Not long ago I read with delight that the city had given up on getting the arena proposal on the next available ballot, but they decided to get tricky about it. And guess who is all up in that business, gallivanting about the country? Mayor McCheese himself, Rob Fong. This Bee article is weird and slapped together. Please help me decipher this paragraph:
Fong, Dangberg and Hahn flew to Memphis on Friday and toured the FedEx Forum, the Grizzlies' home court that is serving as the model for a Sacramento-area building. And this sticker shock provides the jolt: Completed in 2004, before the cost of materials and construction skyrocketed -- and disregarding the significantly higher prices in the western United States -- the 18,119-seat Memphis facility was financed for approximately $250 million, well below the Maloofs' projections for a similar Sacramento structure.
Are they saying that is good or bad? If it's good, then why the phrase "sticker shock"? Here's another head-scratcher:
Joe and Gavin Maloof, co-owners of the Kings and Monarchs, initiated Tuesday's session and suggested they be held in Las Vegas to ensure the presence of George Maloof, the younger brother and brainchild of the family's hotel-casino operation.
If George Maloof is running things, then is he really a brainchild? More like the impresario, right? Here's the dic def of brainchild:
An original idea or plan attributed to a person or group. So a person can't really be a brainchild.
Anyway, I quibble, the larger point is the city is trying to sneak a fast one through yet again and it ain't gonna work.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
yeah, that paragraph seemed a bit odd. it seems to basically say that the maloof's projections may be quite accurate, given the cited increases in various costs. nothing shocking or jolting about that.
i'm waiting to see what is offered to buy the support of community groups. how much of the increased sales tax revenue will be given to the Crocker to buy art community support? how much to the parkway to buy environmentalist support? how much to after school programs? and so on. And do they really think people won't figure out that if NONE of the proposed increase goes to the arena then there'd be a whole lot more for other projects?
and how about the bee streamlining this bullshit by putting a sports beat reporter, voisin, on the story. what the fuck business does she have covering urban development and ballot measure issues. shameless.
Are you saying she's biased just because her entire career depends on getting this arena built? You are so cynical.
The Maloofs seem pretty sensative about spending too much of their own money, and it looks like maybe they've started to get the hint that Sacramento doesn't want to waste any of its own either, but they sure don't seem to have any problem wasting a lot of time on a dead-end project.
It kind of seems like either the Kings need a new stadium, or they're going to leave. The people have spoken, and they don't care what the Kings do, as long as we don't have to foot an enormous bill for something that will have very little, to none, and prospectively even negative impact on the actual town itself rather than big investors.
Why can't they just see that if they want the Area, they need to figure out how to do it themselves, and if they can't do that, just pack it in and shut up?
I read the reader comments in the Bee on that Bass Pro article. A few people were whining about the Arena something to the tune that they thought the city government told the Kings they can't have a new stadium. The Bee seems to like keeping people unaware of what actually happened. The Kings asked for a handout to build a new stadium, and voters said "screw you, pay for it yourself." Why would they do that? Maybe to get the people who didn't pay attention last time that the issue was on the ballot to rally for the Arena, and maybe even, if their whises come true, go vote in favor of the Arena if it ever comes up on the ballot again.
>>Are you saying she's biased just because her entire career depends on getting this arena built? You are so cynical.<<
So true - except for the part where Aileen covers all types of sports, not just those that in arenas, old, new or otherwise....
i just think it's a disservice to readers to put a sports writer on an above-the-fold A1 urban development/ballot measure piece. that's kind of like me, a vegetarian, writing food reviews ...
I realize she covers more sports, but the Kings are her bread and butter. Here's a letter I wrote sent to the ombudsman at ombud@sacbee.com I also sent it to the letters to the editor.
To Whom It May Concern
I read this article with dismay. Not only because it is poorly written and contains a sloppy misuse of the term "brainchild" but also because I think it is inappropriate for an urban planning article to be written by a Bee sportswriter. How can Ailene Voisin be unbiased when her very career depends on getting public financing for this arena so that it can be built? Why does the Bee rarely quote any community voices that are opposed to public financing for an arena? Instead of continually sounding the drumbeat of optimism for this project, why isn't the study that was conducted by CSUS researchers which found that 56 percent of those surveyed answered "no" when queried if the Kings need a new arena (as reported in the Sacramento Business Journal on April 1st, 2005) cited in this article? This statistic was discussed in a May 5th article by Mary Lynn Vellinga, but it is relevant to this article and should be cited every time the new arena is written about. Ailene Voisin has written piece after piece about the need for a publicly financed arena, including an article with the commanding headline "An arena deal must be made" (November 30th, 2005) and is the wrong reporter for this beat.
I understand that you don't believe Aileen's qualified - or unbiased enough - to write the article. But, believe it or not, if the Kings went away she'd still have a job covering sports. I think it'd be the rare journalist who'd be shit out of luck if one of the beats they covered went under. I mean, sure, I might be in trouble if Britney Spears fell off the face of the earth...but that's a different story...
Great letter Beckler!
Well that sneaky Rob Fong! Now I am sorry that I shushed people who were making fun of his pants at the wine tasting.
Seersucker, Rob? Aren't you quite the dandy?
gbomb
I believe you, but article after article that she's written prove that she is firmly in the pro-public-financing camp. I always get in trouble when I fire things off in the heat of the moment, so it is perhaps too strong to say "her career depends on it", BUT if she is ambitious at all and would maybe like someday to move to a larger market, she isn't going to nail that job on the basis of her Monarchs coverage
I think a lot of us who read this blog, participate in SRD, etc. accept the idea of a publicly-financed arena as being tied to a larger "urban planning" issue. But for the sports community and those who love the Kings so much they'd practically sever a limb to keep them here, I don't think that worrying about planning, new taxes, etc. are really an issue. They're willing to accept the pain of new taxes, traffic, and subsidizing billionaires just to maintain the status quo. You could quote all of the studies and polls in the world and be as rational as possible about this new arena, and it still wouldn't matter -- sports writers are going to spin it that way regardless.
That's as may be, but the fact of the matter is that at least 56% of sacramento already said that they're not sports fanatic enough to vote "yes" on subsidizing.
What you said about Sports writers is true as well. However, the Bee is not a sports-only paper, yet their coverage of the issue has been pointed heavily in favor of the opinion that it ought to be done and rarely give much coverage on voices who are against it, who appearantly are not a small minority, but who are in fact so far a voting majority, and also a significant plurality.
Sports fans in Sacramento are also a significant plurality and deserve coverage, and perhaps even deserve to have people who work for the Bee to act as proponents of public funding for the arena.
However, the Bee isn't covering the other side of the story, and here we have a sports writer acting outside of the capacity of a sports writer, and (very sloppily) plugging the public funding of arena again from a non-sports perspective.
That survey statistic is even more dramatic, the 56 percent said "no" to a new arena period, public financing was not mentioned in the question. Sac area residents just aren't buying that arco is ancient and outdated.
Yeah, that's why they'd never put just an arena-financing proposal on the ballot; there is absolutely no chance it would pass. but packaging it with funding for other community needs may pursuade enough other folks to vote for it.
as for the bee, well, without the Kings the readership of the sports section would certainly drop quite a bit. I'd bet the readership of the paper itself would even drop some. But I don't think that's as much of an influence on the sportswriters as just the fact that they are so closely connected to the Kings as to not have much perspective. Kind of like imbedded wartime journalists in a way. And, heck, they're sportswriters so of course they think sports are tremendously important.
that's why they'd never put just an arena-financing proposal on the ballot; there is absolutely no chance it would pass.
It's kind of like how Greg Luckinbill decided that the city needed an arena and team and hence, Arco was built and the Kings were brought out here. In either situation, it's not because the citizens decided that what we really needed was a new arena.
"but packaging it with funding for other community needs may pursuade enough other folks to vote for it."
The fact that they'll probably use that tactic (if they manage to get a ballot prop, which they will) shows just how the initiative process is being abused by wealthy interests. It is one thing when a legislator attaches riders to bills which have nothing to do with the intent of the proposed law (we expect our legislators to suck up to contributors and bring the pork back to the district) but initiatives were intended to be an equalizer so that the masses could address concerns that were not being dealt with by their reps and senators. Now the majority of them are attempts by greedy fuckers to buy policy positions. Surprise, surprise, the Bee gargles the spunk of the advertisers.
Hecka, despite a touch of hyperbole on your bit about Voisin and her bread and butter, the letter overall is a lot clearer and more rational than many letters and opeds I've seen. (Sarkisian? Kunert? Cal "dick broom" Thomas?) I hope they run it. By the way, the ombudsman is a fucking liar, so I wouldn't expect him to play fair with you.
Ed
Beckler,
Very nice letter. I hope they run it and that the ombudsman is courteous enough to give you a meaningful response. Personally, I think you were a little too soft on Voisin. I would have gone dirty and thrown in a cheap shot about that wig she wears in her Bee photo.
The idea that her career IS NOT somehow connected to the arena and whether or not the Kings stay, I think, is naive. The Bee's cup runneth over when it comes to sports columnists and quasi-journalists. Marty "Can a Brotha Get a Column" McNeal. Kreidler. Breton. Voison. Davidson. Scott Howard Cooper. Not long ago, I remember hearing the Bee's new sports editor being interviewed on KHTK (Kings Homer TalK) -- it might have been on Jim "The Koz" Kozimor's show. The editor was mentioning how the Sac Bee had a lot of columnists for a paper of its size and it was justified partially on the sports page's popularity with its readers.
The Kings probably sell a lot of papers for and drive a lot of Web traffic for the Bee (as of now, there are 44 comments posted to Voisin's piece). When the Kings leave, I doubt that the Bee will neither need nor be able to afford so many columnists writing about adult people who are paid to catch and throw balls in colorful outfits.
Maybe this is why Voisin is trying her hand at urban planning?
-norm
I cannot sanction making fun of a ladies hair. That is just too personal.
I'm pretty sure I used the possessive wrong there. Feel free to make fun of me, but not my hair, which looks terrible today, by the way, which has put me in a mood most foul.
for what it's worth, voisin went to law school, but i don't think she's a lawyer and i'm not sure if she ever practiced law. not that it necessarily makes her qualified, but just another factor.
-greg
Post a Comment