Jump to content






Photo

Amazing New Arena Plan


  • Please log in to reply
78 replies to this topic

#76 SacKen

SacKen

    Lifer

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,286 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cell Block D

Posted 24 February 2010 - 09:04 AM

UPDATE: The latest SacBee article says that the developers have "sweetened" the deal. For the sale of Cal Expo, the State is being offered:

1) Current market value of the Cal Expo land.
2) 185 acres in Natomas and existing Arco Arena building, free and clear.
2) 25% of future net profits when the developers sell land parcels to builders.
3) $2 Million to assist in planning and moving from Cal Expo.

For those that think that the State should forget this plan, sell Cal Expo to the highest bidder, then take the money and run, they technically could still do that in this deal. Nothing forces them to rebuild Cal Expo.

Assuming that this plan does include a fair market value price for Cal Expo (Robert's RFP plan would help with that), with this deal they get significantly more than just the value of Cal Expo. If they wanted to, they could sell the Natomas land, fire the Cal Expo board and employees, and pocket all of it, including the 25% future profits and $2 Million up-front cash.

Besides emotion-based opinions, I have yet to see any significant reason why this plan is bad. I must say, though, if they are willing to pony-up 25% of profits, I'd rather it be something like 15% to the State and 10% to Sacramento. That plus the taxes and development fees the city will realize in this plan should cover the $70 Million loan they are forgiving plus significant ROI above that.
"Just think of how stupid the average person is, and then realize half of them are even stupider!" -- George Carlin

#77 SacKen

SacKen

    Lifer

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,286 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cell Block D

Posted 24 February 2010 - 09:09 AM

QUOTE (Robert Giacometti @ Jan 19 2010, 05:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
There are issues with this plan in that each agency should send out RFP's to get the best possible price for the sale of the land. By sending out RFP's another entity could offer more and buy one of these parcels sinking the deal.

On the other hand, sending out RFP ensures the residents that everything is done on the up and up and the public gets the best possible deal.
...

I like the idea of using something like an RFP process, but in a more restricted manner. I think the RFP should be specifically for this certain plan or something similar. So a similar 3-land/Arena plan will happen, but developers will bid for the rights.

That way, the plan goes through and the taxpayers maximize the value of the assets in play and minimize the risk of getting screwed.

"Just think of how stupid the average person is, and then realize half of them are even stupider!" -- George Carlin

#78 camay2327

camay2327

    GO NAVY

  • Moderator
  • 11,481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 14 September 2010 - 11:20 PM

Report: Kings, Cal Expo land swap deal "not suitable" for State Fair


REPORT: Read the State Fair recommendation report compiled by A. Plescia & Co., Gruen Gruen + Associates and RCH Group

SACRAMENTO, CA - In another blow to efforts to build a new Sacramento sports arena, a report commissioned by the state concludes a land trade deal that would put a new Kings area in downtown Sacramento and a new state fairgrounds at the current site of ARCO Arena would "not be suitable" for the State Fair and recommends agains the proposal.

In the 144-page report released Tuesday, consultant Andrew Plescia determined the current ARCO site does not offer the infrastructure requirements or financial incentives needed to support moving the State Fair from its current Cal Expo home to a new fairgrounds in Natomas.

// go to below website for more //


http://www.news10.ne...d=95652&catid=2
A VETERAN Whether active duty, retired, national guard or reserve - is someone who, at one point in their life, wrote a blank check made payable to "The United States of America" for an amount "up to and including their life". That is HONOR, and there are way too many people in this country who no longer understand it. -Author unknown-

#79 SacKen

SacKen

    Lifer

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,286 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cell Block D

Posted 20 September 2010 - 04:49 PM

It seems like the analysts report does still support a modified version of the land swap deal. The report says that Cal Expo could/should sell a chunk of the land to refurbish the existing facilities. If that subset of land is still sold in the manner that the original deal assumed all the land would be sold, then the Natomas land is sold (or given) to the developers instead of given to Cal Expo, the plan could still work in about the same way. Plus Cal Expo wouldn't be moved, which was a big negative for many people against the plan.

So the plan might not be totally dead yet. This modified version might even be better since it doesn't rely on Cal Expo being rebuilt immediately in order to not lose the State Fair and other events during the transition. Also, Sacramento keeps Cal Expo and doesn't lose it to Natomas.
"Just think of how stupid the average person is, and then realize half of them are even stupider!" -- George Carlin




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users