379 replies to this topic

[cw68]

Its morally wrong to force people to pay a tax to build something they can NOT afford to attend. If you want others to pay a tax to build something they can't afford to attend , so you and your children can attend....that is a reflection on your values NOT mine.

Using that logic, should people who can't afford cars not be taxed for roads? Or people who can't afford to fly, should they be taxed to update and improve airports or their security? Should people who can't afford to have kids be taxed to pay for schools?

[mylo]

Using that logic, should people who can't afford cars not be taxed for roads? Or people who can't afford to fly, should they be taxed to update and improve airports or their security? Should people who can't afford to have kids be taxed to pay for schools?

Aren't roads paid for through car registrations?

I'll pay for schools, even though I don't have kids, because I don't want stupid kids running the country! (we all know what that's like)

[Robert Giacometti]

Using that logic, should people who can't afford cars not be taxed for roads? Or people who can't afford to fly, should they be taxed to update and improve airports or their security? Should people who can't afford to have kids be taxed to pay for schools?

Aren't all the roads in Sacramento county free to use? If someone doesn't have a car they can still use the roads by walking or riding a bike or maybe they get a ride from someone else in that person's car and use all roads for free!

I'm not aware of any direct tax on people for airports and I'm sure we didn't raise sales taxes on everyone to pay for any additional improvements at airports. There may be a tax on airline tickets to make improvements....then those who are using the airports are paying that service.

Aren't all public schools free for all students regardless of incomes? If a community wants to raise taxes to build new schools or renovate older schools doesn't that vote require more than 50%. Isn't that cost directly levied on property owners in that community and NOT a sales tax increase? Also, its a supermajority of that specifc community that decides and the tax increase stays in that specific community....it doesn't go to another community or at least it isn't supposed too.

Libraries, Schools & roads are all provided free for all citizens. The Arena is different in that NOT everyone will be able to use it yet everyone will be forced to pay for it.

If the BOS wanted to tax rental cars, hotels, resturaunts and maybe a tax on tickets for events to build this Arena....I would be supportive. This way the poor aren't being forced to pay for something they can NOT afford to use. Isn't this how other Arena's were built?

Why don't we do this in Sacramento?

The answer to my question is that the county has serious financial challenges in the future because of their failed policies. They need to raise revenues to cover their failures and they are using the Kings as the leverage to get it done. They want the suburban cities to contribute to the counties problems....this is why Roberta Mcglashan voted NO...she represents cities in the county and understands the real motive of the other BOS members.

The BOS has the authority to raise taxes on car rentals, hotels, resturaunts and place a tax on tickets for events at the Arena without a vote of the people and build a new Arena....but they need additional revenue to pay for their failed programs and they are using the Kings as the bait to get you to swallow their idea.

[DrKoz23]

Aren't all the roads in Sacramento county free to use? If someone doesn't have a car they can still use the roads by walking or riding a bike or maybe they get a ride from someone else in that person's car and use all roads for free!

I'm not aware of any direct tax on people for airports and I'm sure we didn't raise sales taxes on everyone to pay for any additional improvements at airports. There may be a tax on airline tickets to make improvements....then those who are using the airports are paying that service.

Aren't all public schools free for all students regardless of incomes? If a community wants to raise taxes to build new schools or renovate older schools doesn't that vote require more than 50%. Isn't that cost directly levied on property owners in that community and NOT a sales tax increase? Also, its a supermajority of that specifc community that decides and the tax increase stays in that specific community....it doesn't go to another community or at least it isn't supposed too.

Libraries, Schools & roads are all provided free for all citizens. The Arena is different in that NOT everyone will be able to use it yet everyone will be forced to pay for it.

If the BOS wanted to tax rental cars, hotels, resturaunts and maybe a tax on tickets for events to build this Arena....I would be supportive. This way the poor aren't being forced to pay for something they can NOT afford to use. Isn't this how other Arena's were built?

Why don't we do this in Sacramento?

The answer to my question is that the county has serious financial challenges in the future because of their failed policies. They need to raise revenues to cover their failures and they are using the Kings as the leverage to get it done. They want the suburban cities to contribute to the counties problems....this is why Roberta Mcglashan voted NO...she represents cities in the county and understands the real motive of the other BOS members.

The BOS has the authority to raise taxes on car rentals, hotels, resturaunts and place a tax on tickets for events at the Arena without a vote of the people and build a new Arena....but they need additional revenue to pay for their failed programs and they are using the Kings as the bait to get you to swallow their idea.

For now I am still leaning toward "yes" on this proposed increase in the tax.

However... I do like the idea of raising funds using a car rental fee and hotel tax. Additionally... I wouldn't mind a $1 surcharge per ticket for EVERY event held at the new arena to help offset the costs of the building. I think this is how KC is helping to pay their portion of their new arena. I do not know how much money could be generated by doing this is Sacramento County... so I can't say for sure this would be enough. I am just wondering if people against the proposal the way it is now... would vote for it if we did the above but also had to increase the sales tax by 1/10 or 1/20 cents per dollar spent? Or how about if we just had to increase the car rental fee... hotel tax... and a $1 surcharge per ticket for every event at the new arena?

I am still voting "yes"... because I think this is our last chance at keeping the Kings in Sacramento and building a world-class facility for numerous other events. I wish they could have come up with a better deal... but I think we are in the 11th hour and this is our last chance to save the Kings from moving (in my opinion). I still see the benefits outweighing the negatives and want to have a chance at re-vitalizing the downtown as a regional destination and making this entire region a more desirable place to live.

Hey Robert... on a side-note... I didn't know you were a Packers fan! Growing up in Ill... how did you end up liking the Packers? A co-worker of mine is the same way... he grew up in the far northern part of the state (near Waukegan) and his dad rooted for the Packers (could get both Milw and Chi local stations and the Packers were more exciting to watch)! Just wondering. Go "G"!

[benning]

Land deals could offset arena cost, analysis says
By Terri Hardy and Mary Lynne Vellinga -- Bee Staff Writers
http://www.sacbee.co...-15136324c.html
Published 12:01 am PDT Friday, August 11, 2006

If a new downtown sports complex is constructed and land surrounding Arco Arena developed, local government would collect more than $542 million over 30 years in taxes and other revenue -- money that would substantially cover the new arena's price tag, a city analysis shows.

Can't get the whole story from the lead...deeper in the story is this...

In one area, local governments and schools would receive less from a new arena than the current one. Arco and the 85 acres surrounding it are owned by the Maloofs. They pay $700,000 in an in-lieu property tax and $300,000 in Mello-Roos assessments, which repay infrastructure costs.

In contrast, the new arena would be owned by a city-county joint powers authority. As a publicly owned building, the new arena would be exempt from property taxes.

That has generated some controversy. Councilman Steve Cohn said in an interview the public would be better served if Joe and Gavin Maloof held the title to the new arena because they would have property taxes of about $5 million a year.

[WindInMySails]

Robert Giacometti stated, "Aren't all the roads in Sacramento county free to use?"

Robert, did you overlook the County of Sacramento's 1/2 cent sales tax that funds local transportation projects. This tax increase was enacted when voters approved Measure A several years ago. I imagine many of the recent road improvements in Folsom were paid with this sales tax revenue. Therefore, anyone paying sales tax pays for these road improvements, which means use of the roads isn't really free. Why should it be, anyway?

In a perfect world, there may be a better way to raise money for road improvements, but I am glad our roads are being maintained. Likewise, the two ballot measures associated with the new arena may not be perfect, but I probably will vote "Yes" anyway. I want to keep the Kings (even though I don't buy tickets to watch them play), and I would like to see Sacramento's downtown enjoy the same tranformation experienced by other cities with new arenas. We may not have this chance again for a long time if the Kings leave town.

All of us on the sidelines imagine we would have negotiated a better deal with the Maloofs. Maybe, but probably not. At least we get a chance to vote it up or down in November. I plan to make good use of my vote.

[jafount]

In your previous post you asked How many of us who were saying this was unfair to the poor....actually were working at a soup kitchen or something to that effect. I invited you down to look for yourself and you could then find out first hand.

Now it seems your standard has changed....to the only way you feel someone has compassion for the poor is to invite a homeless person in to live with them. Is it fair to assume you then don't have any compassion for the poor....because you haven't met your own standards?

Concentrating on the minutiae of my post(s) rather than the substance. This makes me chuckle in spite of the fact that I expected it. Once again, I'll ask the question in two parts:

(1) if the "poor" of YOUR county cannot afford to be consumers other than the basic neccesities of life, and the MOST basic neccesitiy is FOOD, which is untaxed, just how much of an impact will this short term tax have on their lives?

(2) if quality of life, which includes recreation, is what brings business and people to said region who CAN afford to be consumers thereby increasing the tax revenue generated for YOUR county, won't the "poor" potentially benefit from an improved job market ultimately creating the possibility of them actually becoming consumers themselves?

I assumed many people like yourself who live outside Sacramento County spend some of their money in Sacramento County. I'd suspect its probably NOT as much as those who live in Sacramento County....but the difference really wouldn't be significant....but those of us in Sac County will pay more of the Tax than you will. Those who live outside Sac County and rarely spend money in Sac County who attend Kings games and events at the new Arena....wouldn't be paying for the new Arena, yet get the benefits!

Why would you assume this? I shop at Costco, Lowes and Home Depot in Folsom. I buy my children clothes at Old Navy and Kohls. Hell I even Grocery shop at the New Raleys on E. Natoma.

Those who live outside Sacramento also use the museums and the roads and the airport and the civic center and the memorial auditorium. Need I go on? I mean if this is your argument, it's a poor one. Sacramento is a very unique city in that it is the ONLY place in the region that has any recreational offerings. This is what brings people to the region at all!

Its morally wrong to force people to pay a tax to build something they can NOT afford to attend. If you want others to pay a tax to build something they can't afford to attend , so you and your children can attend....that is a reflection on your values NOT mine.

Wow, what a pleasant utopian society you envision. Everyone should be able to attend everything or olse NOBODY gets to. Wow, how socialist of you.

If you want to justify your support for this measure....by rationalizing my beliefs as being inconsistent....so you can twist your own values....I would encourage you to do so.

I never said your beliefs were inconsistent. I'm saying that the bulk of people I've met who boo hoo about "the poor" tend to posture at certain times of the year so they feel better about themselves and perhaps asuage any guilt feelings they might have as a result of personal success. 'Nuff said.

As for the "invite" to see who's manning the soup kitchen, I have no doubt there are people there. I also have no doubt they are there because the people they are helping can't afford to buy things themselves, which means they wouldn't be affected by a tax increase regardless.

[Chad Vander Veen]

Concentrating on the minutiae of my post(s) rather than the substance. This makes me chuckle in spite of the fact that I expected it. Once again, I'll ask the question in two parts:

(1) if the "poor" of YOUR county cannot afford to be consumers other than the basic neccesities of life, and the MOST basic neccesitiy is FOOD, which is untaxed, just how much of an impact will this short term tax have on their lives?

(2) if quality of life, which includes recreation, is what brings business and people to said region who CAN afford to be consumers thereby increasing the tax revenue generated for YOUR county, won't the "poor" potentially benefit from an improved job market ultimately creating the possibility of them actually becoming consumers themselves?
Why would you assume this? I shop at Costco, Lowes and Home Depot in Folsom. I buy my children clothes at Old Navy and Kohls. Hell I even Grocery shop at the New Raleys on E. Natoma.

Those who live outside Sacramento also use the museums and the roads and the airport and the civic center and the memorial auditorium. Need I go on? I mean if this is your argument, it's a poor one. Sacramento is a very unique city in that it is the ONLY place in the region that has any recreational offerings. This is what brings people to the region at all!
Wow, what a pleasant utopian society you envision. Everyone should be able to attend everything or olse NOBODY gets to. Wow, how socialist of you.
I never said your beliefs were inconsistent. I'm saying that the bulk of people I've met who boo hoo about "the poor" tend to posture at certain times of the year so they feel better about themselves and perhaps asuage any guilt feelings they might have as a result of personal success. 'Nuff said.

As for the "invite" to see who's manning the soup kitchen, I have no doubt there are people there. I also have no doubt they are there because the people they are helping can't afford to buy things themselves, which means they wouldn't be affected by a tax increase regardless.

[mylo]

[Robert Giacometti]

Robert Giacometti stated, "Aren't all the roads in Sacramento county free to use?"

Robert, did you overlook the County of Sacramento's 1/2 cent sales tax that funds local transportation projects. This tax increase was enacted when voters approved Measure A several years ago. I imagine many of the recent road improvements in Folsom were paid with this sales tax revenue. Therefore, anyone paying sales tax pays for these road improvements, which means use of the roads isn't really free. Why should it be, anyway?

In a perfect world, there may be a better way to raise money for road improvements, but I am glad our roads are being maintained. Likewise, the two ballot measures associated with the new arena may not be perfect, but I probably will vote "Yes" anyway. I want to keep the Kings (even though I don't buy tickets to watch them play), and I would like to see Sacramento's downtown enjoy the same tranformation experienced by other cities with new arenas. We may not have this chance again for a long time if the Kings leave town.

All of us on the sidelines imagine we would have negotiated a better deal with the Maloofs. Maybe, but probably not. At least we get a chance to vote it up or down in November. I plan to make good use of my vote.

Welcome to the Forum!

I didn't forget about the measure A sales tax extension. I agree this tax builds and renovates roads in the county. I'm not aware of any fee anyone pays to use the roads. If the sales tax passes to build the Arena... one will then have to buy a ticket to enter the new arena. Those who are on a fixed income probably can NOT afford to buy this ticket into the Arena even though they are being taxed to build it....this is what makes it wrong!

There is a difference....because the poor can use any road they want without having to buy a ticket.

None of us knows for sure what the official ballot measure will say, but its been said that there is language that would allow the BOS to build a new Arena somewhere other than downtown.

Some of you have a lot more faith in the BOS than I do!

It will be a shame to have the measure pass then get thrown out by a court because of Prop 218. Just think of the lost time, wasted tax dollars and energy for nothing. Then where will we be?

Again, welcome and I do appreciate your comments and thoughts!

[mylo]

There is a difference....because the poor can use any road they want without having to buy a ticket.

That's not entirely true, either. Pedestrians aren't allowed on highways or expressways. You have to buy a car, and pay additional fee's to register and fuel it.

[Steve Heard]

There is a difference....because the poor can use any road they want without having to buy a ticket.

Roads may not be the best analogy, though I have heard the 'privatization' fans talk about making freeways toll roads.

Citizens are forced to pay for many things they will never use, such as, a park on the other side of town, an opera house or theatre, a new library, or just about any public facility. They aren't for everyone.

[mylo]

Why don't we buy more parks, libraries, roads, schools, and other public facilities. Buy enough of them for $600M, and surely most people would have the opportunity to use at least one. Make a few public restrooms to make sure the homeless get a stab at it, too!

Plus, don't we need more of those things anyway? I'm always hearing about unfinished parks, or not enough schools or teachers, or nowhere to take a leak. My only concern is that this public money could be spent on more fruitfull public projects.

[Chad Vander Veen]

Why don't we buy more parks, libraries, roads, schools, and other public facilities. Buy enough of them for $600M, and surely most people would have the opportunity to use at least one. Make a few public restrooms to make sure the homeless get a stab at it, too!

Plus, don't we need more of those things anyway? I'm always hearing about unfinished parks, or not enough schools or teachers, or nowhere to take a leak. My only concern is that this public money could be spent on more fruitfull public projects.

Maybe the naysayers have a point, we do need more parks. I mean, here in Folsom, we only have 37 parks. 37! Can you imagine!? It's like living under Stalin and Hitler and Mao combined.

[rlsliger]

[quote name='jafount' date='Aug 13 2006, 09:41 PM' post='124965']
Hell I even Grocery shop at the New Raleys on E. Natoma.

The address is actually 25025 Blue Ravine Road!