379 replies to this topic

[folsom500]

Accord reached on new arena for Kings
Negotiators for the city and county of Sacramento have finalized a deal with the Maloof family to finance a new arena for the Sacramento Kings.

The financing package would rely on voter approval of a new quarter-cent sales tax that would produce about $1.2 billion, sources said. Important details, such as the Maloofs' contribution to the deal, have not yet been released.

Go to sacbee.com for more details as they become available.

[benning]

Hopefully folks will look at the big picture - this is not about the Kings or helping the Maloofs make money - this is about quality of life in the sacramento region.

I see your point about the big picture but I wonder exactly how having a downtown arena or having a sports team in town affects my quality of life or those of anyone I know.

What if we took the 1.2 BILLION dollars that the taxpayers would be required to spend and spend it in other ways to improve the quality of life in Sacramento region? I have a feeling that kind of money could make a big difference that might be even more beneficial.

Annoys me that rich powerful people have this type of hammer and can extract such deals yet something proposed by a consortium of nonprofits would be laughed out of city hall.

[folsom500]

Half the money collected from the sales tax increase would go to the arena project, while the other half would go to local governments.

[john]

But when are the Maloofs going to pay the city of Sacramento what they owe them now?

The SacBee today says that the 49ers might build a new stadium without adding a tax to the city. The owners might pay the majority of it.

Why can't the Maloofs do the same?

They don't want to. That is the final answer... If they can get someone else to do whey should they?

Actually, the Maloofs are going to pay 25-30%, which is in line with what the Yorks are going to plunk down. And the Yorks will own the stadium, not rent it for 30 years. As to taxes, this is not San Francisco. We do not have enough corporate heavyweights in the area who will kick down for it.

I see your point about the big picture but I wonder exactly how having a downtown arena or having a sports team in town affects my quality of life or those of anyone I know.

What if we took the 1.2 BILLION dollars that the taxpayers would be required to spend and spend it in other ways to improve the quality of life in Sacramento region? I have a feeling that kind of money could make a big difference that might be even more beneficial.

Like where? Revitalizing downtown is probably one of the best uses of money they can ask for. It will bring in money with more downtown residents, more tourism, more major sporting events, and it will increase the city's footprint by about 33%.

[benning]

I mean for downtown revitalization - that's a good thing and can be accomplished probably more cost effectively without a subsidized sports arena. How about a theatre or a waterfront or ???

[old soldier]

Sacrament was a nice sleepy town before the Kings came and they were fun for a while but we have lakes and indian casinos and bike trails that will be used more if the kings leave town

sure the city without a sports team is not first class but thats not all bad. If the folks come up with a deal the citizens probably will vote it down.

with espn we can still get games on TV...

[john]

I mean for downtown revitalization - that's a good thing and can be accomplished probably more cost effectively without a subsidized sports arena. How about a theatre or a waterfront or ???

We have music circus, the convention center and countless movie theaters. Do you really think Randy Paragary or Frank Fat is going to build an upscale restaurant around a theater? Sorry, but it's just not enough of a draw. An arena would be occupied around 300 days a year, with basketball, concerts, wrestling, and who knows what else - bringing up to 20,000 people in to that area per event. A waterfront or theater could never do that, hence why revitalization would not work around these things.


Also, only half the tax goes towards the arena. The rest goes in to a general fund, which would probably mean city improvements - likely a theater, performing arts center, all sorts of things.

[DrKoz23]

I mean for downtown revitalization - that's a good thing and can be accomplished probably more cost effectively without a subsidized sports arena. How about a theatre or a waterfront or ???

Yeah... the K Street mall is such a great place to hang out. They don't seem to be able to figure it out on their own. Downtown Sac is a joke right now... and they have dumped millions into projects down there already!

Not all of the $1.2B would be spent on an arena. That would be quite an arena!

Given the details given so far... I would most likely support the deal. 25-30 percent from the Maloofs is more than any of the recent arenas built in the NBA. That's 25-30 percent more than I was expecting from them.

[benning]

Ok I see what you mean now. Still, it's hard to believe that we are getting $600,000,000 (six hundred million) worth of value from the arena side of the equation.

Randy Paragary did just build a restaurant around a theatre... Spataro. He also has like 6 successful restaurants, most in the downtown/midtown area....all without a downtown subsidized sports arena.

It still rubs me the wrong way that we should subsidize the maloofs and hope that as a result a private entreprenuer like Randy Paragary will fund 100% of a new investment in a restaurant. Where is Randy's direct subsidy? Where is my subsidy for driving down there? We're all contributing to the betterment of downtown.

Bottom line is I think we all benefit and only one group gets to hedge their risk with taxpayer dollars.

[Steve Heard]

Why don't we hear people arguing and crying foul when we we give concessions to Intel, or HP, or Oracle to locate facilities here? Aren't the founders of these companies vastly more wealthy than the Maloofs? Why do we begrudge the Maloofs? Is it because society benefits more from Oracle database products than basketball?

I don't get it.

[iJason]

Think what a great deal Sacramento got. The Maloofs pay for 25-30% for an arena, and they don't even own it! They're also paying a 30 year lease and paying an immediate $20 million. So everybody hating on the Maloofs, all this money they are shelling out show just how much they care about the Sacramento area. When you look at other arena projects, the funding is unparalleled to the Sacramento one.

[tgianco]

Think what a great deal Sacramento got. The Maloofs pay for 25-30% for an arena, and they don't even own it! They're also paying a 30 year lease and paying an immediate $20 million. So everybody hating on the Maloofs, all this money they are shelling out show just how much they care about the Sacramento area. When you look at other arena projects, the funding is unparalleled to the Sacramento one.

Agreed, and to top it off, CV will mow the Maloofs lawn if they keep the Kings here.

[Robert Giacometti]

Why don't we hear people arguing and crying foul when we we give concessions to Intel, or HP, or Oracle to locate facilities here? Aren't the founders of these companies vastly more wealthy than the Maloofs? Why do we begrudge the Maloofs? Is it because society benefits more from Oracle database products than basketball?

I don't get it.

I don't get it either! Of course I don't recall advocating any concessions to any of these organizations either.

Can anybody ( actually hoping from somebody from the left who supports this tax) explain to me how the poor and senior citizens on a fixed income benefit from paying more in sales tax for something they probably can never afford to go to? Doesn't sales taxes affect the poor disapportionatley more than the rich?

Why then are those, who have been critical of GW's tax cuts for the wealthy and being mean to the poor....now supporting a tax break for the Maloofs, while lowering the standard of living for the poor!

Its the inconsistency philosophy I don't understand.

Thanks in advance for any answers.

[benning]

FOUL!
there Steve, do you feel better?
I don't think powerful people/companies should ask for and receive subsidies from government simply for the same reason a dog licks his balls -- because they can!

[Chad Vander Veen]

I don't get it either! Of course I don't recall advocating any concessions to any of these organizations either.

Can anybody ( actually hoping from somebody from the left who supports this tax) explain to me how the poor and senior citizens on a fixed income benefit from paying more in sales tax for something they probably can never afford to go to? Doesn't sales taxes affect the poor disapportionatley more than the rich?

Why then are those, who have been critical of GW's tax cuts for the wealthy and being mean to the poor....now supporting a tax break for the Maloofs, while lowering the standard of living for the poor!

Its the inconsistency philosophy I don't understand.

Thanks in advance for any answers.

Robert, did you read the deal? HALF the $1.2 billion will go back into the community, as well as anything not spent on the arena, for local communities to make whatever improvement or do any project they see fit.

God, this is such an awesome deal I can't even describe it. I am truly at a loss to understand how people would be unwilling to pay 2.5 cents, CENTS, per $10 to make this a reality.