379 replies to this topic

[Robert Giacometti]

Well Robert... you can look at studies or at ACTUAL examples. You want to tell me that new stadiums or arenas in SF... Denver... Seattle... Indianapolis... and many other big cities have not seen any re-vitalization of their downtown areas. Maybe you should visit these areas and see the energy that 20,000 people can bring to an area on many nights of the year... and the amount of money they are spending.

Benefits are beyond economic. Downtown re-vitalization is not an economic benefit. It is just generating a place for people to gather and enjoy their city. Yes... charitable donations are another benefit. How about the time given back to the community. Have you seen the video of children at schools when a famous NBA player visits to give a motivational talk. What about the basketball camps. What about just making this a better place to live.

Well... I made my point... you made your point. At least I wasn't an a** in doing it. Good job. You make these forums really enjoyable. I'm out... for a little bit of time at least!

No headache yet. Must be my hard head!

Drkoz23,

When you suggested that I look at ACTUAL examples and not studies......I just assumed they studied actual examples.....what did you think they were using?

The Sacramento Bee reports "Still, no study has ever conclusively shown that professional sports franchises boost the economy of their host cities."

"I view these things as a zero-sum game. " said Stephen Pruitt Professor of Finance at the University of Missouri, Kansas City. "There's just no evidence to suggest that these kinds of projects do much for a local economy. You're just moving entertainment dollars around."

We could visit Raley Field in West Sac....Home to the River Cats. I go there often.....some games they draw 11,000 people. I wouldn't label that a succesful vibrant downtown....other than the stadium and some parking nothing else has changed. What....they didn't raise sales taxes to build that stadium!

Maybe you don't realize something....you live in Folsom ( or at least i think you do). One of the biggest sources of revenue for cities is sales tax dollars. Its Folsom, that provides your city services.....NOT Sacramento. Now if you want to spend your entertainment dollars somewhere else....and reduce the amount of sales taxes coming into our city....thereby reducing the level of services we may recieve....by all means I respect and support your right to do that!

Its when you are forcing the rest of us to send our sales taxes outside of Folsom, reducing our services and quality of life and make the poor pay for something they can NOT afford to attend.....because YOU want it...is when you'll get some sort of response from me!

Finally, I see where you have elevated your attempts of persuasion to name calling. Normally, I don't respond to this type of behavior and fortunately for me.... in your case...I don't need to say anything, because frankly you are doing a better job on yourself than I could ever do!

[cw68]

Drkoz23,

When you suggested that I look at ACTUAL examples and not studies......I just assumed they studied actual examples.....what did you think they were using?

The Sacramento Bee reports "Still, no study has ever conclusively shown that professional sports franchises boost the economy of their host cities."

"I view these things as a zero-sum game. " said Stephen Pruitt Professor of Finance at the University of Missouri, Kansas City. "There's just no evidence to suggest that these kinds of projects do much for a local economy. You're just moving entertainment dollars around."

We could visit Raley Field in West Sac....Home to the River Cats. I go there often.....some games they draw 11,000 people. I wouldn't label that a succesful vibrant downtown....other than the stadium and some parking nothing else has changed. What....they didn't raise sales taxes to build that stadium!

Maybe you don't realize something....you live in Folsom ( or at least i think you do). One of the biggest sources of revenue for cities is sales tax dollars. Its Folsom, that provides your city services.....NOT Sacramento. Now if you want to spend your entertainment dollars somewhere else....and reduce the amount of sales taxes coming into our city....thereby reducing the level of services we may recieve....by all means I respect and support your right to do that!

Its when you are forcing the rest of us to send our sales taxes outside of Folsom, reducing our services and quality of life and make the poor pay for something they can NOT afford to attend.....because YOU want it...is when you'll get some sort of response from me!

Finally, I see where you have elevated your attempts of persuasion to name calling. Normally, I don't respond to this type of behavior and fortunately for me.... in your case...I don't need to say anything, because frankly you are doing a better job on yourself than I could ever do!

1) "One of the biggest sources of revenue for cities is sales tax dollars." This proposal will increase the sales tax countywide, not just in Sacramento.

2) I fully believe that the increase in the quality of life I will benefit from should we build a downtown arena far surpasses the negatives of a miniscule tax increase.

3) As CV said, give it up on the poor. I've been VERY poor in my lifetime and a quarter percent tax increase wouldn't have done jack to my finances. The lack of a vibrant downtown that's easily accessible by public transportation would have brought jobs to me that I wouldn't have needed a car to get to and would have more than offset the perceived hardship of the increased sales tax.

Raley Field is a poor comparison, IMHO. Minor league outdoor stadium in the middle of nowhere in West Sac, served by very little public services vs. NBA year-round stadium in Sacramento proper that will be served by Sacramento public services with an immediate plan to develop the immediate area. The West Sac Raley Field area has been plagued by multitudes of problems, zoning nonewithstanding.

But again, I really feel like I'm beating my head against the wall. I'm going to vote for it and encourage everyone I know to do the same. You're not going to vote for it and you will encourage everyone you know to do the same.

[OctoberLily]

I will vote NO on both measures on the ballot in November. I think it will probably cost half the proposed $500M just to clean up the hazardous waste on the land where the arena is going to be built - not to mention the surrounding areas near it. The cost is going to be more than what they are telling us.

A quarter cent sales tax increase may not mean much to those on this forum but it means a lot to me. I'm sick and tired of being taxed to death on everything. It's not enough that the State and Federal take a huge cut out of my hard earned income, but I have to pay Government fees and surcharges on my phone, taxes on food, taxes on gas, property taxes, and NOW - the City Council Members of Sacramento want to increase my sales tax to help build an ARENA???????? I don't think so!! When is it going to end? When will it ever be enough??

As for the 6 individuals lucky enough to pay $10 to get one of the 6 nose bleeder seats to watch the Kings play - Kudos to you all. I have to say that the Kings owners sure were generous to the public to make those 6 seats available. I guess they thought ahead and wanted to make sure that some of the poor could attend a Kings game. Yeah right!

[Revolutionist]

1) "One of the biggest sources of revenue for cities is sales tax dollars." This proposal will increase the sales tax countywide, not just in Sacramento.

Yes, it will increase the taxes county wide, but localize the benefit to downtown sacramento. Which, if the proponents of the measure are correct, will cause this flowering of Sacramento that causes a large number of people from the suburbs to go downtown to spend their entertainment dollars (they otherwise might have spent at La Fiesta or Mama Nardi's), thus draining the "tax benefit" away from the home communities and concentrating it within the city limits of Sacramento. All the dollar vectors point downtown.

And remember, that 50% the community "gets back" starting in 8 years is based on the tax revenues collected in that locality.

Why shouldn't the Maloof's win? Are they evil? Crooked? What do you have against them?

In addition to the Maloofs, some other big winners will be:

The people hired to build, staff and service the arena, and hired by the surrounding businesses.

The new and improved businesses that will surround the area.

The charitable programs funded by the new taxes and by the Kings.

The visitors who will flock to the new arena.

The residents who will enjoy higher property values.

Those with interests in the convention and visitors business, including hotels, restaurants, transportation, and support services.

The city of Sacramento.

The suburbs of Sacramento.

Me.

All very reasonable arguments for building a new arena.
but not necessarliy for the proposed financing.

[Robert Giacometti]

Did everbody get the chance to read the articles in the Bee on Sunday?

The county is looking at projected future deficiet of over $350 million. I guess Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny will be returning our tax dollars back to the communities!

Did you get the chance to read the article on sales tax dollars?

Terri Sexton is an associate director of the UC Davis Center for State and Local Taxation and an economics professor at California State University, Sacramento. " Cities and Counties have few options to increase revenue apart from sales taxes, economist Sexton said, so they compete with each other. At some point its a zero sum game, in which a gain for one must result in an equal loss others."

Maybe some of you who keep claiming this is going to raise sales tax revenues countywide, could explain how this is going to happen given every economist I've ever heard say the opposite? What is it you know that they don't?

Something else to consider......if the Arena was privately owned how much property tax would the owners have to pay per year?

[Chad Vander Veen]

Did everbody get the chance to read the articles in the Bee on Sunday?

The county is looking at projected future deficiet of over $350 million. I guess Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny will be returning our tax dollars back to the communities!

Did you get the chance to read the article on sales tax dollars?

Terri Sexton is an associate director of the UC Davis Center for State and Local Taxation and an economics professor at California State University, Sacramento. " Cities and Counties have few options to increase revenue apart from sales taxes, economist Sexton said, so they compete with each other. At some point its a zero sum game, in which a gain for one must result in an equal loss others."

Maybe some of you who keep claiming this is going to raise sales tax revenues countywide, could explain how this is going to happen given every economist I've ever heard say the opposite? What is it you know that they don't?

Something else to consider......if the Arena was privately owned how much property tax would the owners have to pay per year?

Who ever said it would raise tax revenue? Seriously, I missed that if someone did. That's never been my argument.

[benning]

Something else to consider......if the Arena was privately owned how much property tax would the owners have to pay per year?

Good point. Of course the Maloof's have several highly paid negotiators/lobbyists/attorneys on top of things to sculpt the best possible angle producing the smartest net total deal. Who is representing the other side? Bureaucrats and politicans who have lots of practice swallowing bull and thinking that chickens are ducks.

We are so over our heads.

[benning]

Who ever said it would raise tax revenue? Seriously, I missed that if someone did. That's never been my argument.

How is raising sales tax and giving 50% of it back to the local government(s) NOT raising tax revenue?

[UncleVinny]

Exactly.
A sales tax IS a tax.
And its the type of tax where the poor pay the most.

For what?
So millionaires can have even more money.
How pathetic!

This idea that half of it goes back to the governments to spend as they wish
is just a smokescreen, and makes the cost to taxpayers about double what
it would be if we were just honest about it and BRIBED the Maloofs with
our tax dollars.

[Steve Heard]

Exactly.
A sales tax IS a tax.
And its the type of tax where the poor pay the most.

For what?
So millionaires can have even more money.
How pathetic!

This idea that half of it goes back to the governments to spend as they wish
is just a smokescreen, and makes the cost to taxpayers about double what
it would be if we were just honest about it and BRIBED the Maloofs with
our tax dollars.

Vinny, Vinny, Vinny

It isn't so millionaires can have even more money, it's so we can have the Kings, a revitalized downtown, increased tourism, higher property values, and more jobs, many of them going to the poor.

Yes, the millionaires will make more money, but that's not why we do it, and it's not why other cities would be glad to compete for the team.

We believe there is a benefit to US in having a new arena and having the Kings remain here.

[john]

I will vote NO on both measures on the ballot in November. I think it will probably cost half the proposed $500M just to clean up the hazardous waste on the land where the arena is going to be built - not to mention the surrounding areas near it. The cost is going to be more than what they are telling us.

Actually, that cost is already paid for - it's a "Superfund" site, which means it gets federal dollars in terms of remediation. Even if it wasn't, it would have to get cleaned up, arena or not.

[mylo]

It isn't so millionaires can have even more money, it's so we can have the Kings, a revitalized downtown, increased tourism, higher property values, and more jobs, many of them going to the poor.

But does $500M justify the game (I'm not THAT big of a fan, but I'll wtach it when it's on), a revitalized downtown (going to happen anyway), increased tourism (who cares, if it's cash flow negative), higher property values (debatable, but sure), and more jobs ($500M would go a long way towards job creation in other methods)?

I like the Kings well enough, and I'm all for improving and revitalizing the Sacramento region. I'm just not yet convinced that this is the most cost effective way of doing so. $500M is a lot of tax dollars to spend, are there really no other better ways that don't put so much cash into the coffers of that Maloofs?

[Steve Heard]

But does $500M justify the game (I'm not THAT big of a fan, but I'll wtach it when it's on), a revitalized downtown (going to happen anyway), increased tourism (who cares, if it's cash flow negative), higher property values (debatable, but sure), and more jobs ($500M would go a long way towards job creation in other methods)?

I like the Kings well enough, and I'm all for improving and revitalizing the Sacramento region. I'm just not yet convinced that this is the most cost effective way of doing so. $500M is a lot of tax dollars to spend, are there really no other better ways that don't put so much cash into the coffers of that Maloofs?

If revitalization was going to happen, and in a timely manner, it would have already. Increased tourism is a benefit, because tourists spend money when they visit. What makes you think it's cash flow negative? Entire economies are based on tourism.

$500 million might go a long way toward job creation, but I doubt those who have jobs would want to spend $500 million dollars to make work for those who don't.

Why do so many resent the Maloof's getting richer? They have been good to Sacramento. What if we took that attitude toward Intel when they wanted to locate here. Did we resent Andy Grove and the stock holders getting richer?

[benning]

Why do so many resent the Maloof's getting richer? They have been good to Sacramento. What if we took that attitude toward Intel when they wanted to locate here. Did we resent Andy Grove and the stock holders getting richer?

For me at least, it's nothing personal about the Maloofs per se. I simply don't support deals where anyone can make X amount of profit, yet they plead, threaten, cajole and relentlessly lobby the government so that tax dollars can be added to the mix just so they can make X*Y amount of profit. Doesn't matter if it's a housing developer or a sports franchise mogul or a mall developer or an independant business operator.

No one is against revitalization, job creation, increase in tourism, etc. In my opinion, the formula simply does not require tax dollars to make it work. The people in power are only extorting these deals to minimize or eliminate their risk. The taxpayer contribution guarantees their maximum potential profit, no matter what the outcome. Wise from a business standpoint, perhaps but not from a public one. True, other cities/counties may be willing to bend over, point to their lively downtown and not feel too much pinch from the extortion.

I just don't like that and can't support it as a business model. It has to stop somewhere. I say let's create a lively downtown the old fashioned way.

[Steve Heard]

For me at least, it's nothing personal about the Maloofs per se. I simply don't support deals where anyone can make X amount of profit, yet they plead, threaten, cajole and relentlessly lobby the government so that tax dollars can be added to the mix just so they can make X*Y amount of profit. Doesn't matter if it's a housing developer or a sports franchise mogul or a mall developer or an independant business operator.

No one is against revitalization, job creation, increase in tourism, etc. In my opinion, the formula simply does not require tax dollars to make it work. The people in power are only extorting these deals to minimize or eliminate their risk. The taxpayer contribution guarantees their maximum potential profit, no matter what the outcome. Wise from a business standpoint, perhaps but not from a public one. True, other cities/counties may be willing to bend over, point to their lively downtown and not feel too much pinch from the extortion.

I just don't like that and can't support it as a business model. It has to stop somewhere. I say let's create a lively downtown the old fashioned way.

Here's a question I haven't heard asked. Why do you suppose cities around the country have bent over backwards to lure or keep professional sports frachises? Why are the leaders of Sacramento behind this if it is such a bad deal? Are they guranteed courside seats? Getting kickbacks?