379 replies to this topic

[DrKoz23]

DrKoz23,

I don't know for sure, but I suspect there has been lots of polling done to determine the success of passing a sales tax. I suspect if it was a Sac City only tax.....the polling results probably showed it would NOT pass. I suspect the polling results showed better success rates in the suburbs.

Your comments about the, poor, welfare and their cell phones....was embarrassing. I truly hope you are NOT a Republican. Also, weren't you the one who said you weren't voting for Angelides, after he said he was raising taxes? Now, you want to raise taxes to build an Arena for the Kings so we can have a vibrant downtown like Madison....yet Madison doesn't have a professional sports team.

I don't care where you spend your money....I was trying to make the point that.....Taxes take money out of the economy. Even though you said you'll keep the economy going by witholding money from your 401 K instead....that means that Fianancial Advisor is getting less commission and there is less money to reinvest in the economy. Taxes don't stimulate...they hamper the economy.

I'm sorry I get lost trying to figure out where you are coming from.....but that may be just one of my many shortcomings.

What is wrong about my comments about the "poor". I worked in the grocery industry for numerous years (between the ages of 16 and 22)... and saw numerous people come through the check out line with food stamps. Yes a number of individuals were responsible and purchased the staples they needed to survive... but others would purchase items that I didn't even buy as a "poor" college student. I saw the best cuts of meat and fish... all paid for with my money. On top of that... these individuals would then spend their own cash on alcohol and cigarettes. Where is the responsible spending? That's what I always wondered. They were being supported by a government program that they abused. And yes... there were times when these people would be on their cell phones. Its called priorities. Remember Hurricane Katrina... it happened less than 1 year ago. Well... some of these individuals (many of them poor) were given debit cards with no restrictions on them. We all know the government meant well... spend the money on clothes... food... and shelter. What really happened was money being spent on alcohol... cigarettes... electronics... and other items that had nothing to do with basic necessities. I don't want to lump all of these people together because there is some responsible people who use these programs to get back onto their feet. However... there are also plenty of people who abuse the system. I know you called my comments embarassing... but what is truly embarassing is denying that these problems exist with social programs. Reform is needed... and needed now.

I agree with you that if the sales tax was just placed to Sacramento city voters... it would have no chance of winning. Including the suburban areas helped this initiative dramatically. They were also smart not to include Placer or El Dorado counties... because of the fact these counties stretch to the Nevada border. No one approx 100 miles from Sacramento would have voted for a sales tax increase. It would have been hard to offset these voters even if all of Roseville and El Dorado Hill voted for the increase.

I will not vote for Angeledies because he is just a tax and spend politician. Throw more money at problems instead of reform. This .25 % sales tax will go toward something that I can actually use and benefit from. It is a 15 year tax that will disappear and all $1.2B will stay local to Sacramento county. Think of the possibilities of where this money could be spent with $600M going to "other" projects. There is quite a difference between the two... so that is where I am coming from. I want to see results from taxes (local sales tax for infrastructure or bettering our lives)... not just another tax and spend governor throwing money at broken programs.

And now on to Madison. It was summed up rather nicely by cw68. Big Ten college sports are strong in Madison. The city bleeds Badger red. The Kohl Center (basketball and hockey) is approx 1/2 mile from downtown... while Camp Randall (football) is approx 1 mile from downtown. Downtown restaurants and bars are packed before games... putting tons of money into the economy. Imagine the tax revenues from just one sporting event when you have close to 80,000 people for a football game or 15,000 to 17,000 people for basketball and hockey games. The city of Madison has seen opportunities to benefit from the number of people downtown and made it a destination for entire region. From farmer's markets... art fairs on the Capitol Square... concerts... and numerous other events... downtown Madison IS the place to be in the city.

I believe that if we can develop a downtown where its more than a government center with people leaving for the suburbs at 6PM... we too can be proud. Think about it... let's have some vision.

[FiscalConservative]

...
If you don't use it, fine. I don't care. But drop your selfish, "therefore I ain't gonna contribute a penny" rationale and realize you are part of a larger community - one that would benefit tremendously by having a modern arena.

There are many studies that show that Taxpayer dollars spent on an arena, stadium, etc. NEVER bring in enough revenue from a "perceived" economic benefit (as vanderveen and others would have you believe) to cover the construction costs and operating costs of the facility. Research this on the Internet yourself if you don't believe me.

Even if the sales tax increase is approved by the voters I won't be paying it. I live very close to the Placer County line and do all of my shopping in Placer County. I decided to do this several years ago when Folsom decided that they would rather spend tax revenue to fund a money loosing aquatic center, BMX race track, skate park and now the Folsom Sports complex.

We all have the power and can use our power by doing our shopping outside the City of Folsom and the County of Sacramento (if the sales tax increase passes).

[OctoberLily]

I'm truly fascinated that you and Camay and others seem to know exactly how lower income families spend their money. It's interesting too that from up on our hill here in Folsom you have been given their voice to speak with.

You do realize that every time all the folks even richer than us in EDH come down to Folsom to shop at costco and sam's club they help pay for the arena? Every time the people sitting on their mountains of money in Placer county do business in Sacramento county they help pay for the arena.

Stop with the "but, but THE POOR people!" argument, it is a red herring. 1/4 cent tax is not a hardship on anyone. If yuo're so concerned about the poor and taxes, I suggest you devote your energies to reduced the gas tax.

Poor people like the kings too. Sometimes they may even save money and take their families to games. Don't pressume to know their situation and what they think. And, maybe your kids would like an ice show once in a while.

Cvander ~ I am NOT assuming - nor am I speaking for the poor - I'm merely voicing my "personal opinion" on this subject, since I was one of the "poor" (as a single mom of two boys) struggling in the So. Sac. area who COULD NOT afford to take my kids to Monster Car Shows or Disney on Ice. As much as my boys may have wanted to go, we did not have the financial means to go. Fortunately, they didn't care for those things when they were young. They preferred getting new shoes or clothes or toys - then going to a show. My personal opinion is based on my FIRST HAND experience of what it is like to struggle financially while living here in Sacramento County. Your priorities are much more different when you have less money to spend and it is based on NEED = not WANT, as one post mentioned. I also have aging parents in Sacramento County who cannot afford an increased sales tax. I have a college student son living on his own in Sacramento County who works part-time and goes to Sac State full time and can barely afford to pay for his food and bills. The only time he gets to watch a Kings game is on t.v. or if someone we know gives him a ticket. We have been to the Arena maybe twice since we've lived here in Sacramento County and that has been a little over 20 years. Why should we pay for a new Arena when we barely went to the old one???

Maybe the 1/4 cent tax is not a hardship on You, but don't assume it is that way for others. They have a much different perspective on this issue. Have you not seen the interviews on KCRA or FOX 40 where they ask people off the streets of Sacramento about this issue. Most of them say, they are not for an increased sales tax.

As for assuming how the poor spend their money ~ I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to know that these people eat - therefore, they buy groceries, they need healthcare - they pay for insurance, may have a car - they pay for gasoline, live in a house - they pay rent or mortgage, get sick once in a while - they buy medicine. They live like you and me.

Refrain from the unecessary personal attacks on people who don't agree on paying for the arena, just state your case (your opinion) and move on. However, those that support it seem to have the need to personally attack those that oppose this arena by calling them short sighted and selfish. Maybe we are just looking out for our best interest and those of people we know who can't afford an increased sales tax.

[cw68]

Bringing an arena to the area would make for a more vibrant region. We're not just talking more vibrant because there's a professional basketball team. More vibrant and desirable, more people, more businesses.

[OctoberLily]

You also have to wonder what this new arena would do to the already horrendous traffic situation in downtown Sacramento. How will they get all of those thousands of people and cars in and out of that confined area????

My brother lived in Natomas near the old arena and would complain about people parking and blocking their drive ways during season games. They finally had enough and moved to Plumas.

If the Maloofs wanted the people who live and work downtown to support their deal, they may want to disclose their plans on what it is going to look like when it is built. How the City proposes to deal with the traffic problems that will be created. Will locals avoid downtown area during season games because they want to avoid traffic problems??? Aside from the positive things this arena will bring to the community, how will this negatively affect the businesses and neighborhoods downtown? I think it would hurt more than help the already existing businesses (restaurants, shops) in the downtown area.

What will happen to the old arena?

[cw68]

You also have to wonder what this new arena would do to the already horrendous traffic situation in downtown Sacramento. How will they get all of those thousands of people and cars in and out of that confined area????

My brother lived in Natomas near the old arena and would complain about people parking and blocking their drive ways during season games. They finally had enough and moved to Plumas.

If the Maloofs wanted the people who live and work downtown to support their deal, they may want to disclose their plans on what it is going to look like when it is built. How the City proposes to deal with the traffic problems that will be created. Will locals avoid downtown area during season games because they want to avoid traffic problems??? Aside from the positive things this arena will bring to the community, how will this negatively affect the businesses and neighborhoods downtown? I think it would hurt more than help the already existing businesses (restaurants, shops) in the downtown area.

What will happen to the old arena?

Light rail will be available for thousands of people. Additionally, people who come in from out of town for the games will be able to make it a night and stay in a hotel using only their feet to get them to the game and to entertainment. Happens all the time in markets like Memphis. Right now the only option is to drive, so it won't be a comparable traffic situation.

[Robert Giacometti]

This, and most of the other posts that echo this sentiment have to be some of the most short sighted posts I've read.

Are you serious? Do you actualy beleive what you write here? .25 cents for every hundred dollars spent. One, single dollar for a four hundred dollar costco shopping trip??? We're talking about one quarter of one percent here. As soon as I see the "poor" give up alcohol and smoking, I'll be concerned about whether or not they have to dig around for an extra quarter the next time they spend a hundred dollars.

I live in El Dorado Hills. I am by NO means "rich". I'm a single full time father. But, I love the Kings, and I go to games with my children when I can. I've also been to quite a few concerts at Arco. i've taken my son to the monster truck jam and the moto cross shows in arco. My girls have been to Disney on ice a couple of times as well. I also attended the big "motivational seminar" held there earlier this year.

There are soooo many other activities that are available to NOT just the citizens of sacramento county, but the surrounding areas as well. This is more than just a private business. It's a business that appeals to a multitude of the area population. It's opportunity. The opponents of this arena deal aren't worried about the poor. They're selfish. They oppose a miniscule tax that will help build and promote this region, under a guise "caring". I'm curious how many of the opposition who oppose this REGULARLY work in a soup kitchen or donate time or money to a homeless shelter. I think I'd be safe in saying it's probably the same percentage as this SHORT TERM tak increase...

I wish I had your ability to know the motives of others and judge them without ever having the opportunity of meeting.

Let me see if I understand. You want the poor of my county to have their taxes raised to pay for an Arena, that they probably can NOT afford to use, so You can take your children to events yet, YOU don't live in the county where the taxes are being raised, therefore you don't have to pay for the Arena. Then you are calling those opposed to the tax plan short sighted and selfish, because they aren't willing to pay for something for you to use without you paying for it. Is this correct?

If you are really curious to how many people regularly work/help/donate at the Twin Lakes Food Bank or the Powerhouse Shelter....there is one sure way to find out for yourself!

Don't worry about being embarrassed....those who have a compassion for the poor and less fortunate also are very foregiving of the foolish.

[camay2327]

Way you go, Robert !!!!!

[camay2327]

Read this from the Sacramento Bee today. (People can spin these stories however they want to)

http://www.comcast.n...cvqh=itn_landis

Daniel Weintraub: Arena deal exaggerates payments by Kings
By Daniel Weintraub -- Bee Columnist

Published 12:01 am PDT Sunday, July 23, 2006
Story appeared in Forum section, Page E1

Sacramento's civic leaders were giddy last week with news they had brokered a deal with the NBA's Sacramento Kings to build a downtown arena that would keep the team in the state capital for another 30 years.

The centerpiece of the deal was described as the Kings' commitment to pay 26 percent to 30 percent of the arena's cost, with the rest of the money coming from a quarter-cent sales tax that the voters will be asked to approve in November.

But for people who are skeptical of using public money for private gain, including sports venues, the folks promoting this deal got off to a bad start, because their description of the Kings' contribution is wildly inflated. The project's promoters either don't understand basic economics, or they are trying to fool the public. Either way, their misrepresentation of the terms should raise questions about the entire arrangement.

The Kings will not be paying anywhere close to 30 percent of the cost of building the arena. They won't be paying even half that much.

Here's the problem: The deal's sponsors are comparing two very different kinds of numbers. One is the upfront cost of building the arena, which will fall entirely on the taxpayers. The other is the Kings' contribution to the project, which will be spread over 30 years.

Anyone who has ever bought a house and didn't pay cash knows that you cannot simply add up a stream of monthly payments over 30 years to equal the cost of the home you are going to buy. You have to figure in the interest.

The reason you pay interest is that the value of a dollar today is worth far more than a dollar 30 years from now, because a dollar in hand today can be invested to produce income over time.

This concept is known as the present value of money, and it applies to the Kings deal even though they are not borrowing any money. Any amount to be paid in the future must be discounted to find its equivalent value today.

But the promoters of the arena have not done that. They have said that the arena will cost a minimum of $470 million, and that the Maloof family, the owners of the Kings, will pay $122 million of that. Then they have added in another $20 million that the Kings will set aside in a fund for maintenance of the arena after the building is open. Thus their math: $142 million from the Kings out of a total cost of $470 million equals 30 percent.

The Kings' contribution, however, is not worth $142 million today, or even $122 million, because it will be paid over 30 years.

In fact, the present value of their $122 million contribution is just $61 million, assuming an interest rate of 5 percent, which is conservative.

And so, at a maximum, the team's share of the construction costs should be described as 13 percent -- or $61 million out of $470 million. But the Kings' share will remain fixed even if the arena costs more. If the project's tab comes in at the upper end of the range of estimates, or $542 million, the Kings' share would be only 11 percent.

The promoters want us to include as part of the Kings' contribution the $20 million the team will set aside in a maintenance fund. That money isn't going toward the construction, and so it shouldn't be counted as part of this calculation. But if you want to count it as part of the Kings' share, it also needs to be added to the total cost of the project.

Looked at that way, the Kings' contribution would be a maximum of 17 percent, and 14 percent if the arena construction costs reached the upper end of the range of estimates.

Bottom line: As a share of the project, the Kings' contribution is about half as large as the promoters of the proposal were saying last week.

That's not a very good way to start a campaign to persuade the voters to raise their taxes and give the money to millionaires in shorts.

About the writer:

* The Bee's Daniel Weintraub can be reached at (916) 321-1914 or dweintraub@sacbee.com. Readers can see his daily Weblog at www.sacbee.com/insider.

----

Check this one too...


http://www.sacbee.co...-15089107c.html

[Robert Giacometti]

The Board of Supervisors (BOS) will be hearing this item at 11:00 am today. Should be very crowded with emotioms running high.

There are a couple of interesting details. There will be 2 ballot measures...one asking for your approval to raise sales tax and then another advising the ( BOS) to then use those funds to build an Arena. The BOS is doing it this way to avoid having to achieve the two-thirds supermajority to pass. By including the additional tax being returned to different community ....this helps the BOS claim the tax isn't being used for a specific purpose.

There is speculation that a group may challenge the elgibility of the BOS trying to make an end run around this requirement by having two ballot measures.

I'm guessing its 50/50 if this issue makes it to the ballot for us to vote on in its present form.

My feelings are its wrong to raise sales taxes to build this arena. Taxing those who can NOT afford to attend events at the Arena....to build the Arena is morally wrong. I am supportive of the county/city using tax dollars to subsidze the Arena. Putting a sales tax surcharge on tickets, maybe creating a special taxing district in the downtown area so that there is an additional sales tax to pay for the Arena are possible solutions.

Those of us who use the Arena should pay for the Arena.

[camay2327]

Read the following article:::

http://www.sacbee.co...-15089688c.html


NOTE:

The following is a quote from the above article:

Quote:

At least one county supervisor, former Citrus Heights Mayor Roberta MacGlashan, is expected to vote no on moving the proposal forward.

MacGlashan objects to the way the deal is structured, said Ted Wolter, her chief of staff. The two-part proposal is carefully crafted to avoid the state's two-thirds vote requirement for taxes for specific purposes.

"She's still waiting to hear public comment tomorrow, but I do know she has some real concerns about (the arena proposal) being put forward as a general tax instead of a special tax," Wolter said.

If the county were to ask voters to adopt a sales tax specifically to build an arena, two-thirds of them would have to say yes. Instead, they will be asked to adopt a general, quarter-cent sales tax for 15 years -- something that requires a simple majority.

A companion advisory measure will ask if voters want to spend the money on a new arena for the Kings and on unspecified community projects.

UNQUOTE

Crafted to avoid the state's two-thirds vote requirement. They did it this way so it can pass on a simple majority...

[BuffaloRon]

It's been my observation, that in most cases, whenever a "special" or "pet" project is being lobbied for as a ballot initiative by a federal, state, or local government, what you end up losing is more important than what you actually gain. It's a political chess match, the haves vs. the have-nots. There's a whole lot of "pucker" factor going on here.

Regardless of what you proponents think of the "weak" issues that have been presented, we're being asked to kiss the baby, while taking it in the shorts. There are many ways to crunch the numbers in order to create whatever facad you'd like people to believe, but the bottom line is that the tax payers are getting stroked here. No thanks, if the Maloofs can't conger up a more equitable deal for Sacramento and the surrounding counties, then they can take their teams back to Vegas with them. A new arena is not that important to me.

[Chad Vander Veen]

Okay, all you opponents, let's set aside the rhetoric and the cliches for a minute and look at one single fact:

Fact: A 1/4 cent sales tax is not a hardship on anyone in America today.

Given that fact, plus the obvious benefits of an arena in the railyards, why do you oppose this measure?

Invalid answers include:
1. it being "bad for tax payers" since that doesn't explain anything
2. Traffic, since Pac Bell and other downtown facilities prove otherwise
3. Cuz I hate peope richer than me
4. Cuz I don't watch basketball
5. Because I drag my kids to soup kitchens instead of ice shows

[mylo]

Potential Benefits:
1. The kings, requires additional ticket purchases
2. Misc. other entertainment events, requires additional ticket purchases
3. Revitalization of an urban area

Potential Drawbacks:
1. Money, that could either be saved or spent elsewhere
2. The land could be used for other purposes (probably housing )

That's about all I see. Personally, I don't know if the money is best spent there or on other revitalization efforts. Perhaps we should build an Opera theater or something and say screw the Kings?

[Steve Heard]

Those of us who use the Arena should pay for the Arena.

I have heard that argument before. I've heard it from peole who don't want to pay for highways because the don't drive on them, from people who don't want to pay for public schools because they don't have kids or because they send them to private schools, from people who don't want to pay for public art programs, parks, virtually anyone for any project or program.

We can't pick and choose which public facilities or projects we will pay for based on our usage, but rather, the overall benefit to the area.

Besides, it is estimated that the project could cost $500 million. If I'm doing my math correctly, and we put a $1 surcharge on every ticket, that would be roughly $17,000 a game. Divide that into $500 million, and it would take 29,411 games to earn enough to pay for the arena. With the Kings playing 40 game seasons, we're looking at 735 years. If we make it a $10 charge, we bring it down to 73 years.