Jump to content






Photo
- - - - -

Arena / Prop Q&R Discussion


  • Please log in to reply
192 replies to this topic

#151 Robert Giacometti

Robert Giacometti

    There are no Dumb questions

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,850 posts

Posted 04 October 2006 - 09:00 PM

QUOTE(stevethedad @ Oct 4 2006, 08:45 AM) View Post

Yes, and they need a new place to play, whether it is here in Sacramento, or in a city that wants them.
No, it's much better than that! While the football team draws 68,000 a game for 10 games (680,000 total), the Kings draw 18,000 a game for 41 games. That 738,000. Yes, they sell out now. That's 738,000 fewer money-spenders if the Kings leave.

I don't have any stats on it, but have observed many supporters of visiting teams at Kings games. You're right, fans won't fly in. They won't drive in either, because there won't be a game to go to.
Is that why they party before the game, to avoid the crowds? I've never heard that one before. I always thought it was a fun tradition that people look forward to.

Very few fans stop by the Natomas businesses before or after games now, because the location of ARCO and proximity to the freeway makes it a get-in get-out destination. In fact In and Out Burger and the other fast food joints seem to be the only establishments that do well after a game.

I've never heard the Maloof's say they don't want any other businesses located near the proposed arena, but that's too bad. There are some already and will be more.

A better comparison than football might be hockey. They play about 60 games at home, and while there isn't much tailgaiting, the San Jose businesses that thrive near HP Pavillion can tell you that they do land-office business when the Sharks play.


Steve,

I thought everbody knew that tailgating in the NFL originated from people getting to the games early to avoid traffic and then evolved to picnicking and drinking to pass the time until the game started. Of course the tradition has grown into part of festivities for going to a NFL game, so that now the motive isn't to avoid traffic as much as party before the games. See you learn something new everyday!

You probably should check the reasons on why the Maloofs have backed out on the deal. They want to have control over what is allowed to be built near the arena and they want 8000 parking spaces. With 8000 parking spaces that will pretty much handle all vehicles who want to park into the garage, right off the freeway, so the fans will simply drive off the freeway and walk into the Arena without ever having set foot downtown. There is a large amount of railyards to develop and the Maloofs want to eliminate any other competition from nearby the Arena.

When you say find a way to build it.... which way are you talking about? Sac City's version or the Maloofs version? If Sac city builds their version the Maloofs probably won't move downtown or move elsewhere and then you won't have what you are claiming...the benefits of a prosports team. If you want to build the Maloofs version then everything you claim about the benefits won't be realized as people will simply park in the garage, spend all their money at the Arena and never see downtown.

In both cases the region will have 1.2 billion dollars taken out of its economy, so everybody will have less money to go there anyway.

Throwing good money at a bad plan is never a good idea!



#152 Steve Heard

Steve Heard

    Owner

  • Admin
  • 13,752 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 04 October 2006 - 11:22 PM

QUOTE(Robert Giacometti @ Oct 4 2006, 10:00 PM) View Post

Steve,

I thought everbody knew that tailgating in the NFL originated from people getting to the games early to avoid traffic and then evolved to picnicking and drinking to pass the time until the game started. Of course the tradition has grown into part of festivities for going to a NFL game, so that now the motive isn't to avoid traffic as much as party before the games. See you learn something new everyday!

You probably should check the reasons on why the Maloofs have backed out on the deal. They want to have control over what is allowed to be built near the arena and they want 8000 parking spaces. With 8000 parking spaces that will pretty much handle all vehicles who want to park into the garage, right off the freeway, so the fans will simply drive off the freeway and walk into the Arena without ever having set foot downtown. There is a large amount of railyards to develop and the Maloofs want to eliminate any other competition from nearby the Arena.

When you say find a way to build it.... which way are you talking about? Sac City's version or the Maloofs version? If Sac city builds their version the Maloofs probably won't move downtown or move elsewhere and then you won't have what you are claiming...the benefits of a prosports team. If you want to build the Maloofs version then everything you claim about the benefits won't be realized as people will simply park in the garage, spend all their money at the Arena and never see downtown.

In both cases the region will have 1.2 billion dollars taken out of its economy, so everybody will have less money to go there anyway.

Throwing good money at a bad plan is never a good idea!


Forgive my lack of tailgating history. It was before my time.

Let me throw another twist on it: How will the 1/4 cent sales tax affect the average person? Let's say I buy $10,000 worth of taxable goods per year. That will equal $25 per year.

Would I pay $25 a year to keep the Kings in Sacramento, even if it meant the Maloofs remained rich or got richer? You bet!

Steve Heard

Folsom Real Estate Specialist

EXP Realty

BRE#01368503

Owner - MyFolsom.com

916 718 9577 


#153 Chad Vander Veen

Chad Vander Veen

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,209 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 05 October 2006 - 06:30 AM

I'd really like to hear an alternative plan from Robert, Camay or anyone else, especially considering the following ideas have been proposed and shot down already over the last 5-7 years:

hotel tax
rental car tax
dining and entertainment surcharge
land swap

#154 melloguy

melloguy

    All Star

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 382 posts

Posted 05 October 2006 - 06:43 AM

QUOTE(c_vanderveen @ Oct 5 2006, 07:30 AM) View Post

I'd really like to hear an alternative plan from Robert, Camay or anyone else, especially considering the following ideas have been proposed and shot down already over the last 5-7 years:

hotel tax
rental car tax
dining and entertainment surcharge
land swap

Chad - I think you are missing the point with many of us. As I said, I am a huge sports fan and do not support the current tax proposal, not so much for the tax but for the deal on the table. I would support any of these taxes and think the railyard location is absolutely ideal. I am someone that the Kings and politicos should be able to count on for a solid yes vote on just about any proposal. But this one appears to be so one-sided that I cannot support it.

With many, they are not going to support any new tax and those are the votes you will not change. It is with people like me that they need to be looking at and figure why we are not supporting the ballot measures.
"America is like a healthy body and its resistance is three-fold: its patriotism, its morality and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within." -- Joseph Stalin, former dictator of the Soviet Union

#155 Robert Giacometti

Robert Giacometti

    There are no Dumb questions

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,850 posts

Posted 05 October 2006 - 07:32 AM

QUOTE(c_vanderveen @ Oct 5 2006, 07:30 AM) View Post

I'd really like to hear an alternative plan from Robert, Camay or anyone else, especially considering the following ideas have been proposed and shot down already over the last 5-7 years:

hotel tax
rental car tax
dining and entertainment surcharge
land swap


I'm not aware of any of these above proposals ever being shot down by the voters.

As we debate this issue today the politicians are already having secret talks about Plan B. Which would entail NOT raising your sales taxes so you can keep your money to spend at the Arena.

The real question is, If the Maloofs don't agree with this plan, the politicians in SAC City realize this is NOT a workable plan, then why are you so willing to throw your tax dollars away on plan that the principals involved don't like?

The only answers I can come up with are, you are either foolish or extremely stubborn. I'm pretty sure its the latter. Unfortunately, I'm stubborn also ( its years of dealing with Chicago bear fans). In this situation I'm on the side of the majority for a change, I wish that was the case more often.

#156 Steve Heard

Steve Heard

    Owner

  • Admin
  • 13,752 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 October 2006 - 07:33 AM

QUOTE(melloguy @ Oct 5 2006, 07:43 AM) View Post

Chad - I think you are missing the point with many of us. As I said, I am a huge sports fan and do not support the current tax proposal, not so much for the tax but for the deal on the table. I would support any of these taxes and think the railyard location is absolutely ideal. I am someone that the Kings and politicos should be able to count on for a solid yes vote on just about any proposal. But this one appears to be so one-sided that I cannot support it.

With many, they are not going to support any new tax and those are the votes you will not change. It is with people like me that they need to be looking at and figure why we are not supporting the ballot measures.


It is not one sided.

The business owners (Maloofs) get to run their business, and the Sac region gets jobs, tax revenue, redevelopment, new entertainment, shopping, dining, and the Kings. It's a win-win.

Steve Heard

Folsom Real Estate Specialist

EXP Realty

BRE#01368503

Owner - MyFolsom.com

916 718 9577 


#157 Chad Vander Veen

Chad Vander Veen

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,209 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 05 October 2006 - 07:34 AM

QUOTE(Robert Giacometti @ Oct 5 2006, 08:32 AM) View Post

I'm not aware of any of these above proposals ever being shot down by the voters.


Nope, they never made it that far thanks to the same people opposing the current plan.

#158 cw68

cw68

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,370 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 05 October 2006 - 08:55 AM

QUOTE(stevethedad @ Oct 5 2006, 12:22 AM) View Post

Forgive my lack of tailgating history. It was before my time.

Let me throw another twist on it: How will the 1/4 cent sales tax affect the average person? Let's say I buy $10,000 worth of taxable goods per year. That will equal $25 per year.

Would I pay $25 a year to keep the Kings in Sacramento, even if it meant the Maloofs remained rich or got richer? You bet!

What does tailgating have to do with this? Besides, most tailgaters bring their own things from home and don't spend the money right there. So if someone was coming from Timbuktu, the Timbuktu economy would benefit! smile.gif

Heck, not only would I pay $25 to keep the Kings in Sacramento and get a new arena built, I'd cover one of the poor that Robert's so concerned about!

#159 Robert Giacometti

Robert Giacometti

    There are no Dumb questions

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,850 posts

Posted 05 October 2006 - 09:26 AM

QUOTE(cw68 @ Oct 5 2006, 09:55 AM) View Post

What does tailgating have to do with this? Besides, most tailgaters bring their own things from home and don't spend the money right there. So if someone was coming from Timbuktu, the Timbuktu economy would benefit! smile.gif

Heck, not only would I pay $25 to keep the Kings in Sacramento and get a new arena built, I'd cover one of the poor that Robert's so concerned about!


Hey, I thought you were done with this debate.... again?

After this measure fails, if you are really want to help the poor, you can donate that $25.00 that won't be taken from in you in taxes, to the Twin Lakes Food bank here in Folsom. When the politicians finally build the Arena with plan B, you'll have an extra $25.00, the poor won't be taxed for something they can't afford to attend and the economy won't have a $1.2 billion bite taken out of it, we will have a new Arena ( wether the Kings play there or not isn't up to the voters)

Lets not let logic and common sense get in the way of our thinking!

#160 cw68

cw68

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,370 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 05 October 2006 - 09:33 AM

QUOTE(Robert Giacometti @ Oct 5 2006, 10:26 AM) View Post

Hey, I thought you were done with this debate.... again?

After this measure fails, if you are really want to help the poor, you can donate that $25.00 that won't be taken from in you in taxes, to the Twin Lakes Food bank here in Folsom. When the politicians finally build the Arena with plan B, you'll have an extra $25.00, the poor won't be taxed for something they can't afford to attend and the economy won't have a $1.2 billion bite taken out of it, we will have a new Arena ( wether the Kings play there or not isn't up to the voters)

Lets not let logic and common sense get in the way of our thinking!

I already support Twin Lakes monthly. And I'm arranging the GoodFella's preview party to be a food drive for them. So there. neener.gif

Well, the poor might not be able to afford to watch a Kings game, but they'll sure benefit from the economic and job development it would bring. Hell, I can't afford to watch a Kings game and I still support it, however.

#161 Chad Vander Veen

Chad Vander Veen

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,209 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 05 October 2006 - 09:44 AM

QUOTE(Robert Giacometti @ Oct 5 2006, 10:26 AM) View Post

Hey, I thought you were done with this debate.... again?

After this measure fails, if you are really want to help the poor, you can donate that $25.00 that won't be taken from in you in taxes, to the Twin Lakes Food bank here in Folsom. When the politicians finally build the Arena with plan B, you'll have an extra $25.00, the poor won't be taxed for something they can't afford to attend and the economy won't have a $1.2 billion bite taken out of it, we will have a new Arena ( wether the Kings play there or not isn't up to the voters)

Lets not let logic and common sense get in the way of our thinking!


Are you voting yes or no on 86?

#162 cw68

cw68

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,370 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 05 October 2006 - 09:52 AM

QUOTE(c_vanderveen @ Oct 5 2006, 10:44 AM) View Post

Are you voting yes or no on 86?

I'm voting yes on it. I wish these stupid props weren't all or nothing, but rather we got to pick the best prop to "solve" a certain problem. Prop 86 definitely has it's problems but I think that those are outweighed by the fact that per pack costs will rise by $2.60. I think that we will find fewer smokers and that's the winner to me.

#163 Robert Giacometti

Robert Giacometti

    There are no Dumb questions

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,850 posts

Posted 05 October 2006 - 10:08 AM

QUOTE(c_vanderveen @ Oct 5 2006, 10:44 AM) View Post

Are you voting yes or no on 86?


I have no idea on how I'm voting on any of the propostions including 86.

As a general rule I'm opposed to raising taxes and it seems to me most of the propostions are written to improve one special interests postion against another's, I don't want to waste my energy with those issues.

I'm flattered if you are waiting for my opinion before making your choice on what to support!

#164 Chad Vander Veen

Chad Vander Veen

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,209 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 05 October 2006 - 10:53 AM

QUOTE(Robert Giacometti @ Oct 5 2006, 11:08 AM) View Post

I have no idea on how I'm voting on any of the propostions including 86.

As a general rule I'm opposed to raising taxes and it seems to me most of the propostions are written to improve one special interests postion against another's, I don't want to waste my energy with those issues.

I'm flattered if you are waiting for my opinion before making your choice on what to support!


ha, you flatter yourself. just curious how genuine your concern for the poor is

#165 john

john

    Founder

  • Admin
  • 9,841 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Prairie Oaks

Posted 05 October 2006 - 11:06 AM

threads merged again as this has turned in to the same argument again...





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users