Thanks FauxPaws for helping me beat the drum! Got busy making widgets yesterday and neglected to point out that Daniel Weintraub now says what I said last week, that the Maloofs’ rent should not be considered as a contribution to the building costs. Further, he went on to demonstrate that under a conservative estimate (assuming the low end for things like parking fees and naming rights) the Maloofs’ spending and income for using the arena are a wash, meaning that their only contribution to the entire project is the $20 capital repair fund. Assuming the higher end they come out ahead. We taxpayers, on the other hand, are out $1.2 billion.
Here’s a question: If the arena would be publicly owned, wouldn’t it make sense for it to be open several times a year for free events? I don’t think I’ve heard that proposed in this deal.
The Sac Rag 
The city waited to long before getting it?s act together… if the city officials would have been proactive on this two years ago they would have gotten a better deal, but now that their backs are against the wall they could not negotiate much.
First, of the $1.2 billion only $500 million would be used for the arena and the rest to be used to improve the city. Two, if the Kings leave and the city were to build an arena then they would have no solid tenant to get any revenue from. And if the Kings leave the Maloofs will sell the land that Arco sits on, it will be raised by a developer who will put a subdivision there. This would leave us with nothing… all of the many events that the region as a whole had enjoyed at Arco would then be in the bay area and we would be drive down and back at $3 a gallon as well as the many hours spent on the road. Now that would suck. There’s more at stake here than just the KINGS, over 200 events are held at Arco yearly that are not sports related.
LikeLike
Sorry about the double post… the system is slow 😦
LikeLike