379 replies to this topic

[Robert Giacometti]

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?

Steve,

When in the world did Intel and Andy Grove ever ask the poor of Sacramento county to raise sales taxes to build them a campus, so they could lease back at a substantial discount to what others pay and NOT pay property tax?

These two situations aren't even remotely close!

[benning]

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?

Ego and the opportunity to be seen as 'special' which is reinforced by the people who are lobbying for public subsidizes/profit guarantees. There are only a couple dozen markets that can sustain these types of franchises so all the maloof-a-likes work it big time.

As a salesman you know that, particularly without wellcrafted, sustained messages to the contrary that people are worn down over time even if they question things at first. Sports franchises are sexy and people want to be friends with the powerful and wealthy so this is a pretty easy sell...no bribes required, just the opportunity for small timers to bask in the glory of weath and fame.

There is an upside, too, of course, but I don't believe it justifies the imbalance of the deal. It would be interesting to talk to people in other markets (not the spin doctors) about the details of thier deals and just how one-sided the risk portion is and, looking back, if they thought there was a more cost-effective way to accomplish the same things.

[Revolutionist]

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?

First off, you are talking about cities bending over backwards - not counties. Because its the big city who will benefit, not the rest of the county

Secondly - let's look at your "bending over backwards" statement
Pac Bell Park - privately funded
New 49er stadium at Candlestick point - will be privately funded
http://sfgate.com/cg...BAGQUK072N1.DTL
New England Patriots arena - privately funded
Pittsburg Penguins - new arena will be privately funded
http://www.politicsp...led.asp?id=2148

The days of the new-arena free-ride on the backs of taxpayers are over.. as they should be.

Thirdly, the leaders of Sacramento are behind this because
a) they want the new arena... for all the reasons you have already mentioned
b) they have a scheme to make the entire county pay for that which will only benefit them (who is NOT in favor of a deal like that?)
c) and yes, Sac city leaders will receive a large helping of "goodwill" for passing out construction contracts.

A publicly funded complex taxes the residents for its construction
provides ZERO property tax income
must be maintained by public funds for its entire lifespan
will be run by beaurocrats rather than businesspeople

If Sacramento wants to build an arena, great! Then Sacramento should pay for it. Not Galt.

And just to clarify, I am wholly in support of building a new arena. I am wholly opposed to the proposed financing scheme.

[benning]

Interesting article in the Bee today about how our public leaders are using trickery to get the measure to pass with just a majority vote instead of the required two thirds.



http://www.sacbee.co...-15098748c.html

[Robert Giacometti]

Interesting article in the Bee today about how our public leaders are using trickery to get the measure to pass with just a majority vote instead of the required two thirds.
http://www.sacbee.co...-15098748c.html

These are the same leaders who "misrepresented" how much the Maloofs will contribute to the Arena!

If this tax passes, who pays for the legal costs when it gets challenged in court?

If this tax passes and when the courts rule it to be illegal, I guess the county will have wasted a significant amount of our tax dollars over this issue........adding to their deficiet. Then the Kings would be free to leave and we would be left holding the bag trying to pay off legal and election costs and STILL NOT HAVE AN ARENA!

Maybe we should cut our losses?

[Steve Heard]

You people and your facts. I feel like I just got the hell beat out of me. My avatar is more appropriate than ever.

You are getting closer to convincing me.

There are times when truth, logic and common sense come into play, and overtake team loyalty.

I am almost there.

[Chad Vander Veen]

You people and your facts. I feel like I just got the hell beat out of me. My avatar is more appropriate than ever.

You are getting closer to convincing me.

There are times when truth, logic and common sense come into play, and overtake team loyalty.

I am almost there.

Don't give in Steve! Nothing worthwhile is ever acheived without risk...these naysayers are merely risk averse and are content to live in their Folsom-bubble and say to hell with the rest of the region.

[Steve Heard]

Don't give in Steve! Nothing worthwhile is ever acheived without risk...these naysayers are merely risk averse and are content to live in their Folsom-bubble and say to hell with the rest of the region.

Help me Chad!


...M..M..Must....Resist.......L..o...gic...(agh)

[Revolutionist]

Help me Chad!
...M..M..Must....Resist.......L..o...gic...(agh)

LOL I am glad the humor still lives in this thread.

[Chad Vander Veen]

Help me Chad!
...M..M..Must....Resist.......L..o...gic...(agh)

There's logic in both arguments. Logic should never be used as the exclusive reason to choose something. Afterall, if that were the case, Spock would still be dead on the terrible Genesis planet.

[benning]

Don't give in Steve! Nothing worthwhile is ever acheived without risk

Exactly, All I'm asking the Maloofs to do is pony up and accept their share of the risk.

[Chad Vander Veen]

Exactly, All I'm asking the Maloofs to do is pony up and accept their share of the risk.

And that would be how much, exactly?

[benning]

And that would be how much, exactly?

well, SOME AT ALL would be a good start

[Chad Vander Veen]

well, SOME AT ALL would be a good start

I see, so clearly you've not bothered to learn anything about the actual deal.

[benning]

I see, so clearly you've not bothered to learn anything about the actual deal.

what risk are they assuming? You can hardly call the agreement to lease the place for long-term at a fixed rate any risk at all, considering they're guaranteed all revenue from events, concessions, parking and the naming rights to the place.

Is there anything else?