think they want a new arena close to where arco is now(Natomas). They seem committed to Sacto so I hope they stay. They're pretty good owners.
I could easily see this passing if the Kings were still a contender and they got everyone educated though. The planning was poor, they tried to get it done right before they had to, and they were just trying to get a deal done/put it on the ballot instead of really getting something together that the people would actually vote for. They need to keep negotiating if they want an arena this way, then they need to start educating people soon after that and get more funding for it.
All that and people won't vote for a new arena that only costs them as an individual maybe 10 bucks a year? It's not going to stop poor mothers from buying their kids milk because the poor people won't pay much of it anyway because they can't buy many taxable goods(food isn't taxable). It probably won't pass but it might in 08.
Personally I wish they would do something with like funding from one of the casinos. Make it Thunder River Arena(or whatever the name of the casino is). That's got a tight name and they would control it. They're be dealing with businessmen/woman who know wtf they're talking about instead of trying to educate the average person/non kings fan who really doesn't know that much about it. Or I'd be in favor of some businesses helping to get a new arena. I dunno, I don't think they want to be in that railyards area anyway. I think they want a new arena close to where arco is now(Natomas). They seem committed to Sacto so I hope they stay. They're pretty good owners.
I could easily see this passing if the Kings were still a contender and they got everyone educated though. The planning was poor, they tried to get it done right before they had to, and they were just trying to get a deal done/put it on the ballot instead of really getting something together that the people would actually vote for. They need to keep negotiating if they want an arena this way, then they need to start educating people soon after that and get more funding for it.
its true that most politicians will make a direct tie to "we are not going to put xyz tax for a new sonic arena because we will put the $$$ from the xyz tax toward rebuilding schools in rainier beach. they wouldnt last politically if they do that
i am all for the "sin taxes" -- gambling, tobacco, alcohol-- has it ever happened in any city?
it is true that the previou season has a huge effect on how decisions are made. if the sonics improved on their 2004-2005 season, things might have been different; but we only won 35 games last year...
new arena for the kings?
