*Results not typical.
Just two tidbits about the details of the arena deal reached yesterday:
- None of the promised “half” of the revenue from the sales tax hike will go to local governments for “about seven years.” Until then every red cent will go to the arena. I assume this means that after that, still only half of every dollar will go to local governments. The way the numbers line up, I assume they still intend for half of the overall take to go to non-arena spending. But clearly the door is open for that seven year … window to become 8 years, or 10. This is one more confusing point that will probably lead to a defeat for the tax increase in the fall.
- I can’t get over how much of a phony and a cheat Darrell Steinberg is. The new deal will divvy up revenue from the sales tax increase to area cities “based on the increase in sales tax within their borders.” In case you missed my link last week, here it is again, from 2004:
Led by Sacramento Assemblyman Darrell Steinberg, a coalition of lawmakers, local-government leaders, and environmental and housing advocates later announced its opposition to the governor’s deal [that would force cities to rely more heavily on sales-tax revenue].
I hope the voters can remember this about Steinberg when they see his name on the ballot this fall.
The Sac Rag 
1. The city/county JPA will control cost overruns and final budgeting. I’m fairly confident the members outside of Dickinson and Fong won’t allow their ensuing pet projects to come from this revenue to be pushed off until infinity, especially when they hold some control. Also, the money is locked in. If the measures pass, the money will go to the communities at some point. The financing requires that the arena is built first. And lastly, the $1.2 billion forecasts are said to be conservative. I’m not an economic forecaster, but I’ve yet to hear otherwise on this.
2. Darrell Steinberg is working as a lawyer and good-will ambassador for the Maloofs. He is not currently a councilman, a state Assemblyman, or a state Senator. He will not be until January. (And he will be. If Steinberg loses, it’ll only be because a photo of him and a young boy taken at Neverland Ranch turns up.) He has a client, and he negotiated (and is now campaigning) for said client. (I know this is a bit simplistic of me, given Steinberg’s status as a good guy around town.) But I don’t think Steinberg the Councilman would have opposed this. How does it contribute to sprawl? Also, I’m not sure I entirely see how Steinberg is being phony? Can you explain it a bit more?
LikeLike
Steinberg is on record as saying that cities’ increased reliance on sales tax contributes to sprawl. If the cities want to get their fair share of this money they will need to increase their sales tax revenue.
LikeLike
I don’t see any reason to believe that anyone is going to cheat the cities out of their half of the money. If the bill says half, they’ll get half.
One could argue that the arena will improve Downtown and the railyard’s appeal as a destination, meaning people will want to move back to the city, reducing sprawl.
That’s more convincing to me than arguing that big box-crazy suburbs are somehow going shoehorn in even MORE big box, thereby increasing sprawl.
LikeLike
again, talk to Steinberg about that– he is the one who is concerned that sales tax reliance creates sprawl.
He disliked sales tax when it was a Republican’s idea for balancing the budget. Now he likes sales tax– so much that he wants to increase it!– when it’s a Democrat’s idea for buying a city an arena.
LikeLike
Don, I think the wires are getting crossed on this, and I don’t think it’s intentional.
Steinberg was (strongly) against tying the very basics of local revenue directly and very closely to sales tax revenue, instead (I assume) of things like property value (and prop. tax) and that old vehicle licensing fee. By shifting the source of local revenue to some combination of several sources to nearly entirely sales tax, you’d be promoting a Wal-Mart on every corner. Wal-Marts take up lots of space and push development in every direction. Look at Dixon.
This issue is completely distinct and separate. Nothing about approving a limited-time sales tax increase forces more future reliance on sales tax for local revenue. If anything, it backs up Steinberg’s previous statements that sales tax revenues for local governments should augment a more robust intake from more traditional sources (like the VLF) and be used for special projects, especially infill (the railyards) and community services (the other $600M).
Am I reading you right, or am I blind and missing your argument entirely?
On your last bit of snark – if this is a partisan thing, um, someone tell Dave Jones and his People United friends, because they are on the wrong side in that case.
LikeLike
ummm…. Arena bad!! (runs away, car door slam, drives off)
LikeLike
but seriously. isn’t part of the reason this is supposedly such a good deal economically that the arena will be a giant building that will spark a lot of other businesses to grow around it? when the giant building is a Wal-Mart, it’s sprawl. when it is an arena, it’s revitalization.
also, obviously i would say that Dave Jones and the People United (they rocked back in the mid Sixties) are on the correct side.
LikeLike
CooDMZ – Generally, speaking, if it’s downtown, it’s revitalization*. If it’s on Grant Line Road, it’s sprawl.
* The exception of course is Wal Mart, which has no place in any decent downtown.
LikeLike
what is the substantive difference between Westfield Shoppingtown’s Downtown Mall and a Wal-Mart?
also, what is the substantive difference between the unused railyards and unused land on Grant Line Road?
LikeLike
On Wal-Mart vs. Westfield: Besides an occasionally decent atmosphere? Not a whole lot. I don’t typically oppose Wal-Marts, though, except when the line them up along a freeway and drive businesses I do like out of business. It’s a completely selfish thing, not an ideal or anything. Adding a Wal-Mart to the K Street Mall honestly wouldn’t make a huge difference. It’s not a favorite stomping ground of mine anyways.
On railyards vs. Grant Line? Existing infrastructure like public roads and municipal water, proximity to public safety, enroachment on usable open space or small outlying rural communities, possible positive or negative economic impact to close neighbors.
LikeLike
you mean an arena in that space (with no existing infrastructure, as far as i know–aren’t the Maloofs paying $20 mil for that upfront?) won’t encroach on usable open space? i don’t follow you. Grant Line Road is a road, how does it lack infrastructure like public…roads.
i don’t buy it. but i think i’ve led us into this so i’ll get us out of it by saying that i probably overstated my case against Steinberg. he’s advocating raising the sales tax which will disproportionately impact the poor. nuff said.
speaking of disproportionality, comments on blogs posted on Saturday mornings increase exponentially with the heat. have you stepped outside? what is the deal?
LikeLike
When it reaches 100 before noon, I make it a rule not to go outside.
LikeLike