192 replies to this topic

[camay2327]

We all pay taxes for things that we do not need or use.

WHY MAKE IT WORSE????

Robert, we will never get these people to change their minds so why do we keep trying?

We all have to vote come November, just hope we have enough voting NO to get this to fail...

[Robert Giacometti]

It's too bad you can seem to understand the measures and are still choosing to advocate a position. I want my 1/4 cent tax to go to the BOS to build an arena...it matters not what team or owners reside there.

Since you seem to believe you understand these measures better than me, could you explain which meaure legally requires the BOS to build an Arena with your tax dollars?

Maybe you could also share your experiences with the BOS when they closed our Library here in Folsom and diverted our tax dollars elsewhere, despite those taxes being a dedicated fund.

No matter how hard I try I just can't seem to protect you from disappointment. If it was just your tax dollars that you want to give to the BOS without any accountability....I'd gladly step aside and support you learning this lesson.

Unfortunately, CV many of us have already experienced this lesson and we aren't willing to be fooled again!
Remember its just not you that will be forced to pay MORE in taxes and giving the BOS a blanck check.

[SacKen]

SacKen,

Lets go over your thinking on the first 2 paragraphs.

So we agree that the developers paid impact fees to the city and some of that money was used to build Aquatic centers & skateboard parks. The part about the developer passing those fees on to you is where I feel your thinking goes astray...here is why. I'm thinking the developer is going to sell those new homes for the maximum they can get ( I suspect we all would do the same thing) regardless of how much in impact fees they paid to the city. Are we still in agreement so far? Once the price is agreed to that is the market price for that home and they( the developers) then don't go back and add the price of all the impacts on top of the market price because: A). No one would pay for that and B). No lender would loan money for that home at that price. Those impact fees are a cost of doing business to the developer and actually come out of their profit. A $500,000 home is only going to sell for $500,000, not $500,000 plus $30,000 more for the impact fees.

In Briggs Ranch the developer originally negotiated paying significantly less in Park impact fees than other projects at that time. I'm NOT aware of anyone who bought a home there at that time who was given a credit by the developers because the developer paid less in impact fees.

In the sale ads we get each Wednesday you might find peanut butter on sale for $2.99 at Raleys. That jar of peanut butter costs $2.99 at the new Raleys off of Natoma ( who paid significantly more impact fees than the older established Raleys in Sac County) yet the PB still costs $2.99 at all stores in the region. You aren't paying more for things here in Folosm as a result of impact fees.

So again I'll say you did NOT pay for the Aquatics Center or the Skate Board park...the developers did by taking less in profit. You didn't pay more ...they accepted less!

Some of you forget this measure is an increase of SALES TAXES which is an additional tax. Its NOT a shifting of existing taxes to be allocated somewhere else. I suspect none of us could ever agree where those taxes should be allocated....but that is NOT what this measure is about.

Finally, I see where you call me a politician. What ever you think of me doesn't change the fact that it is wrong to raise sales taxes on the poor, to build something that they can't afford to attend. Some of you want to point out that its only an extra penny on a $4.00 item....its NOT how much its wrong.... the point is that it is WRONG!

All Cost Of Goods Sold is factored into the cost of building a home. If the developer was lucky enough to buy the land cheap before prices went up, then yes they may choose to simply absorb the extra cost to remain competitive. If they weren't lucky enough to purchase 20 years ago and weren't making as much of a profit, then they would surely add the impact fee into the price of the home. If the market didn't allow them to do that, then they wouldn't buy the land and build the home in the first place.

The Briggs Ranch example is ridiculous. I never said that it was a direct pass-through that would result in a refund if a fee was reduced after the sale. It becomes extra profit because the sale is complete. But if they were still trying to sell homes in a competitive environment and a lower impact fee allowed them to lower their price and sell more homes, they would.

The Raley's example is ridiculous as well. Large retail establishments have the luxury of spreading the cost throughout their network of assets. Instead of one location having higher prices, it would instead show as something like a 1 cent increase on a single item sold in all stores! The fact is, any Cost Of Goods Sold is factored into the price something is sold one way or another. It really is a basic concept to understand in a retail business.

I don't understand the hang-up on the tax being new or not. All taxes and assessments were new at some point.

I apologize if the politician remark was taken as an insult. It was not my intention. I do not think (much ) less of you because of that. I only mention it to bring the discussion into context. Politicians seem to have a gene they can't control that makes them soapbox the poor, elderly, disenfranchised, etc., to elicit an emotional response instead of focusing on the real issues and facts. If you really cared about the poor spending an additional $20 a year on the arena, then maybe you should direct your attention towards other things that affect the poor more severely like gas prices, inflation, and energy costs. Oh... and cable costs... all those "poor" seem to still have cable TV.

Enough boring retail accounting 101. Now back to the regularly scheduled program...

In the recent week, I think the issue for me has become the arena design itself. Maloofs or not, I don't want an arena geared towards tons of space for parking that is only utilized during arena events! I just don't understand all this. The Maloofs currently live with 8,000 paid parking spaces per game. The railyard area would have more going on and would be active at times when there aren't any games. If the Maloofs controlled the proposed 3,000 parking spaces, yet that lot/structure was always open so that people going to a restaurant or club in the area could use it on non-game nights, couldn't that make up the difference?

If voting yes will lead to a poorly designed railyard, I will vote NO.

[FiscalConservative]

For those of you who are pro-arena based on some perception that the arena is a good deal read the deal points agreed to by the Kings, the City Manager, and the County Executive ("Preliminary Term Sheet for New Sports and Entertainment Facility in Sacramento"). Until I read it I didn't think it was possible to have a deal that is worse than giving away the arena, but the proposed deal is much worse.

Under this tentative deal, the public would pay the entire cost and bear the entire risk of building and owning the new arena to the specifications of the Sacramento Kings NBA basketball team in exchange for $3 million per year rent from the Kings. Yet, the team owners would keep all the revenues, including arena naming rights, parking revenues, concessions, ticket surcharges, etc., for all events, not just Kings' games. If we just gave the Maloofs the arena, rather than renting it to them, the Maloofs would have to pay almost twice as much ($5-6 million per year) in property taxes.

Defenders of this lop-sided agreement argue that this deal will lead to economic development and new jobs, but every economist (not working for a professional sports team) who has studied the urban impact of arenas have concluded that they do not generate sufficient economic benefits to
justify such a one-sided deal.

Folks ... read the details of the deal if you are able. A survey completed a few days ago is showing less than 30% support for these measures. It appears for once that the public isn't being fooled by those who want public dollars to pay for the benefits of the rich and the minority who would use such a facility.

[camay2327]

FiscalConservative - I agree and that is what Robert, I and others have been saying. I hope people see the light prior to election. This should not pass.

VOTE NO, people.

[jafount]

Finally, I see where you call me a politician. What ever you think of me doesn't change the fact that it is wrong to raise sales taxes on the poor, to build something that they can't afford to attend. Some of you want to point out that its only an extra penny on a $4.00 item....its NOT how much its wrong.... the point is that it is WRONG!

Why is it only wrong if it's taxes. It's ok if a retailer raises their price on goods but a tax on those goods is bad?

RG you come to this argument with sooo much BS about the poor. Get past that. If thats all you've got, you've got nothing. It's a specious argument at best.

I've said over and over again, this cannot have a negative effect on "the poor" because "the poor" aren't consumers.

I'd be very interested to see how you voted on the tobacco tax initiatives of the past. After all, all statistics show that "the poor" are the majority of smokers. Since "the poor" are taken in by the evil tobacco companies' ad campiagns and become addicted to tobacco, surely you can't blame "the poor" for using the product. If you think contrary, then I'd curious to know how you manage to talk out of both sides of your mouth so fluently, as you clearly would not have the best interests of "the poor" in mind when it came to this issue, which would ONLY affect, "the poor".

This is the dichotomy of the liberal.

Finally, as for your previous arguments against arenas or sports complexes regarding "statistics that show arenas don't help communities", well...your stats are pretty much an Occam's Razor, so please, don't bore us with them.

[DrKoz23]

Folks ... read the details of the deal if you are able.

Technically there is NO agreement between the Maloofs and the local government officials. After announcing that a verbal agreement had been reached a couple months ago... it was expected that a memorandum of understanding would be written up before the election. However... with the Maloofs walking away from the table... there still is NO agreement between the two parties signed and sealed.

[Robert Giacometti]

Why is it only wrong if it's taxes. It's ok if a retailer raises their price on goods but a tax on those goods is bad?

RG you come to this argument with sooo much BS about the poor. Get past that. If thats all you've got, you've got nothing. It's a specious argument at best.

I've said over and over again, this cannot have a negative effect on "the poor" because "the poor" aren't consumers.

I'd be very interested to see how you voted on the tobacco tax initiatives of the past. After all, all statistics show that "the poor" are the majority of smokers. Since "the poor" are taken in by the evil tobacco companies' ad campiagns and become addicted to tobacco, surely you can't blame "the poor" for using the product. If you think contrary, then I'd curious to know how you manage to talk out of both sides of your mouth so fluently, as you clearly would not have the best interests of "the poor" in mind when it came to this issue, which would ONLY affect, "the poor".

This is the dichotomy of the liberal.

Finally, as for your previous arguments against arenas or sports complexes regarding "statistics that show arenas don't help communities", well...your stats are pretty much an Occam's Razor, so please, don't bore us with them.

jafount,

My beliefs really aren't that complicated...I simply believe its wrong to force people to pay higher taxes and then use those funds to build something that some people (The poor) can not afford to attend. I really don't know and don't care if that is a liberal philosophy or a conservative philosophy...but to me its just seems wrong.

I'm at a loss as to why this seems to bother you so much that you resort to name calling and labeling? I'm pretty comfortable with my beliefs that I'm not threatened by yours, yet you seem extremely motivated to try and expose me as some sort of hypocrite. Do you feel by doing so it will make your arguement stronger?

This isn't about me.... its about raising sales taxes to build an Arena and the merits and/or negatives involved. Maybe this is just the case of when you don't like the message..... attack the messengar.

I didn't do the studies on Arenas that show they don't generate what some claim they do. Every single independent study shows the same thing....that seems good enough for me. If you want to believe something else....go for it. Its a waste of time to have an intelligent discussion with someone when they choose to believe whatever they want regardless of the facts.

However if calling me names and mislabeling me helps you get through the weekend until the pharmacy reopens...then I'm grateful to be of some assistance! Its not just the poor I'm willing to help.

[camay2327]

How many of you people that are supporting this are just KINGS FANS and could care less about it otherwise???

[jafount]

jafount,

My beliefs really aren't that complicated...I simply believe its wrong to force people to pay higher taxes and then use those funds to build something that some people (The poor) can not afford to attend. I really don't know and don't care if that is a liberal philosophy or a conservative philosophy...but to me its just seems wrong.

I'm at a loss as to why this seems to bother you so much that you resort to name calling and labeling? I'm pretty comfortable with my beliefs that I'm not threatened by yours, yet you seem extremely motivated to try and expose me as some sort of hypocrite. Do you feel by doing so it will make your arguement stronger?

This isn't about me.... its about raising sales taxes to build an Arena and the merits and/or negatives involved. Maybe this is just the case of when you don't like the message..... attack the messengar.

I didn't do the studies on Arenas that show they don't generate what some claim they do. Every single independent study shows the same thing....that seems good enough for me. If you want to believe something else....go for it. Its a waste of time to have an intelligent discussion with someone when they choose to believe whatever they want regardless of the facts.

However if calling me names and mislabeling me helps you get through the weekend until the pharmacy reopens...then I'm grateful to be of some assistance! Its not just the poor I'm willing to help.

Hmmmm...I looked over my post. I don't see where it made mention of your views being "complicated". Likewise, I don't see where I called YOU anything, nor did I "label" YOU anything. If my "dichotomy of the liberal" comment somehow hit you close to home, well....that's a YP not an MP. I was addressing the dichotmy in general. As for me exposing you as some sort of hypocrite...well...again...if that hit too close to home....ok well you know the rest.

As far as "beleiving what I want regardless of facts", I would again refer you to Occam's Razor.

What really bothers me however, is that you feel it's a waste of time to have an intelligent conversation with "someone who believes what they want regardless of the facts", well...isn't the inverse also true? Besides, yoru "facts" only show half the picture, don't they? I'll ask again for the data that shows a city that does NOT have a pro sports franchise has realized the same level of economic growth as they WOULD HAVE if they DID get a pro sports franchise?

I think my question is a simple one, but I also know, it can't be answered because that data doesn't exist. <shrug>

[mylo]

well....that's a YP not an MP.<shrug>

+1 for Great use of Acronyms

[FiscalConservative]

How many of you people that are supporting this are just KINGS FANS and could care less about it otherwise???

Hmmmm .... I don't understand why anyone would be a fan of a third rate basketball team. These measures will receive less than 30% of the vote in the November election. Even in the remote chance that these measures pass I'll move my shopping out of Sacramento County and into Placer County because the shopping in that County is actually closer to where I live in Folsom and I won't be paying the additional 1/4% sales tax. I can spend my money better than the Government can.

[FiscalConservative]

.... I'll ask again for the data that shows a city that does NOT have a pro sports franchise has realized the same level of economic growth as they WOULD HAVE if they DID get a pro sports franchise? ...

I would be interested in you showing the data (other than data generated by the "pro sports franchise" crowd) that shows that the use of public money for the construction of a sports facility used by a small percentage of the total population provides any significant economic growth that exceeds the cost of the facilty. You can't .. because there is no such data. I contacted several of the Sacramento City and County officials who support the use of public money to construct the arena and asked them to provide me with such data and they all told me that they couldn't. So .. if the advocates within the County and Sacramento City admitted that they could show no such data to support their cause .. how could you provide us with such data?

[Chad Vander Veen]

How many of you people that are supporting this are just KINGS FANS and could care less about it otherwise???

I'm a fan of our region and I want it to prosper. Whether it's the Kings or any other team, it doesn't matter. I'm curious why the arena opponents are so adamant about keeping our region a backwater instead of the vibrant destination it could be.

[jafount]

How many of you people that are supporting this are just KINGS FANS and could care less about it otherwise???

I'm a kings fan and I care about the Sacramento region. This is where I live and I want the best possible living for me and my family.

I would be interested in you showing the data (other than data generated by the "pro sports franchise" crowd) that shows that the use of public money for the construction of a sports facility used by a small percentage of the total population provides any significant economic growth that exceeds the cost of the facilty. You can't .. because there is no such data. I contacted several of the Sacramento City and County officials who support the use of public money to construct the arena and asked them to provide me with such data and they all told me that they couldn't. So .. if the advocates within the County and Sacramento City admitted that they could show no such data to support their cause .. how could you provide us with such data?

Such data is, again....Occam's Razor. This is exactly my point, thanks for helping make it. Since no such counter point exists (nor can it due to the intangibles) pointing the finger at one-sided data is moot.

I agree with you that the government cannot spend your money as wisely as you can. Clearly this is demonstrated by you burning additional gas and adding to the "wear and tear" on your automobile, so that you can avoid paying the extra quarter on that $100.00 purchase in the county in which you reside.

Of course, it's your right to do so, but I would suggest in this case, you would likely go to Placer County to shop anyway, so you wouldn't be affected regardless.