379 replies to this topic

[john]

Passing the tax:

upside: Keeping Kings for another 30 years.
downside: paying an extra 25 cents per 100 dollars spent.

upside: revitalizing the downtown area and attracting millions of dollars in tourism.
downside: these billionaire owners won't front 100% of this arena. (Booooo!)

IF IT FAILS:

upside: extra quarter in your pocket (Yay!)
downside: 30 more years of misery as a 3rd-rate city

upside: 1 shiny penny in your pocket after that extra value meal (woo!)
downside: watching the Kings for $150 a year on league pass

upside: We told those Maloofs!
downside: Las Vegas told them they'd happily build them an arena.

...Folks, let's get it done. It's a small investment in this city's future.

[cw68]

Passing the tax:

upside: Keeping Kings for another 30 years.
downside: paying an extra 25 cents per 100 dollars spent.

upside: revitalizing the downtown area and attracting millions of dollars in tourism.
downside: these billionaire owners won't front 100% of this arena. (Booooo!)

IF IT FAILS:

upside: extra quarter in your pocket (Yay!)
downside: 30 more years of misery as a 3rd-rate city

upside: 1 shiny penny in your pocket after that extra value meal (woo!)
downside: watching the Kings for $150 a year on league pass

upside: We told those Maloofs!
downside: Las Vegas told them they'd happily build them an arena.

...Folks, let's get it done. It's a small investment in this city's future.

How 'bout a MyFolsom movement to get majority support going here in Folsom?

[camay2327]

I am reading that half the money collected from the sales tax increase would go to the arena project, while the other half would go to local governments.

OK, how much of that comes to Folsom? Any ????

More than likely not. They will use it in Sacramento for something that will not help any of us here.

Don't you think that a 1/4 percent sales tax would help us more if they would expand US 50 to 6 lanes in each direction or something like that. That would help the standard of living.

Don't hold your breath for my vote.

[benning]

Did you guys read the article? Folks, the emperor is not wearing clothes, no matter how hard you pretend.
This deal was done Jerry Maguire style.

Where do I start...this could be a letter to the editor:
Maloofs negotiated so the City gets to tax the public at 200% of the expected cost. Guess what the real cost to build will be? Has any arena been built for even close to the original expected cost? Wonder why they negotiated all the 'fluff' into the deal? That 'city' money is going to disappear faster than you can say slamdunk.

The Bee article states the Maloofs share is 26-30% This is bull. They are 'leasing' the arena for 30 years at 4 million per year plus operating costs and get to keep all the money, including parking, beverage and food and event fees for not just all the events at the arena, but the entire sports and entertainment district that will be created. They also get to keep 100% of the revenue from the naming rights.

The current arena will be torn down. Wonder who pays for that? I betcha it's the city. The 85 acres it sits on will be sold and Maloofs get to keep all of that -- that's more than 40 million dollars. They get all that cash now, and pay the city 4mil per year to lease the new place, plus 20 mil into a maintenance fund, which of course benefits them since they're responsible for the operating costs. The 100 acres the city owns adjacent worth 50 mil? Too bad but those proceeds will not go to the city, but will be contributed to the arena project.

I got all this from reading the article about the deal with my skeptical eye. Sounds rosy if you spin it a certain way, but in reality it's lopsided to say the least. But bureaucrats are no match for highly polished sports agents who know how to answer to guys who say 'show me the money'

[DrKoz23]

I am reading that half the money collected from the sales tax increase would go to the arena project, while the other half would go to local governments.

OK, how much of that comes to Folsom? Any ????

More than likely not. They will use it in Sacramento for something that will not help any of us here.

Don't you think that a 1/4 percent sales tax would help us more if they would expand US 50 to 6 lanes in each direction or something like that. That would help the standard of living.

Don't hold you breath for my vote.

Well the following is from the SacBee article. Who am I going to trust... those who came up with the deal or someone sitting behind a computer venting. Folsom would indeed get money from the sales tax.

"A new arena isn't the only thing in the financing package. If the new sales tax was adopted, at least $594 million would go back to the county and its cities for community projects, said members of the negotiating team, who briefed The Bee on Thursday."

[DrKoz23]

Did you guys read the article? Folks, the emperor is not wearing clothes, no matter how hard you pretend.
This deal was done Jerry Maguire style.

Where do I start...this could be a letter to the editor:
Maloofs negotiated so the City gets to tax the public at 200% of the expected cost. Guess what the real cost to build will be? Has any arena been built for even close to the original expected cost? Wonder why they negotiated all the 'fluff' into the deal? That 'city' money is going to disappear faster than you can say slamdunk.

The Bee article states the Maloofs share is 26-30% This is bull. They are 'leasing' the arena for 30 years at 4 million per year plus operating costs and get to keep all the money, including parking, beverage and food and event fees for not just all the events at the arena, but the entire sports and entertainment district that will be created. They also get to keep 100% of the revenue from the naming rights.

The current arena will be torn down. Wonder who pays for that? I betcha it's the city. The 85 acres it sits on will be sold and Maloofs get to keep all of that -- that's more than 40 million dollars. They get all that cash now, and pay the city 4mil per year to lease the new place, plus 20 mil into a maintenance fund, which of course benefits them since they're responsible for the operating costs. The 100 acres the city owns adjacent worth 50 mil? Too bad but those proceeds will not go to the city, but will be contributed to the arena project.

I got all this from reading the article about the deal with my skeptical eye. Sounds rosy if you spin it a certain way, but in reality it's lopsided to say the least. But bureaucrats are no match for highly polished sports agents who know how to answer to guys who say 'show me the money'

Welcome to the "Spin Zone"... benning style!

Okay... so you say the Maloofs won't put their share of 25 to 30 percent into the arena. Well... I think I'll trust the article over you. If that is the agreement... then why should I believe differently. Or why do you believe differently.

Cost overruns.... that is why the price tag was placed in a range between $470M and $594M. They know there is going to be cost overruns... that is why it is quite a spread. The estimate they are thinking right now is $500M.

Why would the city have to tear down Arco Arena at their cost. The sale would be through the Maloofs with no interaction with the city. The buyer of the land will most likely have to foot the bill for the demolition. Any smart developer would see this North Natomas land as a goldmine to develop something on given the growth in this area... even if they had to imlode the arena themselves.

The city will be able to sell 100 of its own acres of land for infrastructure around the new arena. Even if an arena isn't built... and the railyards are developed... money will be needed for the infrastructure. This is a cost to the city with or without an arena.

I suppose you are against any subsidies from government then. Well... no more museums... no more parks... no more tax benefits to companies considering moving here... no more community centers... no more recreation facilities. The list goes on and on. Why should government be involved in these aspects of our life as well.

So what do you propose we do with the railyard... build another K Street Mall. People like you is why our downtown sucks... no vision... no looking at the big picture trying to better the region as a whole. Try visiting cities that have successfully built arenas and stadiums downtown... and look at the re-vitalization. Denver... Seattle... SF... and even LA!

[benning]

Welcome to the "Spin Zone"... benning style!

Okay... so you say the Maloofs won't put their share of 25 to 30 percent into the arena. Well... I think I'll trust the article over you. If that is the agreement... then why should I believe differently. Or why do you believe differently.

Cost overruns.... that is why the price tag was placed in a range between $470M and $594M. They know there is going to be cost overruns... that is why it is quite a spread. The estimate they are thinking right now is $500M.

Why would the city have to tear down Arco Arena at their cost. The sale would be through the Maloofs with no interaction with the city. The buyer of the land will most likely have to foot the bill for the demolition. Any smart developer would see this North Natomas land as a goldmine to develop something on given the growth in this area... even if they had to imlode the arena themselves.

The city will be able to sell 100 of its own acres of land for infrastructure around the new arena. Even if an arena isn't built... and the railyards are developed... money will be needed for the infrastructure. This is a cost to the city with or without an arena.

I suppose you are against any subsidies from government then. Well... no more museums... no more parks... no more tax benefits to companies considering moving here... no more community centers... no more recreation facilities. The list goes on and on. Why should government be involved in these aspects of our life as well.

So what do you propose we do with the railyard... build another K Street Mall. People like you is why our downtown sucks... no vision... no looking at the big picture trying to better the region as a whole. Try visiting cities that have successfully built arenas and stadiums downtown... and look at the re-vitalization. Denver... Seattle... SF... and even LA!

Ok the 26-30 % comes from the fact that they say the area costs 470 million and they're contributing 120 million + 20 million But that's for the lease payments and the maintenance fund. They city tax is generating 1.2 billion, remember? So by that math it's 10% but it's still apples to oranges. It's creative bookeeping big business style and only people who are willing to be spoon fed should trust it.

Why would the city have to pay the costs? Because it was negotiated? I don't know but we shouldn't assume that it was off the table in the negotiation process. Things don't always go logically (like the buyer should bear the cost)

I think the 100 million from the sale of the land to the infrastructure is probably money well spent. Just don't hide it from the equation that has the benevolent Maloofs paying 30% of the costs.

Of course goverrnment should pay for parks and other things that benefit the community.

But I am and will continue to be annoyed that the big boys get to leverage government money to not only eliminate their risk but also to insure a revenue stream for the next thirty + years at maximum profit.

Unfortunately the same people who think this is such a great deal for taxpayers (because of the value and the fact that it's only .25 per 100) are the ones who oppose a school bond that amounts to the cost of a pizza or two per month.

[DrKoz23]

Ok the 26-30 % comes from the fact that they say the area costs 470 million and they're contributing 120 million + 20 million But that's for the lease payments and the maintenance fund. They city tax is generating 1.2 billion, remember? So by that math it's 10% but it's still apples to oranges. It's creative bookeeping big business style and only people who are willing to be spoon fed should trust it.

Why would the city have to pay the costs? Because it was negotiated? I don't know but we shouldn't assume that it was off the table in the negotiation process. Things don't always go logically (like the buyer should bear the cost)

I think the 100 million from the sale of the land to the infrastructure is probably money well spent. Just don't hide it from the equation that has the benevolent Maloofs paying 30% of the costs.

Of course goverrnment should pay for parks and other things that benefit the community.

But I am and will continue to be annoyed that the big boys get to leverage government money to not only eliminate their risk but also to insure a revenue stream for the next thirty + years at maximum profit.

Unfortunately the same people who think this is such a great deal for taxpayers (because of the value and the fact that it's only .25 per 100) are the ones who oppose a school bond that amounts to the cost of a pizza or two per month.

Yes... the tax will generate approx $1.2B... but at most only half of the money can go toward the arena... the rest goes to the communities in Sacramento Co. That is $600M.

Like I said about the money from the land sale... it will be money spent either way because the railyards will eventually be developed. This shouldn't be part of the equation... because it is independent from the cost of the building.

If we want to keep the Kings in Sacramento... this is about the best deal that will be reached. Probably one of the best as compared to other cities that have recently built arenas and have publicly funded the entire cost. Also... those owners profit from every event in the arena. Sure it isn't the best deal possible... but it was all about compromise.

An arena will benefit the community as well... so your argument that you support the expenditures on parks and "other things" doesn't really float. The amount of urban renewal that will take place will be amazing given 300 of 365 days in any given year... approx 20,000 people will be visiting the downtown area! A downtown that prides itself on the K Street Mall... the Downtown Plaza... and the Capitol. Its time to become a big league city... and create a true entertainment district.

So to save the extra $60 I will have to spend a year on this sales tax... I'll just eat at home a few more times rather than going out... or just have one less beer at a restaurant.

I don't see any proof that those who support this tax would oppose a school bond. I would most likely vote for both. And for the governor's infrastructure bonds on this November's ballot... I'll probably support some of those as well. I wouldn't lump us all together.

[cw68]

Sacramento Metro would benefit greatly from a better downtown. Folsom housing will increase in value as well because the region will be more appealing and Folsom is one of the most appealing suburban areas.

The county will receive more tax revenue from the area that will be built around the yards in both business tax and consumer sales tax.

You want to see what a great downtown can do to a metro-area, then look at Madison Wisconsin.

[DrKoz23]

MADISON, WISCONSIN





SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA

I can't even find a decent picture of the K Street Mall... how pathetic. And this is our drawing point.

[cw68]

MADISON, WISCONSIN

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA

I can't even find a decent picture of the K Street Mall... how pathetic. And this is our drawing point.

A little background: Madison is the state capitol of Wisconsin. Stretching between the state capitol and part of the university campus runs State Street. State Street is closed off from general traffic, like K Street. Unlike K Street, however, it is lined with apartments, retails shops, bars and restaurants that are a major draw for Madisonians. That crowd above was there for a sporting event that was about six miles away.

The Capitol Mall is surrounded by state buildings, just like here. 25 years ago, Madison used to draw up the sidewalks and all the old retail stores, like Woolworths, had gone away. Just like here.

Now you find crowds there all the time. On Sundays the Midwest's best farmer's market ring the Capitol. The hold Taste of Madison there, Art Fair on the Square and more. For six consecutive Weds during the summer 40k+ people show up (that's each Weds, not total) to hear the Chamber Orchestra perform for free on the Capitol steps.

Madison put a focus on the downtown area and showed people that it was a vibrant, family-friendly atmosphere during off-work hours. It showed that it wasn't just for state workers during the day. That's what our downtown could be like. An arena can help make that happen.

I guarantee that the surrounding areas benefit from all the activity downtown.

[erfamof4]

Though I love & support the city of Folsom, I am all for the revitalization of downtown Sacramento. I think it was tgianco that said it.....if they were to rebuild in the same spot in Natomas, they would not get my vote. However I see big things happening if they build in the railyard. I am pro-downtown Sacramento (used to live there pre-kids) so I would love to see an entertainment district. I would love to see the Thursday night Market come back to K St. I would love to see something like America Live back in Downtown Plaza. I'd love to see the waterfront markets open back up in Old Sac. But when it comes down to the nitty gritty, I look at how it will affect me. So if it's only going to "cost" me a few more bucks a year, but I will gain another entertainment "option," I think it's worth it. Just a few cents coming from someone who usually steers clear of any politics.....

[tgianco]

Though I love & support the city of Folsom, I am all for the revitalization of downtown Sacramento. I think it was tgianco that said it.....if they were to rebuild in the same spot in Natomas, they would not get my vote. However I see big things happening if they build in the railyard. I am pro-downtown Sacramento (used to live there pre-kids) so I would love to see an entertainment district. I would love to see the Thursday night Market come back to K St. I would love to see something like America Live back in Downtown Plaza. I'd love to see the waterfront markets open back up in Old Sac. But when it comes down to the nitty gritty, I look at how it will affect me. So if it's only going to "cost" me a few more bucks a year, but I will gain another entertainment "option," I think it's worth it. Just a few cents coming from someone who usually steers clear of any politics.....

Yep, that was me. It makes so much more sense from a fiscal perspective to have it downtown where fans will enjoy it but also spend their money before and after games as opposed to high-tailing it out of Natomas when the game is over.

[Chad Vander Veen]

Here is the blueprint for the entire railyards project:
LARGE

3D version



Maloofs news conference

http://www.news10.ne...get-current.wmv

[camay2327]

Well they were on TV this morning and one thing that really gets me is, they are going to have half the parking they had out at the arena. Where are people going to park and the traffic is going to be bad bad bad.
How do you spell TRAFFIC JAM !!!!