379 replies to this topic

[Chad Vander Veen]

I just think the development deal stinks, is very lopsided and isn't in the public's best interest to do this type of so-called partnership.

Yes, it is.

[benning]

a real partnership, perhaps...this one is not a partnership - it's the public underwriting of profit insurance for a private entity.

[Chad Vander Veen]

a real partnership, perhaps...this one is not a partnership - it's the public underwriting of profit insurance for a private entity.

If you choose to look at it that way, then that's all you'll see. I look at it as the cornerstone in what will be a glorious reimagining of downtown Sacramento - a catalyst that will spur numerous development projects that were once out of reach. I look at it as opening a door to creating new jobs, new housing, and new opportunities - even for the poor people Robert is so concerned about.

[Robert Giacometti]

Agreed, CV. Standing room tickets are 10 lousy bucks. That's only two packs of smokes!
I just tried to buy standing room tickets (sorry, chair not included) and they were $10 each plus a $3.90 ticketmaster charge per ticket. You have to buy them this way or make a special trip to Arco boxoffice (and pay the parking charge?) because they have so few places to stand in the back (did I mention that you don't get a chair?)
Also, parking is $10 and food is outrageous. There is no practical way a family could get out of there for under $100

Just trying to keep you guys honest.

I agree with you, however, that not all opportunities have to be given to all people equally. Also, most entertainment is expensive - there are tons of people who can't afford it going to the state fair, Kings, Disneyland, etc.

I just think the development deal stinks, is very lopsided and isn't in the public's best interest to do this type of so-called partnership.

Benning,

When we force a specific tax like raising sales taxes on everybody and then use those taxes to build a specific Arena, it should be affordable to everyone.

I am supportive of the private sector like the Kings at Arco and Disneyland of setting market prices for admission and if the poor can not afford those prices unfortunately that is just a sad fact of life. Corporate giving and charitable groups do step up and try to find ways to assist in allowing the poor to participate.

This deal with the Maloofs is NOT balanced. Grantland Johnson, remarked that the people who represented the public didn't negotiate with the Maloofs, but they begged them to take this deal.

[cw68]

If you choose to look at it that way, then that's all you'll see. I look at it as the cornerstone in what will be a glorious reimagining of downtown Sacramento - a catalyst that will spur numerous development projects that were once out of reach. I look at it as opening a door to creating new jobs, new housing, and new opportunities - even for the poor people Robert is so concerned about.

That's how I see it, too, CV.

[DrKoz23]

Agreed, CV. Standing room tickets are 10 lousy bucks. That's only two packs of smokes!
I just tried to buy standing room tickets (sorry, chair not included) and they were $10 each plus a $3.90 ticketmaster charge per ticket. You have to buy them this way or make a special trip to Arco boxoffice (and pay the parking charge?) because they have so few places to stand in the back (did I mention that you don't get a chair?)
Also, parking is $10 and food is outrageous. There is no practical way a family could get out of there for under $100

Well... for a family of 4...

4 standing room only tickets ($40) - bought at Arco on arrival.
4 rides on RT to get to and from the game ($16) - don't have to pay for gas with $2 a ticket (after the increase).
4 hot dogs (approx $20)
4 medium sodas (approx $16)

Total... $92. And who says you have to eat or drink at a game. I don't every time I go to a game.

Looks like it can be done for under $100. You could even drive and park for $10... and still get out of there for under $100!!! Looks like its practical.

Uhhh...I did buy a car recently. A $40,000 pickup in fact. Guess what else? I bought it in YOUR county. Now here's the kicker...if I buy another $40,000 car after this tax is in effect, that's gonna cost me an additional...wait for it...$100.00. Wow...there's a deal killer. Give me a break. I can forego two dinners out and make that back.

Actually... sales tax is paid on automobiles for the county in which you live. If you live in El Dorado county... and purchase your car in Sacramento county... you pay the sales tax for El Dorado county.

But yes... even a $40,000 car would add and EXTRA $100 with this tax for anyone in Sacramento county.

[jafount]

Agreed, CV. Standing room tickets are 10 lousy bucks. That's only two packs of smokes!
I just tried to buy standing room tickets (sorry, chair not included) and they were $10 each plus a $3.90 ticketmaster charge per ticket. You have to buy them this way or make a special trip to Arco boxoffice (and pay the parking charge?) because they have so few places to stand in the back (did I mention that you don't get a chair?)
Also, parking is $10 and food is outrageous. There is no practical way a family could get out of there for under $100

Just trying to keep you guys honest.

I agree with you, however, that not all opportunities have to be given to all people equally. Also, most entertainment is expensive - there are tons of people who can't afford it going to the state fair, Kings, Disneyland, etc.

I just think the development deal stinks, is very lopsided and isn't in the public's best interest to do this type of so-called partnership.

You dont have to pay the parking charge just to go to the box office and buy the SRO tickets. You mentioned the no chair a couple of times, but this is why they're called standing room only.

if you've been to Arco, you know there are LOTS of places to stand and mill about upstairs. There is also a restaraunt and a bar and a couple of lounges.

Cities make concessions and do things all the time to make themselves attractive to businesses.

The way I see it, the people who are against this make it more about the billionaire owners of the team than the deal itself. I mean cities and states piss away money as a matter of routine, yet the big uprising only comes when a deal involves a partnership that has the potential to make the city of sacramento VERY attractive to other businesses and developers.

[WindInMySails]

The proposal to raise taxes to build an arena will affect everyone including the poor. Once built one will have to pay fee to enter the arena and those poor who have contributed to building the Arena probably can NOT afford to pay for those fees to use the Arena....this is what makes this approach wrong! Of course this also makes this measure illegal under Propostion 218.

I didn't intend to be a regular contributor to this forum (this is only my second post as a newbie), but this subject interests me. I am trying to separate facts from fiction, and I am confused by Mr. Giacometti's comment that the proposed measure is somehow illegal under Proposition 218 because "one will have to pay (a) fee to enter the arena" and/or the "poor who have contributed to building the Arena probably (cannot) afford to pay for those fees."

After doing some research, my understanding of Proposition 218 is that it requires a 2/3 vote for a tax with a specific use, but only a majority vote for a general use tax. The first ballot measure to enact the sales tax increase does not specify a specific use of the tax revenue, therefore it only requires a majority vote. The second ballot measure regarding County financial support of arena construction is a non-binding advisory vote, which does not have any legal affect on the first measure.

This approach may take advantage of a loophole in Proposition 218 and undermine the intent of this law, but it does not appear illegal. I am not an attorney, so a judge may disagree with my analysis if and when a lawsuit is filed on this matter. In the meanwhile, I welcome information that helps clarify this issue for me.

[Robert Giacometti]

I didn't intend to be a regular contributor to this forum (this is only my second post as a newbie), but this subject interests me. I am trying to separate facts from fiction, and I am confused by Mr. Giacometti's comment that the proposed measure is somehow illegal under Proposition 218 because "one will have to pay (a) fee to enter the arena" and/or the "poor who have contributed to building the Arena probably (cannot) afford to pay for those fees."

After doing some research, my understanding of Proposition 218 is that it requires a 2/3 vote for a tax with a specific use, but only a majority vote for a general use tax. The first ballot measure to enact the sales tax increase does not specify a specific use of the tax revenue, therefore it only requires a majority vote. The second ballot measure regarding County financial support of arena construction is a non-binding advisory vote, which does not have any legal affect on the first measure.

This approach may take advantage of a loophole in Proposition 218 and undermine the intent of this law, but it does not appear illegal. I am not an attorney, so a judge may disagree with my analysis if and when a lawsuit is filed on this matter. In the meanwhile, I welcome information that helps clarify this issue for me.

Well I guess my mind got a head of my fingers on this one. I left out a couple of words...ok maybe sentences.

Under Propostion 218 its also my understanding that you need a 2/3 vote to pass a tax with a speciifc purpose and the intent of 218 was to stop these dual ballot measures from attempting this loophole. Its my understanding since 218 was passed by the voters, there has only been one attempt to have these dual measures on the ballot. Since that measure didn't pass this loophole hasn't been challenged in courts. Its been said the group who wrote 218 is just itching to test this in court and feel that if this measure passed would be a "slam dunk" to get overturned.

Again, if this measure passes to raise taxes its going to be very difficult to claim this wasn't about building an Arena. Look at the the dialogue here, in the papers, at the BOS and the negotiations with the Maloofs over the Arena. To try and claim now that this is just a general tax, will look very weak IMHO. If the Arena wasn't in this measure I doubt it would get 25% approval.

Dan Walters had a nice article a few weeks ago about this issue and the Bee has made references to it on occassions.

Its amazing to me to see politicians try and circumvent the laws people voted for. No wonder why there is such distrust with our government, people pass laws to safeguard abuses and then politicians look for ways to do what they want.

I hope all you proponets are willing to reimburse the county for the legal costs of defending this measure if it passes and then gets thrown out as being illegal under Prop 218. Sure would be a waste of tax dollars and time!

[Steve Heard]

The poor shouldn't be so lazy and stupid and then they'd have money and could afford tickets and we'd all be happy.

Damn poor people. It should be illegal to be poor, then we could build the arena.

I like money.

:

[mylo]

The poor shouldn't be so lazy and stupid and then they'd have money and could afford tickets and we'd all be happy.

Damn poor people. It should be illegal to be poor, then we could build the arena.

I like money.

:

Melt them down into soilent green.. Mmm

[jafount]

Melt them down into soilent green.. Mmm

Except fpr the clowns...they taste funny.

[mylo]

Except fpr the clowns...they taste funny.

Don't clowns have jobs?

[benning]

the working poor can't afford arco either...it's no laughing matter...

[Robert Giacometti]

If you don't know how much impact it will have on the poor, why have you been hanging your arguent on "it's unfair to the poor"? Now you've switched tactics to "it's unfair to seniors". What gives? Are you saying they can't buy food or medication because of this tax? Food isn't taxed, and I'm pretty sure meds aren't either. So again, I'll ask you...where's the impact??
Well...maybe you can share a source that shows the studies that have been done that prove an arena DOES NOT have an impact on the community? Look at the development in the Natomas area. Can you conclusively say that Natomas would have experienced the same unprecedented level of growth had the arena not been there?? Don't worry, it's a rhetorical question because you CAN'T answer it.



Uhhh...I did buy a car recently. A $40,000 pickup in fact. Guess what else? I bought it in YOUR county. Now here's the kicker...if I buy another $40,000 car after this tax is in effect, that's gonna cost me an additional...wait for it...$100.00. Wow...there's a deal killer. Give me a break. I can forego two dinners out and make that back.



It's really hard for me to beleive you were incapable of understanding that statement...I suspect an ever so slight degree of patronization there. I'll try to simplify the comment to make it easier to understand....are there other cities in the region that have significant museums? Memorial auditoriums? Pro sports franchises?



I don't have faith your plan will work...after all, by your own admission, you weren't even able to figure out some of my comments. I somehow doubt your ability to come up with a brilliant plan.



No, I wouldn't and this comment is just stupid, argumentative and pointless.



By all means, take me to task I dare you to PROVE otherwise. After all...as you said above, you haven't met the people I've met.



Maybe you should actually read them. There are questions there which again, aren't really hard to understand. If you can't understand them...well...I don't even need to go there.
I'll say this one more time. If they are POOR what are they actually consuming that will cost them so much additional money? Finally...I'm pretty sure the tax isn't "on the poor" as you like to say. Everybody who buys things pays. IF THEY BUY THINGS. Food and medication aren''t taxed and therefore don't count!
Agreed, CV. Standing room tickets are 10 lousy bucks. That's only two packs of smokes!

jafount,

I checked all my posts on this thread. It seems to me I have been very consistent in saying that "taxing the poor to build an Arena that they can't afford to attend is wrong" I can't find where I say anything about the impact on the poor that you are asking me about. You are asking me to explain something I didn't say. In my previous posts I mention the seniors as being part of the poor here in Sacto county...this isn't something I just changed.

In previous posts I cite examples and offer a variety of quotes from individuals who have looked these Arena deals more than you and I have. They are the ones who are saying these Arena deals aren't what they are touted.

Then I asked for clarification about some of your comments and questions. In one case you simplified them and yes Folsom has a History Musem, there is the Sleep Train Ampitheater and I enjoy the River Cats, but I still don't understand how this is related to what I asked you. You then said you weren't going to explain your questions as they weren't that hard to understand..... probably like the way you understood about the issue of sales tax on your truck. Hopefully you know why I asked that question so we probably don't need to go there.

I had some other questions to ask you....but you have pretty much clarified everything I was wondering.