HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #2901  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2013, 1:20 PM
NikeFutbolero's Avatar
NikeFutbolero NikeFutbolero is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
If Sacramento is somehow able to match Seattle's bid, that means Seattle has more reason to raise their own bid. Stern wants this price war to bid up as high as possible, so of course he isn't going to do or say anything to dissuade either team from jacking their bid as high as possible in a bidding war. The higher the bid goes, the more money they get, and what is most important to the NBA is not whether the team goes to Seattle or Sacramento, but how much money goes to the NBA. A higher bid for the Kings raises the potential value of every NBA team--and their perceived value to potential host cities (and potential former host cities.)
You're very misinformed. The Seattle group's bid is in and has been sent to the NBA and cannot be modified so therefore there isn't any bidding war going on.
__________________
SAN FRANCISCO 49ERS
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2902  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2013, 5:05 PM
Schmoe's Avatar
Schmoe Schmoe is offline
NIMBY Hater
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 1,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by NikeFutbolero View Post
The Seattle group's bid is in and has been sent to the NBA and cannot be modified so therefore there isn't any bidding war going on.

This is true. There are no modifications to the terms of the signed agreement. The Hansen/Ballmer group has a signed agreement. It can't be modified. Right now there are only two questions to be answered: 1) Will the NBA Board of Governors (the 30 owners) approve the sale of the franchise to the Seattle ownership group, and 2) will the BOG approve also, in a separate vote, approve this group's proposed move of the franchise to Seattle.

KJ is helping another group submit a competing offer for the Board of Governors to consider when deciding whether or not to approve the sale and move to Seattle. If there is no competing options, the team is gone. Done deal. But with a competitive local offer in place, the NBA owners would be more likely to deny the request to move the team. They would likely approve the sale to the Seattle ownership group, but this group would almost certainly back out of that deal if the NBA would not approve the move.

Moving an NBA franchise out of a city where the team is supported and there is a deal to build a new arena WITH A LARGE CONTRIBUTION OF PUBLIC MONEY is unprecedented. So an offer from a group wanting to keep the team in Sacramento would almost certainly result in the BOG not approving a move of the team.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2903  
Old Posted Mar 13, 2013, 12:37 AM
NME22 NME22 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
If Sacramento is somehow able to match Seattle's bid, that means Seattle has more reason to raise their own bid. Stern wants this price war to bid up as high as possible, so of course he isn't going to do or say anything to dissuade either team from jacking their bid as high as possible in a bidding war. The higher the bid goes, the more money they get, and what is most important to the NBA is not whether the team goes to Seattle or Sacramento, but how much money goes to the NBA. A higher bid for the Kings raises the potential value of every NBA team--and their perceived value to potential host cities (and potential former host cities.)
Though Seattle is not able to change their purchase price any further, your point that the NBA is taking advantage of this situation is true. The feeling I get is that the NBA wants to stay in Sacramento. But they see an opportunity to raise the value of all of the teams with this ridiculous purchase price that Seattle has put out there. Stern is basically saying to Mastrov/Burkle, if you want me to back you in buying the Kings, then you have to help me by raising the value of all the teams in the league. The previous bid isn't enough. Try again. Seems like a classic case of you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.

It's a greedy game Stern is playing. However, it has no effect on the city of Sacramento in terms of how much money they will put into the arena project, as I believe sac city is maxed out.

Last edited by NME22; Mar 13, 2013 at 1:59 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2904  
Old Posted Mar 13, 2013, 1:36 AM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sacramento California
Posts: 2,270
I don't have a dog in the fight financially but all this is so nerve wracking. And I'm not even a very big Kings fan. Being in my 40's and originally from So Cal I still hold a candle for my first love the Lakers. Don't hate me. But as a Sacramentan now I feel the pain. So I'll just be drunk and stoned until it's over -thank you.

Last edited by ozone; Mar 13, 2013 at 3:31 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2905  
Old Posted Mar 13, 2013, 4:32 PM
innov8's Avatar
innov8 innov8 is offline
Kodachrome
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: livinginurbansac.blogspot
Posts: 5,079
Quote:
Originally Posted by NME22 View Post
To your previous point, I don't doubt that you know people who told you that KJ was not really trying to save the Kings, but score political points. I've heard that thrown out there. However, with all the animosity that people have towards the Maloofs, he doesn't need to go through all this for political points. Just blame the Maloofs. Problem solved. In fact, what he is doing is actually potentially more dangerous to his political career. He's almost guaranteeing in public that the Kings will stay. He's putting it on his own shoulders. Politicians take the credit for things that are successful and blame others for things that are not. KJ has already taken ownership of this Kings situation. It's not in his best interest to lose the team.
KJ has almost guaranteed a new arena in public the last couple years, but
that did not change the outcome. He also took ownership of both
“Plan A & B” to build an arena last year and they both failed. JK lives and
breathes basketball, so his sole focus on this is to be expected.
After watching the city for more than ten years try and build a new arena
but fall short every time, this last minute scramble to present an offer and
guarantee a new downtown arena seems delusional. I hope KJ can hit the
full-court shot; in this case, that’s all he’s got.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2906  
Old Posted Mar 13, 2013, 11:26 PM
NME22 NME22 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by innov8 View Post
KJ has almost guaranteed a new arena in public the last couple years, but
that did not change the outcome. He also took ownership of both
“Plan A & B” to build an arena last year and they both failed. JK lives and
breathes basketball, so his sole focus on this is to be expected.
After watching the city for more than ten years try and build a new arena
but fall short every time, this last minute scramble to present an offer and
guarantee a new downtown arena seems delusional. I hope KJ can hit the
full-court shot; in this case, that’s all he’s got.
2 years ago KJ said we would keep the Kings in Sacramento and get a city council approved arena. He put together an approved arena plan for the Maloofs, but they couldn't afford it. Now KJ has a new investment group willing to help build the arena and buy the team. The team is still here. Arena plan still here. Where has he failed?

If KJ lived and breathed basketball, he'd be working for some NBA organization right now. He's a politician. He just happens to be using his basketball connection to save a 1,000 jobs and kickstart downtown development.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2907  
Old Posted Mar 13, 2013, 11:36 PM
jbradway jbradway is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozone View Post
Here's a quick crude concept I came up with this morning.



When considering what's around the downtown plaza I thought it would be better to put the arena along L Street rather than J. I'd use St Rose "park" to move people around the arena. I don't really see how that section of L Street could be be greatly improved. But if streetscape improvements were made along J Street, 4th, 5th and 7th streets it could work out really well.
Pretty close to the 2004 concept study.



Obviously they planned on removing the Marshall Hotel and I'm not certain if that is part of the current plan.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2908  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2013, 3:54 AM
ltsmotorsport's Avatar
ltsmotorsport ltsmotorsport is offline
Here we stAy
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Parkway Pauper
Posts: 8,064
Doesn't look like it (from the newer schematic, the arena is right on 5th street, the older is right on 7th), and that would be a huge mistake anyway. There was a great plan a few years ago to totally overhaul the Marshall and make it a boutique hotel...would love to see that surface again.
__________________
Riding out the crazy train
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2909  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2013, 5:10 AM
jbradway jbradway is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 138
FYI from the city:

You are invited to attend an open house on the Entertainment and Sports Center Project

Get a project overview, talk to key project staff¬, and provide feedback on the opportunities this project presents to Sacramento.

Open house details

March 21, 2013
5:30 - 7:30 p.m.

New City Hall Foyer
915 I Street, Sacramento, CA
6 p.m. welcome by the City Manager
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2910  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2013, 3:59 PM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sacramento California
Posts: 2,270
Honesty I think this is all academic. I have a strong feeling that by mid-April the Sacramento Kings will be history.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2911  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2013, 5:55 PM
Pistola916 Pistola916 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO/SACRAMENTO
Posts: 632
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozone View Post
Honesty I think this is all academic. I have a strong feeling that by mid-April the Sacramento Kings will be history.
I think the Kings will be here for another 30 years. What happens happens. Will see.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2912  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2013, 9:07 PM
innov8's Avatar
innov8 innov8 is offline
Kodachrome
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: livinginurbansac.blogspot
Posts: 5,079
Common sense would say it ends here till a public vote it taken… but the Mayor and City Manager will press on anyway, just watch.


Legal Challenges To Arena Plan Arise; Law Firms Exercise Right To Public Vote

Isaac Gonzalez -- 03/14/2013 01:44 PM —
http://ransackedmedia.com/2013/03/14...b_source=pubv1

Two local legal firms have delivered a strongly worded warning letter to Assistant City Manager John Dangberg, promising legal action against the proposed downtown arena, ranSACkedmedia has learned.

The offices of Soluri Meserve and Cohen Durrett, LLP, jointly presented Dangberg, the mayor, each councilmember and the city attorney with an 11-page document outlining four major points where they say the city is breaking the law and violating the public trust in its latest arena crusade.

The points are described as follows:
1.A Significant Public Subsidy Cannot by Justified by Reference to Catalyzing Economic Development
2.A Subsidized Arena Should be Approved by the Voters
3.The Subsidy May Constitute an Unlawful Gift of Public Funds
4.The City May be Violating CEQA by Committing to an Arena Subsidy Prior to Environmental Review

The two firms also made clear that if the council chooses to forward with a public subsidy without a vote by the people on the matter, that they would exercise the right to referendum to force a public vote on the deal.

Every argument in the document is backed with sourced information and legal precedents.

You can read the letter in its entirely at http://ransackedmedia.com/2013/03/14...b_source=pubv1.

Last edited by innov8; Mar 14, 2013 at 9:18 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2913  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2013, 3:09 AM
ltsmotorsport's Avatar
ltsmotorsport ltsmotorsport is offline
Here we stAy
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Parkway Pauper
Posts: 8,064
Quote:
Originally Posted by innov8 View Post
The points are described as follows:
1.A Significant Public Subsidy Cannot by Justified by Reference to Catalyzing Economic Development
2.A Subsidized Arena Should be Approved by the Voters
3.The Subsidy May Constitute an Unlawful Gift of Public Funds
4.The City May be Violating CEQA by Committing to an Arena Subsidy Prior to Environmental Review
1)Wrong. At&t Park in SF and the Staples Center in LA have done wonders for their surroundings AFTER and BECAUSE of their development. On top of these examples, we've already hear from developers with adjacent properties/projects who are waiting specifically for the arena deal/project to be finalized to start their own projects.

2)Why? Redevelopment projects in the past never were, and those were heavily subsidized by public funds as well.

3)This isn't a gift to anyone but the city itself. The arena would be owned by the city.

4)This is a scare tactic. There is no precedent I'm aware of that says public funds cannot be promised to a project before the CEQA process is started. It could be argued, using this groups logic, that no public money could ever be set aside before any public work is started. Simply not reality. Further, I'm sure the city is looking into many CEQA exemption and/or streamlining options afforded to certain projects. AB 900 exemption would be the most relevant here IMO.


So simply put, I shot down this groups points with no more than 5 minutes worth of thought. I'm far from a legal expert, and can in no way assert my own rebuttals with any legal authority, but these argument presented by two teams of legal professionals are weak at best.

__________________
Riding out the crazy train
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2914  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2013, 5:04 AM
innov8's Avatar
innov8 innov8 is offline
Kodachrome
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: livinginurbansac.blogspot
Posts: 5,079
This letter was meant to raise enough doubt with David Stern and the Board of
Governors about financing that they would likely lean toward the bid that has cleared
most of these financial hurdles, which is Seattle. The Mayor and Council can’t do
whatever they want with future parking money, until there is a referendum showing
voters approve financing an arena with future parking money; this would be considered
new policy and subject to voters' approval.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2915  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2013, 6:01 AM
CAGeoNerd CAGeoNerd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 353
More "arenas/stadiums don't benefit the city" and "no public money used for anything at all" nonsense from people disconnected from reality.

Literally countless examples of stadiums/arenas benefiting cities and providing catalyst for growth. Itsmotorsport is spot on. The arguments these people put forth hold no credence whatsoever unless they wish to subject every single other thing the city spends money on to the same standards - public funds for museums, airports, parks, festivals, public transit, subsidies to restaurants and businesses, city beautification, redevelopment, planning, and on and on. Unless someone is approaching this entire list by different standards, an arena/stadium should be no different in terms of some public investment being part of making it happen.

If there is a net benefit to the city, then it is more than acceptable for some use of public funds. Why should an arena/stadium be entirely privately financed if the city stands to gain economically from it? The problem is, anti-tax crusaders do their best to convince themselves otherwise, so they can justify their staunch opposition to any sort of collectivism.

It's funny how the same standards don't apply to the dog park down the street or to the millions spent on a new airport terminal.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2916  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2013, 6:03 AM
jbradway jbradway is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by innov8 View Post
This letter was meant to raise enough doubt with David Stern and the Board of
Governors about financing that they would likely lean toward the bid that has cleared
most of these financial hurdles, which is Seattle. The Mayor and Council can’t do
whatever they want with future parking money, until there is a referendum showing
voters approve financing an arena with future parking money; this would be considered
new policy and subject to voters' approval.
They are trying the same thing in Seattle with the Port of Seattle lawsuits and the I-94 challenges. And it's not going to sway the BOG either way. In fact these Sac guys have less money to fund their efforts than the Seattle Longshoreman. So at worst that is going to cancel each other out.

Same thing as last year when STOP tried to do their petition drive for a ballot advisory to the council. The opposition group will hide out and hope the media does their work for them. There isn't much in the way of people or funding to drive this. They held a fundraiser BBQ last year and less than 10 people showed up.

The NBA does it's due diligence and have people here locally checking everything out. They knew this was coming before you heard about it today. Heck even I knew it was coming and wasn't concerned.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2917  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2013, 6:21 AM
jbradway jbradway is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAGeoNerd View Post
More "arenas/stadiums don't benefit the city" and "no public money used for anything at all" nonsense from people disconnected from reality.

...
Exactly. There is documented benefit if they build a sports and entertainment facility AND coordinate that with surrounding development that compliments the facility, it becomes a catalyst for spin off development in the surrounding area. And K Street and DTP is about as close as you can come to complimenting that.

And for those that really don't care about the NBA, in almost all cases the number of NBA events are at most 1/3 of the total events hosted each year in the arena. The rest of the events are concerts, shows, rodeos, faith related, etc. Try getting that kind of payback with an NFL or MLB stadium where +95% events are the anchor tenant.

The mall itself is never going to be that kind of catalyst to draw regional dollars. And the cold truth is that the local median income in downtown that would support a mall is much lower than the outlying region. People in Roseville, Granite Bay and Folsom have local malls anyway so you'll never draw them.

Name another regional draw project that can put 10-17 thousand people down there 150-175 times a year that won't need a significant public subsidy. None that I can think of...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2918  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2013, 3:22 PM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
10,000 more housing units would put them down there 365 days a year, and support more businesses.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2919  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2013, 5:01 PM
jbradway jbradway is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
10,000 more housing units would put them down there 365 days a year, and support more businesses.
Of course. The question is what is the incentive for those 10,000 people to move downtown? Empty store fronts are a killer.

I've read that the vacant spaces are about 5% higher in the 1/4 mile around Downtown Plaza than elsewhere in downtown. That doesn't help entice people to move down there.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2920  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2013, 5:15 PM
travis bickle travis bickle is offline
silly slackergeek
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 470
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
10,000 more housing units would put them down there 365 days a year, and support more businesses.

You can't just wave a magic wand and voila! Instant 20k more people living downtown. People have to want to move there first. Arenas and entertainment districts are reasons people might want to live downtown.

That type of catalyst development has certainly worked in San Diego, which now boasts one of the most vibrant downtowns in the nation.

It could work for Sacramento too...
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 6:30 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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