379 replies to this topic

[camay2327]

Let's face it folks. The money will not be coming back to Folsom... Flat out....

[DrKoz23]

Let's face it folks. The money will not be coming back to Folsom... Flat out....

Very true. The $600M toward the arena project and any tax revenue generated from the facility will not come back to Folsom.

However... of the other $600M in the .25 % sales tax... this money will be distributed amongst the cities and unincorporated areas of Sacramento county.

If your statement is about the first half of my post... then you are correct. If it is about the second half... what are you basing this on?

[Steve Heard]

The poor pay for parks they will never use, freeways they will never drive on, schools their kids will never go to, and fancy buildings for their leaders...we could go on and on.

.25% sales tax is a mere pittance, even to the poor. As for the woman citing the cost of milk, that 1/4% increase would raise the price of milk 6/10 of a cent.

This issue, however, isn't about the poor, but if you want to talk about the poor, lets look at the people who are employed at ARCO and by the Kings. What will happen to them when the Kings leave? What about the thousands spent by the Kings management and players on local charitable programs. What happens to those programs when the Kings leave. What about the programs paid out of the general fund? It will surely shrink as few visitors come to the region, zero ticket sales, etc.

The Kings benefit the region. It makes sense to do things to keep them.

Furthermore, the new complex would be used for many other events, attracting even more people to Sac. Businesses want to locate where the quality of life is enhanced by professional sports, convention planners want to hold their conventions in cities that have professional sport (or legalized gambling and prostitution), same with tradeshows, conferences, etc.

Building this arena will be good for US. ALL OF US. Whether we personally go to games or other events there or not.

[B&G]

This issue, however, isn't about the poor, but if you want to talk about the poor, lets look at the people who are employed at ARCO and by the Kings. What will happen to them when the Kings leave? What about the thousands spent by the Kings management and players on local charitable programs. What happens to those programs when the Kings leave. What about the programs paid out of the general fund? It will surely shrink as few visitors come to the region, zero ticket sales, etc.

The Kings benefit the region. It makes sense to do things to keep them.

Great point Steve! I am a huge sports fan but don't attend many Kings games. I think more of the public needs to realize the charitable programs, and organazations that are here because of the Kings. Too bad the Sacramento Bee does not choose to look at it this way.

[benning]

There is certainly no shortage of king's pride in this thread. But there is a disturbing shortage of substance.

People keep mentioning the incredible regional benefit of a new basketball stadium in general, but nobody has actually listed any. And most of what people consider a "regional" benefit is merely a Downtown Sacramento benefit.

Hotel dollars will go to Sacramento
Food dollars will go to Sacramento
New businesses will be in Sacramento
Service Sector employment will be in Sacramento

Maybe the regional benefit is that the new business owners will probably live in Granite Bay?

Will there be "some" benefit to the region? Yes, some. Probably in the form of a day trip to gold country. Certainly not enough to justify asking "regional" taxpayers to pay 200% of the construction costs in the form of a 15 year shackle. This should be a City of Sacramento project.

And I have news for you. Basketball teams don't make world class cities out of cowtowns. If that were true, we'd already be there... how long have the Kings been in Sacramento already?

If you want to build a world-class city, you do it with arts and culture: Symphony, Theater, Ballet, Art, Music, night-life, Architecture, Riverparks.. Professional sports teams are an interesting subset, but not what you hang your future on. Just look at Oakland/LA/Oakland Raiders or even our beloved Maloofs to see how fickle sports franchises are -- raising the spectre of bailing if they don't get their way.

I know, its heretical to imagine a Sacramento without bowing at the feet of the Kings. But I can see it!

Sales taxes are insidious, and next to the Social Security tax, the most burdensome of regressive taxes.

And anyone who would pay twice as much for a product, should please visit my store.

well said and welcome to myfolsom. What store do you own?

[Steve Heard]

People keep mentioning the incredible regional benefit of a new basketball stadium in general, but nobody has actually listed any. And most of what people consider a "regional" benefit is merely a Downtown Sacramento benefit.

Hotel dollars will go to Sacramento
Food dollars will go to Sacramento
New businesses will be in Sacramento
Service Sector employment will be in Sacramento

Maybe the regional benefit is that the new business owners will probably live in Granite Bay?

Will there be "some" benefit to the region? Yes, some. Probably in the form of a day trip to gold country. Certainly not enough to justify asking "regional" taxpayers to pay 200% of the construction costs in the form of a 15 year shackle. This should be a City of Sacramento project.

And I have news for you. Basketball teams don't make world class cities out of cowtowns. If that were true, we'd already be there... how long have the Kings been in Sacramento already?

If you want to build a world-class city, you do it with arts and culture: Symphony, Theater, Ballet, Art, Music, night-life, Architecture, Riverparks.. Professional sports teams are an interesting subset, but not what you hang your future on. Just look at Oakland/LA/Oakland Raiders or even our beloved Maloofs to see how fickle sports franchises are -- raising the spectre of bailing if they don't get their way.

I know, its heretical to imagine a Sacramento without bowing at the feet of the Kings. But I can see it!

Sales taxes are insidious, and next to the Social Security tax, the most burdensome of regressive taxes.

And anyone who would pay twice as much for a product, should please visit my store.

You are fortgetting that half of the new tax revenue will go to the community in which it is raised. If you pay .25% more in Folsom, Folsom gets half of that money. That will go a long way toward the symphony, theater, etc. that will help make us a world-class city.

By the way, try getting 17,000 people to show up for 40 ballet performances a year.

As a commissioner on the Folsom Arts and Cultural Commission, I know and appreciate the importance of art and cultural programs. That doesn't mean that sports, major league sports, are not important.

Why do you think that cities all over the world fight to get World Cup, Olympics, All-Star Games, Final Four, Superbowl and other major sporting events? Is it for a few local sports nuts? I don't think so.

I give up......for tonight.

[Robert Giacometti]

The poor pay for parks they will never use, freeways they will never drive on, schools their kids will never go to, and fancy buildings for their leaders...we could go on and on.

.25% sales tax is a mere pittance, even to the poor. As for the woman citing the cost of milk, that 1/4% increase would raise the price of milk 6/10 of a cent.

This issue, however, isn't about the poor, but if you want to talk about the poor, lets look at the people who are employed at ARCO and by the Kings. What will happen to them when the Kings leave? What about the thousands spent by the Kings management and players on local charitable programs. What happens to those programs when the Kings leave. What about the programs paid out of the general fund? It will surely shrink as few visitors come to the region, zero ticket sales, etc.

The Kings benefit the region. It makes sense to do things to keep them.

Furthermore, the new complex would be used for many other events, attracting even more people to Sac. Businesses want to locate where the quality of life is enhanced by professional sports, convention planners want to hold their conventions in cities that have professional sport (or legalized gambling and prostitution), same with tradeshows, conferences, etc.

Building this arena will be good for US. ALL OF US. Whether we personally go to games or other events there or not.

Steve,

What specific tax does the poor pay, for what specific park, but can NOT afford to go to?

What specific tax does the poor pay, for what freeway, they can NOT afford to use?

What specific tax does the poor pay, for what specific school, that they can not afford to attend?

This proposal is for increasing a specific tax to build an Arena ( I know there are 2 measures with no guarantees about where the money is to be spent) The poor will be taxed to build something they can not afford to attend...This is wrong!

Explain to me again the importance of loosing the thousands of dollars in charitable contributions from the Kings if we don't raise 1.2 billion dollars in taxes?

Can anyone tell me of a larger corporate welfare plan in Northern California?

I have been told one of the things businesses consider in locating in an area is local tax rates. Also, I've been told one of the reasons why businesses leave an area is because of high local tax rates.

If the Kings leave ( I prefer they don't ) all that money that is currently being spent on tickets will now be available to be used for alternate forms of recreation. I wonder how many jobs that will create?

Look at all the Military base closings that have occurred.... some studies have shown that the area's economy actually improves after the base is closed and that area's economy diversifys, compared to projections of what would have happened if the base was still operational.

My advice to everyone is to relax, the sky isn't falling, The Kings aren't going anywhere! Once we vote this proposal down the polticians will then move to plan B (there is always a backup plan). Plan B will be better for the region and all of us!

Hey, if a majority of you really want to give your tax dollars away like a herd of sheep running over a cliff, let me set up a collection jar! I'll make sure it gets to the needy!

The reason why the Maloof's are even asking for something like this is they know there is enough of the herd just scared enough to do it.

Finally, do you really think if we pass the hat and raise millions of tax dollars and give it someone wealthier than all of us ( here on MYfolsom.com) put together, this will eliminate our cowtown image? I'm sure it will leave little doubt with others!

[billsfan]

Steve,

What specific tax does the poor pay, for what specific park, but can NOT afford to go to?

What specific tax does the poor pay, for what freeway, they can NOT afford to use?

What specific tax does the poor pay, for what specific school, that they can not afford to attend?

My advice to everyone is to relax, the sky isn't falling, The Kings aren't going anywhere! Once we vote this proposal down the polticians will then move to plan B (there is always a backup plan). Plan B will be better for the region and all of us!

Robert - it's not that they can't Afford it, it's just that they will never use it. Our tax dollars go to many programs that I/you/they just won't use whether by choice, geography, individual choice, etc...
They all result in the current tax rate that we have. I think it's best to consider the 1/4 sales tax in what the rest of the 7% funds, which may or may not ve something we all use, but what we entrust our government to builds nto their yearly budget.

Please don't relax. If this measure fails, you won't see the Kings in Sacramento in 5 years. There is no Plan B and no reason for them to stay when they can get a better offer from another city. The businessman that you are surely understands the economics that these pro franchise owners live in. Please to try to Not make Sacramento the poster child for refusing to fund arenas. or else it will pit us in the same situation as Edmonton, Hartford and other cities that regret their hard stances against funding teams...

[OctoberLily]

Robert...

My fault too. The heat is most likely getting to me... and when I get passionate about an issue sometimes my hands type faster than I can think.

I still think the college education comparison is comparable... only because taxes are supporting the elite to get an education that a certain part of the population will never benefit from. The poor and in some cases the middle class (with how expensive college is these days) are being denied an opportunity to enter these institutions even though they are funding them. Professors are given favorable salaries... tenure... and plenty of money to support their "pet projects". Should all colleges and universities become private?

Re-vitalizaiton of the downtown area will bring an increase in sales tax dollars. This in turn will give the city of Sacramento a huge boost to the city coffers for funding other projects. If the Kings leave... so will go many other entertainment events. This will in-turn take away further tax dollars from the city of Sacramento. If you are located in Sacramento city... I don't know how you could oppose this deal. There will be more return on your dollar than you put in... eventually.

Oh yeah... I liked the woman on the news tonight who said... the county supervisors were deciding between a new Kings arena and her ability to buy her kids milk. Hmmmm... one-half gallon milk $2.59 without the tax... and $2.59 with the tax! Most grocery store food isn't taxed!

Actually, the poor have a better chance of getting a college education in those "prestigious" universities than the middle class because they would qualify for the grants and federally subsidized student loans. So comparing taxes to fund college educations to taxes to fund private sports teams is inappropriate because the poor are usually first and foremost benefiting from those "college" taxes. I would be more than happy to pay additional taxes to help fund college educations because they help the community and this country as a whole - not just a private sports team, their fans and the billionaire owners of the team. I bet there would be hundreds of private investors who would be willing to fork up $$ to build a new arena for the Kings and share in the profits of the games. Unfortunately, the Maloofs would have to share those profits and I doubt they want to do that.

If they said they were going to build a theater like the Mondavi Theater Center in Davis, I would agree to pay the extra tax because the revenue will be shared with the community.

After we build the arena for the Maloofs, the only people that will benefit from the revenue from the arena will be the Maloofs. If these measures are put on the ballot, they will surely fail. The article written by Mr. Weintraub (who is a well known and highly respected attorney in the Sacramento area) depicting the actual amount of money the Maloofs are actually investing in this project has damaged this proposal. Had the Maloofs agreed to invest at least half the cost of building the arena, the people of Sacramento would not think twice about investing in it as well. At least this would show the people of Sacramento that the Maloofs are willing to invest in Sacramento too. However, they are only interested in investing in their team and themselves.

Their threat to bring the Kings to Las Vegas is ridiculous. How many major citys are close enough to Las Vegas without several hours drive? LA? SD? (Don't they have teams of their own?) Do you actually think the Maloofs would give up their Northern California fan base and revenue to move to Las Vegas? Doubt it. How many people will drive or travel to Vegas to watch them play when they can't even make it halfway through the NBA championships???? The Kings will not make or break this city. This city was being revitalized even before the Kings moved here. I remember when there were no sky scrapers in downtown Sacramento - now look at our skyline. People put too much weight on the Kings and the impact they have had on this City. The Oakland A's and the Golden State Warriors have done nothing to improve the City of Oakland's image and the Kings will do little to improve Sacramento's either - the lakers will still consider us a cow town.

[Chad Vander Veen]

Actually, the poor have a better chance of getting a college education in those "prestigious" universities than the middle class because they would qualify for the grants and federally subsidized student loans. So comparing taxes to fund college educations to taxes to fund private sports teams is inappropriate because the poor are usually first and foremost benefiting from those "college" taxes. I would be more than happy to pay additional taxes to help fund college educations because they help the community and this country as a whole - not just a private sports team, their fans and the billionaire owners of the team. I bet there would be hundreds of private investors who would be willing to fork up $$ to build a new arena for the Kings and share in the profits of the games. Unfortunately, the Maloofs would have to share those profits and I doubt they want to do that.

If they said they were going to build a theater like the Mondavi Theater Center in Davis, I would agree to pay the extra tax because the revenue will be shared with the community.

After we build the arena for the Maloofs, the only people that will benefit from the revenue from the arena will be the Maloofs. If these measures are put on the ballot, they will surely fail. The article written by Mr. Weintraub (who is a well known and highly respected attorney in the Sacramento area) depicting the actual amount of money the Maloofs are actually investing in this project has damaged this proposal. Had the Maloofs agreed to invest at least half the cost of building the arena, the people of Sacramento would not think twice about investing in it as well. At least this would show the people of Sacramento that the Maloofs are willing to invest in Sacramento too. However, they are only interested in investing in their team and themselves.

Their threat to bring the Kings to Las Vegas is ridiculous. How many major citys are close enough to Las Vegas without several hours drive? LA? SD? (Don't they have teams of their own?) Do you actually think the Maloofs would give up their Northern California fan base and revenue to move to Las Vegas? Doubt it. How many people will drive or travel to Vegas to watch them play when they can't even make it halfway through the NBA championships???? The Kings will not make or break this city. This city was being revitalized even before the Kings moved here. I remember when there were no sky scrapers in downtown Sacramento - now look at our skyline. People put too much weight on the Kings and the impact they have had on this City. The Oakland A's and the Golden State Warriors have done nothing to improve the City of Oakland's image and the Kings will do little to improve Sacramento's either - the lakers will still consider us a cow town.

You've convinced me. You've convinced me you've given no thought at all to anything other than your passionately flawed belief that this arena is for the Maloofs. This kind of attitude frightens me. At least supporters acknowledge the potential drawbacks, whereas you choose to thoroughly ignore the potential benefits.

[cw68]

Actually, the poor have a better chance of getting a college education in those "prestigious" universities than the middle class because they would qualify for the grants and federally subsidized student loans. So comparing taxes to fund college educations to taxes to fund private sports teams is inappropriate because the poor are usually first and foremost benefiting from those "college" taxes. I would be more than happy to pay additional taxes to help fund college educations because they help the community and this country as a whole - not just a private sports team, their fans and the billionaire owners of the team. I bet there would be hundreds of private investors who would be willing to fork up $$ to build a new arena for the Kings and share in the profits of the games. Unfortunately, the Maloofs would have to share those profits and I doubt they want to do that.

If they said they were going to build a theater like the Mondavi Theater Center in Davis, I would agree to pay the extra tax because the revenue will be shared with the community.

After we build the arena for the Maloofs, the only people that will benefit from the revenue from the arena will be the Maloofs. If these measures are put on the ballot, they will surely fail. The article written by Mr. Weintraub (who is a well known and highly respected attorney in the Sacramento area) depicting the actual amount of money the Maloofs are actually investing in this project has damaged this proposal. Had the Maloofs agreed to invest at least half the cost of building the arena, the people of Sacramento would not think twice about investing in it as well. At least this would show the people of Sacramento that the Maloofs are willing to invest in Sacramento too. However, they are only interested in investing in their team and themselves.

Their threat to bring the Kings to Las Vegas is ridiculous. How many major citys are close enough to Las Vegas without several hours drive? LA? SD? (Don't they have teams of their own?) Do you actually think the Maloofs would give up their Northern California fan base and revenue to move to Las Vegas? Doubt it. How many people will drive or travel to Vegas to watch them play when they can't even make it halfway through the NBA championships???? The Kings will not make or break this city. This city was being revitalized even before the Kings moved here. I remember when there were no sky scrapers in downtown Sacramento - now look at our skyline. People put too much weight on the Kings and the impact they have had on this City. The Oakland A's and the Golden State Warriors have done nothing to improve the City of Oakland's image and the Kings will do little to improve Sacramento's either - the lakers will still consider us a cow town.

The Las Vegas threat is very real. People don't drive from SF to watch the Kings; they have their marvelous Golden State Warriors. Over 550k people live in Las Vegas proper and 1.5 in the county. Those are just the permanment residents. Over 39 million visit each year and those people are just looking for entertainment on which they will spend their money. Las Vegas only has UNLV. There will be plenty of residents supporting their home team and plenty of others who will travel to Las Vegas to see their team play. I know this because I am already planning a trip to LV in Sept 2007 to watch the Wisconsin Badgers play there.

The Kings arena will benefit the whole region, it's not just about the Maloofs. The new arena and subsequent development will employ a lot of people. It will bring more culture to the region, too.

Again, how do I know these things? I am in the beginning stages of trying to duplicate Madison's Concerts on the Square here, but the Maloofs are the only ones (that I see) who have the money to help get this off of the ground the first year. I have been waiting three years for an arena deal to be sealed so I may approach them. If we don't give to them, they aren't going to give to our city.

Concerts on the Square draw 40k people to the Capitol Square EACH week for six weeks in the summer. The Madison Chamber Orchestra performs for free on the Capitol steps and 40k peoplef rom around the Madison region -- not just people who live in Madison proper -- sit on the lawn enjoying the family-focused cultural event. These people buy dinners, shop at the stores and shower money to the retail establishments around, basically showing that the downtown Capitol/gov't area is a place to be once the gov't workers leave. If there's no arena deal, I won't be moving forward with this. And I'm just some little lay-person who's thinking of starting a non-profit. I'd bet money that there are plenty of people with money waiting to be spent on the region once an arena passes.

[benning]

You are fortgetting that half of the new tax revenue will go to the community in which it is raised. If you pay .25% more in Folsom, Folsom gets half of that money. That will go a long way toward the symphony, theater, etc. that will help make us a world-class city.

Does it say this in the deal? Do we have that much detail available? My prediction: there will be many cost overruns and extras associated with the construction and that half of the money will disappear, or be reduced to an ineffective amount. Shades of south of 50 deal -- we'll get a minimum of 30% open space and ALL costs will be borne by the new area, don't you worry...sure thing.

If you think about it, the 'the communities get half' element was put there as a carrot to the city/county by the Maloof side of the team (you give us 600 mil and we'll give you a way to have as much as 600 mil more tax revenue -- a win/win). However, the Maloof side of the equation is protected -- The city pays whatever it takes - up to 1.2 billion as far as I can see - and the Maloofs get no risk and also get to operate cleanly in the black from day one for an extended period of time with a fixed lease payment and opportunity to gouge us for parking, food, and sell the naming rights to the highest bidder. (I hope it's not the poker.net stadium)

[cw68]

Does it say this in the deal? Do we have that much detail available? My prediction: there will be many cost overruns and extras associated with the construction and that half of the money will disappear, or be reduced to an ineffective amount. Shades of south of 50 deal -- we'll get a minimum of 30% open space and ALL costs will be borne by the new area, don't you worry...sure thing.

If you think about it, the 'the communities get half' element was put there as a carrot to the city/county by the Maloof side of the team (you give us 600 mil and we'll give you a way to have as much as 600 mil more tax revenue -- a win/win). However, the Maloof side of the equation is protected -- The city pays whatever it takes - up to 1.2 billion as far as I can see - and the Maloofs get no risk and also get to operate cleanly in the black from day one for an extended period of time with a fixed lease payment and opportunity to gouge us for parking, food, and sell the naming rights to the highest bidder. (I hope it's not the poker.net stadium)

How 'bout the MyFolsom.com Stadium?

[benning]

You've convinced me. You've convinced me you've given no thought at all to anything other than your passionately flawed belief that this arena is for the Maloofs. This kind of attitude frightens me. At least supporters acknowledge the potential drawbacks, whereas you choose to thoroughly ignore the potential benefits.

Chad, you keep missing the point. We're not saying that there are no benefits, just that we're not ready to bend over to corporate welfare at its highest. It can be done better, with or without the Maloofs/Kings.

Your passionately flawed belief is that this can't possibly be done any other way, and you're buying into the spin that says the deal is awesome. Look deeper.

I would love the Kings to stay but this type of one-sided dealmaking where the government officials are charmed by the lobbyists and spin doctors, then their ability to levy taxes is leveraged to eliminate risk that normally goes with business investments -- this has got to stop.

How 'bout the MyFolsom.com Stadium?

I thought about that but, aside from the fact that we don't have a gazillion dollars to hand over, I'm certain they won't even return John's phone call

[Chad Vander Veen]

Chad, you keep missing the point. We're not saying that there are no benefits, just that we're not ready to bend over to corporate welfare at its highest. It can be done better, with or without the Maloofs/Kings.

Really? How?

I think you and others truly, deeply, underestimate the value of this facility. And, I think you are somehow unable to conceive of the benefits that don't include dollar signs. The intangibles are what are important here.