From the zombie news department, the Kings, Sacramento, and the NBA are scheduled to meet tomorrow at — in a shocking turn of events — the Palms casino in Las Vegas. For those of you playing along at home, “The most recent proposal would require voter approval for an increase in Sacramento County’s sales tax,” as opposed to those other proposals that involved paying for the arena by mortgaging the Capitol building, robbing Mick Jagger, mining for spice in Rocklin, and building the new arena out of pieces of the other two.
“The city/county interests will be represented by [Vice Mayor Rob] Fong, [Assistant City Manager John] Dangberg, [county economic development director Paul] Hahn and arena and stadium consultant Dan Barrett.” By city/county interests they apparently do not mean the interests of the citizens and residents of the city and county. With friends like this, who needs friends?
I’m willing to concede that there are plenty of people out there who would pay a tax increase to build a new stadium. But read the article, this whole deal seems extra shady with a side of sleaze. “Joe and Gavin Maloof… initiated Tuesday’s session and suggested they be held in Las Vegas to ensure the presence of George Maloof…” Was the golden jet powered by dreams in the shop that day? Shouldn’t the guys asking for me to pay an extra tax be making more of an effort?
Thoughts?
The Sac Rag 
I’d share my thoughts but I’m afraid to wake up with a horse head in my bed.
LikeLike
I don’t get it. If the public is going to fund it, then why doesn’t the public profit from ticket sales? Why can’t this be a revenue situation akin to state parks, tourist attractions, museums, etc.?
LikeLike
People need to face some facts here…
1. If there isn’t a new arena built the Kings will leave (I hope everyone regardless of which side they stand on can at least agree on this).
2. “Oh well im not a sports fan, I could care less if the Kings stay or leave. Regardless of what the Maloofs say about Arco it seems fine for concerts and other stuff and thats all I care about.” If the Kings leave they will sell Arco and the land it is on as there will be no primary tenant and with the limited number of events no one can make enough money to even make it feasible to keep it in its current state. The land alone for new developement would be the only thing of value to potential buyers. No arena = no Prince concerts, no NCAA college basketball tournaments, no circus, no ice skating, etc…
3. The longer this is drawn out the more expensive it gets. A comparable arena cost $250 million two years ago: the price tag today is close to $400 million.
4. “Hey if the Kings leave someone else is sure to come and replace them with our great fans.” If the Kings do leave the only other way a new sports and entertainment complex is built is with public financing paying for the WHOLE facility. With all the other cities that are willing to hand over the keys to a brand spanking new arena for free what business men in their right mind would come here out of the goodness of their heart to share the cost.
5. Say what you will about the need for Arco, the Kings, and all the other events. These entities bring in millions of tax dollars into the city yearly which help pay for public services and infrastructure like the aforementioned potholes. Does anyone remember what north Sacramento and Natomas was like before the Kings arrived. The catalyst for ALL the development in Natomas was the arrival of the Kings (more tax dollars). The new facility can be the catalyst for finally developing the Railyards and almost DOUBLING the size and tax base of downtown (more tax dollars). Many other cities have made the connection between investing in sports and entertainment facilities and driving redevelopment that they are building them without private help in hope of attracting a sports team.
People need to understand that helping finance a new arena is the lesser of two evils.
LikeLike
I think the general public has grown apathetic of the arena issue, mostly because it’s been such a long, drawn-out ordeal that has made zero progress. Plus, there are so many other pressing issues, such as our crumbling infrastructure — when was the last time you drove an entire day without seeing or personally encountering a pothole?
Not that it would ever happen, but what about the prospect of a regional tax since people who attend events at ARCO come from all over and not just Sacramento? Since the talk has been about a downtown arena, taxing the entire county already imposes the tax on jurisdictions other than the one with the arena.
LikeLike
Alex, that was very insightful. But you didn’t like my horse head joke?
LikeLike
publicly funded arenas do NOT result in more money for the community. that has never happened anywhere. the increase in tax revenues, employment, all that stuff, never comes close to equaling the amount of public funds paid out. spending upwards of a hundred million on an arena will not result in better infrastructure. if anyone has any actual proof that this would be better for the community financially, or has been better for any community anywhere, i’d like to see it. i concede that it may be better for the community in other ways, and maybe it’s worth it to us to have our tax dollars go towards an arena. but for infrastructure or redevelopment, we’d be better off spending those funds directly on that rather than on an arena.
LikeLike
Arenas don’t create new money, but they help direct spending. Me, I’m all for people from Roseville spending money in downtown Sac and not in SF or wherever else there recreation budget would go. While were at it, include a ticket tax to ensure uses pay more than broke folk like me.
LikeLike
Derrick, I hope you didn’t interpret my comment as saying that public financing of a new arena would result in better infrastructure. I was saying that if we’re talking about how to spend public funds, why not start with vital things like safe roadways first?
LikeLike