HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #2941  
Old Posted Mar 18, 2013, 10:19 PM
jbradway jbradway is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schmoe View Post
The first part of our post is not new news. That came out a week ago, and frankly, AEG's funding isn't needed since no one has to help the broke-ass Maloofs bridge the funding gap now.

The second part is a fallacy. There's no reason AEG couldn't run the arena just because it isn't contributing to its construction. AEG manages many venues it didn't help build.
Yeah this is not news. Known for a long while now that Burkle was going to form some sort of arena management group to operate the arena on behalf of the city. Burkle and Mastrov will have to fill whatever gap was left by AEG.

I expect to see the city contribution around the same 252 million as last year and the team/arena portion to fill in the remaining. Not sure if they will split the Kings and arena management specifically, but it would make sense. So if the arena cost is 400 million, then the non-city portion is 148 - 150 million.

Plus Burkle is expected to start up non-arena development for DTP and K street at the same time. Word is the city is going to donate some of the property on K street as part of the city contribution.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2942  
Old Posted Mar 18, 2013, 11:15 PM
travis bickle travis bickle is offline
silly slackergeek
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 470
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbradway View Post
Yeah this is not news. Known for a long while now that Burkle was going to form some sort of arena management group to operate the arena on behalf of the city. Burkle and Mastrov will have to fill whatever gap was left by AEG.

I expect to see the city contribution around the same 252 million as last year and the team/arena portion to fill in the remaining. Not sure if they will split the Kings and arena management specifically, but it would make sense. So if the arena cost is 400 million, then the non-city portion is 148 - 150 million.

Plus Burkle is expected to start up non-arena development for DTP and K street at the same time. Word is the city is going to donate some of the property on K street as part of the city contribution.
Yes but it is so much more fun for some to rain on parades than it is to shine the light of optimism upon them...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2943  
Old Posted Mar 19, 2013, 4:53 AM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schmoe View Post
The first part of our post is not new news. That came out a week ago, and frankly, AEG's funding isn't needed since no one has to help the broke-ass Maloofs bridge the funding gap now.

The second part is a fallacy. There's no reason AEG couldn't run the arena just because it isn't contributing to its construction. AEG manages many venues it didn't help build.
Maybe you missed the part where "AEG is not part of the plan to build a new downtown arena" according to the city manager?

The story just came out in the Business Journal today. I heard that AEG was no longer for sale, but not that they wouldn't be involved in the arena project. AEG was providing the funds in return for a guaranteed return as the arena operator, like their deal in Kansas City, not providing gap funding to the Malooven.

I thought Mastrov was putting together the team bid and Burkle building the arena? Two separate pots of money there.

I take no pleasure in watching our elected officials and city manager flailing so wildly trying to make this look less like the trainwreck that it is. There really are more important things to worry about.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2944  
Old Posted Mar 19, 2013, 5:34 AM
jbradway jbradway is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
Maybe you missed the part where "AEG is not part of the plan to build a new downtown arena" according to the city manager?

The story just came out in the Business Journal today. I heard that AEG was no longer for sale, but not that they wouldn't be involved in the arena project. AEG was providing the funds in return for a guaranteed return as the arena operator, like their deal in Kansas City, not providing gap funding to the Malooven.

I thought Mastrov was putting together the team bid and Burkle building the arena? Two separate pots of money there.

I take no pleasure in watching our elected officials and city manager flailing so wildly trying to make this look less like the trainwreck that it is. There really are more important things to worry about.
Both parties have interests in both the team and the arena. It was only announced as a separate interest because of the Maloofs claim to never sell Burkle the team. It allows the Maloofs to save face on a potential sale.

As for your final comments, well that is your opinion of the situation. You don't consider this project important, so to you it's a waste of time. A great many people don't share that opinion. A few people have made some good points and the fallback response of "more important things" card gets played.

If you get your way, those of us who do support this will probably move along and then you can get back to discussing why nothing ever gets built downtown. Ironic, huh?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2945  
Old Posted Mar 19, 2013, 10:48 AM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
Shh! Nobody tell the Maloofs that Ron Burkle is actually involved in this deal!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2946  
Old Posted Mar 19, 2013, 4:38 PM
innov8's Avatar
innov8 innov8 is offline
Kodachrome
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: livinginurbansac.blogspot
Posts: 5,079
Quote:
Originally Posted by travis bickle View Post
Yes but it is so much more fun for some to rain on parades than it is to shine the light of optimism upon them...
Shouldn’t being a realest about what’s actually possible and what’s not be on
everyone’s mind? The idea that the Mayor can rule by decree and use
30 to 50 years of future parking revenue for a new arena without a public
vote is laughable. But we all know that JK does not want a vote because he
knows Sacramento residents will vote it down, but if he tries to privatize
city parking spots with a declaration, lawsuits will stop the process and push
the arena building effort a year or further down the road. By that time, the
NBA will be done with Sacramento for sure if they aren’t already. 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
     
     
  #2947  
Old Posted Mar 19, 2013, 5:32 PM
jbradway jbradway is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by innov8 View Post
Shouldn’t being a realest about what’s actually possible and what’s not be on
everyone’s mind? The idea that the Mayor can rule by decree and use
30 to 50 years of future parking revenue for a new arena without a public
vote is laughable.
But we all know that JK does not want a vote because he
knows Sacramento residents will vote it down, but if he tries to privatize
city parking spots with a declaration, lawsuits will stop the process and push
the arena building effort a year or further down the road. By that time, the
NBA will be done with Sacramento for sure if they aren’t already. 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.
The parking might not be privatized. Several on the council have expressed concern about the 30 to 50 years without control. I've heard from a few sources that they are leaning towards revenue bonds with the parking revenues instead. I urge you to attend one of the meetings later this week to learn more about the term sheet. Then we can discuss this with some facts and not toss accusations out based on speculation.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2948  
Old Posted Mar 19, 2013, 6:27 PM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sacramento California
Posts: 2,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by travis bickle View Post
The idea that San Diego’s East Village, the area to the immediate north and east of Petco Park was “up and coming” before the ballpark opened is laughably ignorant using anything other than the most absurd definitions of “up and coming.”

For example: I worked on two projects east of 7th Ave (and if you really know “a little” about the town, then you know what that means) before Petco was built. They totaled 27 units (both were three stories) and we were considered leaders and pioneers in the area.

Contrast that with west of 7th (Gaslamp, Marina, Little Italy) where we had five projects with over 300 total units and were just one of many firms doing work in these areas of downtown San Diego.

Today in the East Village, high-rises are common. All of them have been built post Petco with the exception of one, which was built to the immediate north of Petco once the project had been approved and passed all of the legal challenges.

Petco didn’t locate in downtown because of the housing boom. In fact, it is precisely the opposite. The housing boom was a result of an attractive lifestyle afforded downtown residents of which Petco played one of two crucial roles (the other being the opening of the convention center in 1987).

An arena (or other similar catalyst) would help provide the same for downtown Sacramento.

And while you may want to bet your nickles that all people moving to downtown San Diego would have done so with or without Petco, I can tell you unequivocally that most would not have had the opportunity to move downtown as developers wouldn’t have risked so many billions of dollars to build the thousands of residential units without Petco Park there.

To seriously think otherwise is, well, “ridiculous.”
You are obviously proud of what your company has done. Good for you. But there's no need to be a dik about it. As I said I grew up there so I still think of the whole area 'south of downtown' as a single area -before there was the wide-spread dissection of downtown into more marketable districts. The Gaslamp Quarter probably started that trend. But the East Village is a relatively recent invention. So forgive me if I did not properly explain to you what I meant by the area that was 'up and coming'. In my out-of-date mind the marina is part of that area and since the Convention Center was built in 1989, the Marriott was built in late 1980's and the Harbor Club - twin 41-story condo towers were built in the early 1990's -I don't consider my statement laughably ignorant.

But let's get to the heart of it. By bringing up Petco you are making the argument that if we build a downtown arena we should expect to achieve similar success that San Diego did with their downtown ballpark. And I'm saying that the two situations have very little in common so it's an unreasonable supposition. Just because it all worked out beside the sunny San Diego Bay doesn't mean it will happen here in Sacramento.

"If you build it, they will come" may work in the movies but it doesn't always worked in real life...including in San Diego. Sure developers created a ton of condo and hotel units but it has taken years to fill them. It the meantime the whole project was a drain on the city’s general fund. You're right there was a lot of private investment, however, much of it was generated by the government subsidies. A former city attorney for San Diego even admitted that very few of the condos were built because of the ballpark itself. The subsidies, not the ballpark, is what really enticed builders to build the condo towers in the East Village. If there had been a market for them there, they would have been built without a ballpark or subsidies. That being the case I'd rather the city just subsidize downtown housing and forget the arena. Let the owners/investors pay for the arena. Besides I think it is unrealistically optimistic to imagine that an enclosed arena will entice people to live downtown like an open-air baseball park does.

Last edited by ozone; Mar 19, 2013 at 11:49 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2949  
Old Posted Mar 19, 2013, 6:51 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 wburg View Post
The story just came out in the Business Journal today.
I believe Fox 40 reported it on Friday citing Burkle as its source.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2950  
Old Posted Mar 19, 2013, 7:52 PM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sacramento California
Posts: 2,270
@Schmoe -is your avatar Peter Keats?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2951  
Old Posted Mar 19, 2013, 7:56 PM
jbradway jbradway is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozone View Post
You are obviously proud of what your company has done. Good for you. But there's no need to be a dik about it. As I said I grew up there so I still think of the whole area 'south of downtown' as a single area -before there was the wide-spread dissection of downtown into more marketable districts. The Gaslamp Quarter probably started that trend. But the East Village is a relatively recent invention. So forgive me if I wasn't clear enough for you when I said the area was 'up and coming'. In my out-of-date mind the marina is part of that area and since the Convention Center was built in 1989, the Marriott was built in late 1980's and the Harbor Club towers - twin 41-story condos were built in the early 1990's I don't consider my statement laughably ignorant.

But let's get to the heart of your argument. By bringing up Petco you are making the argument that if we build a downtown arena we should expect to achieve similar success that San Diego did with their downtown ballpark. And I'm saying that the two situations have very little in common so it's an unreasonable supposition. Just because it all worked out beside the sunny San Diego Bay doesn't mean it will happen here in Sacramento.

"If you build it, they will come" may work in the movies but it doesn't always worked in real life...including in San Diego. Sure developers created a ton of condo and hotel units but it has taken years to fill them. It the meantime the whole project was a drain on the city’s general fund. You're right there was a lot of private investment, however, much of it was generated by the government subsidies. A former city attorney for San Diego even admitted that very few of the condos were built because of the ballpark itself. The subsidies, not the ballpark, is what really enticed builders to build the condo towers in the East Village. If there had been a market for them there, they would have been built without a ballpark or subsidies. That being the case I'd rather the city just subsidize downtown housing and forget the arena. Let the owners/investors pay for the arena. Besides I think it is unrealistically optimistic to imagine that an enclosed arena will entice people to live downtown like an open-air baseball park does.
You do realize that the parking subsidy has to be backed by revenue that is coming from the arena. No arena - no subsidy. Back to business as usual like the last 10 years. Good luck getting condos built unless you actually plan to subsidize their rent living there too.

There is joint development with the arena on the private side. It's not all city money building it everything.

Actually arenas are better than ballparks in my opinion. The average events for the anchor tenant in similar arenas are well under 40%. Ball parks and stadiums are in the upper 90% range in comparison. So you might just hate the Kings and the NBA, but there are +60% other events that any big city should have and enjoy.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2952  
Old Posted Mar 19, 2013, 8:51 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 ozone View Post
@Schmoe -is your avatar Peter Keats?
No idea! He was just some NIMBY at a public meeting I attended with a few of our Sactown forumers. I snuck a picture of him.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2953  
Old Posted Mar 19, 2013, 10:52 PM
snfenoc's Avatar
snfenoc snfenoc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Steve in East Sac
Posts: 1,141
Before I begin... I am aware that supposedly city dollars are not part of the bid for the Kings franchise. However, both the bid for the team and the push to build an arena (which the city is very much a part of) are inextricably linked. In addition, both processes illustrate major problems with the economic theories that rule today.

Anyway, I've been trying to stay out of this for two reasons. One, I have no clue what is really going on. There are probably a bunch of groups involved (each with their collective hands out), and I doubt any are acting in good faith. Therefore, I am not going to get too hot and bothered over something I cannot fully understand, control or predict. Second, I don't really care if the Kings stay or go. The team is fun, but so are lots of other things in the area. Rather than spend $100 on tickets, $10 on parking and $30 on horrible food, I guess I'll just have to use that money (probably half that) to take my date out: Visit a decent restaurant, hit a couple clubs and then head home and get laid. Yeah, that seems like an OK alternative.



We are talking about spreading the risk to tax payers instead of developers and NBA owners. I think both groups have demonstrated an unwillingness to take responsibility for their projects or their teams. They want to collect all the money, but they don't want to take a lot of risk. Developers want large portions of their buildings paid for by the public, because construction/land costs have outstripped the ability for buyers and renters to pay for them, and developers are unwilling/unable to lower costs. In college I took a few economics classes for fun. (Yes, I know this does not make me an expert, so shut it) One of my professors used to say the cure for high prices is............................high prices. As costs reach the stratosphere, people stop buying and the economy tanks, prices are supposed to come down enough to match what consumers can afford. Sadly, with all of the easy credit and big government, we have found cute little ways around natural economic processes. Rather than letting the correction occur, we just keep things inflated...artificially. The results include power being concentrated in the hands of a few, and our tax dollars and "good" credit lining the pockets of developers and sports owners. The previous bid by the Mastrov/Burkle group was enough to meet the Maloof's standards, so it should have been enough to please the NBA. However, it clearly was not enough to meet the standards of NBA ownership - Commissioner David Stern said Sacramento needed to increase its bid. Of course, it makes perfect sense that one of the worst franchises in modern sports history, a franchise that can only turn a modest profit with crappy players, an even crappier arena and generous profit sharing, should be bid up to way over half a billion dollars. Well, as long as we have our priorities straight...



I keep hearing the Mayor use the phrase, "World Class City". What does he mean by that? So a downtown arena will make us world class? During the month of November, I spent a great deal of time in the midwest - Cincinnati, specifically. It is a nice town. I was impressed. It has a neat mall. It has an enclosed skywalk that connects many of the downtown buildings. Of course, fountain square is cool. Most importantly, it has an arena, a baseball park and a football stadium. These stadiums are downtown and they are on the waterfront. So..........Cincinnati is clearly a world class city. Uh, nope. Not even close. After less than a week in Cincy, I began to get really bored, so my friend and I drove to Chicago. On the way, we stopped off in Indianapolis, home of the Conseco Fieldhouse and Lucas Oil Stadium. Conseco was built by the city in 1999 to retain the NBA Pacers for $183 million ($256 million in today's dollars). Lucas Oil Stadium was built mostly by the city in 2008 to retain Peyton Manning of the NFL Colts for $720 million ($777 million in today's dollars). Indianapolis has two gorgeous stadiums downtown So it must be world class, right? Wrong. This fact was hammered home as soon as I stepped foot in Chicago - a real world class city.

So what is this all about? Use a slick politician in KJ to exploit the public's civic pride, extract money from them, and then give that public money to developers and NBA owners.

Ever wonder why the rich remain rich and we remain poor? They are smart enough exploit us, and we are stupid enough to let ourselves get exploited.

I was 5 when the Kings relocated to Sacramento. The organization has certainly brought me enjoyment. I will miss the team if it relocates to Seattle. The organization was a nice addition to our city. However, sports franchises are a luxury. When a luxury starts pulling you under, you gotta let go. The only way to break the cycle of lunacy is walk away, so I am done with this silliness.
__________________
Sincerely,
Steve in East Sac

Last edited by snfenoc; Mar 19, 2013 at 11:30 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2954  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2013, 1:07 AM
NikeFutbolero's Avatar
NikeFutbolero NikeFutbolero is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 98
I never thought there would be this many NINBYS on these forums. It's a shame they want to prevent any growth from the city.
__________________
SAN FRANCISCO 49ERS
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2955  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2013, 2:36 AM
snfenoc's Avatar
snfenoc snfenoc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Steve in East Sac
Posts: 1,141
NIMBY = Not In My Backyard

NIMBYs are against development near where they live due to a false belief that they are entitled to a static environment.


I am fine with an arena being built. Heck, build 12 arenas for all I care. I just have one request.....no public subsidies for developers and the NBA. That's it. I am happy with development. I am just not in favor of central economic planning.
__________________
Sincerely,
Steve in East Sac
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2956  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2013, 2:45 AM
NME22 NME22 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by NikeFutbolero View Post
I never thought there would be this many NINBYS on these forums. It's a shame they want to prevent any growth from the city.
They want growth. Just as long as it's what they are intetested in. Mostly more houses. A couple of trees here and there. Dog park.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2957  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2013, 3:53 AM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sacramento California
Posts: 2,270
What? Bullsh@t. Hardly a NIMBY. You should really know what that means before using the term. Nor against building a new arena- just don't believe the hype. And do not I trust the politicians. Sorry if you expect everyone to agree with you on the Kings/Arena/KJ. BTW anyone, yes even you, is a potential NIMBY given the right circumstance. But in this case, just because I'm not a fan of Kool Aid doesn't make me a NIMBY.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2958  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2013, 4:12 AM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbradway View Post
You do realize that the parking subsidy has to be backed by revenue that is coming from the arena. No arena - no subsidy. Back to business as usual like the last 10 years. Good luck getting condos built unless you actually plan to subsidize their rent living there too.
Well, not really. The $9 million a year from public parking is the amount currently generated by public parking lots and spaces (in 2011, the revenue from public parking was $8.9 million), and it currently goes to the city's general fund. It is the expectation that this $9 million can be redirected to pay off a construction bond, and other revenues can hopefully be used to backfill that $9 million.

The estimated increased parking revenue due to arena events were already spoken for in last year's term sheet--on Kings game days, the money would have gone to the Maloofs (and presumably to the Kings operator if not the Maloofs) and on non-game event days, parking revenue goes to the city (which would pay back about 10% of that lost $9 million revenue.) The other estimated fiscal benefits from the arena (sales tax, ticket sales fees, property taxes, etc.) are supposed to backfill the other 90% of that lost parking revenue. But they're based on some really rosy best-case-scenario numbers. If you went to a bank with that sort of pro forma asking for a loan, you'd be asked to leave while security was throwing you out onto the sidewalk.

A construction bond for $255 million at 5% interest over 30 years (the estimated life of an arena) would require payments of about $16 million a year. Available parking revenue of $9 million a year leaves the city $7 million short. And an arena on top of either half of Downtown Plaza would require the loss of a significant chunk of those city parking lots, which means that $9 million becomes more like $8 million. And the potential operating partner who had promised $50-60 million is out of the deal, increasing the needed amount to over $300 million. The potential revenue is shrinking while the potential debt is growing. For those keeping score, that means this deal is worse, not better, than last year's dreadfully bad deal.

Quote:
There is joint development with the arena on the private side. It's not all city money building it everything.
Exactly how much private money? So far we haven't seen a firm offer of any sort yet, and the only organization that had ever agreed to a specific dollar amount, AEG, is officially out of the deal.

I'm not anti-arena or anti-kings. I'm pro-math. This deal doesn't add up--we deserve one that does. Send it back to the kitchen--I want one that is "well done," and this is somewhere between "raw deal" and "half-baked."

Last edited by wburg; Mar 20, 2013 at 5:13 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2959  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2013, 5:27 AM
jbradway jbradway is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
Well, not really. The $9 million a year from public parking is the amount currently generated by public parking lots and spaces (in 2011, the revenue from public parking was $8.9 million), and it currently goes to the city's general fund. It is the expectation that this $9 million can be redirected to pay off a construction bond, and other revenues can hopefully be used to backfill that $9 million.

The estimated increased parking revenue due to arena events were already spoken for in last year's term sheet--on Kings game days, the money would have gone to the Maloofs (and presumably to the Kings operator if not the Maloofs) and on non-game event days, parking revenue goes to the city (which would pay back about 10% of that lost $9 million revenue.) The other estimated fiscal benefits from the arena (sales tax, ticket sales fees, property taxes, etc.) are supposed to backfill the other 90% of that lost parking revenue. But they're based on some really rosy best-case-scenario numbers. If you went to a bank with that sort of pro forma asking for a loan, you'd be asked to leave while security was throwing you out onto the sidewalk.

However, a construction bond for $255 million at 5% interest would require payments of about $16 million a year. And an arena on top of either half of Downtown Plaza would require the loss of a significant chunk of those city parking lots, which means that $9 million becomes more like $8 million. The potential revenue is shrinking while the potential debt is growing. For those keeping score, that means this deal is worse, not better, than last year's dreadfully bad deal.


Exactly how much private money? So far we haven't seen a firm offer of any sort yet, and the only organization that had ever agreed to a specific dollar amount, AEG, is officially out of the deal.

I'm not anti-arena or anti-kings. I'm pro-math. This deal doesn't add up--we deserve one that does. Send it back to the kitchen--I want one that is "well done," and this is somewhere between "raw deal" and "half-baked."
I think you went off on a tangent there. You quoted me and then turned left. Nothing I said was wrong. The parking deal only works if the arena is built. The revenue to pay off the revenue bonds will likely come from a few sources that really only exist if the arena is built.

Really don't know until we see the term sheet on Thursday. But why wait, just pronounce it all half baked and raw deal before you ever read the thing. But yeah, you aren't anti anything.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2960  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2013, 5:33 AM
NME22 NME22 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 133
Why does this AEG topic keep coming up? It's irrelevant. AEG offered money last time because the Maloofs didn't have enough. Burkle and Mastrov don't have that problem, so AEG is not needed to help fund the arena. That's not a negative thing. It's positive.

Term sheet comes out Thursday. You'll have plenty to complain about then without having to create some story about this being a failure because AEG's money isn't needed.
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 6:28 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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