Tuesday, July 11, 2006
Same shit, different city
Ailene Voisin is sooooo versatile. Yesterday she had her reporter's hat on (probably some kind of fedora) and she reported in a completely unbiased manner on how great it is that the city officials are trying to slap together a last-minute arena financing proposal and get it on the ballot, and today she put her cheerleader uniform back on and reminded us for the eleventyith time that we had better build a motherfucking arena if we know what's good for us. And just in case you missed that on the front page of the sports section, there's another article on the front page of the metro section. Once again, no quote from anyone opposing public financing or a sales tax increase, and no mention of the CSUS poll that shows 56 percent opposed to any new arena at all. I love how both writers are so wowed by the fact that they get to hang out at the Palms that they try to make the meetings sound all bad-ass and glamorous. And that they pretend it had to be in Las Vegas so that George Maloof could come (what, does his private jet have a flat tire or something?) rather than the real reason, which is to somehow make this series of meetings look different than the other futile meetings that have been going on for years. Here's the thing, there's no difference, they don't have a plan (besides shutting out Mayor Fargo and sending Rob Fong in her place) and they know that they can't get it past the voters. So good luck with that.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
Check out the douche bag Maloof clan here: http://www.nba.com/kings/news/Joe_and_Gavin_Maloof_Bio.html
George looks likes he's still traumatized from incessant childhood taunting from Joe and Gavin and Adrienne just looks scary.
Brew
Here's an example of more balanced reporting from the bizjournal. You can't accuse it of being anti-arena because it echoes the urgent tone of most of the bee's reporting, but they do acknowledge the problems and concerns associated with it, just like an hones to God real newspaper!
http://sacramento.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2006/07/10/editorial1.html
This topic always gets me into a frenzy of banging my head against a wall. The News10 coverage had the usual shots of Maloofoids employing the familiar scare/bullying tactics. They are such fucking babies. Only babies can be strapped into their highchairs and denied food and left outside hospitals in the dead of night.
And if I read one more word about all the good the family has done for the community (isn't that what all self-respecting mobsters do; grease a few palms for the cameras?) I will, well, I guess I will figuratively bash my hypothetical head against a metaphorical wall.
Ed
The most irritating part of the arena argument is that supporters insist the deal get don with such haste and urgency. They seem to argue that if an arena proposal doesn't get on the 2006 ballot, it will never get done. Have they never heard of 2008/10/12/14/16, etc.? The aside about skyrocketing building material costs isn't bullshit...my contractor brother-in-law told me the same thing last weekend. This might be the worst time possible to think about building a new arena with public funds. I don't doubt that the Kings will eventually need a new arena, but who's to say it wouldn't be cheaper to wait another election cycle or two? Unfortunately, the debate has denigrated to the level that you're either for the new arena and the Kings or you're against the new arena and the Kings. The Maloofs have given no indication that they want anything other than a publicly funded arena with all financial benefits going to them. The most disturbing part is the Maloofs' insistence that Sacramentans trust them to broker a good deal behind closed doors, and that all details will be offered when the time is right. C'mon, these are casino guys...they make their money through rigged odds. Besides, aren't they just making the same argument that Bush used for the Iraq War, Social Security, wiretappings, Guantanamo Bay, etc.
well put, Dan. If they toss in some public works to sweeten the deal I wouldn't necessarily vote against a tiny sales tax increase, but they need to come up with a plan, not just fear tactics.
Someone commented at the bee site on the metro story and made me embarassed that I hadn't even thought of it before. They brought up flood control. What the hell is the city doing bringing up this shit when we're poised on the brink of being the next N'Awlins?
I guess I should be more broad in my complaint. What are we doing, discussing publicly-subsidized arenas and condos and whatnot when our flood control system is a joke and people with Greek surnames and more money than God continue to build shitty housing on floodplains?
Ed
i don't blame the maloofs for not wanting to pay for an arena all out of their own money. i don't think they should have to.
between the kings and the monarchs, they will probably occupy the arena for a maximum of about 80 nights per year. the other 285 days would be for circuses, concerts, rodeos, conventions, monster trucks, and ncaa college basketball tournaments, or things like that.
if the maloofs are willing to put up 1/5 or more of the cost of the arena, then i think that is a fair investment. the other benefits of an arena are for the public. the city has an interest in serving the public. it isn't an arena exclusively for the kings, which i think often gets lost in the discussion. the arena isn't going to be some big dark empty gym for ron artest to go to whenever he wants to smoke a bowl and shoot some free throws. it is an arena for the community, which the kings and monarchs will use - but not as much as the city will use it.
the city should be in the business of building and owning arenas when the benefits are passed on to the community. one of those benefits includes retaining the kings because they will be in vegas if a new arena is not built. owners of a basketball team are in the entertainment business, not performing the functions of a city. that's my take on it.
-greg
also...assume that a person goes to about 2 or 3 events per year at the arena, and the arena can be walked to or serviced by public transportation. the increase in the sales tax would probably be substantially or completely offset by the money that the person saves by not having to pay for parking at the arena, which i think is $8 or $10 per event.
I agree that the Maloofs should not have to pay for most of a new arena. I agree that an arena is for the benefit of a city, not just the Kings. I don't think that those are the issues. The issue is whether Sacramento City residents want a new arena and want one downtown. Polls have shown that Sacramentans are satified with the current arena. That is what is so frustrating in the coverage of the arena by the Bee. Furthermore, the cost of putting an arena in railyards is not really being talked about. There are mentions of rising construction costs which would bring up the price tag well above the original estimate. But the cost of cleaning up this toxic, lead soaked state superfund site and the necessary flood insurance is never mentioned.
Brew
And don't forget, it isn't a settled fact that an arena benefits the community (this community, or any community) financially. As far as I know, economists cannot agree on this. And as to whether it benefits the community in less tangible ways, that's a matter of opinion. I personally have maybe been to Arco three times in the last five years, and except for the two Kings games I've been able to attend because of others season tickets, pretty much every other event I've been to at Arco was lame. That's just me, but how often do any of you guys go there?
I agree with you, Greg. The arena is not just a Kings issue.
But, I think if the Kings leave Sac, Arco will be history because the land on which it is built is waaay more valuable for housing development.
I would be OK with a small sales tax if they modeled a place that would house other events and have the acoustics conducive to a concert. Conseco Fieldhouse is a great example. The Pacers game (the only other home NBA game I have seen besides the Kings) was awesome.
i think the reliance on the polls and surveys is misplaced.
56% said they don't think the kings "need" a new arena. personally, i'm surprised that number is so low! i don't think the kings need a new arena. i would question anyone, from a consumer standpoint, who does think the kings need a new arena.
but from an owner's standpoint, they probably do need a new arena and the kings will get one whether it is here or there. the 56% is seen as some sort of victory for new arena haters, but i think it is just the opposite.
that being said...i agree that articles discussing the arena should probably include some discussion of the polls.
but polls are inherently flawed because most of the time the question begs the answer. if, instead of asking "do the sacramento kings need a new arena?", the question was "would you rather have the kings and a new arena financed with 80% public funds OR no new arena and no professional basketball in sacramento?" then i think more than 56% would choose the kings and a new arena over no new arena and no kings. but maybe i'm wrong. that's why it should be on a ballot.
polls are flawed because they usually describe a limited set of circumstances with no consequences to those who are answering the questions. also, those who are polled often have limited knowledge because they are telephoned out of the blue.
important decisions should not be based on polls, and excluding an issue from a ballot should not be based on a survey. i think there should be a vote on the next ballot so that something real is at stake and the different sides get their information out to voters so that there is an informed decision. it might also force the maloofs to come out and finally say, "if we don't get it, we're gone" or something that even hints at that. even then, they probably wouldn't because it would destroy their image as the nice guys.
i've been to arco once this year for a kings game. usually i go to a few games a year. i'd probably go to more if i didn't have to drive. also, i don't think a decision to build an arena should be based on whether it is a profit maker or not. a new arena would retain, and probably increase, current entertainment options. i think denying the benefits arenas and pro sports teams provide a city would be like denying the benefits of museums and parks and theaters. an arena and pro sports team benefits a substantial number of people in a city, just as parks and museums benefit a substantial number of people in a city.
-greg
We already have a place for people to see the circus, go to a rodeo, catch a Shania Twain concert, etc. It is called Arco Arena. And there is nothing wrong with it. I doubt if the circus is hurting from the lack of luxury boxes.
Who is relying on polls? Me? What do I matter? The Bee is not relying on polls or surveys, they are not even reporting on them, it's as if they barely exist. They should go ahead and put it to a vote if they can ever get it on the ballot, but until then, the Bee needs to start REPORTING not cheerleading, and Voisin is totally inappropriate to report on it, to boot.
Sure polls and surveys are flawed but they can give you the general gist of public opinion. What about the flaw in Rob Fong declaring that we need and want a new arena and the Bee printing that as if it's a fact? If people hear that enough times they may start believing it, or if they stare into his seersucker pants long enough and become hypnotized.
By the way the "field of schemes" website regularly reports on the arena talks, their coverage is here:
http://www.fieldofschemes.com/news/archives/2006/07/sacramento_king_1.html
If you haven't heard of it, "field of schemes" is a book about sports arenas and public funding.
Here's the problem...most people would drive to an arena even if it were in their own damn living room.
Also, the inaccuracy of polls is something we have to accept for the same reason we have to accept the vote of a really, really stupid person.
-- Patrone
greg said:
between the kings and the monarchs, they will probably occupy the arena for a maximum of about 80 nights per year. the other 285 days would be for circuses, concerts, rodeos, conventions, monster trucks, and ncaa college basketball tournaments, or things like that.
Ripped right off of the KHTK airwaves. Circuses, rodeos and monster trucks. The first two are cruel to animals. The last one is cruel to refined company (unrefined myself, I've never been to a monster truck match, but it is something I have promised to witness before I die).
The "Circuses, Rodeos, and Monster Trucks, oh my!"-argument might work in places like Nebraska, Wyoming or Wilton, but I don't think it's going to fly in these parts.
-norm
Brew - you mentioned that the cost of cleaning up the superfund site isn't considered, but the cleanup is already proceeding and is part of the giant land transfer deal for redevelopment. Regardless of whether an arena ends up in the Railyards, the City, State, Union Pacific, State, Feds, and private sector are all committed and are well down the path to cleaning up the site.
-Erik
Hey Greg-
I thought your comments were thought provoking and I hope you don't feel jumped on. I could see us both voting yes to a good proposal, so I don't think we disagree so much.
Erik - When you refer to the private sector, are you referring to the developer? I'm guessing that city will probably put in a pretty big chunk of change to clean up the area. The whole clean up will cost somewhere around $350 million, right?
I guess my point was that since it is so costly to clean up the railyards, it should be mentioned how much the city is putting in to it. That the cost of cleaning up this site is shared and the city is paying for part of it, is all the more reason for a more active discussion on what the public would like to see there.
Brew
Yesterday, I left a comment on the Bee site pointing people to Field of Schemes, but it wasn't approved.
Censored again by mass media. Just because it's a local national corporation doesn't make the Bee any less sleazy.
I re-read my comment regarding Greg's comment. I think I came off a little harsh. Sorry about that. Thing is, I haven't made up my mind, either -- I was just reacting to what I've perceived to be a common message from the "pro" faction.
When I said "but I don't think it's (the circus, rodeos, etc. appeal) going to fly in these parts", by "these parts", I meant in Sacramento as a whole. It could have been interpreted that I was attempting to characterize the words and sentiments of the people posting here.
-norm
Post a Comment