thanks to SG. So now they're putting the arena pricetag at 600 million? Uh, is the 20 mill the Maloofs are so generously providing upfront in addition to the 70 mill they need to pay back the city?
the comments are entertaining/infuriating. If you're against it you are a "whiner" or a "whinner". I like this comment though, it cuts to the heart of the matter
A quarter cent tax isn't too high a price to pay to keep the Kings in Sacramento. Maybe the Kings can focus now on Bonzi's situation.
another comment from the "stop whining" contingent
If you don't like the 1/4 cent sales tax, feel free to move from the Sacramento area. Move to North Dakota, where you will never have to pay for any new arena for any sports team. If you want Sacramento to be viewed as a modern city, then we need this arena. For an extra $25-$50 a year in taxes, it is worth it. Imagine our revitalized downtown this arena will create. It will be wonderful. All of you fools who think Sacramento is fine the way it is, I feel sorry for you. It is now the 21st century and this town is destined to grow into a great city. We are not a cow town anymore, so quit your whining. The Maloofs don't even have to give us this opportunity, so shut up and vote yes
You're welcome; it's my ol' news instinct to get the scoop. This should all be intersting. I'm holding back from expressing opinions on it all, because I'd go on and on. Plus, I don't live there anymore, and I have to stick to local matters: Does Arcata really need a new stop sign? And just who will pay for it?
Screw the arena. Let the Kings leave; bring the A's to Sacramento (Raley Field already has the framework to add an upper deck), which wouldn't cost taxpayers a dime.
Word from the press conference is that the Maloofs will pay back the original $70 million loan, separate from any money they spend on a new arena. I didn't hear this with my own ears, so take it as hearsay for now.
i've thought about it a little and maybe my take on the arena thing is that i don't care how rich the maloofs get. i don't care if they are the main beneficiaries of a sales tax. to me, it is worth a few bucks a year (is that about how much it would be?) to keep the kings here. the maloofs see deals that owners get in other cities and they want the same thing. i think that is reasonable.
not that it really makes a difference, but i also think they would be more willing to spend more money on salaries if they made more money off the team, so it isn't like they are going to pocket absolutely everything without conferring a benefit on their employees or the city. maybe i'm wrong...maybe they want a new arena so that the value of the franchise increases so they can sell the team for a lot and then leave sacramento and buy a new franchise in vegas. who knows. but the kings do bring a lot of jobs to the area...how many i don't know but i think that is a consideration.
i know i've tried to present the argument from a broader point of view, but i see it like this - if i pay a few extra bucks a year, then the kings stay, development of a big vacant area of the city starts up, and hundreds of millions of dollars get distributed for other projects (all pending voter approval, if it even gets to that).
looking at the aggregate is a bit scarier because it would be a billion dollars or so and then that gets people talking about the opportunity cost and all the better things that could be done with a billion dollars. to some, the opportunity cost or paying a few extra bucks a year isn't worth it to keep a sports team here or to build a new arena and i think that is understandable.
it is just a stupid sports team and there are always more pressing matters...like the levees, schools, etc. i can understand that. (maybe that raises a separate question...would people agree to a sales tax increase to fix the levees? i'm skeptical if enough people would go for that, but who knows).
i agree with voison and others that the kings are gone if there isn't a new arena. i think that is a certainty. and a team will not move here without a new arena...i think voison is right about that.
i think the things that put people off about voison are the same things that have been described on here - she is a cheerleader for a new arena and that creates an idea that she wants one no matter what the cost, which may or may not be true. i agree with the most recent breton column...just give people an opportunity to vote on something. if they vote no, then there are benefits and consequences. if they vote yes, there are benefits and consequences.
so back to my first sentence...should i care if the maloofs get richer? should that be a consideration? i don't see any reason to care, but maybe some people have some ideas about that.
i like sacramento a lot as it is. i'd like it with or without the kings / new arena. i think the identity crisis / 21st century / look at us we are a real city arguments are not persuasive and are mostly made by chumps who don't know the great diverse things the area has to offer.
One big reason it rankles me is because I see it as more than a Sac issue. A few years ago when they were pushing this I started to do some reading about the business of sports and new arenas and I learned about the complete abuses of power and civic funds that had been going on all over the country and I got really pissed. I'm worried about what will happen in Sac, but I also see a rejection of this as a rejection of the status quo that the owners have come to expect. I think those days of major abuses are already over, thanks to books like "field of schemes" and the owners are realizing that they have to give some, but they're still seeing what they can get away with. So the argument that this is similar to what owners in other cities have ponied up is not persuasive to me. The tide will be turned on a city-by-city basis. Another thing that bugs me about it is the backroom wheeling and dealing going on and my certainty that our corrupt city council and mayor (and vice mayor) are ready to sell out this town for a buck. So it's more than just a few bucks a year to me, it's the principle of it.
So, I can see your side, too, Greg. I like the Kings, I would like them to say and OCCASIONALLY I'll get a little excited feeling when I think about what could be done with the railyards (parks, etc.) because I'm not some luddite who hates cities. But mostly I just feel dread because I know that no one in charge has my best interests at heart.
maybe i'm a little jaded at the thought that sacramentans would vote for a 1/4 cent sales tax increase for a sports arena and not for other more pressing things like schools and levees. that might be why i just have this nausea every time i think of some poor sacramento resident paying a little extra for something they might not even be able to afford enjoying. not that i go to king's games so i'm reallly not aware of the price for a ticket. but, they are expensive, right? and how many people who have to pay that new tax can actually afford to buy those tickets? i don't know the answer to that. but it is a concern.
also, i like sports but i really hate the idea of a new arena going into an infill project. i think of all the pavement that's going to go in for parking, the acreage used for that damn thing in an area that would be sooo nice if it were used for museums and zoos and canal districts and that kind of thing. i worry that the arena will dictate everything else that gets put down in that area. but that could just be an unfounded anxiety.
i would be a whole hell of a lot happier if i heard that the extra funds from that sales tax increase were going to be put into an aquarium or a zoo or a gold rush museum or something else for all the non sports loving fans to balance out the arena. and, a bus system or a free shuttle or an RT line to that area so people don't have to drive in and park. and perhaps an agreement to put solar panneling in the parking lot of the arena to increase SMUD's greenergy portfolio.
if that were put in the proposal, i'd probably vote for the increase. i'm not sure i really care whether or not the maloofs get rich. but i resent all the panic about something that isn't going to make or break this town.
it chafes me to hear people complain about this town needing to get into the 21st century by building a sports arena. is that why people like san diego? hell no. people don't go to san diego for their sports arena. they go because of the zoo and the wild life park and the photography museum and the botanical garden in a gorgeous park.
regarding the "should i care if the maloofs get richer" question - the actual question is "should i care that my tax dollars are being used to make the maloofs richer?" it is a bummer that the only way people will pass a tax to make all sorts of improvements to this city is if half of it is going to the maloofs. and i expect that a whole lot of the other "improvements" will be the sort of crappy "upscale redevelopment" that the city loves to throw money at. i'm an unabashed tax-and-spend liberal, but i don't trust our current city government to spend wisely. it seems like almost all of the tax money will go to absurdly rich people - the maloofs, huge developers, etc. - to create projects that will primarily appeal to other rich people. (don't even try a "trickle down" argument here...) anyhow, mark me down as 'undecided'.
The idea that the money could be better used elsewhere is a little frustrating to me. Of course it could, but that should be a seperate ballot issue. I'd pay a 1/4 cent tax to keep the Kings here and another 1/4 cent tax for schools and another for the levees. Those have to be seperate ballot issues & nobody seemed to be too concerend about it until the arena deal came up. Now suddenly everyone's an expert on how the money could be better spent. I really have no good guess on how Sacramento will vote on this but I do think that the issue has been sufficiently clouded & politicized to where it's hard to make a rational decision. Personally, I'm voting yes with reservations.
Will someone that is in favor of the arena please just admit that it's solely because you don't want the Kings to move? That's OK if that's your motivation but I just want you to admit it and not (I don't want to say pretend but I don't know what to say) pay lip service (how about that) to wanting better facilities for the monster truck rally or whatever. Does this make you arena-supporters mad when I say this?
That's why I want it (though I guess I'm not technically a big supporter), though I don't think that's not any worse than a large percentage of people who don't want it simply because they don't care about basketball.
i know they are separate issues, but, i would vote for the 1/4 cent tax increase for the kings if i knew the city was also going to put in something else like a museum or affordable housing. i just think non-sports lovers should also benefit from the tax. i guess i just don't care enough about the kings to keep them here. i can admitt that. also, i just really want the railyard to be a cool infill project that's not totally paved over with parking for an arena. that probably won't happen if we get an arena, but i just want some assurances that the railyard is going to have something for everyone.
The news last night had someone saying the new tax would amount to "the average person" paying an additional $5 a month. As a member of the "screwed by my boss" crowd, $5 a month DOES make a difference and I'm sure I'm not alone in this. Examples of other cities with publicly-funded arenas (which were publicly funded %100) taxed certain services, such as hotels and the more fancy rental cars. Like a surcharge on tickets, taxing those items makes a hell of a lot more sense to me. (The surcharge for tickets to events being the most sensible.)
One thing that pissed me off about comments from the pro-arena crowd was when people would pretend as if the Kings were just a part of why an arena makes sense. Sheesh. They were worse than the ones who said "move away."
Sorry, but this is only the beginning. There will be so much advertising, scuse me, EDUCATING about this that I fear Sacramento will do what she always does when bludgeoned with marketers. A yes vote is pretty much in the bag. I hope the courts can do something about the idea that the city can spend the money "however (they) choose." That smacks of taxation without representation. Tea party!
I'd love to see poll results that showed exactly what percentage of Sacramentans actually set foot in Arco Arena this year, and in the past three years.
My guess is that the same people go there over and over again, and that 80-90% of sacto folks never go anywhere near it.
And skip the arguments that the numbers would be different if the arena was downtown. The people that don't go there avoid it because there's nothing they want to see there. that won't change.
if those numbers are accurate, there is no way that we should squander the most valuable open land in Sacto on an Arena that, like every other Arena, will be declared 'out-of-date' in 15 years. Nor should everyone else be taxed to pay for it.
I don't want the Kings to move. There's my admission. And by the standards of the NBA, Arco Arena is a scrap heap, although that has more to do with the economic value of modern sports franchises and the scads of income that owners expect to be able to get out of venues. That said, I'd sort of like to see the thing fail at the ballot box because a) I hate the overuse of the iniative process by monied special interests and b) I'd like the see the Maloofs and the city start over with a plan B in which the brothers would have to spend more of their own money to get this done. On the other hand, this may be the best deal all sides are going to get, and the fact is the Kings eventually will hop up and move if they don't get a new arena. And as said, I don't want that. So I guess yes with reservations would closest to the position I have. Could I have a more wishy-washy stance on this? Likely not -- but remember I won't even be voting on it, I'll just have my hands full trying to snuff out the proposed weed sales tax to build that new stop sign that got rushed onto the Arcata ballot (thanks a whole lot, Beckler).
It would probably be about the same percentage as how many Sacramentans step foot in to museums here per year. But we all know a museum wouldn't meet this kind of resistance here.
I'm no big arena supporter but I do think it's being treated differently than other big building proposals and I think it's because a lot of people have a negative opinion of sports & sports fans. Maybe I'm wrong - but that's what it seems like to me. There has to be other things your tax money goes to that you don't necessarily utilize. Maybe not.
For the record, I've been to Arco 3 times in the last 2 years. 2 Kings games & Simon & Garfunkel. And no, it doesn't seem run down to me but I feel that's a moot point at this stage of the game. And I guess $5 a month doesn't seem to me like much extra to pay in taxes per month.
I'll definitely admit that I'm for the measures because I don't want the Kings to leave. And I think as election day gets closer, that will come closer to the forefront for everyone. No one gets to look over your shoulder and judge you when you check yes. (Unless you vote absentee and you have an overbearing partner. In which, you should hit them.)
The payback of the loan in full and immediately, coupled with the community-based projects and the location makes this a winning proposition. This isn't the people of Sacramento footing the bill to make the Maloofs billionaires - they already are billionaires! This is the people of Sacramento paying to keep the Kings in town, and improve downtown and other local communities in the process.
$5 extra a month sort of does seem like a lot to me. I'm often strapped for cash. I commute to work to Folsom (though I carpool). But I sort of look at it this way: that money could represent 22 or 23 trips to and from work in a year. That's an entire month of my driving to work.
That's one and a half or two of my summer utility bills. That's easily three of my utility bills when the temperature is more moderate.
I've been to Arco once in the past 6 years. It was for a Kings game, though, but somebody had a free ticket, so I figured "eh, why not?". So admittedly, I don't go that much. I also am not a huge Basketball fan. I am not a big sports person in general. I like baseball a little more, so you know, maybe I'd think differently if it was a baseball stadium, but I really doubt it.
However, I honestly think that there are a lot of things that I'd be more okay with having my tax dollars go to, even if I didn't personally utilize them very much, or at all, if I could be made to beleive it had far-reaching impact on the community. I am totally not buying the argument that a new Arena would have far-reaching (positive) effect.
I'm probably moving, though, so whatever. I like the Sacramento "Tea Party", though. Storm the box office and dump the tickets into the American River.
From what little I know about Kings games, they sell out every time. I also hear from some sports fans who say about complaints about ARCO (in a stage whisper) "pssh. ARCO's fine."
From my own observation, the Maloofs really want to stay in Sacramento. (Could it be the fact that Sacramento gives them sellout crowds at every game?) From the Maloofs (and their boosters) we hear that they are getting offers from all over the place that they demur on because they love Sacramento so damn much.
From my recollections of debates about ARCO, the main argument against was that the property was prime agricultural land so the arena shouldn't go there. The pro-arena people said, hey, nothing's grown on it for decades, so BFD? (Of course nothing had been PLANTED there for decades...)
My points are these: 1) If the games are consistenly sold out, wouldn't it be really stupid of the owners to move and give up a faithful fanbase, new arena or not? 2) Why is it that we only hear about the amazing offers the Maloofs regularly turn down from, um, the MALOOFS? 3) To repeat a point made earlier, are we going to be having the same brawl over the railyard arena in 10 years that we're having now about ARCO?
OMF!!! It has always been money and juice. (And I know my juice!)
What team owners don't want money & what politicians don't want political "juice"? If you're expecting some deal to arise where those aren't factors, then your'e gonna be OOOOMF before that happens. You don't care about the Kings being here & I do. Making it an idealogical battle between the evil rich Maloofs & the poor unsuspecting townspeople isn't really addressing the issue we're looking at as of yesterday - which is: "here's the deal - is it acceptable?". Unlike a lot of developments in Sac, at least we get a vote. I believe it's gonna be a close vote because while the deal isn't ideal, it's not totally outlandish either. If, as you say, only around 10% - 20% of Sacramentans ever utilize Arco, then you have nothing to worry about - it'll be a landslide vote shooting the deal down. But I'll be surprised if that's really the case.
again, "they" have set it up so that half of the new tax proceeds go to the arena and the other half to other community projects. that's already tied together. and that's why it probably will pass; the people who never go to arco (i've been there zero times in 15 years) will be tempted by all the (un-named) "other good things" that the tax money will bring. even i'm considering voting yes. they would never even try to put just an arena tax on the ballot 'cause it would never have a chance of passing.
Just a note on all of the "I've been to ARCO x times in x years: that's part of it. Another part is, if you're any kind of Kings fan, how many times you've watched a Kings game at home or at a bar, how much time you've spent chatting about the Kings with friends. This is about the Kings (and in the larger picture, major league sports) being in Sacramento. That's not just going to sit in the arena; that's everything and anything that has to do with the Kings and professional sports.
Oh yeah, I forgot about all the times I go to bars or turn on my TV to watch the kings and talk with my friends about the kings, and all the other kings-related things that I do.
In that case, I guess I care about the Kings less than I thought.
But it is about that for Kings fans, aka: the bulk of the arena supporters. Might as well know where they're coming from if you seriously want to debate the issue.
the comments are entertaining/infuriating. If you're against it you are a "whiner" or a "whinner". I like this comment though, it cuts to the heart of the matter
ReplyDeleteA quarter cent tax isn't too high a price to pay to keep the Kings in Sacramento. Maybe the Kings can focus now on Bonzi's situation.
another comment from the "stop whining" contingent
ReplyDeleteIf you don't like the 1/4 cent sales tax, feel free to move from the Sacramento area. Move to North Dakota, where you will never have to pay for any new arena for any sports team. If you want Sacramento to be viewed as a modern city, then we need this arena. For an extra $25-$50 a year in taxes, it is worth it. Imagine our revitalized downtown this arena will create. It will be wonderful. All of you fools who think Sacramento is fine the way it is, I feel sorry for you. It is now the 21st century and this town is destined to grow into a great city. We are not a cow town anymore, so quit your whining. The Maloofs don't even have to give us this opportunity, so shut up and vote yes
You're welcome; it's my ol' news instinct to get the scoop.
ReplyDeleteThis should all be intersting. I'm holding back from expressing opinions on it all, because I'd go on and on.
Plus, I don't live there anymore, and I have to stick to local matters: Does Arcata really need a new stop sign? And just who will pay for it?
quarter cent tax on each pound of weed sold
ReplyDeleteScrew the arena. Let the Kings leave; bring the A's to Sacramento (Raley Field already has the framework to add an upper deck), which wouldn't cost taxpayers a dime.
ReplyDeleteSincerely,
Anti Weed Tax Society
Dude! Taxin' the Kind? That concept's way schwaggity!
ReplyDeletelet's have a contest to guess the gut punching closer on voisin's article tomorrow.
ReplyDeletesacramento
it's now or never
shit or get off the pot
is my guess
Word from the press conference is that the Maloofs will pay back the original $70 million loan, separate from any money they spend on a new arena. I didn't hear this with my own ears, so take it as hearsay for now.
ReplyDeletesacramento
ReplyDeletethe maloofs will pay
so will we
so pay up, suckas
(why isn't anyone else entering the contest? it's fun!)
holy shit! they've gotten 125 comments in 20 minutes. and you're right about paying back the loan
ReplyDeletehttp://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/14280090p-15088525c.html
My guess on the closing Voisin quote:
ReplyDelete"Fuck the Bee. I'm a Maloofus now!"
Ed
Another closing line guess:
ReplyDeleteWord to the whiners: Sodomy is served!
Ed
d'oh. somehow the comments from the short article got tacked onto the new one. how many comments can i make on my own post? lots.
ReplyDeleteYou own this thread!
ReplyDeletemiller
i've thought about it a little and maybe my take on the arena thing is that i don't care how rich the maloofs get. i don't care if they are the main beneficiaries of a sales tax. to me, it is worth a few bucks a year (is that about how much it would be?) to keep the kings here. the maloofs see deals that owners get in other cities and they want the same thing. i think that is reasonable.
ReplyDeletenot that it really makes a difference, but i also think they would be more willing to spend more money on salaries if they made more money off the team, so it isn't like they are going to pocket absolutely everything without conferring a benefit on their employees or the city. maybe i'm wrong...maybe they want a new arena so that the value of the franchise increases so they can sell the team for a lot and then leave sacramento and buy a new franchise in vegas. who knows. but the kings do bring a lot of jobs to the area...how many i don't know but i think that is a consideration.
i know i've tried to present the argument from a broader point of view, but i see it like this - if i pay a few extra bucks a year, then the kings stay, development of a big vacant area of the city starts up, and hundreds of millions of dollars get distributed for other projects (all pending voter approval, if it even gets to that).
looking at the aggregate is a bit scarier because it would be a billion dollars or so and then that gets people talking about the opportunity cost and all the better things that could be done with a billion dollars. to some, the opportunity cost or paying a few extra bucks a year isn't worth it to keep a sports team here or to build a new arena and i think that is understandable.
it is just a stupid sports team and there are always more pressing matters...like the levees, schools, etc. i can understand that. (maybe that raises a separate question...would people agree to a sales tax increase to fix the levees? i'm skeptical if enough people would go for that, but who knows).
i agree with voison and others that the kings are gone if there isn't a new arena. i think that is a certainty. and a team will not move here without a new arena...i think voison is right about that.
i think the things that put people off about voison are the same things that have been described on here - she is a cheerleader for a new arena and that creates an idea that she wants one no matter what the cost, which may or may not be true. i agree with the most recent breton column...just give people an opportunity to vote on something. if they vote no, then there are benefits and consequences. if they vote yes, there are benefits and consequences.
so back to my first sentence...should i care if the maloofs get richer? should that be a consideration? i don't see any reason to care, but maybe some people have some ideas about that.
i like sacramento a lot as it is. i'd like it with or without the kings / new arena. i think the identity crisis / 21st century / look at us we are a real city arguments are not persuasive and are mostly made by chumps who don't know the great diverse things the area has to offer.
i've rambled....
-greg
One big reason it rankles me is because I see it as more than a Sac issue. A few years ago when they were pushing this I started to do some reading about the business of sports and new arenas and I learned about the complete abuses of power and civic funds that had been going on all over the country and I got really pissed. I'm worried about what will happen in Sac, but I also see a rejection of this as a rejection of the status quo that the owners have come to expect. I think those days of major abuses are already over, thanks to books like "field of schemes" and the owners are realizing that they have to give some, but they're still seeing what they can get away with. So the argument that this is similar to what owners in other cities have ponied up is not persuasive to me. The tide will be turned on a city-by-city basis. Another thing that bugs me about it is the backroom wheeling and dealing going on and my certainty that our corrupt city council and mayor (and vice mayor) are ready to sell out this town for a buck. So it's more than just a few bucks a year to me, it's the principle of it.
ReplyDeleteSo, I can see your side, too, Greg. I like the Kings, I would like them to say and OCCASIONALLY I'll get a little excited feeling when I think about what could be done with the railyards (parks, etc.) because I'm not some luddite who hates cities. But mostly I just feel dread because I know that no one in charge has my best interests at heart.
greg,
ReplyDeletemaybe i'm a little jaded at the thought that sacramentans would vote for a 1/4 cent sales tax increase for a sports arena and not for other more pressing things like schools and levees. that might be why i just have this nausea every time i think of some poor sacramento resident paying a little extra for something they might not even be able to afford enjoying. not that i go to king's games so i'm reallly not aware of the price for a ticket. but, they are expensive, right? and how many people who have to pay that new tax can actually afford to buy those tickets? i don't know the answer to that. but it is a concern.
also, i like sports but i really hate the idea of a new arena going into an infill project. i think of all the pavement that's going to go in for parking, the acreage used for that damn thing in an area that would be sooo nice if it were used for museums and zoos and canal districts and that kind of thing. i worry that the arena will dictate everything else that gets put down in that area. but that could just be an unfounded anxiety.
i would be a whole hell of a lot happier if i heard that the extra funds from that sales tax increase were going to be put into an aquarium or a zoo or a gold rush museum or something else for all the non sports loving fans to balance out the arena. and, a bus system or a free shuttle or an RT line to that area so people don't have to drive in and park. and perhaps an agreement to put solar panneling in the parking lot of the arena to increase SMUD's greenergy portfolio.
if that were put in the proposal, i'd probably vote for the increase. i'm not sure i really care whether or not the maloofs get rich. but i resent all the panic about something that isn't going to make or break this town.
it chafes me to hear people complain about this town needing to get into the 21st century by building a sports arena. is that why people like san diego? hell no. people don't go to san diego for their sports arena. they go because of the zoo and the wild life park and the photography museum and the botanical garden in a gorgeous park.
alice
regarding the "should i care if the maloofs get richer" question - the actual question is "should i care that my tax dollars are being used to make the maloofs richer?"
ReplyDeleteit is a bummer that the only way people will pass a tax to make all sorts of improvements to this city is if half of it is going to the maloofs. and i expect that a whole lot of the other "improvements" will be the sort of crappy "upscale redevelopment" that the city loves to throw money at. i'm an unabashed tax-and-spend liberal, but i don't trust our current city government to spend wisely. it seems like almost all of the tax money will go to absurdly rich people - the maloofs, huge developers, etc. - to create projects that will primarily appeal to other rich people. (don't even try a "trickle down" argument here...)
anyhow, mark me down as 'undecided'.
The idea that the money could be better used elsewhere is a little frustrating to me. Of course it could, but that should be a seperate ballot issue. I'd pay a 1/4 cent tax to keep the Kings here and another 1/4 cent tax for schools and another for the levees. Those have to be seperate ballot issues & nobody seemed to be too concerend about it until the arena deal came up. Now suddenly everyone's an expert on how the money could be better spent. I really have no good guess on how Sacramento will vote on this but I do think that the issue has been sufficiently clouded & politicized to where it's hard to make a rational decision. Personally, I'm voting yes with reservations.
ReplyDeletemiller
I don't think there's a box on the ballot for that.
ReplyDeleteWell I propose a 1/4 cent tax hike to get it on the ballot!
ReplyDeletemiller
Will someone that is in favor of the arena please just admit that it's solely because you don't want the Kings to move? That's OK if that's your motivation but I just want you to admit it and not (I don't want to say pretend but I don't know what to say) pay lip service (how about that) to wanting better facilities for the monster truck rally or whatever. Does this make you arena-supporters mad when I say this?
ReplyDeleteAdmit it!
That's why I want it (though I guess I'm not technically a big supporter), though I don't think that's not any worse than a large percentage of people who don't want it simply because they don't care about basketball.
ReplyDeletemiller
"i don't think that's any worse..."
ReplyDeletemiller
i know they are separate issues, but, i would vote for the 1/4 cent tax increase for the kings if i knew the city was also going to put in something else like a museum or affordable housing. i just think non-sports lovers should also benefit from the tax. i guess i just don't care enough about the kings to keep them here. i can admitt that. also, i just really want the railyard to be a cool infill project that's not totally paved over with parking for an arena. that probably won't happen if we get an arena, but i just want some assurances that the railyard is going to have something for everyone.
ReplyDeleteThe news last night had someone saying the new tax would amount to "the average person" paying an additional $5 a month. As a member of the "screwed by my boss" crowd, $5 a month DOES make a difference and I'm sure I'm not alone in this. Examples of other cities with publicly-funded arenas (which were publicly funded %100) taxed certain services, such as hotels and the more fancy rental cars. Like a surcharge on tickets, taxing those items makes a hell of a lot more sense to me. (The surcharge for tickets to events being the most sensible.)
ReplyDeleteOne thing that pissed me off about comments from the pro-arena crowd was when people would pretend as if the Kings were just a part of why an arena makes sense. Sheesh. They were worse than the ones who said "move away."
Sorry, but this is only the beginning. There will be so much advertising, scuse me, EDUCATING about this that I fear Sacramento will do what she always does when bludgeoned with marketers. A yes vote is pretty much in the bag. I hope the courts can do something about the idea that the city can spend the money "however (they) choose." That smacks of taxation without representation. Tea party!
Ed
I'd love to see poll results that showed exactly what percentage of Sacramentans actually set foot in Arco Arena this year, and in the past three years.
ReplyDeleteMy guess is that the same people go there over and over again, and that 80-90% of sacto folks never go anywhere near it.
And skip the arguments that the numbers would be different if the arena was downtown. The people that don't go there avoid it because there's nothing they want to see there. that won't change.
if those numbers are accurate, there is no way that we should squander the most valuable open land in Sacto on an Arena that, like every other Arena, will be declared 'out-of-date' in 15 years. Nor should everyone else be taxed to pay for it.
omf
I don't want the Kings to move. There's my admission. And by the standards of the NBA, Arco Arena is a scrap heap, although that has more to do with the economic value of modern sports franchises and the scads of income that owners expect to be able to get out of venues. That said, I'd sort of like to see the thing fail at the ballot box because a) I hate the overuse of the iniative process by monied special interests and b) I'd like the see the Maloofs and the city start over with a plan B in which the brothers would have to spend more of their own money to get this done.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, this may be the best deal all sides are going to get, and the fact is the Kings eventually will hop up and move if they don't get a new arena. And as said, I don't want that. So I guess yes with reservations would closest to the position I have.
Could I have a more wishy-washy stance on this? Likely not -- but remember I won't even be voting on it, I'll just have my hands full trying to snuff out the proposed weed sales tax to build that new stop sign that got rushed onto the Arcata ballot (thanks a whole lot, Beckler).
It would probably be about the same percentage as how many Sacramentans step foot in to museums here per year. But we all know a museum wouldn't meet this kind of resistance here.
ReplyDeleteI'm no big arena supporter but I do think it's being treated differently than other big building proposals and I think it's because a lot of people have a negative opinion of sports & sports fans. Maybe I'm wrong - but that's what it seems like to me. There has to be other things your tax money goes to that you don't necessarily utilize. Maybe not.
For the record, I've been to Arco 3 times in the last 2 years. 2 Kings games & Simon & Garfunkel. And no, it doesn't seem run down to me but I feel that's a moot point at this stage of the game. And I guess $5 a month doesn't seem to me like much extra to pay in taxes per month.
miller
And exactly who is getting rich off museum franchises?
ReplyDeleteNobody is suggesting we pop a sales tax for a $600 million museum on the Railyard site... because NOBODY WILL BE GETTING RICH OFF IT.
this deal is about money and political 'juice'. The Maloofs want one and the pols backing this boondoggle want the other.
you can spin it any other way you want, but that's the beginning and end of it.
I'll definitely admit that I'm for the measures because I don't want the Kings to leave. And I think as election day gets closer, that will come closer to the forefront for everyone. No one gets to look over your shoulder and judge you when you check yes. (Unless you vote absentee and you have an overbearing partner. In which, you should hit them.)
ReplyDeleteThe payback of the loan in full and immediately, coupled with the community-based projects and the location makes this a winning proposition. This isn't the people of Sacramento footing the bill to make the Maloofs billionaires - they already are billionaires! This is the people of Sacramento paying to keep the Kings in town, and improve downtown and other local communities in the process.
Kind of cut and dry to me.
$5 extra a month sort of does seem like a lot to me. I'm often strapped for cash. I commute to work to Folsom (though I carpool). But I sort of look at it this way: that money could represent 22 or 23 trips to and from work in a year. That's an entire month of my driving to work.
ReplyDeleteThat's one and a half or two of my summer utility bills. That's easily three of my utility bills when the temperature is more moderate.
I've been to Arco once in the past 6 years. It was for a Kings game, though, but somebody had a free ticket, so I figured "eh, why not?". So admittedly, I don't go that much. I also am not a huge Basketball fan. I am not a big sports person in general. I like baseball a little more, so you know, maybe I'd think differently if it was a baseball stadium, but I really doubt it.
However, I honestly think that there are a lot of things that I'd be more okay with having my tax dollars go to, even if I didn't personally utilize them very much, or at all, if I could be made to beleive it had far-reaching impact on the community. I am totally not buying the argument that a new Arena would have far-reaching (positive) effect.
I'm probably moving, though, so whatever. I like the Sacramento "Tea Party", though. Storm the box office and dump the tickets into the American River.
"This isn't the people of Sacramento footing the bill to make the Maloofs billionaires - they already are billionaires!"
ReplyDeleteSomebody should start a file called "Greatest Moments in Heckasac Blog Comment Nonsequitirs"
From what little I know about Kings games, they sell out every time. I also hear from some sports fans who say about complaints about ARCO (in a stage whisper) "pssh. ARCO's fine."
ReplyDeleteFrom my own observation, the Maloofs really want to stay in Sacramento. (Could it be the fact that Sacramento gives them sellout crowds at every game?) From the Maloofs (and their boosters) we hear that they are getting offers from all over the place that they demur on because they love Sacramento so damn much.
From my recollections of debates about ARCO, the main argument against was that the property was prime agricultural land so the arena shouldn't go there. The pro-arena people said, hey, nothing's grown on it for decades, so BFD? (Of course nothing had been PLANTED there for decades...)
My points are these: 1) If the games are consistenly sold out, wouldn't it be really stupid of the owners to move and give up a faithful fanbase, new arena or not? 2) Why is it that we only hear about the amazing offers the Maloofs regularly turn down from, um, the MALOOFS? 3) To repeat a point made earlier, are we going to be having the same brawl over the railyard arena in 10 years that we're having now about ARCO?
OMF!!! It has always been money and juice. (And I know my juice!)
Ed
What team owners don't want money & what politicians don't want political "juice"? If you're expecting some deal to arise where those aren't factors, then your'e gonna be OOOOMF before that happens. You don't care about the Kings being here & I do. Making it an idealogical battle between the evil rich Maloofs & the poor unsuspecting townspeople isn't really addressing the issue we're looking at as of yesterday - which is: "here's the deal - is it acceptable?". Unlike a lot of developments in Sac, at least we get a vote. I believe it's gonna be a close vote because while the deal isn't ideal, it's not totally outlandish either. If, as you say, only around 10% - 20% of Sacramentans ever utilize Arco, then you have nothing to worry about - it'll be a landslide vote shooting the deal down. But I'll be surprised if that's really the case.
ReplyDeletemiller
I really hope by non sequitor, you meant "humorously absurd" and not "a logical fallacy." I should italicized "make" to inflect my cheekiness.
ReplyDeleteagain, "they" have set it up so that half of the new tax proceeds go to the arena and the other half to other community projects. that's already tied together. and that's why it probably will pass; the people who never go to arco (i've been there zero times in 15 years) will be tempted by all the (un-named) "other good things" that the tax money will bring. even i'm considering voting yes. they would never even try to put just an arena tax on the ballot 'cause it would never have a chance of passing.
ReplyDeleteJust a note on all of the "I've been to ARCO x times in x years: that's part of it. Another part is, if you're any kind of Kings fan, how many times you've watched a Kings game at home or at a bar, how much time you've spent chatting about the Kings with friends. This is about the Kings (and in the larger picture, major league sports) being in Sacramento. That's not just going to sit in the arena; that's everything and anything that has to do with the Kings and professional sports.
ReplyDeletenot to mention the time I've spent fantasizing about brad miller. oops, I meant scott miller.
ReplyDeleteOh yeah, I forgot about all the times I go to bars or turn on my TV to watch the kings and talk with my friends about the kings, and all the other kings-related things that I do.
ReplyDeleteIn that case, I guess I care about the Kings less than I thought.
But it is about that for Kings fans, aka: the bulk of the arena supporters. Might as well know where they're coming from if you seriously want to debate the issue.
ReplyDeletemiller
We don't need another dubious honor placed on this town by anther cold heart.
ReplyDeleteAn anonymous cheap shot??
ReplyDeleteUnprecedented!
(the above comment is lyrics from a song of mine. taken out of context by the way).
miller