Just because it seems like a good time to do so, I wanted to take a second to state that while I do think increasing the sales tax to pay for the arena is the wrong thing to do, I believe that those who disagree with me do so because they are likewise trying to do the right thing. I do not, as it might be tempting to interpret, think that they are in favor of taxing the poor or kicking puppies to raise money.
However, I think it is worthwhile to try to convince everybody that two No votes in November are the only right thing to do. I’ll start by reminding everyone that this whole thing is premised on two notable lies by our local politicians.
One, that “the Maloofs will pay 26-30%” of the arena costs. I am pleased with the attention paid in the local media recently to the fact that this number doesn’t factor in the value of the payments made in the future, that the number taken on face is inflated by almost double. However, I still don’t think this is far enough. The money they would pay constitutes rent payment on a building they don’t own. When you rent a charming bachelor apartment in midtown, do you consider yourself to have partially financed its construction? According to the legal documents (scroll to #43 on this page), the facility would be 100% taxpayer financed. Of course they have to pay rent, it would be our building. Is that the “hard bargain” our city and county representatives drove? Asking MSE to pay a monthly fee for inhabiting a building they don’t own? Were the Maloofs asking to not pay rent? I’m sure some of you who are much smarter than me at finance might point out that yes, when you pay rent on anything you are indirectly financing the construction of the facility. I would counter that when I have signed rental agreements in the past they have not been accompanied by press releases and fanfare touting me as a major partner in the construction of the building.
Two, that half of the money raised by the sales tax increase would be spent on various improvements throughout the county. That measure is non-binding–it in no way legally obligates the JPA to do anything with the money. The only truthful statement about the money is that it will “probably” go into the county general fund by default. Read my lips, politicians can and frequently do break their promises–as evidenced by the construction of the two-ballot-measure plan for this here arena, a blatant attempt to circumvent (AD, coming to G4 in October!) the language of Proposition 218, passed by the people of California in 1996.
These two “truth-challenged” assertions by the dealmakers, along with the overal wrongness of increasing our sales tax to benefit a private company, should be enough, over time, to win over 51% of the vote in November.
The Sac Rag 
I agree, vote no. Also did you notice that for the first 7 years not one dollar of the tax proceeds will go to anything but the arena? So the so-called 1/2 for public purposes won’t be seen even by an ambiguous general fund for at least 7 years. 100% will go to the arena. Sorry, that’s a little hard to take when the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is putting out reports this week that the Sacramento levee system is not stable. Shouldn’t we be talking about flood control rather than a free shelter for the Maloofs?
LikeLike
Well said and a great post debunking the 30% myth.
LikeLike
The Field of Schemes blog (which tracks publicly funded sports arena and ballpark plans) makes the same points:
http://www.fieldofschemes.com/news/archives/2006/07/kings_deal_coul.html
or
http://tinyurl.com/z2tm6
LikeLike
I’ll be a “yes” voter in November.
Even with the propopsed sales tax increase, Sacramento’s sales tax will still be lower than San Jose, San Francisco, L.A. and other major Californian cities.
At this point, we only have two options:
1) Accepting the tax.
or
2) Losing the Kings and other arena-based entertainment while hampering smart downtown growth and our city’s national visibility.
I feel, as do many others, that a downtown arena would undoubtedly act as a catalyst for downtown revitalization. And even though I rarely attend King’s games, I can see the benefit of both a new arena and the team.
Are the Maloof’s getting a better deal than they deserve? Definitely, but voting “no” out of spite will just hurt our city.
A “no” vote is a vote for a big step backwards.
LikeLike
Hi Nick! Thanks for visiting…
If the measures were to fail and the Kings leave Sacramento, you have to realize that it would be because the Maloofs and the politicians cut a deal that the people didn’t want. Not because people like me opposed their shady backroom deal.
I hope between now and Nov you’ll consider that allowing these people to threaten you into voting for something you don’t really want is much worse than taking the safe route and voting no, even out of spite.
LikeLike