Originally Posted by RainierBeachPoet
i always had the impression that it is the one sport towns of the nba (portland, sac-town, san anton etc) that had the best chance of keeping teams since generally the towns are more easily pressured into publically financing new arenas
I agree with you there, and in most cases, thats pretty much the case...it also helps that the Trail Blazers and Spurs have been winning franchises through their histories. However here in California, it's extremely hard to get taxpayers to help finance stadiums and arenas...back in the 70s and 80s, the San Francisco Giants tried numerous times to get a publicly-financed ballpark to replace Candlestick Park, and nearly moved twice because of it. Eventually, the current ownership financed AT&T Park themselves, the rest is history.
Here in Los Angeles, the lack of the taxpayer interest is one of the reasons why we don't have a NFL-quality stadium built here. The city and county of Los Angeles (along with the state of California) own and operate the L.A. Coliseum complex (which includes the old Sports Arena, and a few state and county-run museums), and they have been propping the Coliseum site as a potential NFL home, but the league wants no part of it. The local government trashed several attempts elsewhere in the L.A. area to build a new stadium, including at Dodger Stadium, a site across from Staples Center (now currently occupied by the new L.A. Live entertainment center), and a couple of suburban locations (Carson and Lynwood, both southeast of downtown L.A.)
In Sacramento's case...ARCO Arena is privately owned (by the Maloofs, as well as the land surrounding the arena), but they want a new arena in or around the State Capitol, with public money. If they wanted, they could sell-off the ARCO property and use those funds to build the new arena themselves. Maybe Joe & Gavin, and Mayor KJ, could use some sort of backdoor way to get something done up there.