The media dream machine has gone into a hysterical frenzy covering the Kings arena funding talks being held at the Waldorf Astoria hotel inside Disney World in Orlando, Florida.
Headlines in the Bee screamed “It’s high noon for arena” and “Crunch time goes into overtime.” No agreement had been reached as of this morning and as usual the specifics of a funding plan are being kept secret from the public that is expected to hand over $200 million to keep the one percenters happy.
You have to worry when city officials are so desperate for a deal that they pay to travel across the country to negotiate with the NBA and the Maloof brothers at the ritzy Waldorf Astoria hotel in Disney fantasyland. The humble Hyatt in Sacramento wasn’t good enough? Apparently, the NBA all-star festivities are more important to NBA commissioner David Stern and the Maloofs than shacking up in River City to hammer out a deal. Or maybe they know they hold all the cards. Who knows what going on behind those closed doors?
Not the local media, evidently. They seem as much in the dark as the public. Yet instead of decrying the wall of secrecy and back-room deals, they fuel the crisis atmosphere with speculation, scare stories about outside Goliaths intent on snatching the Kings away from Sacramento and name-calling of arena critics.
Why don’t they ask some hard questions about funding schemes that make little sense and that contribute to the sense of being snookered?
Example: The Bee ran a story last week that the city had asked Sacramento County to contribute some funds for an arena. The county said it might allow use of three of its parking lots for arena events if the city would pay the cash-strapped county $500,000 a year for maintenance of county parks. The county claimed the city could make $2.5 million a year on the deal.
Huh? The county, already cutting staff and services, is willing to give up $2.5 million for $500,000? What sense does that make? Could the county be taking the city for a ride? Does the deal mean the county gets $500,000 today and gives up $2.5 million when the arena opens? Is the county so desperate it would sacrifice $2 million in a couple of years to get $500,000? Heck, why not just get a Payday loan?
Example: The above scheme is being floated along with the key plan to privatize the city’s downtown parking facilities. Privatized parking deals, such as the one in Chicago, usually include a clause stipulating that the city can’t compete against the private operator. How would Sacramento get around such a clause? If it refuses to go along with the clause, how much would the desired $200 million upfront payment be lowered? By $2.5 million a year for 50 years? That would kill the city’s plan.
Example: The city stands to lose $9 million in annual revenue to the general fund if it privatizes downtown parking. Officials insist no arena funding deal will be approved unless replacement revenue is assured. With the March 1 deadline for a funding plan looming, how exactly will this revenue be replaced? Vague references to ticket surcharges and arena signage fees won’t keep cops and firefighters on the city payroll.
Finally, a few questions for Bee columnist Marcos Breton, who described himself in Sunday’s column as a person who preferred being hopeful rather than cynical:
If opponents of the arena don’t know all the facts, whose fault is that? What facts has he, the journalist, provided? If they’re cautious about investing $200 million without knowing the full story, doesn’t that make them financially responsible citizens? Since he urges spending $200 million without bothering to get all the facts (or declining to reveal them), what does that make him?
$7 billion impact? When new arenas are built, they don’t attract significant amounts of dollars from outside of the region. What tends to happen is that folks who spend money on basketball would have spent it on dinner or a movie at a restaurant in the same town. Natomas didn’t develop because of Arco. It developed because of low interest rates and the availability of large swaths of cheap land near Downtown Sacramento.
I disagree again with your contention that it will not bring in new money Jason. Everything that I have read says that it will make a sizable impact and the numbers all say $7 billion.
The problem I think is that not many people in Sacramento have been to other parts of the country where new arenas and stadiums have been built. San Diego, Phoenix, San Francisco, Denver are just a few examples of an arena making a large impact on a community and it’s economy.
What this arena will do is increase the number of events offered in Sacramento which WILL bring new money to the area and create a brand new social center that is sorely needed in our town.
Look at the facts. Look at other towns. It’s all right there
So lets put this in perspective….What the city is paying is $200,000,000 for a return on their investment to the tune of $7 BILLION!! let me make this easy for some of you…would you invest $200 for a $7000 return? I will take that same $5.00 bet that says we will end up with more police and fire personel.
Maybe we can all just keeping sticking our heads in the sand, not paying attention when our neighbor to the south has to declare bankruptcy-not because of excessive retirees pension plans but because Stockton decided to become a “better city” and spent as if there were no tomorrow on a new baseball facility for the Ports-the old one was fine-the new one is nice but not really better. To install silliness around the river that brings in no additional dollars, etc, etc. I don’t know, perhaps the Maloofs have large stockings stuffed with cash under their mattresses, otherwise we’re going to take it on the chin when they both default on their original loan and walk away from a new arena when the Kings are finally sold and leave town. Did I just hear a gasp from Breton? Wanna lay 5 bucks on it buddy, just for fun?
Come on now…how can you compare the Stockton Ports to the Sacramento Kings. Once again someone not doing their research and spouting off things the believe to be facts.
First let me give you some facts…The Stockton Ports set a single game attendance record of 6,285. Even during the worst stretches the Kings’ attendance has not been anywhere that low. Lets just say that the kings average 15,000 fans in the new arena (capacity at the new arena is said to be projected at 19,000) that still makes the kings yearly attendance 3 times greater than the Ports best year. The Kings play 44 home games and the ports play 65-70.
Second…The arena will not just be used for the Kings (another fact that seems to be missed be the opposing side) Based on current usage at PBP and the projected usage of the new arena… the Circus, Ice Shows, and Much better concerts, conventions, Home Shows, …I can go on and on, the Arena should be used for about 300 days. Lets just say again being concervative, that all of those events average about 15,000 people. You can’t tell me that 4.5 million people will not pump a ton of money into our local economy.
Right now there is no reason to go downtown. There is very little for tourists to come to town. Unless its the train museum and Old Sac. I think it is you guys that need to get your head out of the sand. This will make Sacramento a better place to live. I would hope that is what you want in the end.
I can’t speak to your other examples, I don’t know have enough info about them to comment. But to your first example of the county parking spaces, do you realize that 98% of the time the county lots are empty during nights and weekends when the vast majority of events would occur? The county can’t give up money they don’t receive! In effect they would rent the spaces at a time when they wouldn’t be making any money on it anyway. I don’t think that’s a scam, it’s a good business deal for both sides.
If it’s such a good deal, Steve, why wouldn’t the county itself run the lots on event nights and pocket the supposed $2.5 million?
I don’t know, ask the county…..
because if we don’t invest in an arena nothing will change and the lots will still be empty. If you haven’t noticed there is very little reason to go down town right now.
because the county knows that having a sports and entertainment facility would generate huge revenue for the county as well, so to rent out the garage that only during the events the city would receive the money and the trade off for the county is huge economic development, its a win win for the city and county!
No one reads this. LOL
You just did.
poor paul
you have tried to spin the facts as much as you can but you have failed! PS im probably the only person that reads your garbage anways! Buts lets address the facts….. Kevin Johnson has said from day one of whole process this would be a public private partnership (no one has ever promised the the city was going to invest nothing and get back everything which seems to be the argument that you try and make as the only fair deal for the city). That means the city contributes, and the private sector contributes. The city has agreed to paying 200 million and the private sector has agreed to pay 210 million. It has carefully crafted so that the citys 9 million a year from the general fund will be COMPLETELY reimbursed for at least 30 years. and there are several provisions so that the general fund could actually gain from the deal if certain benchmarks are met along with the fact that revenues will rise from increased events and economic activity. This is a totally different deal from the 2006 proposal where the city was going to pay 600 million and the maloofs nothing. So to speak so arrogantly like 2006 deal speaks for this one is ingnorance.
The city council has guarenteed that they would not pass this deal if anything less was true. AEG has agreed to cost over runs plus upped their contribution to make this happen. Even your hero cindy sheety voted yes on going forward to take bids for this plan because it is shaping up to a good investment for the city as well as the maloofs and AEG.
gear up buddy the fat lady has entered the room, and is about to give us a masterpiece for your ears especially. You can go back and crawl into your cave with all the other CAVE people where you belong!
and lets see if you have the stomach to leave this comment up which I doubt you do.
Steve, I think your commentary speaks for itself and helps readers understand the mind-set of arena promoters.
your article and comments speaks for itself as well. about how to spin things and cloak under the auspices of respectful critism. I have seen you insert so much loaded rhetoric over the months to the point where any thing that comes from you has to be deemed irrelevent. Its so funny the hyprocracy you use in trying to criticize others and then use the same tactics in people who disagree with you.
And as I have explained to you before (which im sure you didnt listen to….) I have been very critical of previous arena proposals and bad deals for the city. I voted against the 2006 arena proposal. But this time the process has been transparent is shaping up to be a good investment for the city and the private enterprises involved. I think the cities investment combined with a huge private investment) will spur enough economic activity to help the region.
Of course the facts don’t matter. They would only reveal a few wealthy individuals, some developers and a handful of city politicians stand to benefit. And for that, they would put the city at risk and ante up the only remaining source of dependable revenue for Sacramento, its parking revenues, for 50 years! That’s what the facts have to offer – for some more facts, and a plan that might have gotten us an arena complex for all sports, completely privately funded, with an international audience, and interest from 80% of the citizens, rather than a noisy 12%, please read our latest article –
http://stopcalexpo.wordpress.com/2012/02/26/breton-insults/
First off as a CITY resident, I’ll give the Kings a hundred dollars to leave town. My blood boils knowing that our mayor, being retired NBA is working hard to solidify his retirement checks. I want to know why no one has mentioned if we, residents can file suit to keep from selling city assets that are paying for city services. You pay for fire, P.D. and some street services with the parking revenue. Sell or lease off the parking and we MAY make it up somewhere? Natomas has all the underground utilities installed as well as the roadways for the arena. Put it there, and the county, everyone contributes. The revenue is also split. The arena downtown, will not help downtown, have any of you rode literail? 1%er’s aren’t going to get on that mess. I-5 will be a mess, think of Cal Expo when the fairs going, you recall what Cap City Freeway looks like. Now that I’ve got my rant off my chest, let’s give LA the Kings, and we’ll keep our water. So tell ‘em down south to expect the Kings, and start building a water desailination plant. AND, hey Maloof, how about paying off your loan, what do we look like the palms?
well you obviously dont understand economics so let me try to simplify this for you. The city would own this arena and through ticket surcharges and revenue split the city looks to gain more money for the general fund which means more money for firefighters and teachers, thats why they support the arena development. another issue is that events will be in the evenings and weekends not during rush hour and its not like people leaving the city are going to be on the same roads as people going to the city they are on opposite lanes! To your final point how dare you call people that go to kings and other events part of the !%, going to kings games are 10 dollars even starving college students like myself can go to a couple of games a year and plenty of people would ride the light rail and buses!
the Bee reporters are cowards that figure they are saving Bee jobs by coaleasing with KJ’s facist approach to democracy. seizing the press has always been a tool for politicians.
There are a couple of points that you forgot to mention in your article that should have been presented if this were to have been a fair article
1) You conveniently forgot to mention the $7 Billion impact that this arena would directly have on the local economy. Spending $250,000 for a $7 Billion return seems like a good investment in Sacramento.
2) You also forgot to mention the in-direct impact that the arena will have on the community, such as new clubs and restaurants, increased hotel stays, Jobs, tax revenue and other entertainment and quality of life activities. Not to mention the need and funding for more police fire and other emergency services.
3) The re-vitalization of what is probably the biggest eyesore in Sacramento, The Rail Yards. I can site two examples that building the arena will almost certainly improve that area. First, and I don’t know how long you have been in Sacramento, but before Arco Arena, there was NO North Natomas. No restaurants, houses and only a few warehouses. I contend that had there been no Arco arena, North Natomas would have not been anywhere near the same place it is today. Second, look down the road to San Francisco. Prior to AT&T Ball Park was built (Where the Giants play in case you didn’t know) the area was nowhere you or me or anyone else would ever go. Now it is a major part of San Francisco’s business and nightlife.
Anyone can look at the surface of a plan and pull out negatives and say we can’t afford to build this arena, but I say we can’t afford NOT to build this arena. I think you need full disclosure as much as anyone else.
Greg, I’ve lived in Sacramento since 1977. I rather liked the farmland in Natomas, the relatively uncluttered freeways, and the cleaner air. But at least the developers got to make a ton by bringing in the Kings and destroying the area’s tranquility.
cities grow, the population grows and the economy grows. This is a natural process that has to happen if the people of this country wants to maintain its quality of life. If you want tranquility and cleaner air you are free to move somewhere else, thats smaller until they chose to grow too big for your tatse……oh but wait you wont do that because you wouldnt have a JOB if you moved to an area like you described. Other people need jobs as well and that is based off growth and cities becoming bigger. isnt that convient that you criticize and deride the process that has enabled you live a great life.
Steve, I had a job and good life in Sacramento before the Kings arrived. Urban sprawl and political exploitation aren’t the answer to creating good community life.
Can’t believe this. Ummm, nobody is keeping anyone in the dark, most of the details are known and have been reported. Do a little research before you write an article like this. Also, the money that would be made from the parking spots the county would give up control of would not exist if the arena weren’t there. The reason they’re projected to make that much is because of the new arena and event parking fees. I mean come on, all of this has been reported. Its embarrassing for the Bee that this blog with no journalistic value somehow ended up on the front page of their website. There is no vague reference to ticket surcharges, there is a hard 75 million dollar number which will be part of the backfill of the general fund. I have no idea why I am sitting here telling you things you could easily look up for yourself, so I guess I’ll stop. But next time, try doing some research. Especially when your title derides your opposition for doing the same.