As you’ve probably heard, the twofold arena tax measures will officially be on the ballot this fall. All it took was some last-minute hammering out of the details of the arena deal to make sure the points were in writing. So in other words, before they could agree to go forward with the ballot initiatives that cannot explicitly raise tax money for the arena, they had to make sure that the deal to build said arena using tax money was in writing.
I urge all potential Yes voters to remember this–they are purposely circumventing the law to win approval for a deal that was negotiated and signed in private, to fund an arena with a tax that has a greater impact on the poor and allow a private company to keep all the profits from said arena. I can’t remember a more shady political scheme than this. It’s not about our support for the team, it’s about turning down a terribly lopsided deal. You can do it, Sacramento!
The Sac Rag 
Thanks a lot DMZ. We’re trying to lighten the discourse for one day with a little food and drink talk and you smash it with the fist of citizen outrage. No, really, thanks a bunch.
LikeLike
Bravo! well said….
LikeLike
I don’t see what’s “shady” about the deal. We all know what’s going on.
Also, I’ve never liked two-thirds vote for anything. Why should 33.4% of voters get to tell the majority what do? I guess that’s why I’m not too caught up in that part of the debate. Mostly, I just want downtown to get some life pumped in to it and I’m still voting “yes.”
Oh, and I’m poor.
LikeLike
dude you just invented backwards democracy. also i would like to suck the life out of downtown.
LikeLike
I wholeheartedly agree!!! with Cooldmz, that is.
LikeLike
yeah, i goofed. i don’t know what to tell you though, the supermajority thing is the law.
LikeLike
DMZ: My brain is tired, and I can’t figure out how that’s “backwards democracy.” Kindly explain, please. I agree that it should be a simple majority vote, rather than 2/3 — that seems like more genuine democracy to me.
LikeLike
I knew it was the law; I just don’t like it. Gravity is the law too, but that one’s not so bad.
LikeLike
Yeah, I didn’t invent backwards democracy. Prop 13 did.
LikeLike
the U.S. Constitution requires 75% supermajority for amendments. the 2/3 supermajority is used all over the place.
also you still could invent backwards democracy if you want to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backwards_democracy
sorry though, i did misread you!
LikeLike
Yeah, I know it’s widely used. I just don’t agree with it. And I disagreed with it way before this arena issue came up.
Last year, the El Dorado County Library lost it’s bond measure by 14 votes, only getting 66.6% of the vote. What a bummer!
Also, the irony is not lost on me that Prop 13 passed with only 57% of the vote back in the 70s.
Anyhow, I’m all for cirsumventing this rule for the good of Sacramende. Man, I miss Arrested Development.
LikeLike
Once you start rethinking what’s fair, it’s kinda hard to know where to stop. For example, how bloody fair is it that North Dakota has two senators, same as California? The entire state of North Dakota barely has enough population to qualify as single one of our 53 congressional districts. Talk about over-representation!
LikeLike
fear not, Nick:
http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2006-07-26-arrested_x.htm?csp=34
LikeLike
Been lurking for awhile….I’ve finally had it.
Can someone please tell me the last time a local government raised taxes “just because?” Aren’t all tax increases done with a specific purpose in mind, if not on paper? Who asks for more money from the voters “just because we can?”
While we’re at it, whose bright idea was it at the Harold Jarvis Taxpayer Association to write a law (prop 218) that basically says “Government, if you want more money just for the hell of it, then all you need is a simple majority. However, if you make it perfectly clear to the voters what they are voting for (more police, a new arena, an increase in the Mayor’s salary), then you have to get a super-majority.” Does that logic make sense to anyone?
It would be more logical the other way around…if the tax is to just fill up the government’s coffers generally, it should require a super-majority. If the measure actually educates the public as to its specific purpose, it would make more sense to have that only require a simple majority.
Substively speaking….and I know this has been mentioned in the past… I don’t think people are not seeing this all the way through.
1) If a new arena isn’t built, the Kings will leave because other cities will offer them free digs.
2) If the King’s leave, the Maloofs will demolish Arco, and most likely sell the land to Centex, or Poulte Homes.
3) At that point, our biggest available space for concerts and the like will be Memorial Auditorium. Can anyone picture big acts coming (on a regular basis) to play in a 3500 seat, 85 year old brick auditorium?
4) I will now have to go to Shoreline (119 miles from downtown Sac), Bill Graham in SF (87 miles), or the SleepTrain in Marysville (42 miles) to go see the concerts I want to see. My car gets about 21-25 mpg. Assuming 2 events a year, and assuming $3.10/gallon gas, means I am spending $10.42 just in gas. To equal this in the additional proposed sales tax money would mean that I would have to spend $4168 on taxable items. Important note: groceries don’t count because most is not taxable (including milk for your children….), and I buy most big consumer, taxable items online anyways.
I mean come on…. .25% additional tax (i.e. an additional $25 on every $10,000 I spend on “stuff” in Sac County) is not going to break the bank. It is worth just that much to me so I can walk to a game or concert after work from my downtown office, then go bar-hopping in downtown afterwards, and only have 8 miles to drive home (sober, of course…).
So can we please look at the big picture, and stop focusing on what the Maloofs are getting out of this. Look at what WE as Sacto residents are getting.
LikeLike
I for one am thinking it all the way through:
1) If Roger Dickenson couldn’t negotiate a deal that keeps the Kings in town without throwing his constituents under a bus he should be held accountable at the polls. It is not a justification for holding taxpayers over a barrel.
2) Whether the Kings get a new stadium downtown or leave the city altogether Arco Arena will be rendered more valuable as development land than as an entertainment venue. It’s not that the Maloofs will sell it to punish us on their way out of town, it’s that they don’t need it if they’re not hosting basketball there.
3) The discretionary spending associated with voluntarily traveling to an entertainment venue for the luxury of a fun night out is in no way comparable to a mandatory tax imposed on all working families making purchases in Sacramento county. If you can and want to blow $100 on a concert that’s great but no one is forcing you do spend it like you’re going to be forced to spend extra money on school clothes for your kids so the Maloofs can have a better profit margin when the extra tax is enacted. No comparison.
LikeLike
fed up: thanks for lurking! I’m glad our little blog here can be a clearing house for debating the merits of a law passed 10 years ago.
I’m no legal expert but my understanding of prop 218 is that it is assumed taxes that go in the general fund are spent on a wider population for general services, not on specific services.
I’ve been explicitly clear that if I vote against the tax, what happens next is not my problem. If the city waited until the last second and gave us a bill that not even 66% of us support, that is their fault.
LikeLike
hey, fed up: the memorial auditorium was good enough for jimi hendrix and the stones. it is good enough for me!!!!
LikeLike