Jump to content






Photo

Amazing New Arena Plan


  • Please log in to reply
78 replies to this topic

#16 mylo

mylo

    Mmm.. Tomato

  • Moderator
  • 16,763 posts
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 14 January 2010 - 11:41 PM

See, you fell for it. They're not taking cash, so you think it's free.

The asset is not "moving to Natomas", the asset is giving AWAY Natomas!

Let's do some math shall we?

The state believes that trading CalExpo for Arco is a good deal. That must mean that Arco is worth more than CalExpo, yes? I don't see why they would take a deal, that requires additional capital improvement, at a loss, with no budget. They're making money on it.

So, how much is CalExpo being sold to the developers for? After we trade Arco for CalExpo, this is the money (asset) we're left with. Don't forget that taxpayer owned Arco was worth more (see above), so we're already losing money and we haven't even mentioned the Maloofs.

Then we give this money away, for free, for 30 years!

I wish we had the real numbers, but let's say CalExpo is worth $x, so Arco is worth $x+$y ($y being the benefit that makes the State want it).

Why not be honest and simply create a new tax and charge the taxpayers $x+$y and give it to the Maloofs so they can build their new stadium and we keep our real estate asset? Oh yeah, the people voted that down.

So, why sell $x and give away $y to "fund" (see also: give to) the Maloofs railyard development against the taxpayers will?

This is simply shell games using Real Estate to create an illusion of free money. If you believe this, then I'll trade you your house for my car and I'll even give you a free cruise! Just think of it, free cruise!
"Ah, yes, those Gucci extremists and their Prada jihad!" --ducky

#17 Jolene

Jolene

    Well-versed in how I might be cursed.

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,076 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Citrus Heights, CA

Posted 15 January 2010 - 12:03 AM

QUOTE (mylo @ Jan 14 2010, 11:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
...I'll trade you your house for my car and I'll even give you a free cruise! Just think of it, free cruise!


That was a lot of words, but I saw this part! I'll take it!!!

(Completely tongue in cheek. I did actually read the entire thread.)
THANK YOU FOR SUPPORTING MY GIRL.
We could not be doing this without you.
Much love and gratitude.

#18 mylo

mylo

    Mmm.. Tomato

  • Moderator
  • 16,763 posts
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 15 January 2010 - 12:07 AM

QUOTE (Jolene @ Jan 15 2010, 12:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
That was a lot of words, but I saw this part! I'll take it!!!

(Completely tongue in cheek. I did actually read the entire thread.)

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.
"Ah, yes, those Gucci extremists and their Prada jihad!" --ducky

#19 (MaxineR)

(MaxineR)
  • Visitors

Posted 15 January 2010 - 12:15 AM

QUOTE (mylo @ Jan 14 2010, 11:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
See, you fell for it. They're not taking cash, so you think it's free.

The asset is not "moving to Natomas", the asset is giving AWAY Natomas!

Let's do some math shall we?

The state believes that trading CalExpo for Arco is a good deal. That must mean that Arco is worth more than CalExpo, yes? I don't see why they would take a deal, that requires additional capital improvement, at a loss, with no budget. They're making money on it.

So, how much is CalExpo being sold to the developers for? After we trade Arco for CalExpo, this is the money (asset) we're left with. Don't forget that taxpayer owned Arco was worth more (see above), so we're already losing money and we haven't even mentioned the Maloofs.

Then we give this money away, for free, for 30 years!

I wish we had the real numbers, but let's say CalExpo is worth $x, so Arco is worth $x+$y ($y being the benefit that makes the State want it).

Why not be honest and simply create a new tax and charge the taxpayers $x+$y and give it to the Maloofs so they can build their new stadium and keep our real estate asset? Oh yeah, the people voted that down.

So, why sell $x and give away $y to "fund" (see also: give to) the Maloofs railyard development against the taxpayers will?

This is simply shell games using Real Estate to create an illusion of free money. If you believe this, then I'll trade you your house for my car and I'll even give you a free cruise! Just think of it, free cruise!



Mylo, I see it the way you do and feel it's a shell game as well.

But, for sports fans who want this sort of high end entertainment (the tickets will cost far more, you can count on it!) they only see what they want....a new sports arena.

The claims of more jobs, will only happen in the building faze, and then there will be as many jobs as we had before. But who will pay for the new fairgrounds? My guess is the tax payers.

The Maloofs have a ton of money and can well afford what they are pitching in, and will have a ton left over. But, the types like the Maloofs, that deal in this sort of thing have a motto....."Never invest your own money in something you hope to make money on. Get others to pay for it." So it's unheard of that people like this pitch in their own money? Well, it's unheard of that anyone would want to focus investments on high end entertainment when unemployment is so high.

The one way this could fail is the same reason that Cal Expo has lost money for the last few years.....people don't have the money for the high priced tickets and the high priced parking. And I've noticed the tickets for the Kings games have gone down.

Has anyone noticed how the Home and Garden show was FREE ADMISSION this year?????? Gee, I wonder why!


#20 mylo

mylo

    Mmm.. Tomato

  • Moderator
  • 16,763 posts
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 15 January 2010 - 01:05 AM

QUOTE (john @ Jan 14 2010, 08:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Paid for. $300M by Maloofs, $300M by investors, the rest through proceeds from sale of public lands.
Backed by NBA & Maloofs, rejected by voters.

FTFY.
"Ah, yes, those Gucci extremists and their Prada jihad!" --ducky

#21 Chad Vander Veen

Chad Vander Veen

    Hopeless Addict

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

Posted 15 January 2010 - 08:14 AM

QUOTE (mylo @ Jan 14 2010, 11:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
See, you fell for it. They're not taking cash, so you think it's free.

The asset is not "moving to Natomas", the asset is giving AWAY Natomas!

Let's do some math shall we?

The state believes that trading CalExpo for Arco is a good deal. That must mean that Arco is worth more than CalExpo, yes? I don't see why they would take a deal, that requires additional capital improvement, at a loss, with no budget. They're making money on it.

So, how much is CalExpo being sold to the developers for? After we trade Arco for CalExpo, this is the money (asset) we're left with. Don't forget that taxpayer owned Arco was worth more (see above), so we're already losing money and we haven't even mentioned the Maloofs.

Then we give this money away, for free, for 30 years!

I wish we had the real numbers, but let's say CalExpo is worth $x, so Arco is worth $x+$y ($y being the benefit that makes the State want it).

Why not be honest and simply create a new tax and charge the taxpayers $x+$y and give it to the Maloofs so they can build their new stadium and we keep our real estate asset? Oh yeah, the people voted that down.

So, why sell $x and give away $y to "fund" (see also: give to) the Maloofs railyard development against the taxpayers will?

This is simply shell games using Real Estate to create an illusion of free money. If you believe this, then I'll trade you your house for my car and I'll even give you a free cruise! Just think of it, free cruise!


I think part of the problem is you're not factoring in the the Arco site and are just thinking the old arena. Maybe you are though and are still upset.

And I believe the plan calls for CalExpo to be sold at current market value.

Additionally, do you ever believe CalExpo is going to be modernized any other way? The place is a joke of a fairground. A dream that died a long time ago.

#22 Dave Burrell

Dave Burrell

    Folsom Citizen

  • Moderator
  • 17,588 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Folsom
  • Interests:Beer, Photography, Travel, Art

Posted 15 January 2010 - 08:29 AM

QUOTE (mylo @ Jan 14 2010, 11:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
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.


You do know that a new arena would bring much more business and employment to the area right? Just checking because sometimes priorities should be shifted to look at the bigger picture down the road

QUOTE
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.)


You do know that a new arena would bring much more business and employment to the area right?

QUOTE
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.


wait a minute, you're telling the maloofs to pound sound and go get a loan, then saying gov't should help existing failing small business? Shouldn't small business be told to go get a loan too? A new arena bringing in more business would help local small business and provide more job opportunities - even for the homeless

QUOTE
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"
.

How do us tax payers directly benefit from State assets? Do you think it will be sold off to pay the state's bad debt?

I personally think the only way a huge deal like this would work is if there is some deals going on that do benefit the parties pumping millions into the new buildings etc. - they're not in the business for charity - and I'm sure the state enjoys all the tax revenue from the leases, the sales taxes etc that occur as a result of people spending money on entertainment


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

 


#23 mylo

mylo

    Mmm.. Tomato

  • Moderator
  • 16,763 posts
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 15 January 2010 - 09:06 AM

I know another great solution!

Because of the budget crisis, the State has been forced to shut down a large percentage of the State Parks. Since they're going unused anyway, why don't we sell them at Market Value so people can build homes. A lot of this land is in very high demand. I'd love to turn Fort Ross into a summer home!

Then we can take the proceeds from the sale of these assets and give it to media conglomerates for free and be entertained! A few people might even get jobs as a result of our entertainment and their massive profits. Trickle-down economics must work for the Maloofs, just look at all the Pawn Shops that make money off their Vegas investments!

If we sell enough of the State Parks, we could give away tons of money! We could make some killer new movies by giving some to the Hollywood Studios, or we could build an awesome new Waterpark in El Dorado Hills (you know the startup costs for those are so high, which is why you rarely see anyone build one). Without taxpayer subsidy, the new waterpark would never be built.

That would be awesome! And it's all TOTALLY FREE because we're just selling off land that we're not even using!

Yay me! I should run for government, too.
"Ah, yes, those Gucci extremists and their Prada jihad!" --ducky

#24 folsombound

folsombound

    Living Legend

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,040 posts

Posted 15 January 2010 - 09:21 AM

I think I'm with Mylo on this one. If it sounds too good to be true, it usually is!

#25 mylo

mylo

    Mmm.. Tomato

  • Moderator
  • 16,763 posts
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 15 January 2010 - 09:23 AM

QUOTE (c_vanderveen @ Jan 15 2010, 08:14 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I think part of the problem is you're not factoring in the the Arco site and are just thinking the old arena. Maybe you are though and are still upset.

And I believe the plan calls for CalExpo to be sold at current market value.

Additionally, do you ever believe CalExpo is going to be modernized any other way? The place is a joke of a fairground. A dream that died a long time ago.

I am absolutely factoring in the Arco site. It sounds like that is the origin of this mystical "free money" that we're going to give away. Arco sounds like a valuable asset, and I'm in no hurry to give it up (via a shell game swap & sale) to the Maloofs.

It actually sounds like this is doubly bad, as the article implied the Maloofs are also investing in the CalExpo site. So, we give away a place that is substantially more valuable in order to give them a deal on the CalExpo site and give them right back any money that they do shell out for it.

Sounds dirty to me.

And yes, an Arena would be nice and probably a great asset, but I am not willing (and neither are the voting taxpayers) to put their money into this effort. They've said it already, so why try and hide "free money" in this b.s.?

Just be honest. You're going to sell all of Arco for the low retail price of CalExpo and give the money to the Maloofs.
"Ah, yes, those Gucci extremists and their Prada jihad!" --ducky

#26 mylo

mylo

    Mmm.. Tomato

  • Moderator
  • 16,763 posts
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 15 January 2010 - 09:26 AM

This article puts CalExpo at $150M

http://sacramento.bi.../10/story5.html

I wonder how much Arco is worth.
"Ah, yes, those Gucci extremists and their Prada jihad!" --ducky

#27 Dave Burrell

Dave Burrell

    Folsom Citizen

  • Moderator
  • 17,588 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Folsom
  • Interests:Beer, Photography, Travel, Art

Posted 15 January 2010 - 09:27 AM

QUOTE (mylo @ Jan 15 2010, 09:06 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I know another great solution!

Because of the budget crisis, the State has been forced to shut down a large percentage of the State Parks. Since they're going unused anyway, why don't we sell them at Market Value so people can build homes (I'd love to turn Fort Ross into a summer home!)

Then we can take the proceeds from the sale of these assets and give it to media conglomerates for free and be entertained! A few people might even get jobs as a result of our entertainment and their massive profits. Trickle-down economics must work for the Maloofs, just look at all the Pawn Shops that make money off their Vegas investments!

If we sell enough of the State Parks, we could give away tons of money! We could make some killer new movies by giving some to the Hollywood Studios, or we could build an awesome new Waterpark in El Dorado Hills (you know the startup costs for those are so high, which is why you rarely see anyone build one). Without taxpayer subsidy, the new waterpark would never be built.

That would be awesome! And it's all TOTALLY FREE because we're just selling off land that we're not even using!

Yay me! I should run for government, too.



huh.gif Nothing like a bit of extreme exaggeration to emphasize the fact you're adamantly against any kind of sports and entertainment facility improvements here to help bring the local area more revenue and more sports and entertainment events.

You're right - keeping a crappy inadequate arena that prevents major events and concerts from coming here, is really great for our local economy

Yay, we can get to keep both a crappy arena and CalExpo - after you run for government, maybe then you can explain how we actually benefit from sitting on dilapidated under valued state property assets and how that would be better then future tax revenue from house sales, entertainment tax revenue etc?

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

 


#28 cw68

cw68

    Hopeless Addict

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

Posted 15 January 2010 - 09:30 AM

QUOTE (MaxineR @ Jan 15 2010, 12:15 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
But, for sports fans who want this sort of high end entertainment (the tickets will cost far more, you can count on it!) they only see what they want....a new sports arena.

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.

#29 mylo

mylo

    Mmm.. Tomato

  • Moderator
  • 16,763 posts
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 15 January 2010 - 09:32 AM

QUOTE (davburr @ Jan 15 2010, 09:27 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
huh.gif Nothing like a bit of extreme exaggeration to emphasize the fact you're adamantly against any kind of sports and entertainment facility improvements here to help bring the local area more revenue and more sports and entertainment events.

You're right - keeping a crappy inadequate arena that prevents major events and concerts from coming here, is really great for our local economy

Yay, we can get to keep both a crappy arena and CalExpo - after you run for government, maybe then you can explain how we actually benefit from sitting on dilapidated under valued state property assets and how that would be better then future tax revenue from house sales, entertainment tax revenue etc?

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.
"Ah, yes, those Gucci extremists and their Prada jihad!" --ducky

#30 Chad Vander Veen

Chad Vander Veen

    Hopeless Addict

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

Posted 15 January 2010 - 09:41 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.


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?

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.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users