379 replies to this topic

[cw68]

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

Hell, I can't "afford" to go either and we, technically, make plenty of money. The only time I've been there was to see The Eagles and we got the tickets for free. HOWEVER, it's the surrounding development and benefit to the City that I want. The jobs it will bring to the area, the increased sales tax revenue, the increased desirability of the Sacramento area -- all these things will help us all. The weathly, the middle-class, working poor, poor, etc...

[jafount]

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.

Admittedly, I didn't check all your posts, I only looked at the last few and made my response based on what I perceived as a change.

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.

But you still haven't answered my question from my post yesterday. It said:

"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."

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 didn't ask me a question, you merely stated that "others in the area would disagree with me"

Folsom has a history museum? Bigg freaking deal! EVERY little town has a history museum. Does Folsom have the Railroad Museum? NO. The Crocker Art Museum? NO. Memorial Auditoruim? NO Pro Sports Franchises? NO.

Now I want you to take note of the last one there...PRO SPORTS FRANCHISES..it was a plural which would include rivercats, monarchs, Kings, AFL etc. Can you seriously try to convince me that because Raley Field is in WEST SARAMENTO, that it's not a Sacramento sports team? I mean thay ARE CALLED the Sacramento River Cats.

Obviously, you don't understand what "region means" I am talking about SACOG, the Sacramento Area Council of Governments, which comprises El Dorado, Sacramento, Placer, Yolo, Yuba and Sutter counties. Of this "region", Sacramento is home to the bulk of the recreational and entertainment options. Let's face it...when is the last time you stopped by the city of Galt to take in one of their outstanding entertainment opportunities?

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 understood perfectly how the tax worked. But since I actually lived in Reno at the time I purchased the truck, I had to pay California sales tax to YOUR county. Nevada has reciprocity with California, in that they did not require me to pay again, as sales tax was paid in Sacramento county. I had the choice to pay the tax here now, or the tax there when I registered it. I chose to pay the tax here now. The point, however was made. The total tax that would be owed on the 40,000 vehicle as the result of the increase, would be $100.00


What I can't seem to understand here, is why you insits on focusing on minutiae and making such specious arguments on the subject?

[Revolutionist]

HOWEVER, it's the surrounding development and benefit to the City that I want. The jobs it will bring to the area, the increased sales tax revenue, the increased desirability of the Sacramento area -- all these things will help us all. The weathly, the middle-class, working poor, poor, etc...

The issue is not, "Is it a good idea to build a new arena?"
The issue is, "Why isn't the City of Sacramento willing to invest in itself by financing this new development on its own - instead of imposing a county-wide tax that returns little to no benefit outside of Sacramento's City Limits?"

[Robert Giacometti]

Admittedly, I didn't check all your posts, I only looked at the last few and made my response based on what I perceived as a change.
But you still haven't answered my question from my post yesterday. It said:

"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."
You didn't ask me a question, you merely stated that "others in the area would disagree with me"

Folsom has a history museum? Bigg freaking deal! EVERY little town has a history museum. Does Folsom have the Railroad Museum? NO. The Crocker Art Museum? NO. Memorial Auditoruim? NO Pro Sports Franchises? NO.

Now I want you to take note of the last one there...PRO SPORTS FRANCHISES..it was a plural which would include rivercats, monarchs, Kings, AFL etc. Can you seriously try to convince me that because Raley Field is in WEST SARAMENTO, that it's not a Sacramento sports team? I mean thay ARE CALLED the Sacramento River Cats.

Obviously, you don't understand what "region means" I am talking about SACOG, the Sacramento Area Council of Governments, which comprises El Dorado, Sacramento, Placer, Yolo, Yuba and Sutter counties. Of this "region", Sacramento is home to the bulk of the recreational and entertainment options. Let's face it...when is the last time you stopped by the city of Galt to take in one of their outstanding entertainment opportunities?
I understood perfectly how the tax worked. But since I actually lived in Reno at the time I purchased the truck, I had to pay California sales tax to YOUR county. Nevada has reciprocity with California, in that they did not require me to pay again, as sales tax was paid in Sacramento county. I had the choice to pay the tax here now, or the tax there when I registered it. I chose to pay the tax here now. The point, however was made. The total tax that would be owed on the 40,000 vehicle as the result of the increase, would be $100.00
What I can't seem to understand here, is why you insits on focusing on minutiae and making such specious arguments on the subject?

jafount,

Its way past time for us to simply agree to disagree about raising the sales tax to build an Arena.

My first response to you about this subject was in response to your challenege of wanting to know How many of the opponets of the measure, talking about the unfairness to the poor, really helped out or contributed to a soup kitchen. I guess you weren't happy with the response, so you changed the standard to having to invite a homeless person into our homes as being proof we genuinely are concerned about the poor. When you publically challeneg someone's sincerity, you are going to get a response back.

Now I have no idea where this conversation is going...I've tried to answer your questions and those questions I don't understand I've asked for clarification. I can only ask for clarification from you about something I don't understand....if you choose not to give it... that is your choice.

I want to apologize for my contributions to this conversation and wasting your time.

[Steve Heard]

The issue is not, "Is it a good idea to build a new arena?"
The issue is, "Why isn't the City of Sacramento willing to invest in itself by financing this new development on its own - instead of imposing a county-wide tax that returns little to no benefit outside of Sacramento's City Limits?"

The city isn't imposing a tax, but rather asking voters to approve one.

There are people here in Folsom, and in other communities close to Sacramento, who realize that a major league sports franchise attracts visitors and new residents, which means more business, more jobs, more tax revenue, and higher home values.

[cw68]

The city isn't imposing a tax, but rather asking voters to approve one.

There are people here in Folsom, and in other communities close to Sacramento, who realize that a major league sports franchise attracts visitors and new residents, which means more business, more jobs, more tax revenue, and higher home values.

I would think that in today's deflating real estate market, people would embrace this side benefit.

[jafount]

jafount,

Its way past time for us to simply agree to disagree about raising the sales tax to build an Arena.

My first response to you about this subject was in response to your challenege of wanting to know How many of the opponets of the measure, talking about the unfairness to the poor, really helped out or contributed to a soup kitchen. I guess you weren't happy with the response, so you changed the standard to having to invite a homeless person into our homes as being proof we genuinely are concerned about the poor. When you publically challeneg someone's sincerity, you are going to get a response back.

Now I have no idea where this conversation is going...I've tried to answer your questions and those questions I don't understand I've asked for clarification. I can only ask for clarification from you about something I don't understand....if you choose not to give it... that is your choice.

I want to apologize for my contributions to this conversation and wasting your time.

I didnt up the standard. You never answered. You've given vague responses like, "if you really want to know, there is one way to find out."

I DID make an additional comment, more to demonstrate the absurdity of hanging an entire topic on an argument that is specious at best. Your mantra all along has been "the poor/fixed income are getting shafted."

You never asked for clarification. Again, a vague, "I need clarification" withouth alluding to a specific area of confusion, only adds to the confusion.

My Basic questions were these:

1) You've cited "studies" wherein it's been concluded that having an attraction of this type has no verifiable economic impact on the region. So, bearing that in mind, I ask you, CAN YOU POINT ME TO A STUDY THAT HAS SHOWN THAT A REGION WITHOUT A SPORTS AND ENTERTAINMENT VENUE HAS EXPERIENCED THE SAME LEVEL OF GROWTH AND PROSPERITY AS A REGION WITH SAID VENUE?

The reason I ask this is because it seems odd to me that without a counter-study as a sample, it seems difficult to know where the benchmark would be and evaluate the true impact or lack thereof, of this type of facility.

It just seems logical to me that the addition of a attraction helps bring people to and exposure for the region. if people want to move to the region, they will need jobs. If they get the jobs, they will need homes, if they need homes, builders will build them. Once people move in, they need shopping and services, bringing more jobs, etc.

If a region is unattractive and offers no cultural or entertainment type events, it's very likely that people will choose not to move there, as they would need to go elsewhewre to have fun and recreation. Redding and Red Bluff are very beautiful areas of the state, yet they are slow to grow. Why do you think that is? Because, "there is nothing to do there".

Now, question two: IF THE POOR/FIXED INCOME FOLKS IN THE COUNTY CANNOT AFFORD TO BE CONSUMERS ANYWAY, HOW DOES THIS TAX AFFECT THEM?

I mean if their food and medication isn't taxed, it's not as if they are out bying a Dooney and Bourke or Coach bag to carry their groceries in. Doesn't it seem logical that if they have no disposable income to spend anyway, they likely will be largely unaffected by a tax.

In reponse to your earlier comment that this kind of tax dispropotionately affects the poor over the rich, I disagree. If the "rich" have disposable income to buy the 500.00 coach bag, the taxes they pay on said item goes to drive the government and fund special programs, and in this case, about 35% $1.25 they pay in additional tax on that $500.00 bag will go toward funding that arena. So, the poor pay zero tax because they arent buying anythign anyway, while the rich pay "their fair share".

The way taxes seem to work is analagous to me going with three people for lunch, but because I might make a high six figure income, my percentage of the bill is higher than my friend who makes half what I make, and my other friend who makes half what friend 2 makes. I end up paying 55% of the $100 tab, or $55. While friend two pays 27.5% or $27.50 and friend 3 pays the balance which is about $17.50. Hardly fair if we ate similar meals, but thats just the way the system works.

There were lots of questions, and I figured that a guy who is smart enough to have outlined a viable arena plan himself, should be with it enough to decipher my questions. it's just easier to throw criticizm around and focus the inconsequential things.

[Chad Vander Veen]

I didnt up the standard. You never answered. You've given vague responses like, "if you really want to know, there is one way to find out."

I DID make an additional comment, more to demonstrate the absurdity of hanging an entire topic on an argument that is specious at best. Your mantra all along has been "the poor/fixed income are getting shafted."

You never asked for clarification. Again, a vague, "I need clarification" withouth alluding to a specific area of confusion, only adds to the confusion.

My Basic questions were these:

1) You've cited "studies" wherein it's been concluded that having an attraction of this type has no verifiable economic impact on the region. So, bearing that in mind, I ask you, CAN YOU POINT ME TO A STUDY THAT HAS SHOWN THAT A REGION WITHOUT A SPORTS AND ENTERTAINMENT VENUE HAS EXPERIENCED THE SAME LEVEL OF GROWTH AND PROSPERITY AS A REGION WITH SAID VENUE?

The reason I ask this is because it seems odd to me that without a counter-study as a sample, it seems difficult to know where the benchmark would be and evaluate the true impact or lack thereof, of this type of facility.

It just seems logical to me that the addition of a attraction helps bring people to and exposure for the region. if people want to move to the region, they will need jobs. If they get the jobs, they will need homes, if they need homes, builders will build them. Once people move in, they need shopping and services, bringing more jobs, etc.

If a region is unattractive and offers no cultural or entertainment type events, it's very likely that people will choose not to move there, as they would need to go elsewhewre to have fun and recreation. Redding and Red Bluff are very beautiful areas of the state, yet they are slow to grow. Why do you think that is? Because, "there is nothing to do there".

Now, question two: IF THE POOR/FIXED INCOME FOLKS IN THE COUNTY CANNOT AFFORD TO BE CONSUMERS ANYWAY, HOW DOES THIS TAX AFFECT THEM?

I mean if their food and medication isn't taxed, it's not as if they are out bying a Dooney and Bourke or Coach bag to carry their groceries in. Doesn't it seem logical that if they have no disposable income to spend anyway, they likely will be largely unaffected by a tax.

In reponse to your earlier comment that this kind of tax dispropotionately affects the poor over the rich, I disagree. If the "rich" have disposable income to buy the 500.00 coach bag, the taxes they pay on said item goes to drive the government and fund special programs, and in this case, about 35% $1.25 they pay in additional tax on that $500.00 bag will go toward funding that arena. So, the poor pay zero tax because they arent buying anythign anyway, while the rich pay "their fair share".

The way taxes seem to work is analagous to me going with three people for lunch, but because I might make a high six figure income, my percentage of the bill is higher than my friend who makes half what I make, and my other friend who makes half what friend 2 makes. I end up paying 55% of the $100 tab, or $55. While friend two pays 27.5% or $27.50 and friend 3 pays the balance which is about $17.50. Hardly fair if we ate similar meals, but thats just the way the system works.

There were lots of questions, and I figured that a guy who is smart enough to have outlined a viable arena plan himself, should be with it enough to decipher my questions. it's just easier to throw criticizm around and focus the inconsequential things.

Your ideas intrigue me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

[jafount]

Your ideas intrigue me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

As soon as I can get a commitment of 100k subscribers, I'll get it out and only for $9.95 a year!

Anybody intersted in advertising? The Maloofs already have the back cover!

[mylo]

I'd buy that for a dollar!

[camay2327]

Today's SacBee.

http://www.sacbee.co...-15175071c.html

Arena tough sell to small cities
Even with backers' promises to share sales tax, many suburban officials oppose ballot measures or remain skeptical.

Proponents of the plan to build a new Kings arena in the downtown railyard are counting on leaders from Sacramento County's smaller cities to help sell the idea to voters for the Nov. 7 election.

But most of the suburban politicians recently contacted by The Bee said they either oppose the proposal to pay for the arena by raising the sales tax or still have unanswered questions about how it will affect the financial health of their communities.

"We've all got our own budgets to worry about," said Folsom City Councilwoman Kerri Howell, who described herself as "on the fence."

Strong backers are sprinkled around the region. Rancho Cordova City Council members, for example, have been vocal in their support for the ballot measure. Still, some local leaders who back the plan said they don't plan to spend much time campaigning for it. Those who do plan to get involved say doing so carries substantial political risk, because they believe so many of their constituents are opposed.

"This is important enough that I'm willing to speak out, but I give due respect to those who are opposed," said Folsom Mayor Andy Morin, who is running for re-election. "This issue really generates some very extreme passion."

Proponents said they need support from around the region and that outright opposition in the suburbs could hurt the chances for passage of Measures Q and R, the two-initiative arena package.


--------

There is more. Go to the above web site and read it....

[FiscalConservative]

The city isn't imposing a tax, but rather asking voters to approve one.

There are people here in Folsom, and in other communities close to Sacramento, who realize that a major league sports franchise attracts visitors and new residents, which means more business, more jobs, more tax revenue, and higher home values.

Hmmmm ... And who are those people???? ... Let me see if I can guess ... those people like you in the real estate and mortgage broker business? ...

[jafount]

Hmmmm ... And who are those people???? ... Let me see if I can guess ... those people like you in the real estate and mortgage broker business? ...

or maybe it's people who like to have shopping, entertainment and cultural options near where they live?

[Chad Vander Veen]

Sorry, there's no link - it's a .doc file

“Yes on Measure Q & R.”
Fact Sheet

Controlled Investment

• Measure R is an investment in the future of Sacramento County by the people who live here and those who visit. Measure R proposes a ¼ cent sales tax increase for a period of 15 years beginning on 1/1/07.

• Measure R would raise an additional $1.2 billion for Sacramento County improvements over the 15-year period, based on regional growth.

• Estimated impact of Measure R to the average consumer is $3 - $5 per month. This translates to $5 on a $2,000 purchase, roughly the cost of a cup of fancy coffee. This is a relatively small individual investment on a large return across Sacramento County.

• Measure Q allows taxpayers to recommend spending priorities for Sacramento County. Measure Q is a non-binding, advisory vote on the uses of Measure R revenues, which include: local distribution to Citrus Heights, Elk Grove, Folsom, Galt, Isleton and Rancho Cordova to spend on local priorities needed to sustain current positive growth, and funding a sports/entertainment complex proposed at the former Union Pacific Railyards in downtown Sacramento.

Measure Q dedicates Measure R funds to areas that work together to improve quality of life and maintain Sacramento County’s growth momentum. The estimated funds for local cities and projects within the County: $594-$660 million, over 50% of the proposed increase. Estimated costs of a new sports/entertainment complex: $469-$542 million, less than 50% of the proposed increase. Measure R funds would be generated over 15 years; cities would receive their share in the first half of the timeframe. There are no limitations on how funds are spent, although the public is asked to prioritize quality-of-life projects including:
• Local road and transit projects
• Police and fire safety enhancements
• Libraries | Parks and recreation
• Children's services
• Local arts and cultural facilities

• Measure Q supports construction of a New Sports and Entertainment Complex at the formerly desolate rail yards in downtown Sacramento. Residents of Sacramento County and elected officials would design, build and own the Complex. As presently envisioned, facilities would be owned by the public through a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) comprised of representatives from cities in Sacramento County and the County Government. The venue would potentially be managed by Maloof Sports and Entertainment (MSE), owners of the Sacramento Kings, according to a 30-year agreement worth $122 million. The total investment by MSE will represent approximately 26-30 percent of cost estimates for the Complex – which exceeds team-owner investments in Memphis, TN, Indianapolis, IN, and Charlotte, NC, and is comparable to San Antonio, TX.

Revitalization and Redevelopment

• If passed, Measure Q & R would anchor an estimated $4.5 billion in urban redevelopment projects and further revitalize and enhance downtown Sacramento. Measure Q & R would create jobs, bring millions of dollars in new revenue to Sacramento County, and revitalize a blighted area of downtown Sacramento – turning the now abandoned (and environmentally remediated) rail yard into a vibrant center of shops, restaurants, housing, sports, entertainment and a regional transportation hub to be enjoyed by all Sacramento County citizens and beyond.

• Measures Q and R would allow cities of Citrus Heights, Elk Grove, Folsom, Galt, Isleton and Rancho Cordova to retrofit infrastructure and social programs to keep pace with their growth and expansion. These cities are vulnerable to the same kinds of expansion pressures and downtown core deterioration as the City of Sacramento. Measures Q and R would increase funding to spend on local priorities as determined by city leaders and residents.
• Development projects that are contingent on Measures Q and R include new housing, up-scale retail, community arts resources, urban neighborhood expansion and environmental and public space upgrades. Planned housing includes 10,000 mixed-use high-density housing units, including townhomes, condominiums, rental units and affordable housing. Retail offerings include a sports and entertainment district expanding outward from the proposed arena, restaurants, office space, hotel(s) and upper-end retailer occupancy such as Bass Pro Shop. Urban neighborhood expansion includes a project called 5th Street Emporium, an urban village with 1-2 stories of retail capped above with loft-style office space and housing. Community arts projects include expanding current museums and adding a Railroad Technology Museum, the Central Station project which calls for preservation of seven (7) historic buildings dating from 1868 and a new state-of-the-art Performing Arts Center. Environmental upgrades include clean-up of the Railyards, a previous Superfund site, now 2/3 complete, extensive pedestrian-friendly public plazas/walkways to connect new development with adjacent urban areas, riverfront and urban waterway expansion, to incorporate more waterways into urban core and connect with the Sacramento riverfront.

• Measures Q and R will be the cornerstone of Sacramento County’s 25-year plan to modernize our transportation systems. These Measures will be used in part to fund and attract other investment to expand the regional transportation hub to accommodate growth, construct a new Sacramento Intermodal Transit Facility (SITF) and complete track alignment across the region to interconnect light rail, rail, bus routes, freight services and pedestrian linkages, and incorporate Amtrak’s popular “Capitol Corridor”, its third busiest route in the nation, and the Sacramento International Airport.

• Measure Q and R proactively assist Sacramento County in building out infrastructure to support growth and quality of life improvements in area communities, and helps all cities in the region to avoid urban decay.

• The uses of a new sports and entertainment complex – and related development and infrastructure – would contribute significantly to the overall health of Sacramento County’s economy. The Sacramento region would be seen as a sophisticated destination, with the amenities to be able to host international, national, regional, state and local events such as conventions, industry trade shows, large community and entertainment events, music concerts of all genres, fundraisers, theater performances, periodic sporting events such as rodeos, ice skating, boxing as well as the housing of the Sacramento region’s resident professional sports teams, including the Sacramento Kings men’s NBA basketball team and the Sacramento Monarchs women’s WNBA basketball team.

Proven Strategy

• Similar, successful investments have been made across the nation. There are dozens of successful city renaissance and redevelopment projects across the nation with modern sports and entertainment facilities anchoring their efforts. Here are just a few examples:
• Denver, Colorado is the only city in America to build three new sports stadiums within six years. In cooperation with new retail, transportation, housing and retail initiatives, Denver’s downtown core is experiencing marked improvements across many socioeconomic indicators.
• The residents of San Jose, California voted to build an arena with public funds almost two years before they were able to secure the rights to the San Jose Sharks hockey team. Private investment followed including $200 million corporate headquarters for Adobe Systems.
• In Kansas City, Missouri, the former home of the Kings, 20 years after the Kings left town they still do not have an NBA team. But next year Kansas City will be opening a beautiful new downtown – and a publicly-funded arena called the Sprint Center – as part of a $3 billion investment in their region.
• The Gund Arena and Jacobs Field contributed substantially to the resurgence of downtown Cleveland, Ohio.
• Other successful city plans with public investment in sports/entertainment anchors: Detroit, MI; Pittsburgh, PA; Memphis, TN*; Indianapolis, IN*; Charlotte, NC*; San Antonio, TX; Seattle, WA; San Diego, CA; Washington D.C.

* Most recent completed agreements in markets similar in size to Sacramento

Forward Planning

• Sacramento County residents must make a choice about the future and what kind of a community they want to build. Sacramento County residents face the risk of deterioration of infrastructure, urban centers and regional image if no investment is made. Measures R and Q would dramatically improve the region’s ability to attract and retain residents and investment, as well as improve quality of life for those who live and work here.

“Yes on Measure Q & R.”
Frequently Asked Questions

• What is Measure R?
• Measure R proposes to increase the general sales tax in Sacramento County by ¼ cent for a period of 15 years beginning on 1/1/07. Measure R would generate approximately $1.2 billion over the 15-year period, based on regional growth.

• What is Measure Q?
• Measure Q advocates specific uses of Measure R, allowing taxpayers to recommend spending priorities for Sacramento County. Top priorities as outlined in Measure Q are: local distribution to Citrus Heights, Elk Grove, Folsom, Galt, Isleton and Rancho Cordova to spend on local quality of life improvements, and the construction of a state-of-the-art sports and entertainment complex proposed at the former Union Pacific Railyards in downtown Sacramento.

• What is the financial impact of Measure R to an average resident of Sacramento County?
• The estimated impact to the average consumer is $3 - $5 per month. Put another way, the increase would mean an extra $5 in sales tax on a $2,000 purchase.

• Why should Sacramento County residents vote YES on Measure R?
• Measure R is a responsible and urgently needed investment in the greater Sacramento County community. Measure R is a powerful economic engine that could rejuvenate downtown Sacramento and other local cities. The revenue generated by Measure R could create thousands of new jobs, bring new investment, new pride and national recognition to our region, create funding for new projects that ease traffic, improve local parks and schools, increase police and fire protection, improve neighborhoods and transform Sacramento’s blighted downtown rail yard into a vibrant new city center featuring shops, restaurants, housing, entertainment and a modern interconnected regional transportation hub to be used and enjoyed by all.

• Why should Sacramento County residents vote YES on Measure Q?
• Measure Q establishes a clear vision for Sacramento County’s future and directs new revenues generated by Measure R to be invested in projects that help improve our quality of life and increase the revitalization momentum we are beginning to feel throughout the region. Measure Q presents a balanced, responsible plan for investing in Sacramento County’s infrastructure and attractions which will in turn generate new investment. It gives Sacramento County residents the power to propose spending priorities. Measure Q turns an exciting vision for the future into reality.

• Why should taxpayers vote to increase their investment in Sacramento County now?
• Sacramento County is on a roll – indicators such as new housing and businesses are all positive. In order to shore up the infrastructure needed to sustain this expansion, local city governments need more funding. In addition, the broader plan for downtown Sacramento is to redevelop and refurbish the entire area in terms of infrastructure and image. Because much of Sacramento County’s growth is happening in the outlying areas, we need to be proactive today in maintaining a vibrant, cohesive downtown core. To do this, Sacramento must have the modern amenities to attract its own residents to live, work and utilize the downtown area, as well as entice new revenue, investment and energy from outside the region.

• Under Measure Q, how would Measure R funds be distributed?
• The Measure R funds for local cities within the County are estimated to be between $594-$660 million. Local city distribution would be more than 50% of the proposed increase. Measure R revenue would be generated over 15 years; cities would receive their share in the first half of the timeframe. The Measure R funds proposed for the new sports and entertainment complex are estimated between $469-$542 million, less than 50% of the proposed increase, and would be made available contingent on construction timelines.

• Are their other benefits to these Measures in addition to a new entertainment venue and increased local funding?
• If passed, Measure Q & R would jump-start and anchor an estimated $4.5 billion in urban redevelopment projects. There are proposals drafted to add housing, retail, performing arts venues, education and cultural attractions, pedestrian-friendly public plazas and green spaces, urban waterways, environmental improvements and state of the art transportation upgrades. This is in addition to funding under these Measures for local road and transit projects, police and fire safety enhancements, libraries, parks and recreation, children's services, local arts and cultural facilities and the new sports and entertainment complex.


• What would the Measure Q Sports and Entertainment Complex be used for?
• The venue would be used for multiple and varied local, regional, state, national and international events. Sacramento will be able to host conventions and conferences of all sizes, from all over the world, industry trade shows, large community and entertainment events, music concerts of all genres, fundraisers, theater events and other sporting events such as rodeos, ice skating and boxing. The complex would also house the region’s resident professional sports teams, including the Sacramento Kings men’s NBA basketball team and the Sacramento Monarchs women’s WNBA basketball team.

• Who would own the Measure Q Sports and Entertainment Complex?
• The County/City of Sacramento would design, build and own the Complex. As presently envisioned, the new facilities would be owned by the public through a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) comprised of representatives from cities in Sacramento County and the County Government.

• Who will manage the Measure Q sports and entertainment complex? Will the taxpayers have to pay for its operation?
• As currently envisioned, Maloof Sports and Entertainment, Inc. (MSE) will manage the new venue on behalf of the JPA and general public. A proposed agreement has been outlined with MSE (owners of the Kings/Monarchs). MSE will enter into a 30-year lease agreement, with total lease payments estimated at $122 million. MSE would pay $20 million up front, intended to fund a capital reserve for future repairs to the facility, however, the JPA reserves the right to use these funds for other purposes. MSE will repay a $72 million loan to the City of Sacramento. MSE will retain all facility revenues, including naming, concessions and parking. MSE, not taxpayers, will pay all operating costs, estimated at $10 - $12 million per year.

• Will the Kings will stay in Sacramento?
• If Measures Q and R pass, according to the tentative agreement between Sacramento County and Maloof Sports and Entertainment, MSE will agree not to relocate the Kings and/or Monarchs for 30 years.

• What if the Measures pass and the Kings and Monarchs leave anyway?
• The benefits of a redevelopment and revitalization of downtown Sacramento and other local communities succeed far beyond one stakeholder or two. The Sacramento Convention and Visitors Bureau believes “so strongly in the likely economic impact of this project, that [the Board] would support a new, publicly financed sports and entertainment facility even without a professional sports team as the anchor tenant.” Other cities have proven this is a successful strategy. The residents of San Jose voted to build an arena with public funds almost two years before they were able to secure the rights to the San Jose Sharks hockey team, and private investment followed. In Kansas City, the former home of the Kings, 20 years after the Kings left town they still don’t have an NBA team. But next year Kansas City will be opening a beautiful new downtown – and a publicly-funded arena called the Sprint Center as part of a $3 billion investment in their region.

• Have similar plans with large arena investments worked elsewhere?
• There are dozens of successful city renaissance and redevelopment projects across the nation with world-class sports and entertainment facilities at the core of their projects. Here are a few examples:

o Denver, Colorado - Denver is the only city in America to build three new sports stadiums within six years. In cooperation with new retail, transportation, housing and retail initiatives, Denver’s downtown core is experiencing marked improvements across many socioeconomic indicators.
o Cleveland, Ohio - The Gund Arena and Jacobs Field have contributed mightily to the resurgence of downtown Cleveland, and have been instrumental to refurbishing Cleveland’s image as a destination for tourism and business.
o Seattle, Washington – Qwest and Safeco Fields are two financially successful stadiums in a previously deteriorating sector, anchoring planned progressive high-density and low-income urban housing in addition to restaurants, retail and tourism tie-ins such as cruise ships, and other growth.
o Pittsburgh, PA; Memphis, Tennessee; Indianapolis, Indiana; Charlotte, North Carolina; San Antonio, Texas; Kansas City, Missouri; San Jose, California

• Why should we build a new sports and entertainment facility when we have Arco Arena?
• A new sports and entertainment complex will significantly enhance both infrastructure and image for the Sacramento region. Plus, having a large public venue within walking distance of downtown creates an ease and level of use that is unattainable with the Arco Arena. And finally, the Arco Arena is 18 years old, a substandard facility and one of the oldest NBA facilities in the nation. And finally, from an image standpoint, a new sports and entertainment complex would be a catalyst for the Railyards area and put a vibrant new face on the Sacramento region. Thousands of people will be drawn to Sacramento simply because of the “buzz” over this new urban space.

source: http://www.metrocham...sharethevision/

[benning]

source, please.

Ok the skeptic in me ran the numbers and it seems the average amount we'll be paying and the revenue it will supposedly generate doesn't sync up. This makes the 'fact sheet' a little less credible. I'm sure the county has a 'better' equation but, like any good math teacher, I'd like them to 'show their work'.

Their own economic forecast predicts total taxable sales that will amount to 1.2 billion - this assumes around a 5.5% increase in total taxable sales per year. The same forecast predicts growth at the rate of around 1.3% per year and only 30% of that due to net migration (the rest, we can assume is non-sales-tax-paying babies).

So for the math to work on the sales tax revenue generation side, we'll need to be spending WAY more than 3-5 per month. Conversely, if we're to believe that it will cost us 3-5 per month, then the revenue generated is just about half of what they're predicting, and guess who is first in line for the money, with no real limit?

here's my source:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/ote/f...o%20county'