Jump to content






Photo
* * * - - 1 votes

Arena Cards On The Table


  • Please log in to reply
379 replies to this topic

#241 Robert Giacometti

Robert Giacometti

    There are no Dumb questions

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,850 posts

Posted 02 August 2006 - 02:03 PM

QUOTE(c_vanderveen @ Aug 2 2006, 02:35 PM) View Post

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


CV,

What actual deal?

Its my understanding there still is NO signed Memorandum of Understanding betweee the County and the Maloofs. Of course once the BOS puts the measure on the ballot....the urgency for the Maloofs to agree to anything is gone and "We the People" have lost our leverage....AGAIN!

Just curious how would you feel about raising taxes and giving them over to the BOS without any signed agreements in place?

Just once, I'd love to have any politician ( left or right), negotiate for the public in the same manner in which they do when they actually have to pay for something out of their own pocket!



#242 Chad Vander Veen

Chad Vander Veen

    Hopeless Addict

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

Posted 02 August 2006 - 02:20 PM

QUOTE(Robert Giacometti @ Aug 2 2006, 03:03 PM) View Post

CV,

What actual deal?

Its my understanding there still is NO signed Memorandum of Understanding betweee the County and the Maloofs. Of course once the BOS puts the measure on the ballot....the urgency for the Maloofs to agree to anything is gone and "We the People" have lost our leverage....AGAIN!

Just curious how would you feel about raising taxes and giving them over to the BOS without any signed agreements in place?

Just once, I'd love to have any politician ( left or right), negotiate for the public in the same manner in which they do when they actually have to pay for something out of their own pocket!


What? I'm pretty sure the BOS live in Sac County, so they'll pay for it too. Are you actually worried the Maloofs will suddenly skip out because there's no signature in place? Who gives a crap if they do? We still build the arena and get a different team, while still getting the bounty of other benefits of a downtown arena.

#243 Robert Giacometti

Robert Giacometti

    There are no Dumb questions

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,850 posts

Posted 02 August 2006 - 08:52 PM

QUOTE(c_vanderveen @ Aug 2 2006, 03:20 PM) View Post

What? I'm pretty sure the BOS live in Sac County, so they'll pay for it too. Are you actually worried the Maloofs will suddenly skip out because there's no signature in place? Who gives a crap if they do? We still build the arena and get a different team, while still getting the bounty of other benefits of a downtown arena.


Cv,

The point I was trying to make is if anyone of the BOS was funding this project entirely out of their own pocket......I just have a feeling they would be doing a better job of negotiating.

If one truly want to get the best possible deal....one has to be willing to give up what they have to get something better! Its my feeling that the BOS have been dealing with the Maloofs with a fear of they are leaving when they should have had the philosophy of what are you going to do for us.

Although its true the Maloofs have other options, its not all so one sided as some of you have expressed.

#1. If the Kings leave won't they have to pay $70 million to pay off the loan? This is still a significant amount of money even for the Maloofs

#2. Sacramento has some of the most loyal and supportive fans in the NBA. I'm sure the NBA really doesn't want to be leaving Sacramento. I keep thinking about how the BOS went to the NBA to reopen negotiations with the Maloofs. What happens if the NBA doesn't embrace the Kings leaving?

#3. What about the Monarchs? They are one of the most succesful WNBA franchises....would the Maloofs be able to relocate them to the same new arena? Again, I'm sure the WNBA doesn't want to be leaving Sacramento!

#4. What about Arco? If the Maloofs leave what do they do with Arco? Good luck getting a demolition permit and tearing it down after they skipped town! How easy will it be for them to get their land rezoned after they left town to sell for top dollar....I'm sure all the politicians in Sacto will be just so eager to help them!

#5. If this bond fails....this then limits some of the leverage the Kings have over other possible cities in strong arming them over a better deal. Nobody would have to offer a better deal, than the one that just failed.

#6. If this deal is rejected and the Kings move there are 12 other NBA franchises who would appreciate a bigger TV market and probably some in a larger TV market who would appreciate the loyalty and support of Sacramento!

#7. The BOS needs to adopt a tax on tickets NOW and start building a fund for an upgraded arena. These funds along with the payoff of the loan could go along way towards a new Arena.

Don't be so eager to give away the Farm, when you really don't have too!



#244 watstein

watstein

    Veteran

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 184 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Parkway

Posted 02 August 2006 - 09:15 PM

Ok I was watching the Sac County Supervior Meeting all day and here is what was developed. Ok it will be on the ballot. Roberta MacGlashan was the only no vote due to the whole majority vs 2/3 idea. I had concerns but Don Nottoli asked a lot of questions that made the deal sound better.

The kings and the county got the keypoints written down finally. The Maloofs will repay the 72 million dollar loan. They will put down 20 million for construction which will go to the capital fund or whatever the county wants to do. The costs are between 460 and 540 million and the mallofs will pay in rent about 135 million. Now the reasoning for the high cost is not the arena which will be around 350ish but the idea of parking and infrastructure for the railyards including the purchase of the land and the financing intress.

What Don Nottoli asked is how long would the estimated time of the tax money to repay for the project which if using the low about would be 6-7 years and the high amount of 8-9 years of the 15 year tax. The county will take everything after year 9 to 15 and use it to what services and projects they want to accomplish. If we the tax payers want to stop paying we can bring it up to Board of Superviors and then they will vote to stop the tax after the arena is built. Also what my concern was is after 15 years would the county keep the tax which was what I thought because of being a general tax would be but according to the meeting from Paul Haan (Economic Director) that the people would have to vote inorder for the tax to stay so when 15 years are up no more tax. Also could be done within 9 years if we push the board.

I do see arguments from both sides on the idea of it being expensive and the poor can't pay much more and etc.... but my vote is more towards approving it but I would wait and see what the actual text and the final problems are worked out for the election before making my mind completely up. We still don't even know if the city has concluded negotiations with Union Pacific for the site yet.

Oh the joke at the meeting is to call the Arena (The Petula Clark Arena) See her songs to know why.

#245 Chad Vander Veen

Chad Vander Veen

    Hopeless Addict

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

Posted 03 August 2006 - 07:03 AM

QUOTE(Robert Giacometti @ Aug 2 2006, 09:52 PM) View Post



#1. If the Kings leave won't they have to pay $70 million to pay off the loan? This is still a significant amount of money even for the Maloofs
I don't know, probably

#2. Sacramento has some of the most loyal and supportive fans in the NBA. I'm sure the NBA really doesn't want to be leaving Sacramento. I keep thinking about how the BOS went to the NBA to reopen negotiations with the Maloofs. What happens if the NBA doesn't embrace the Kings leaving?
The NBA works FOR the owners, not the other way around.

#3. What about the Monarchs? They are one of the most succesful WNBA franchises....would the Maloofs be able to relocate them to the same new arena? Again, I'm sure the WNBA doesn't want to be leaving Sacramento!
If the Kings leave, the Monarchs go with them. Why would the Maloofs champion a new arena and then leave the Monarchs to waste away in Arco?

#4. What about Arco? If the Maloofs leave what do they do with Arco? Good luck getting a demolition permit and tearing it down after they skipped town! How easy will it be for them to get their land rezoned after they left town to sell for top dollar....I'm sure all the politicians in Sacto will be just so eager to help them!
Of course it will be demolished and made into a more lucrative property.

#5. If this bond fails....this then limits some of the leverage the Kings have over other possible cities in strong arming them over a better deal. Nobody would have to offer a better deal, than the one that just failed.

#6. If this deal is rejected and the Kings move there are 12 other NBA franchises who would appreciate a bigger TV market and probably some in a larger TV market who would appreciate the loyalty and support of Sacramento!
Regarding 6 and 7, Robert, you're obviously a smart guy, that's why it's so stunning how little you seem to know about how this would work. Do you see ANY teams breaking down the doors to get to Sac, NBA or otherwise? No. There is a brand new arena in KC just waiting to be filled. I can't believe you actually assume some other team will simply fill the void, that is utter nonsense.

#7. The BOS needs to adopt a tax on tickets NOW and start building a fund for an upgraded arena. These funds along with the payoff of the loan could go along way towards a new Arena.
Sorry, but it's too late for that now. A ticket tax, which would have to be applied to every singel event, is entirely unfeasable. I think it was steve who pointed out such a tax would take decades to be useful.

Don't be so eager to give away the Farm, when you really don't have too!
1/2 cent is not the farm...and it's opponents like you who are actually ready to give away the farm, the farm being a downtown arena.



#246 Robert Giacometti

Robert Giacometti

    There are no Dumb questions

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,850 posts

Posted 03 August 2006 - 08:04 AM

Cv,

The opportunity for us to raise our taxes and build a downtown Arena will always be there! If this measure fails and the Kings do move....what in the world stops Sacto from building a downtown Arena? Ok, we won't have a NBA team we are subsidizing to use the Arena....if we don't have the NBA team we won't be giving away the subsidy!

I do understand there are maybe 30 NBA teams and probably 36 cities that want a team so the owners have the upper hand. This is the worst deal any city has ever negotiated with any sports team....sometimes the cost is too high and you have to say NO! If Sacto builds the Arena on their own, they keep all revenue and Arena naming rights....that is more revenue than they will get from the Kings.

The BOS and Sac City have been totally incompetent with this whole issue. Why haven't they put a surcharge on tickets years ago to rasie funds for a new arena? Why is it the downtown of one of the largest TV markets is in the country sits undeveloped, while the rest of the region grows by leaps and bounds. Some suburban communities complain about too much growth....yet the leaders of Sacto can't figure out how to do this without taxing the other communities.

How many developers are there in this area who could develope downtown privately, make millions doing it and give you what you want? Its the backward thinking Sacto politicians who want to control everything including your tax dollars that is preventing this from happening!

If you want to reward incompetent politicians by giving away your tax dollars....that is your choice....don't force me and others to do the same!



#247 old soldier

old soldier

    Living Legend

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,715 posts

Posted 03 August 2006 - 08:19 AM

the only thing that would make the old arena thing go was only if everybody was for it and everybody told the voters it was good for the city and the region. its hard to believe that sacramento ranks 18 in the country

the bad thing is when ever you got an issue a politician knows he can get on tv being against it and the tv folks like it cause it makes news. the problem is the controversy just confuses little folks who might get behind the idea. old soldier's rule on votes about money is if you don't understand it vote no and so with the old arena thats where we are heading

heck the superevisors aren't even all for it. I kinda like that Roberta lady who wants Sacramento go go back into being a cow town. life was sure a lot simpler before all the growth and traffic I guess she fingures that with no arena the kings will go away, they will tear down arco and we won;'t have to worry about our kids going to rock concerts and all that trash....folks just might listen to her as the person who sent the Maloofs packing

why I remember when the old pig bowl football game between the sheriff and the police was the biggest event in town and it just may be that again. folks use to tailgate the whole day before the game.


we have been guided by a lot of wisdom by are elected forks...the newcomers might not even remember the story about how they managed to kill the idea of a bridge across the american river between watt and sunrise

the names change but the old game remains the same.....adios Sacramento Kings

#248 Chad Vander Veen

Chad Vander Veen

    Hopeless Addict

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

Posted 03 August 2006 - 08:32 AM

QUOTE(old soldier @ Aug 3 2006, 09:19 AM) View Post

the only thing that would make the old arena thing go was only if everybody was for it and everybody told the voters it was good for the city and the region. its hard to believe that sacramento ranks 18 in the country

the bad thing is when ever you got an issue a politician knows he can get on tv being against it and the tv folks like it cause it makes news. the problem is the controversy just confuses little folks who might get behind the idea. old soldier's rule on votes about money is if you don't understand it vote no and so with the old arena thats where we are heading

heck the superevisors aren't even all for it. I kinda like that Roberta lady who wants Sacramento go go back into being a cow town. life was sure a lot simpler before all the growth and traffic I guess she fingures that with no arena the kings will go away, they will tear down arco and we won;'t have to worry about our kids going to rock concerts and all that trash....folks just might listen to her as the person who sent the Maloofs packing

why I remember when the old pig bowl football game between the sheriff and the police was the biggest event in town and it just may be that again. folks use to tailgate the whole day before the game.
we have been guided by a lot of wisdom by are elected forks...the newcomers might not even remember the story about how they managed to kill the idea of a bridge across the american river between watt and sunrise

the names change but the old game remains the same.....adios Sacramento Kings


Yeah! Let's go back to when women couldn't vote too! While we're at it, let's bring back slavery! Hooray for the past, when things when were perfect!

IPB Image

#249 mylo

mylo

    Mmm.. Tomato

  • Moderator
  • 16,763 posts
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 04 August 2006 - 11:37 AM

I really hate to beat a dead horse here, but can someone please explain the following statement from Roger Dickinson in regards to the Maloofs risk.

"They take all the risk of the facility," Dickinson said. "If they can't fill that arena, they bear that loss."

I understand that this is in response to the criticism that if the arena isn't filled, the taxpayers have spent $500M for nothing. The "promise" of return on investment will fail, as the benefits will not be realized.

What risk ("of the facility") are the Maloofs taking besides the loss of $20M?

p.s. Yes, this is a serious question
"Ah, yes, those Gucci extremists and their Prada jihad!" --ducky

#250 SacKen

SacKen

    Lifer

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,286 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cell Block D

Posted 04 August 2006 - 11:40 AM

I've been away for a while, so I apologize if this was already covered. I speed read the 10 pages I missed.

With the arena vote split into two different ballot measures, is it possible that we could vote in a sales tax increase, yet the arena measure fails? Then we are stuck with a tax increase and still no arena. From what little I know of the actual ballot measure text, this seems like a possibility.

I'm still on the fence about this deal and this risk is tipping me toward no... raincloud.gif

"Just think of how stupid the average person is, and then realize half of them are even stupider!" -- George Carlin

#251 benning

benning

    Living Legend

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,141 posts

Posted 04 August 2006 - 11:49 AM

QUOTE(mylo @ Aug 4 2006, 12:37 PM) View Post

I really hate to beat a dead horse here, but can someone please explain the following statement from Roger Dickinson in regards to the Maloofs risk.

"They take all the risk of the facility," Dickinson said. "If they can't fill that arena, they bear that loss."

I understand that this is in response to the criticism that if the arena isn't filled, the taxpayers have spent $500M for nothing. The "promise" of return on investment will fail, as the benefits will not be realized.

What risk ("of the facility") are the Maloofs taking besides the loss of $20M?

p.s. Yes, this is a serious question

I have a friend who works in politics who says that you'll go crazy if you try to figure out these kinds of statements. He doesn't even try. You just have to accept the fact that people love to pretend that chickens are ducks when it suits them.
"L'essential est invisible pour les yeux."

#252 Steve Heard

Steve Heard

    Owner

  • Admin
  • 13,752 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 04 August 2006 - 12:02 PM

QUOTE(benning @ Aug 4 2006, 12:49 PM) View Post

I have a friend who works in politics who says that you'll go crazy if you try to figure out these kinds of statements. He doesn't even try. You just have to accept the fact that people love to pretend that chickens are ducks when it suits them.

I have it on good authority that chickens are in fact, ducks.

GO KINGS!

Steve Heard

Folsom Real Estate Specialist

EXP Realty

BRE#01368503

Owner - MyFolsom.com

916 718 9577 


#253 mylo

mylo

    Mmm.. Tomato

  • Moderator
  • 16,763 posts
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 04 August 2006 - 12:10 PM

I did not have relations with that chicken!
"Ah, yes, those Gucci extremists and their Prada jihad!" --ducky

#254 camay2327

camay2327

    GO NAVY

  • Moderator
  • 11,481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 04 August 2006 - 12:21 PM

Did you see the article in todays SacBee?

Looks like they might have gotten the CART before the HORSE again.

It may take to long to clean the place up and they may still need to build out in the North Natomas area.

VOTE THIS THING DOWN FOLKS.... Sorry about the copy and paste.....

----------


http://www.sacbee.co...-15107097c.html

Arena site could jump off railyard
Ownership, toxics may yet thwart downtown deal.
By Mary Lynne Vellinga and Terri Hardy -- Bee Staff Writers
Published 12:01 am PDT Friday, August 4, 2006
If plans to build a new Kings arena in the downtown railyard run into problems, city and county leaders have agreed to look elsewhere, including North Natomas.

Revitalization of the dormant railyard is one of the key selling points that proponents plan to use when asking voters to adopt a new quarter-cent sales tax to pay for the arena.

They paint a picture in which people will ride Amtrak or light-rail trains to basketball games and concerts, catching a bite to eat or a drink while they're downtown.

On Thursday, leaders of the arena effort downplayed the idea that it would go anywhere else. But they acknowledged that the railyard presents a number of potential challenges: delays in an ownership transfer from Union Pacific Railroad, toxic contamination, and lack of streets, sewers and other infrastructure.

"The railyard site is, by far, the hardest place to negotiate a deal," said Sacramento Vice Mayor Rob Fong.

The information about alternative sites is contained in a list of deal points negotiated over the past few days between representatives of Sacramento city and county and the Maloofs, owners of the Kings.

This written list was produced at the request of the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors, which delayed its Wednesday vote putting the sales-tax measure on the ballot until it saw something from the Kings in writing.

The list is nonbinding and will serve as the blueprint for a more detailed "memorandum of understanding" between the public agencies and the Maloofs that is to be finished by Oct. 6.

It contains numerous exit clauses that graphically illustrate the many ways the deal still could collapse.

One way would be if the public agencies can't reach a deal with Thomas Enterprises, the Georgia firm developing the railyard.

During the next two months, even as they negotiate with the Maloofs on the arena, city and county representatives will try to negotiate an agreement with Thomas Enterprises, which is under contract to buy the railyard from Union Pacific.

The deal will include, among other things, a price for the land, an exact location for the arena, and the amount of parking that will be made available to the Maloofs. If that deal doesn't come together by early October, the whole arena proposal could fizzle.

Numerous sticking points could arise, including the exact location of the arena. Thomas Enterprises has placed the arena in the back of the railyard, anchoring a planned sports and entertainment district, but Fong said he and other city negotiators would like to see it closer to the Amtrak and Regional Transit light-rail station at Fifth and I streets.

"We want it within easy walking distance," Fong said.

Mayor Heather Fargo agreed. "My preference has always been to get it as close to our intermodal (train station) as possible," she said.

If an agreement with Thomas Enterprises is reached by early October, and if voters approve the sales-tax increase, the parties could still decide to look for alternative sites if the railyard land isn't under the control of the new, public joint powers authority building the arena by July 2007.

One of these alternatives could be on land around Arco Arena that is owned by the city and the Maloofs. Another could be at Cal Expo.

"It is our hope and expectation we won't have to use those alternatives, but we need to have them," said Paul Hahn, the county's director of economic development.

Everyone involved in the deal acknowledges that the railyard's recent history doesn't suggest that development can get done in a hurry.

One potential obstacle is that Thomas Enterprises doesn't even own the site yet. The firm announced two years ago that it had entered escrow with Union Pacific. But still, the deal has not closed.

"It's been Department of Defense-esque," said Fargo aide Chuck Dalldorf. "I've never celebrated anniversaries of escrow before."

So many deadlines have come and gone that Suheil Totah, the project manager for Thomas Enterprises, refuses to make any more predictions for when the sale will close. Union Pacific officials declined to comment this week.

But Totah said the sale will be finalized in time for the arena to to be built.

"It's not going to be an issue as far as the arena goes," Totah said. "We have control of the property and we will be closing on it."

Contamination by toxic metals and fluids dumped on the ground during the railyard's industrial heyday could also be a problem.

Between 2000 and 2002, excavators for Union Pacific dug up and hauled away about 500,000 tons of contaminated dirt. But another 200,000 to 300,000 tons remain, according to the state Department of Toxic Substances Control, which is overseeing the cleanup.

The general area Thomas Enterprises has designated for an arena contains piles of soil peppered with shreds of old insulation containing toxic asbestos.

Carol Singleton, spokeswoman for the toxics control department, said the piles would have to be removed before the arena could be built. Her department hasn't decided what should be done with them yet. They could potentially be hauled away, or buried onsite and capped.

Both Totah and state toxics officials expressed confidence that the cleanup could be finished in time for construction of the arena to begin. An arena would require a lower level of cleanup than other land uses, such as parks or single family homes.

"The goal of Union Pacific and the DTSC is to have the portion where the arena would go and quite a few of the other portions of the soil clean by 2007," said Paul Carpenter, a project manager for DTSC overseeing the railyard cleanup.

Totah said the cleaning of the yard has been a "slow" process under Union Pacific.

"The cleanup could have been done years ago, but it's been undergoing remediation on a slower schedule," Totah said.

Once a hub of heavy industry, the railyard lacks streets, parking garages, sewers, a modern electric system and other necessities for accommodating a major development such as an arena. Thomas Enterprises and the city of Sacramento estimate it will cost between $400 million and $500 million to install the needed infrastructure.

Specific funding sources have yet to be identified. The city has said it will contribute the money from selling 100 acres of land it owns next to Arco Arena. That money is being included in the estimated price tag of $470 million to $542 million for an arena.

Arena proponents acknowledge that the railyard presents a daunting set of obstacles. But they say it also offers far more potential to revitalize the city than a more suburban facility such as Arco.

"The railyards development is really the prize here," said John Dangberg, assistant Sacramento city manager for economic development. "It's a five and a half billion-dollar project we're trying to get off the ground. The arena really does act as a driver to move it along."

BREAKING DOWN THE ARENA DEAL
Arena negotiators in July released deal points of the funding plan. This week, negotiators in a marathon session fleshed out that initial agreement. Here are some of the new provisions:

• Arena: A 17,000- to 18,000-seat state-of-the-art facility comparable in quality to arenas in Memphis, Charlotte, Indianapolis and Houston. Square footage would be about the same as the Memphis FedEx arena, but with administrative offices inside, not in a free-standing building. Other amenities: 50-60 luxury suites; 3,000 to 5,000 club seats; appropriate training facilities and two practice courts.

• Joint powers authority: Other incorporated cities in the county might join Sacramento and the county in ownership of the arena.

• Parking: A parking structure with enclosed walkways or bridges connecting to the arena. The number of spaces has yet to be determined.

• Location: Downtown's Union Pacific railyard. If that plan falls through, the parties would look at alternative sites including North Natomas.

• Design: The city and county will give the Kings a list of three nationally recognized architects with experience in building arenas; Kings will make the final choice.

• Kings contribution: Kings will pay $20 million when construction begins. That money could be used for capital repairs or any other purpose.

• Possessory interest tax: In lieu of property taxes, the JPA will pay a tax based on the lease value. The yearly amount has not yet been determined.

• Natomas land: Kings own 85 acres in North Natomas on the site of Arco Arena and the city owns 100 adjacent acres. Parking for the arena is on the border, with some land owned by the city and some land owned by Maloof Sports and Entertainment. An agreement allowing the city and the Maloofs to each use that common area would be nullified, allowing the areas to be sold or developed by each side, unencumbered by the agreement.

• Exit clauses: There are a host of provisions or deadlines that must be met, or the arena deal will fall apart. They include: The city and county conclude the arena's projected costs are too great; North Natomas land restrictions are not erased; the proposed arena site is not acceptable or is not under control of the city, county or JPA by July 1, 2007.

-- Terri Hardy
A VETERAN Whether active duty, retired, national guard or reserve - is someone who, at one point in their life, wrote a blank check made payable to "The United States of America" for an amount "up to and including their life". That is HONOR, and there are way too many people in this country who no longer understand it. -Author unknown-

#255 FiscalConservative

FiscalConservative

    Veteran

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 152 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 August 2006 - 12:56 PM

QUOTE(c_vanderveen @ Aug 3 2006, 09:32 AM) View Post

Yeah! Let's go back to when women couldn't vote too! While we're at it, let's bring back slavery! Hooray for the past, when things when were perfect!

IPB Image


I see this guy still writes poorly! ... "..when things when were perfect" ...

QUOTE(camay2327 @ Aug 4 2006, 01:21 PM) View Post

Did you see the article in todays SacBee?

Looks like they might have gotten the CART before the HORSE again.

It may take to long to clean the place up and they may still need to build out in the North Natomas area.

VOTE THIS THING DOWN FOLKS.... Sorry about the copy and paste.....

----------


Don't worry .. this thing doesn't have a chance to pass even in spite of the fact they are deceiving the voters by classifying this thing in such a way to require a simple majority vote for it to pass.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users