Jump to content






Photo

Amazing New Arena Plan


  • Please log in to reply
78 replies to this topic

#1 john

john

    Founder

  • Admin
  • 9,841 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Prairie Oaks

Posted 14 January 2010 - 08:55 PM

Here's the skinny:

1) Arena downtown
2) New fairgrounds at current Arco Arena site
3) mixed development where the fairgrounds are now

Paid for. $300M by Maloofs, rest by investors.
Backed by NBA & Maloofs!

GET IT DONE!

http://www.fox40.com...0,5858245.story


#2 Jolene

Jolene

    Well-versed in how I might be cursed.

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,075 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Folsom At Heart

Posted 14 January 2010 - 09:00 PM

Oh ick. I don't like the fair being that far out.

EDITED to SAY: WAIT! But that means concerts will be closer. I like THAT part. Disregard my knee-jerk (emphasis on the jerk) reaction!
THANK YOU FOR SUPPORTING MY GIRL.
We could not be doing this without you.
Much love and gratitude.

#3 john

john

    Founder

  • Admin
  • 9,841 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Prairie Oaks

Posted 14 January 2010 - 09:02 PM

How many times a year do you go to the fair?


#4 Chad Vander Veen

Chad Vander Veen

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,209 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 14 January 2010 - 09:08 PM

Have you heard!? This is a amazing idea. Here's how I understand it will work.

1. The Maloofs and an investment bank each put up $300,000,000 to build a $600,000,000 arena next to the rail depot.

2. The Maloofs sign a 30-year lease, after which the arena belongs to the city.

3. Meanwhile, the arena developers will also buy CalExpo and repurpose it as mixed use residential.

4. The Maloofs and the City give the Arco land to CalExpo, as well as Arco arena.

5. CalExpo can move off the existing expo site at their leisure and use the cash payment from the developers to build a new fairground next to Arco, creating a modern fairground facility.

6. CalExpo gets a new, better home in a better location. The city gets a new arena. And not a penny of new taxes are used.

If this fails, nothing else could ever work.

#5 Chad Vander Veen

Chad Vander Veen

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,209 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 14 January 2010 - 09:09 PM

John, can you fold in my thread?

#6 john

john

    Founder

  • Admin
  • 9,841 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Prairie Oaks

Posted 14 January 2010 - 09:15 PM

I honestly don't know how this can fail... it's really pretty bulletproof. Arena AND new fairgrounds near freeways; arena is right next to light rail too; Sacramento gets its new arena and a brand new fairgrounds. Jobs.

Oh! And it's paid for. If this doesn't work, Sacramento is hopeless.


#7 cw68

cw68

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,370 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 14 January 2010 - 09:32 PM

QUOTE (john @ Jan 14 2010, 09:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I honestly don't know how this can fail... it's really pretty bulletproof. Arena AND new fairgrounds near freeways; arena is right next to light rail too; Sacramento gets its new arena and a brand new fairgrounds. Jobs.

Oh! And it's paid for. If this doesn't work, Sacramento is hopeless.

I agree. What more could anyone ask for?

#8 Dave Burrell

Dave Burrell

    Folsom Citizen

  • Moderator
  • 17,586 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Folsom
  • Interests:Beer, Photography, Travel, Art

Posted 14 January 2010 - 10:17 PM

QUOTE (john @ Jan 14 2010, 09:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I honestly don't know how this can fail... it's really pretty bulletproof. Arena AND new fairgrounds near freeways; arena is right next to light rail too; Sacramento gets its new arena and a brand new fairgrounds. Jobs.

Oh! And it's paid for. If this doesn't work, Sacramento is hopeless.



It sounds like a win win situation for everyone, what could possibly stop this and why?

Travel, food and drink blog by Davehttp://davestravels.tv

 


#9 Robert Giacometti

Robert Giacometti

    There are no Dumb questions

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,850 posts

Posted 14 January 2010 - 10:34 PM

Remember back a few years ago when people were making the claim that if we did NOT pass the sales tax increase we would loose the Kings?

The Kings aren't going anywhere and our taxes aren't being raised and there will be a new Arena in the region and the Maloofs are contributing towards it.

I just hope some will rethink their eagerness to throw away their money on taxes everytime some government agency claims they need more!



#10 mylo

mylo

    Mmm.. Tomato

  • Moderator
  • 16,763 posts
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 14 January 2010 - 10:43 PM

Perhaps I'm confused, Why would the Maloofs and "the investor" give away $600M to the city?

And what's the relation with CalExpo selling their land and moving "next to" Arco? This sounds mutually exclusive of any Arco abandonment or Railyard development.

I must be missing something...

My only theory is that rather than taking directly from taxpayers pockets, the Maloofs are taking from our assets (namely Real Estate) and "borrowing" land, at their massive profit at no expense, for 30 years.

If that's the case, I'd rather sell the land to the Chinese, pocket the cash, and pay off the mortgage of every homeowner in Folsom.
"Ah, yes, those Gucci extremists and their Prada jihad!" --ducky

#11 mylo

mylo

    Mmm.. Tomato

  • Moderator
  • 16,763 posts
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 14 January 2010 - 10:49 PM

Yep, reading the article, this is a shell game to hide "taking from Taxpayers" 3 deals deep.

Why don't we give Arco to the State, sell CalExpo to the developers, and keep the cash?

Or, better yet, admit we're giving this money to the Maloofs for free, and take it directly via taxes rather than trying to mask it in sneaky unrelated real estate deals.
"Ah, yes, those Gucci extremists and their Prada jihad!" --ducky

#12 john

john

    Founder

  • Admin
  • 9,841 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Prairie Oaks

Posted 14 January 2010 - 10:51 PM

The new fairgrounds would be built on the land where the half-built baseball stadium is; they can keep the arena if they wanted to, which they very much might do, and remodel it or re-purpose it.

As for the Maloofs and developers paying for it - they'll make money somewhere or else they wouldn't be behind it... the Maloofs are kicking down $300M which is absolutely unheard of for stadium financing.


#13 john

john

    Founder

  • Admin
  • 9,841 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Prairie Oaks

Posted 14 January 2010 - 11:07 PM

Mylo, what do you have against an arena? What do you do for excitement around here?


#14 mylo

mylo

    Mmm.. Tomato

  • Moderator
  • 16,763 posts
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 14 January 2010 - 11:11 PM

I absolutely want an arena. I think it would be a great asset for the community and those that wish to enjoy it.

If someone wants to build it, they should get a loan. If I wish to attend it, I will buy a ticket.

However, I think it is a gross waste of taxpayers dollars (or assets) to spend on entertainment. If people want to be entertained, then pay for it.

If not, rely on government for the core services which we *need* them and they are tasked to provide. I see nowhere in the Bill of Rights a chapter on an entitlement to "socially funded entertainment".

Especially in a bad economic climate, I can't begin to comprehend why we would throw away (hundreds of?) millions of dollars in tax payer owned real estate for stupid-arse Basketball, when government can't even meet a single one of the basic services they should be providing (health, education, human services, military, etc.)

I understand the argument of "investment in the community", but I think dealing with existing failing small business, homelessness, and joblessness would have far greater and immediate impact than contributing to the profit of an entertainment conglomerate.

Please note; I am most angry about this fabulous "new plan" because of it's sneaky nature. We couldn't take directly from taxes, so let's take taxpayer assets and imply that it's "Free".
"Ah, yes, those Gucci extremists and their Prada jihad!" --ducky

#15 john

john

    Founder

  • Admin
  • 9,841 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Prairie Oaks

Posted 14 January 2010 - 11:31 PM

Mylo, the taxpayers won't pay for it. They've screamed 1,000 times no.

I'm not sure how you think they are "taking" taxpayer assets. Do you not think a new fairgrounds will be an asset to the state? Do you not think a $600M arena will bring major events like the NCAA Final Four, U2, hockey, etc. and pump major dollars in to the local economy? Do you know what a $600M arena will do to kick-start development of the railyards? A lot.

I'll tell you what, if this fails - the Kings will leave (guaranteed - if $300M isn't an owner investing in the city, I don't know what is), we end up with an old arena which cannot attract major events anymore, Cal Expo will remain in need of an overhaul, and the railyards will take 30 years to fully develop.

The taxpayers aren't paying squat. Paying "assets"? The asset is simply moving to Natomas.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users