192 replies to this topic

[Chad Vander Veen]

good read in SNR - presents both sides well

http://www.newsrevie.....id=oid:223089

[DalOwnerX3]

What I'm uncomfortable with is that the portion of the sales tax increase go towards non-arena stuff such as flood control, libraries and law enforcement. It muddies the argument for whether a sales tax should pay for the arena. Only a 1/8 percent of the increase is for the arena.

I wonder why that was done? Was to get unsuspecting people to vote "yes' because it helps the police and levees? Was it done on purpose to get extra funding for non-arena expenses because it's expected to win due to the loyalty of Knigs fans? It's pretty suspicious.

I'm also curious abuot the economic benefit. It says more jobs, but what type of jobs? More beer vendors for the arena? More housekeepers for new hotels to support the influx of guests?

BTW - I'm still on the fence. I think it might come down to a coin toss on election day for me.

[Robert Giacometti]

What I'm uncomfortable with is that the portion of the sales tax increase go towards non-arena stuff such as flood control, libraries and law enforcement. It muddies the argument for whether a sales tax should pay for the arena. Only a 1/8 percent of the increase is for the arena.

I wonder why that was done? Was to get unsuspecting people to vote "yes' because it helps the police and levees? Was it done on purpose to get extra funding for non-arena expenses because it's expected to win due to the loyalty of Knigs fans? It's pretty suspicious.

I'm also curious abuot the economic benefit. It says more jobs, but what type of jobs? More beer vendors for the arena? More housekeepers for new hotels to support the influx of guests?

BTW - I'm still on the fence. I think it might come down to a coin toss on election day for me.

IMHO, it was done to try and get around the requirement of needing 2/3 of voters to support raising taxes for specific project.

It is so sad that the proponnets are trying to imply that this proposal will create funding to solve all of the problems from flood control/levee repairs to improving schools. I guess they must have run out of space to include global warming. I wonder how the BOS is going to cover the projected $350 million projected future budget shortfalls....just maybe the BOS is planning to use these "EXTRA" funds for this deficeit?

Lets see....an agency has "extra" funds from raising taxes and then the same agency has a budget shortfall and if anyone is foolish enough to believe that these extra funds are coming back to Folsom....then log onto Iamadumbass.com and leave your bank account #, SS# and pin number so the BOS can deposit any left over funds into your account!

[benning]

good read in SNR - presents both sides well

http://www.newsrevie.....id=oid:223089

Very good, in depth article containing many of the facts that have been missing in the Bee and other sources. Thanks for posting it.

I find this info very interesting.

According to Forbes, the Sacramento Kings, valued at $345 million last year, rank 13th in the NBA, right smack in the middle. That’s more than double the $156 million the Maloofs paid for the team in 1998--a nice return on investment, if they sold the team today. But they’re not selling the team, and that’s not the whole story. The Kings collected $54 million in gate receipts during the 2004-2005 season. The team paid out $64 million in player expenses. Without advertising revenue, food and souvenir sales and parking fees, the Maloofs would be $10 million in the hole.

I wish they'd said what their current ad, food, souvenir and parking revenue was, also.

The other thing I find kind of fishy, which everyone else seems to have accepted, is the formula for calculating the 'maloof share'. I don't think normally people claim 100% of payments on a lease as part of the construction costs of the building. Like if I were a landlord and I paid 500k for a house and got 25k in rent per year for twenty years, I wouldn't say my tenants paid 50% of the cost of the house. I woud say that I paid 100% of the cost of the house and I offset some of those costs with rent.

[DalOwnerX3]

There was another arena article in today's Bee. They had a chart that showed the breakdown of where season ticket holders live. It's interesting that 1/3 of the season ticket holders live outside Sacramento County. So these folks get the benefit of the new arena without having to pay the extra sales tax.

The article mentions that the high price for tickets freezes out the less affluent folks. The less affluent people pay the tax but again don't benefit. The argument in this thread said that the arena can also bring in other events such as concerts or shows. Last I saw, these events were also pretty pricey. So then again, these folks pay the tax but don't reap the benefits.

BTW - How was Raley Field funded?

[benning]

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

Here's a deal I could live with:
Deal just like it is except: 1) MSE agrees to pay 50% of any cost overruns, 2) MSE lives with the parking and competing venue agreement as in the original document, 3)it stays in the railyard, 4) MSE puts up 100k instead of 20k (less than 1/6th of the construction costs) 3) and some other component like a) Revenue is shared 50/50 over a certain threshold (maybe 2x the annual lease payment), or b) the naming rights go to some public cause that is related to and would compliment the revitalization.

That's more like a partnership, in my mind. From what I can tell, MSE still will have the structure in place to give them positive cash flow and will, of course, retain all the equity in their team (Just the Kings franchise alone has increased in value more than 23 million per year in the last 8 years).

[camay2327]

People, just vote NO. Let them get all their crap together and try again next time... Maybe they can do it right next time.

VOTE NO...

[lastexit78]

There was another arena article in today's Bee. They had a chart that showed the breakdown of where season ticket holders live. It's interesting that 1/3 of the season ticket holders live outside Sacramento County. So these folks get the benefit of the new arena without having to pay the extra sales tax.

The article mentions that the high price for tickets freezes out the less affluent folks. The less affluent people pay the tax but again don't benefit. The argument in this thread said that the arena can also bring in other events such as concerts or shows. Last I saw, these events were also pretty pricey. So then again, these folks pay the tax but don't reap the benefits.

BTW - How was Raley Field funded?

Raley Field was 100% privately funded for the cost of $29.5 million dollars. That fact alone shows you just how bad a deal this arena is. Think about how great Raley Field is. A Rivercats game costs about 1/8 of a Kings game and it's a great night out. Also Raley Field now hosts major concerts. The Dave Matthews Band played their last month and Tom Petty is on for October 20th. If Raley Field which holds around 14,000 people can be privately funded for only $29.5 million why does this arena which will hold 18,000 need to cost $500 million tax payers dollars? Ask yourself that question and you'll realize why this thing has little or no chance of passing.

[camay2327]

lastexit78, great article.

VOTE NO

[tessieca]

Raley Field is a field, not an arena. Of course it costs less. It also has less of a draw than Arco does.

[DrKoz23]

Raley Field was 100% privately funded for the cost of $29.5 million dollars. That fact alone shows you just how bad a deal this arena is. Think about how great Raley Field is. A Rivercats game costs about 1/8 of a Kings game and it's a great night out. Also Raley Field now hosts major concerts. The Dave Matthews Band played their last month and Tom Petty is on for October 20th. If Raley Field which holds around 14,000 people can be privately funded for only $29.5 million why does this arena which will hold 18,000 need to cost $500 million tax payers dollars? Ask yourself that question and you'll realize why this thing has little or no chance of passing.

1) Heating and air conditioning
2) Roof
3) Numerous concourses

I am sure we can add to the list.

I don't think its the $500M that is turning people off... its the type of financing.

I'd like to see "Disney on Ice" at Raley Field on a 100 degree summer day. I'd pay to see that!

[mylo]

I'd like to see "Disney on Ice" at Raley Field on a 100 degree summer day. I'd pay to see that!

Me too, that'd be funny watching goofy fall flat on that big old nose sliding into home plate!

[Robert Giacometti]

1) Heating and air conditioning
2) Roof
3) Numerous concourses

I am sure we can add to the list.

I don't think its the $500M that is turning people off... its the type of financing.

I'd like to see "Disney on Ice" at Raley Field on a 100 degree summer day. I'd pay to see that!

Why would you want to go to Raley's when you can see them at Arco? If you vote to raise our taxes one thing is for sure....you'll being paying for everything playing at the new Arena...even if don't see them and you'll have less money to spend on things you want to see!

Are you still buying into that economic theory of growth through subtraction?

[lastexit78]

1) Heating and air conditioning
2) Roof
3) Numerous concourses

I am sure we can add to the list.

I don't think its the $500M that is turning people off... its the type of financing.

I'd like to see "Disney on Ice" at Raley Field on a 100 degree summer day. I'd pay to see that!

So I guess putting a roof on Raley Field would cost $450 million dollars. Raley Field cost 1/15 of what this arena and it was 100% privately financed. Look at what the Giants did in San Francisco. A gorgeous privately funded ballpark that was built with seat licenses and other creative means. Also the cost overuns on this project will almost certainly be substantial. These projects go over budget almost everytime. The toxic cleanup of the area could run up to $150 million dollars according to a study done by UC Davis. Guess what, that $150 million isn't included in their totals. Also they used 2004 construction costs when coming up with their final figures. Building material have increased 10% across the board in the last 2 years. Of course these are the things they'll never tell you. I love sports and the Kings are a great part of this region. But this deal is like one giant loophole. The Maloofs haven't even gotten on board with this deal yet! What does that tell you? The city is trying to hand them a brand new arena and they won't even have a part of it. Give me a fair deal where the Maloofs and the city are on the same page and I'll join the campaign. Give me this deal and I'll vote no along with most others.

[DrKoz23]

So I guess putting a roof on Raley Field would cost $450 million dollars. Raley Field cost 1/15 of what this arena and it was 100% privately financed. Look at what the Giants did in San Francisco. A gorgeous privately funded ballpark that was built with seat licenses and other creative means. Also the cost overuns on this project will almost certainly be substantial. These projects go over budget almost everytime. The toxic cleanup of the area could run up to $150 million dollars according to a study done by UC Davis. Guess what, that $150 million isn't included in their totals. Also they used 2004 construction costs when coming up with their final figures. Building material have increased 10% across the board in the last 2 years. Of course these are the things they'll never tell you. I love sports and the Kings are a great part of this region. But this deal is like one giant loophole. The Maloofs haven't even gotten on board with this deal yet! What does that tell you? The city is trying to hand them a brand new arena and they won't even have a part of it. Give me a fair deal where the Maloofs and the city are on the same page and I'll join the campaign. Give me this deal and I'll vote no along with most others.

All we are saying is compare apples with apples. Not oranges to apples.

Raley Field and Pac Bell Park are both baseball stadiums... not arenas. The Staples Center in Los Angeles cost $400M to build in 1999. This would be a better comparison. The construction costs of an arena are quite different than an open air stadium.

I am currently leaning toward "No" because of all the unanswered questions... and I am starting to feel there is a better way to finance the arena.