HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West > Sacramento Area


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #2841  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2012, 4:02 PM
Mr. Ozo Mr. Ozo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 164
From an Urban Design point this is pretty good. The lack of any dedicated parking is a bold move and complete reversal of urban thought of the last 70 years. (Although I understand there is a large parking structure planned to go between the 5th and 6th street extension.)

We would go from an Arena with no transit assess, no walkability, to one of the most transit friendly in the nation. There is also plenty of parking at the mall for drivers.

Can't really comment about the funding, but this is promising.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2842  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2012, 6:09 PM
Pistola916 Pistola916 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO/SACRAMENTO
Posts: 632
ARENA DEAL DEAD! Well so much for those pretty renderings. Looks like downtown arena going down in flames. I love the Kings and personally, I will be sad if the Kings leave but the more this drags on, the more I give a sh** about the team and the Maloofs.

Kings owner suggests Power Balance renovation rather than new arena
Mlvellinga@sacbee.com
Published Friday, Apr. 13, 2012

Sacramento Kings co-owner George Maloof this morning suggested the team renovate Power Balance Pavilion and keep playing there rather than build a new arena in the downtown railyard.

Maloof's position represents a total switch from years of saying the Kings need a new arena to stay in Sacramento. In a morning news conference in New York, the Kings owners characterized the present arena plan as unrealistic and a potential financial disaster for both the city and team.

"Why don't we look at redoing Power Balance?" Maloof asked. "Most of our customers enjoy going to Power Balance. ... It just seems more natural."

"It's less money. There's less pressure on everybody," he said.

Maloof said the franchise was not considering relocation.

"We're here to stay and get something done," he said.

His comments followed a presentation by an economist hired by the Maloofs that questioned the city's ability to build a new arena for the Kings and said the deal did not make economic sense for either the team or Sacramento.

During the news conference, Beacon Economics head Christopher Thornberg, one of California's most prominent economists, said terms of the arena proposal would put the Kings at enormous financial risk and place the city "right on the edge" of financial disaster.

Thornberg said the city's estimates of financial benefit from an arena are way overblown, and the projections of attendance at Kings games far too rosy.

The Maloofs were there to air their concerns about the current arena plan -- the result of a handshake deal in February among the city, the NBA, arena operator AEG and the Kings owners themselves.

Kings lawyer Barry McNeil told reporters that city officials presented the term sheet for approval to the City Council on March 6 even though the team owners had sent a letter days earlier with numerous concerns.

"We had objected, objected, objected, objected to its provisions," he said.

The term sheet, he said, was "inaccurate and largely irrelevant," given the team's lack of agreement.

After the Maloofs' lawyer spoke, George Maloof took the microphone and said the family had sent "four or five" letters to NBA taking issue with various items in the term sheet and was assured its concerns were being dealt with. That didn't happen, he said.

Maloof insisted, however, that the family was not seeking to pull out of the plan to build an arena in the downtown Sacramento railyard. "No. Why would you bring that up?" he asked a reporter.

"Our intention has been to get this deal done, not to kill the deal," Maloof said. "But at this point, how do we negotiate when we don't hear back from the city?"

Maloof said he plans to meet with Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, who Thursday night issued a letter saying the city doesn't intend to change the terms of its arena plan, in which the city agreed to put up $255 million by leveraging future downtown parking revenues.

"I'm going to ask the mayor - I have a right to ask - 'Where's our term sheet, why haven't you commented on our term sheet?' " he said. "That's just normal business practice. When you go to buy a car, do you take the first deal?"

He said the deal could still go forward, but only if Johnson will entertain changes. "If the mayor says he's not negotiating, then he's killed the deal and it's over," he said.

Johnson flew to New York on Thursday night and is currently meeting with the NBA Board of Governors in an attempt to salvage the arena plan, which the Kings have been seeking to change.

Maloof said his family remains willing to put in the $73 million it agreed to, but doesn't want to pay $3.2 million in pre-development costs. He suggested the city should put up those funds. The reason: The family would not get its money back if the deal fell apart.

Last edited by Pistola916; Apr 13, 2012 at 7:41 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2843  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2012, 7:51 PM
kryptos's Avatar
kryptos kryptos is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 252
NBA's David Stern on Sacramento arena deal: 'It's not going to happen' ...KJ looks like a
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2844  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2012, 9:05 PM
jsf8278's Avatar
jsf8278 jsf8278 is offline
Edge_City
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 211
Other uses of the $...

Now that the arena deal is dead, I hope that the city (as Kevin McCarty suggested) will continue to look at using revenue from parking for some other purpose. $250 million would go a long way toward building the intermodal station, developing K & R Streets, ect. The possibilities are endless, and I think it's at least worth exploring. Additonally, if (or when, I guess) the Kings leave, they have to pay up on their loan, right? That's another $60+ million for the city.

I supported the railyard arena b/c I thought it would greatly increase the likelihood that the railyards actually gets developed, and in my opinion, the city does need a new arena.

But...I think its hard to justify keeping the Kings when we could potentially use $300+ million on other city projects. Unfortunately, when these things die, people tend to be exhausted and not want to pursue alternatives.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2845  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2012, 11:50 PM
kryptos's Avatar
kryptos kryptos is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 252
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsf8278 View Post
Now that the arena deal is dead, I hope that the city (as Kevin McCarty suggested) will continue to look at using revenue from parking for some other purpose. $250 million would go a long way toward building the intermodal station, developing K & R Streets, ect. The possibilities are endless, and I think it's at least worth exploring. Additonally, if (or when, I guess) the Kings leave, they have to pay up on their loan, right? That's another $60+ million for the city.

I supported the railyard arena b/c I thought it would greatly increase the likelihood that the railyards actually gets developed, and in my opinion, the city does need a new arena.

But...I think its hard to justify keeping the Kings when we could potentially use $300+ million on other city projects. Unfortunately, when these things die, people tend to be exhausted and not want to pursue alternatives.
the money dies with the arena
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2846  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2012, 12:21 AM
NME22 NME22 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 133
Not sure why you think KJ looks bad in all of this, when everyone involved outside of the Maloofs thinks the city did a great job. In the end, you can't force a person to sign a contract. Maloofs never wanted to stay in the first place and wasted a lot of people's time and money.

Anyways, you are right that the money dies with the arena.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2847  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2012, 12:28 AM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
Indeed--the original parking contract was based on the added revenue from arena parking, which is why the parking contract never would have worked with the term sheet. But no, jsf8278, the Maloofs (their predecessors actually) don't owe that money to the city--they owe it to Goldman Sachs, who bought the bonds. If they fail to pay off the bond, the city of Sacramento has to pay off that $60 million--and in return they would get the arena property and a $25 million share of the Kings (and, currently, the arena property is worth less than $60 million.

There are some potential positives--like the idea of forming a downtown parking authority to divert parking revenue to reinvestment projects, especially the sort that bring private reinvestment.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2848  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2012, 12:56 AM
NME22 NME22 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
There are some potential positives--like the idea of forming a downtown parking authority to divert parking revenue to reinvestment projects, especially the sort that bring private reinvestment.
What exactly do you mean by reinvestment projects?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2849  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2012, 12:57 AM
Web Web is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 523
David Stern was not a happy dude. Especially when he said by rejecting the plan means the NBA will not restructure the 70 million loan and a 7 million dollar gift. Sure sounds like the NBA went above the line to sweeten the deal for the Maloofs and they used the 3 million pre development as the deal breaker.

ok I self editted but yes they are just toying around.....go home maloofs

Last edited by Web; Apr 14, 2012 at 1:06 AM. Reason: self edit of a few lines
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2850  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2012, 3:19 AM
TWAK's Avatar
TWAK TWAK is offline
Resu Deretsiger
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Lake County, CA
Posts: 14,832
Demanding a new arena for how long? Then when it's real crunch-time they suggest renovating Arco and don't want to pay pre-development fees......
Even if you are pro/anti new arena, everybody can see the Maloofs are real jackasses
__________________
nobody cares about your city
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2851  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2012, 4:45 AM
ThatDarnSacramentan ThatDarnSacramentan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,047
I don't think we'll be seeing any more of them in their court seats at the games. They probably went ahead and bought a security detail, and if they didn't, they're idiots because there is surely someone angry and stupid enough to try something.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2852  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2012, 5:38 AM
BrianSac's Avatar
BrianSac BrianSac is offline
CHACUN SON GOÛT
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
There are some potential positives--like the idea of forming a downtown parking authority to divert parking revenue to reinvestment projects, especially the sort that bring private reinvestment.
All of a sudden using the city's parking is ok --- for redevelopment. After the pro-arena folks did all the hard work of bringing forth such an idea, you'll sneak your grubbly little hands into that pot. I'll be the first to oppose any parking funds going to redevelopment....get your own damn money. Quit trying to steal the publics money.
__________________
C'est le moment ou jamais
C'est facile comme tout
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2853  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2012, 5:46 AM
BrianSac's Avatar
BrianSac BrianSac is offline
CHACUN SON GOÛT
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,646
KJ and his team should be commended for standing tall, and working hard to put a plan together. They pushed forth against all odds, against the obstructionists and the magoofs.

Will Sacramento ever see major league sports again after next season? Will we ever build a modern arena?
__________________
C'est le moment ou jamais
C'est facile comme tout
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2854  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2012, 5:58 AM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianSac View Post
All of a sudden using the city's parking is ok --- for redevelopment. After the pro-arena folks did all the hard work of bringing forth such an idea, you'll sneak your grubbly little hands into that pot. I'll be the first to oppose any parking funds going to redevelopment....get your own damn money. Quit trying to steal the publics money.
No, I meant more like San Francisco's parking authority program, or the one in Pasadena:

http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/SmallChange.pdf

The money from parking is reinvested directly into the neighborhood: streetscape improvement, street/sidewalk cleaning, street lights, security, and other things that make a neighborhood more pleasant to park in, and to live in. It can also mean things like San Francisco's smartphone app that directs you to available street parking spots, because there are sensors in each street parking space.

I'm NOT talking about a long-term parking lease, that has always been and still is a bad idea, or floating a bond based on future parking revenue, which is still an even worse idea. But it did raise the idea of a central city parking authority model, which is worth pursuing as a way to better utilize, and potentially increase, parking revenue.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2855  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2012, 6:05 AM
BrianSac's Avatar
BrianSac BrianSac is offline
CHACUN SON GOÛT
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
No, I meant more like San Francisco's parking authority program, or the one in Pasadena:

http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/SmallChange.pdf

The money from parking is reinvested directly into the neighborhood: streetscape improvement, street/sidewalk cleaning, street lights, security, and other things that make a neighborhood more pleasant to park in, and to live in. It can also mean things like San Francisco's smartphone app that directs you to available street parking spots, because there are sensors in each street parking space.

I'm NOT talking about a long-term parking lease, that has always been and still is a bad idea, or floating a bond based on future parking revenue, which is still an even worse idea. But it did raise the idea of a central city parking authority model, which is worth pursuing as a way to better utilize, and potentially increase, parking revenue.
No parking funds should go to any redevelopment.
__________________
C'est le moment ou jamais
C'est facile comme tout
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2856  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2012, 6:13 AM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianSac View Post
No parking funds should go to any redevelopment.
um, every redevelopment agency in the state of California was officially closed a couple of months ago, and the California Redevelopment Association just announced they're closing their doors. So I don't think there is any worry about parking funds going to "redevelopment." That's not what I'm talking about anyhow, but just to make things clearer for you.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2857  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2012, 7:45 AM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sacramento California
Posts: 2,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsf8278 View Post
Now that the arena deal is dead, I hope that the city (as Kevin McCarty suggested) will continue to look at using revenue from parking for some other purpose. $250 million would go a long way toward building the intermodal station, developing K & R Streets, ect. The possibilities are endless, and I think it's at least worth exploring.
If McCarthy said that it shows just what a knucklehead he is. Without an arena deal there's no compelling purpose for the city to hand over public parking to private operators and no great incentive for the private operators to pay out $250m.

So the next question is when are they going to announce that they are moving?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2858  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2012, 7:16 PM
Web Web is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 523
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozone View Post
If McCarthy said that it shows just what a knucklehead he is. Without an arena deal there's no compelling purpose for the city to hand over public parking to private operators and no great incentive for the private operators to pay out $250m.

So the next question is when are they going to announce that they are moving?
They can't afford to move unless a sugar daddy helps.

they owe the money for pbp
they owe the league
they will have to pay relocation fee which could be ginormous now

my question is when they miss payroll
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2859  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2012, 1:12 AM
Pistola916 Pistola916 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO/SACRAMENTO
Posts: 632
Kings co-owner wants mayor removed from arena negotiations
By J. Michael Falgoust, USA TODAY

To work out a deal with the city of Sacramento for a new entertainment complex for the Kings, co-owner George Maloof would like to hit the reset button with one key figure absent.

"I don't think I'd want to negotiate with the mayor," Maloof told USA TODAY Sports on Saturday. "Maybe there's someone else that I'd feel more comfortable with.

"We're disappointed in comments made by the mayor that we feel were shots to us that were unfair and not truthful."

Mayor Kevin Johnson has yet to be reached for comment Saturday. Phone and email messages were left with his spokesman, Joaquin McPeek.

Johnson, who ended talks on Friday in New York, had harsh words for the Maloof brothers, Gavin, Joe and George, since this process began a year ago. He said they weren't trustworthy and backed out of the deal in the 11th hour after the city council approved a non-binding term sheet a month ago.

Johnson said the Maloofs demanded a deal Friday where they wouldn't put up any collateral. George Maloof, however, said that was misleading.

"Yes, that's true," he said of the no-collateral demand, which Maloof claimed was brought up in Orlando during All-Star weekend and Feb. 27 when the sides announced they were on the path to an agreement. "Everybody knew that Day 1. I don't know why they're surprised about that yesterday. … If he's using that to walk away, that's not right."

The Kings were on the verge of moving to Anaheim until Johnson stepped in, dissuaded them from filing relocation papers and tried to work out a deal for a $391 million entertainment complex near downtown.

After Friday's meeting during the NBA's Board of Governors, Johnson declared the deal "dead" and brushed off the Maloofs' suggestion for the city to consider help revamping Power Balance Pavilion, where the Kings have played since moving there in 1985.

"We were trying to come up with different ways to get things done in Sacramento and that was one way that we thought. But if he's not interested in it — although I think it's a good one — I would save the city a lot of risk," George Maloof said. "If they're not interested, then we understand.

"We all feel we can play in Power Balance. We are still open to discuss anything with the city that they want to discuss with a new arena."

But Johnson's presence isn't preferred.

The NBA was in the middle of the negotiations, and Commissioner David Stern accepted the Maloofs' decision to not go through with the deal. But he was disappointed it took so long. Like Johnson, he questioned the relevance of using economist Christopher Thornberg, who advised the Maloofs against taking the deal.

Thornberg is a founding partner of Beacon Economics and considered a expert in regional economies and real estate.

Maloof reiterated that their decision to pull out late was because they only had eight business days to evaluate the terms, which included Anschutz Entertainment Group as the operator of the proposed city-owned facility, before the city's March 1 deadline to provide a financing plan to the NBA.

"We never received a response from our term sheet. I'm not throwing David under the bus at all, (but) you can't pull out of something until you hear from the other side," Maloof said. "It's pretty normal. We were very vocal on our displeasure on many specific terms. We felt the deal wasn't a good deal, not only for us but for the city."

On Feb. 28, the day after reaching a non-binding framework for a deal in Orlando, Joe and Gavin Maloof stood at center court of a Kings home game vs. the Utah Jazz. Johnson was in the middle and all three were hand-in-hand as they were saluted by huge ovation.

"There were smiles because it was a positive thing we were moving towards, working things out, but we knew there was a lot to be done," George Maloof said. "At that point, the actual term sheet itself was still being worked on and I hadn't seen until the night my brothers were seen at the basketball game with Kevin Johnson. At that time I was headed back to Las Vegas and I was receiving the next version of the term sheet and again had major issues with it and I let the league know about it."

In less than a week, the wheels began to come off.

Letters obtained by USA TODAY Sports show that on March 5, Maloofs attorney Scott Zolke sent a one-page letter to City Attorney Eileen M. Teichert and asked that they address "the unresolved issues." The next night, the Sacramento city council approved the non-binding term sheet between the Maloofs, the city and AEG.

On March 28, Zolke sent a one-page letter to Assistant City Manager John Dangberg that emphasizes "there was never an agreement reached" in Orlando and mentions the "the unresolved issues" again.

In an April 2, six-page letter to Dangberg, Zolke writes that "the City has yet to solidify a financing plan" and questions if a facility can be built in time to open for the 2015-16 season.

Though Johnson said most of this was news to him, George Maloof insists that Stern's office informed him.

"We were working with the league. The league was working with the city throughout the whole year," he said. "It was our understanding that everything was getting to the city. … That was told to us by the league."

Stern acknowledged the he had communicated the Maloofs' concerns to Johnson and the city at a press conference Friday.

"What we told the Maloofs when they raised those issues is that they will be raised on their behalf with the city in the negotiations," Stern said. "And although we were not sure we could get any of them, we did get some of them, and this was a hard-fought negotiation. And so the city had all — and AEG had all of the concerns that had been expressed. And indeed many, most were rejected but some relatively important ones were addressed."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2860  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2012, 2:36 AM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baske...ons/54281730/1

The first link for the story is priceless: "Thats funny because Sacramento Kings fans want George Maloof removed from negotiations"
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West > Sacramento Area
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:02 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.