Jump to content






Photo

Amazing New Arena Plan


  • Please log in to reply
78 replies to this topic

#31 Jolene

Jolene

    Well-versed in how I might be cursed.

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

Posted 15 January 2010 - 09:42 AM

Serious questions because I don't know the history of the Cal Expo Amphitheater nor regulations regarding noise from concerts and sporting events....

Why are concerts no longer held at the Amphitheater? Is it just because it got run down and completely sucks? Or is it because the residents complained? Or a combination of the two?

If the people of Natomas aren't going to be happy with a fairground in their backyard, then how about the people who live near Cal Expo? I know that a majority of it is businesses, but isn't there a neighborhood between Cal Expo and the mall? I would expect to see those residents raise a fuss about this. From the beginning with construction noise and traffic, all the way through to completion and beyond with noise and traffic from an increased use of the arena.
THANK YOU FOR SUPPORTING MY GIRL.
We could not be doing this without you.
Much love and gratitude.

#32 Dave Burrell

Dave Burrell

    Folsom Citizen

  • Moderator
  • 17,584 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Folsom
  • Interests:Beer, Photography, Travel, Art

Posted 15 January 2010 - 10:22 AM

QUOTE (cw68 @ Jan 15 2010, 09:30 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I don't have the time to debate this whole post, but don't make supporters simpletons who like sports. I have been to Arco a whopping ONE time in the nine years I've lived here. I don't want it just because it's a sports arena. For one, it's going to be a lot more than just a sports arena and two, I don't want it simply because it's a sports arena. I want it for the big picture, not just because I'm a sports fan.


Ditto here - I'm for it because I want to see some good concerts! So far no major acts want to play here at all because of our crappy facility -that sucks for us music fans



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

 


#33 mylo

mylo

    Mmm.. Tomato

  • Moderator
  • 16,763 posts
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 15 January 2010 - 10:37 AM

QUOTE (c_vanderveen @ Jan 15 2010, 09:41 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Would you agree CalExpo is in need of revitalization? Or are you content with its current state? If it's the former, even if you perceive these dealings as suspect, is this not an opportunity to both revitalize CalExpo AND place a new arena into a site that has been a wasteland for 100 years?

I absolutely agree CalExpo needs love. If the State wanted to sell the CalExpo site and invest in a better property (maybe even buy Arco from us) with a good plan towards improving the Fairgrounds, then more power to them.

The parts I disagree with:
a) Why sell the CalExpo guys the Arco site at under retail?
b) Why take the money we make from the above sale and give it away?

QUOTE (c_vanderveen @ Jan 15 2010, 09:41 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Like Dave said, everyone involved needs to get something to make this viable. It's not a charity. I just don't see a downside to a new arena in the railyards and a modernized CalExpo without any new taxes involved.

Taxpayers are not in the charity business of helping for-profit conglomerates. In fact, I bet if you asked them if they wanted to give the Maloofs the money they'd probably overwhelmingly say no. We should put that on a ballot and ask directly, instead of sneaking the money out of asset sales. Oh, wait.

The basic fact is, this is a 1-time multi-hundred-million-dollar tax. Sure, it's not .25% over years, no, instead it's taking the money up-front and out of our back pockets.
"Ah, yes, those Gucci extremists and their Prada jihad!" --ducky

#34 supermom

supermom

    Supermom

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,225 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 15 January 2010 - 10:45 AM

QUOTE (mylo @ Jan 14 2010, 10:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
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.

hmmm --I was thinking kinda the same thing.

Its a large chunk of land. How does RR co. get something from this?

Was it really necessary to get "international" financiers?

Sounds almost scam-mish...to me...

but hey,, if it backfires on Sacramento taxpayers--oh, wait--it would affect me too, fight? ohmy.gif



#35 supermom

supermom

    Supermom

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,225 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 15 January 2010 - 10:50 AM

QUOTE (mylo @ Jan 15 2010, 12:07 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Inside cabin only, must travel Mon-Thu November timeframe. Blackout dates apply. Oh, and I forgot to mention that you have to BUY A FREAKIN TICKET TO GET IN THE PLACE even though I said it was free. Thank you for enjoying Maloof Vacations. 2 drink minimum, $12/per + tip, gratuity, and convenience fee.

You forgot parking

#36 mylo

mylo

    Mmm.. Tomato

  • Moderator
  • 16,763 posts
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 15 January 2010 - 10:50 AM

My opinion on an arena: If voters want to pay for it, I'll go along. Just don't try and sneak the system with 2-part ballots or secret transfers. Put it to vote, if it passes, then cut them a check.
"Ah, yes, those Gucci extremists and their Prada jihad!" --ducky

#37 Chad Vander Veen

Chad Vander Veen

    Hopeless Addict

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

Posted 15 January 2010 - 10:59 AM

QUOTE (mylo @ Jan 15 2010, 10:37 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The parts I disagree with:
a) Why sell the CalExpo guys the Arco site at under retail?
b) Why take the money we make from the above sale and give it away?


How is it a give away? No one is compelling CalExpo to sell. If they want to be part of the deal that's up to the board of directors.

I doubt there are many buyers who would purchase CalExpo AND give the state the opportunity to build a new fairgrounds. At best someone might buy CalExpo (as Arnold wants) and then leave us with no fairground at all.

#38 Dave Burrell

Dave Burrell

    Folsom Citizen

  • Moderator
  • 17,584 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Folsom
  • Interests:Beer, Photography, Travel, Art

Posted 15 January 2010 - 11:06 AM

QUOTE (mylo @ Jan 15 2010, 09:32 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Crappy? The state values the CalExpo site at $150M. They're willing to GIVE THAT AWAY in exchange for the Arco site. Your "crappy inadequate arena" is worth (at least) $150 MILLION DOLLARS!

Why are you so quick to give that huge asset away? And of all the places to "throw" $150M, you'd pick an Arena? I could think of some better places to invest $150M+ that would have greater impact to more citizens than a for-profit entertainment conglomerate.

My "extreme exaggeration" is a lot less extreme. My Fort Ross vacation home isn't worth that much. Just because you don't like Arco, doesn't mean it's not worth money. I used the State Parks example as equivalent valuable, yet underutilized, assets that could be sold to fund this "investment". The comparison is the same, in my mind, although I too would much rather give away Natomas than Sonoma Coast wink.gif But it's still taxpayer assets being sold to developers to fund entertainment.


Crappy facilities, they're old and outdated. How much money is the CalExpo asset making for us tax payers currently?

I think WELL over 150 million in tax revenue can be made in 30 years, don't you?

Tell me what investment you would make with 150 million that could generate more jobs, local economy stimulus and tax revenue income over 30 years then a new entertainment arena could make with all its taxes (lease, tix,food,merchandise,parking,etc) and the future house property taxes from a natomas properties project?

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

 


#39 mylo

mylo

    Mmm.. Tomato

  • Moderator
  • 16,763 posts
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 15 January 2010 - 11:10 AM

QUOTE (c_vanderveen @ Jan 15 2010, 10:59 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
How is it a give away? No one is compelling CalExpo to sell. If they want to be part of the deal that's up to the board of directors.

I doubt there are many buyers who would purchase CalExpo AND give the state the opportunity to build a new fairgrounds. At best someone might buy CalExpo (as Arnold wants) and then leave us with no fairground at all.

The process:
1) Sac swaps Arco for CalExpo from the State (at a loss, hence why CalExpo wants to do it)
2) Sac sells CalExpo site to developers (for a deal)
3) Sac gives proceeds from sale to Maloofs

#3 is a "give away".

CalExpo doesn't have to sell or trade their site (#1). Sac doesn't have to sell or trade Arco (#2). And even if they did, Sac doesn't need to give away the money they got (#3)
"Ah, yes, those Gucci extremists and their Prada jihad!" --ducky

#40 Dave Burrell

Dave Burrell

    Folsom Citizen

  • Moderator
  • 17,584 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Folsom
  • Interests:Beer, Photography, Travel, Art

Posted 15 January 2010 - 11:35 AM

QUOTE (mylo @ Jan 15 2010, 11:10 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The process:
1) Sac swaps Arco for CalExpo from the State (at a loss, hence why CalExpo wants to do it)
2) Sac sells CalExpo site to developers (for a deal)
3) Sac gives proceeds from sale to Maloofs

#3 is a "give away".

CalExpo doesn't have to sell or trade their site (#1). Sac doesn't have to sell or trade Arco (#2). And even if they did, Sac doesn't need to give away the money they got (#3)



Did I miss something somewhere? (it is possible).
1) if both properties are each worth 150m, then where is the a loss in that exchange?
2) what deal? do you think they are going to sell it for less then 150m? why?
3) How exactly is Sac giving the proceeds from the sale to the Maloofs?

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

 


#41 mylo

mylo

    Mmm.. Tomato

  • Moderator
  • 16,763 posts
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 15 January 2010 - 11:37 AM

QUOTE (davburr @ Jan 15 2010, 11:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Did I miss something somewhere? (it is possible).
1) if both properties are each worth 150m, then where is the a loss in that exchange?
2) what deal? do you think they are going to sell it for less then 150m? why?
3) How exactly is Sac giving the proceeds from the sale to the Maloofs?

1) The State has no money. The deal would have to be "worth it" (your own words) for CalExpo to make the move
2) Don't know, but as part of this 3-way shell game, the property is not going to go out for public sale/normal bid. Basically, we won't know how much we could've gotten for it. Also, it sounds like it's also being sold to the Maloofs/Partners, so it's another area where we could sneak them a little cash.
3) THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT! That's the dirty little secret of this whole thing. To quote: "Funding for the plan would come from the sell of Cal Expo to a development group..." IE, the plan to build the Railroad Arena! See also: the plan taxpayers voted NOT to spend their money on.
"Ah, yes, those Gucci extremists and their Prada jihad!" --ducky

#42 john

john

    Founder

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

Posted 15 January 2010 - 11:45 AM

Mylo, the thing I don't think you are realizing is that it has to take some creative financing to get an arena to work. Because tax dollars isn't going to work. We don't have much for corporate dollars these days.

This is creative financing. Nobody's trying to steal anything - it seems like you are acting like we are "losing" in the situation. You're not losing anything when you get a $600M arena, with a 30-year lease - that's 30 years of events downtown.


#43 mylo

mylo

    Mmm.. Tomato

  • Moderator
  • 16,763 posts
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 15 January 2010 - 11:50 AM

QUOTE (john @ Jan 15 2010, 11:45 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Mylo, the thing I don't think you are realizing is that it has to take some creative financing to get an arena to work. Because tax dollars isn't going to work. We don't have much for corporate dollars these days.

This is creative financing. Nobody's trying to steal anything - it seems like you are acting like we are "losing" in the situation. You're not losing anything when you get a $600M arena, with a 30-year lease - that's 30 years of events downtown.

"Creative financing" to make a deal work for a private for-profit conglomerate. I'll keep my money out, thank you.

Creative is just another way of saying sneaky. Taxpayers voted No to spending their money on this. Why, by being "creative" with taking their money, do you think they suddenly changed their mind?

Unless the terms of the deal have substantially changed (IE, the Maloofs putting down more cash), then I think the existing vote stands, no matter the source of taxpayer money. Now, if they want to take the new terms to the table, openly, then let's take it to vote again. Let's not be sneaky and try and avoid a vote by hiding the "give away" subsidy in real estate transactions.
"Ah, yes, those Gucci extremists and their Prada jihad!" --ducky

#44 mylo

mylo

    Mmm.. Tomato

  • Moderator
  • 16,763 posts
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 15 January 2010 - 12:09 PM

Thinking more about this, I truly believe it's the ongoing level of financial illiteracy that creates this misconception of "free" or "no loss".

It's the same mentality that makes people look at "that's only $29/mo!" instead of "that's 5 years of interest payments!". It's the mentality that makes people think the lottery is a good bet, or taking the lump sum payout a mistake.

The simple fact: $N million dollars of taxpayer money is the same amount, whether it comes from the sale of taxpayer owned assets, levies on our income, sales, or property.

Selling bonds only adds interest to the same amount of money. No amount of "creativity" will change that this "deal" is, at it's heart: Taking money from taxpayers to give to an entertainment company.

Yes, perhaps there are valuable side-effects, but the voters have overwhelmingly and very clearly stated that this is not how they want to invest their money.

Almost everyone wants an Arena. The majority does not want to spend taxpayer money on it.
"Ah, yes, those Gucci extremists and their Prada jihad!" --ducky

#45 john

john

    Founder

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

Posted 15 January 2010 - 12:11 PM

OK, let's turn this around. Mylo, how do you suggest we pay for a new arena?





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users