So the City Attorney, Eileen Teichert (any relation?) does not believe the public needs to see the details of proposed arena agreements because, according to legal briefs, the proposed draft agreement was “‘essentially the same document'” as a term sheet previously signed by the the Kings owners — the Maloof family — the city and the county and released to the public.” (from the Bee). I assume they are referring to the August 2 Preliminary Term Sheet (PDF) which contains the following provision:
If the County Board of Supervisors approves the Ballot Proposals, this Term Sheet shall nevertheless terminate and be of no force or effect if on or before October 6, 2006: … a definitive Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) is not executed and delivered by the parties.
Presumably, at the time the officials thought one month was the least amount of time we voters would need to make up our minds. This Term Sheet is signed by the City, the County, and MSE and it is completely invalid. If the City attorney expects us to refer to a public document, perhaps she should pick one that has some sort of legally enforceable status?
Besides which, we all know that the topics of dispute between August 2 and today are parking spaces and the competing business buffer zone. If those details have been addressed in a manner that is being considered by MSE it is assumed that the City had to give ground from the (expired) Term Sheet.
The public officials argue that making the draft agreements public would hamper their bargaining position. However, a large part of what they are bargaining is our $1.2 billion tax increase. If they don’t have that, they have no bargaining position. They must make this process completely transparent immediately or they have lost all credibility as responsible stewards.
The Sac Rag 
We’re just beating a dead horse on this arena thing.
The city has done a good job speeding up the development process, which is making Sacramento, and specifically downtown, a better place to live.
I agree with the city in this case. They should disclose the agreements when they’re reached, and we can vote on that. If the agreements are bad, we vote no. Seems pretty simple to me. Letting 400,000 people veto every term or condition in every deal with every developer or business interest makes absolutely no sense and would completely wreck the progress the city has made in getting things done.
LikeLike
i’m not talking about every deal, just maybe the ones that raise our taxes by the GDP of a small country.
LikeLike
Your point is valid, Carl. However, this horse is begging to get a beat down. You know, some horses just have it coming to them.
Every single aspect of this thing is either illegal, vague, or manipulative.
LikeLike
I laughed out loud when I was watching “Gone with the Wind” in my sophomore english class in high school when I figued out that Scarlet was literally beating a dead horse as she tried escape from the advancing union army…
What were we talking about again?
LikeLike
Of course the information is public…what the hell is this, the Third Reich or is Joe Stalin in charge?
The City has not made “progress” on anything,
City, State and County Governments have been on a campaign to spread as much cash to Millionaire Private Developers as possible,
There would not be any development downtown if it were not funded, seeded or some way supported monetarily by the taxpayers, whether they know it or not…
The Urban Planning behind a Railyard Arena might be peachy keen however someone forgot to inform the Maloofs who don’t seem to be interested in urban design which is entirely their choice…They own the team and the current Arena…and have told the City to shove it if they don’t like their terms…
The City/County have been incompetent and totally nutso in dealing with this issue, and all of their activity smell of thievery and criminality…
Of course the information is “public”…
LikeLike
But, Jack, is the information “public” though? That’s the real question here.
LikeLike