HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #3061  
Old Posted May 1, 2013, 8:12 PM
Majin's Avatar
Majin Majin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Downtown Sacramento
Posts: 2,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pistola916 View Post
I still think there's a possibility the Kings go to Seattle - just not next season. While the relocation committee urged that the Kings stay put, we still aren't sure who will own them. The committee could favor Hansen and tell them to play in Sac until their arena is resolved. Plus, the Maloofs refused to sell to Sacramento. The Kings might remain in Sacramento for one more season and reapply for relocation next year.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/sonics/201...th-sacramento/
Kings fight ain’t over — Maloofs say ‘no acceptable deal possible’ with Sacramento
That won't happen. The NBA wants this settled for good, not another year of this BS. If the NBA was willing to relocate the kings, which would happen if Hansen owns the team, they would of just approved it in the first place.

There would be no point in denying relocation but approving a Hansen sale.
__________________
Majin Crew: jsf8278, wburg, daverave
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3062  
Old Posted May 1, 2013, 8:54 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
For the life of me I can't figure out why people don't understand that if public places are closing for lack of funds, then you must generate funds to fix the problem. Public schools and public pools are takers, not money generators. So the city must find ways to generate extra income that can then be used to keep these places open or pay for more firefighters and all those causes. Not having an arena does not mean more public pools will stay open. On the other hand, investing in a project that can generate extra revenue for the city can make it possible for public places to stay open.
Have you run the numbers as to how much the city is putting into this deal
to raise additional taxes and revenue? After the $258 million bond loan is
paid off in 35 year it will actually cost $574 million with intrest. In addition,
the city is going to give the investment team several city-owned properties,
six sites for placement for digital billboards and numerous tax exemptions costing
the city an additional $126 million. The total cost to the city is now roughly $700 million.

So if you look at the big picture, the city would now have to take in an
additional $20 million a year in taxes for the next 35 years in addition to what is
normally received to break even on this $700 million investment. And to
really pile on, if the revenue from parking and the hotel tax comes up short
the city would be forced to dip into the general fund; funds would be
diverted from other priorities and opportunities the city currently supports.



Oh, and did you see this?

Sac city manager predicts deficits 'as far as the eye can see'

Budget proposal includes $9M shortfall

Read more: http://www.kcra.com/news/local-news/...#ixzz2S4r5IlQK

Last edited by innov8; May 1, 2013 at 10:06 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3063  
Old Posted May 2, 2013, 12:03 AM
NME22 NME22 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by innov8 View Post
Have you run the numbers as to how much the city is putting into this deal
to raise additional taxes and revenue? After the $258 million bond loan is
paid off in 35 year it will actually cost $574 million with intrest. In addition,
the city is going to give the investment team several city-owned properties,
six sites for placement for digital billboards and numerous tax exemptions costing
the city an additional $126 million. The total cost to the city is now roughly $700 million.

So if you look at the big picture, the city would now have to take in an
additional $20 million a year in taxes for the next 35 years in addition to what is
normally received to break even on this $700 million investment. And to
really pile on, if the revenue from parking and the hotel tax comes up short
the city would be forced to dip into the general fund; funds would be
diverted from other priorities and opportunities the city currently supports.

Oh, and did you see this?

Sac city manager predicts deficits 'as far as the eye can see'

Budget proposal includes $9M shortfall

Read more: http://www.kcra.com/news/local-news/...#ixzz2S4r5IlQK
Here is some more in that article.

"To close that current gap, Sacramento City Manager John Shirey is proposing to cut 40 unoccupied full-time jobs, which he said would save the city about $5 million"

And this.....

"Shirey said that the city's plans to use parking funds to finance a new downtown arena was not a factor in the budget.

"The arena will have zero impact on the general fund," said Shirey."

Read more: http://www.kcra.com/news/local-news/...#ixzz2S5ZezcSu
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3064  
Old Posted May 2, 2013, 4:46 PM
Majin's Avatar
Majin Majin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Downtown Sacramento
Posts: 2,221
Hey innov, remember last year after the Maloofs backed out the Arena plan, how all of a sudden the city was flush with cash again now that money wasn't going to construct an arena?

Remember how after the arena plan was dead, we still had investors willing to buy our parking spaces for $250M anyway? And then remember how we used that money build community parks, repair sidewalks, hire lots of police and firemen to become the safest city in the world?

Remember that?









































































__________________
Majin Crew: jsf8278, wburg, daverave
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3065  
Old Posted May 2, 2013, 7:47 PM
innov8's Avatar
innov8 innov8 is offline
Kodachrome
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: livinginurbansac.blogspot
Posts: 5,079
So did any of you guys hear what Sacramento's city manager, John Shirey,
said the other day? He delivered a sobering report to the City Council telling
members that the capital city is nearly $2 billion in debt and that handling it
will be an ongoing challenge. Which makes me ask again, unless there's more
than a $20 million return in taxes back to the city on top of its normal
revenue every year for the next 35 years, this deal does just the opposite
of the Mayor says will happen. When Shirey said "The arena will have zero
impact on the general fund," he was towing the company line. How could
Shirey predict 10, 20 or even 30 years out that the city would never have
to tap into the general fund?

Is this the new officially mandated standard? Sit back, rack up debt and
pretend everything is fine? Majin, what is your point? Would you invest your
personal money the same way the city is proposing? Unless you saw a high
probably that your return was $21 million a year for the next 35 years on top
of what you usually made, the smart person that you are would probably
step away and not risk it. I plainly listed above the actual numbers involved
and the amount of return the city would need annually to break even and
neither you nor NME22 were able to show where my logic was flawed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3066  
Old Posted May 2, 2013, 10:26 PM
jbradway jbradway is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 138
innov8, you had no idea of what was going on with the pools until I brought it to your attention. And when I pointed that out, you twisted it like you did know what was going on. And now you clearly Googled up and cut and pasted something Dan Walters wrote in the Bee back on January 20th and made it sound like it this was a quote from the other day.

Fuzzy fact twisting copy/paste others thoughts doesn't convince me. I've actually spoken in person with Mr. Shirey. He is in full support of this deal and has been from the beginning. He sees this as a catalyst to investment downtown and increase in tax revenue. Tax revenue which builds up the general fund.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3067  
Old Posted May 2, 2013, 11:21 PM
innov8's Avatar
innov8 innov8 is offline
Kodachrome
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: livinginurbansac.blogspot
Posts: 5,079
If you’re so aware and in the know with big wigs at city hall, why don’t you
shoot your friend Shirey an email asking him to dissect the scenario I have
laid out concerning the total sum of $700 million and list all the areas I
have misstated the facts?

Why do you feel the need to throw round people’s names in high places while
telling me I’m wrong without demonstrating how? I’ll gladly eat crow if I’m
wrong, thus far when breaking down the numbers presented, the city would
need to generate $20 million more a year on top of normal revenue to break
even over 35 years… please show where my math is wrong.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3068  
Old Posted May 3, 2013, 12:20 AM
NME22 NME22 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by innov8 View Post
So did any of you guys hear what Sacramento's city manager, John Shirey,
said the other day? He delivered a sobering report to the City Council telling
members that the capital city is nearly $2 billion in debt and that handling it
will be an ongoing challenge. Which makes me ask again, unless there's more
than a $20 million return in taxes back to the city on top of its normal
revenue every year for the next 35 years, this deal does just the opposite
of the Mayor says will happen. When Shirey said "The arena will have zero
impact on the general fund," he was towing the company line. How could
Shirey predict 10, 20 or even 30 years out that the city would never have
to tap into the general fund?

Is this the new officially mandated standard? Sit back, rack up debt and
pretend everything is fine? Majin, what is your point? Would you invest your
personal money the same way the city is proposing? Unless you saw a high
probably that your return was $21 million a year for the next 35 years on top
of what you usually made, the smart person that you are would probably
step away and not risk it. I plainly listed above the actual numbers involved
and the amount of return the city would need annually to break even and
neither you nor NME22 were able to show where my logic was flawed.
I didn't address your numbers because I am fully aware that repaying a bond requires principle plus interest. I didn't know this was new information that the city or league didn't know about. While I didn't take time to verify your numbers to see if accurate, the concept of loan repayment is solid in my mind.

The assumption we would have to make in order to get in line with your thinking is that some how no one in the city government or in the NBA cares if this arena thing doesn't pencil out. The NBA has a choice whether to move to Seattle in a new arena, or stay in Sac and build a new arena. We would have to assume the NBA would stay in Sac not knowing if it will fall apart and their franchise has nowhere to play their games. I can't make that leap because it's not in their best interest. The leagues has had their lawyers and economist pouring over all of the details.

Also, if you're going to believe that Shirey has enough grasp of the budget to accurately report where there will be a shortfall, then why would you not believe Shirey to have enough of a grasp of the budget to understand how not to affect the budget with this arena deal. Either Shirey is competent, or he's not.

You say you're giving facts, but what you're actually doing is cherry picking information that supports your theory. You're asking us to assume things that would go against common sense.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3069  
Old Posted May 3, 2013, 3:51 AM
jbradway jbradway is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by innov8 View Post
If you’re so aware and in the know with big wigs at city hall, why don’t you
shoot your friend Shirey an email asking him to dissect the scenario I have
laid out concerning the total sum of $700 million and list all the areas I
have misstated the facts?

Why do you feel the need to throw round people’s names in high places while
telling me I’m wrong without demonstrating how? I’ll gladly eat crow if I’m
wrong, thus far when breaking down the numbers presented, the city would
need to generate $20 million more a year on top of normal revenue to break
even over 35 years… please show where my math is wrong.
Haha. I just talked to him when he was doing the meetings with the public. Just go up shake a man's hand and ask questions is all. The reason I mentioned what he told me is that you made it seem like he was warning against the arena deal. He actually did nothing of the kind. So I called you on it purposely twisting what happened.

And if you want to ask him questions on the parking revenue bonds, feel free to do that yourself. You are the one making claims - not me.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3070  
Old Posted May 3, 2013, 3:13 PM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
The parking revenue bonds won't be issued by the city--in this plan, they will be issued by a newly-created "parking authority" JPA, in part because the city has so much bond debt it can't borrow that much money. As a result, the interest on those bonds will be at least a point higher than it would have been if borrowed by the city.

As to Shirey saying that the general fund wouldn't be affected, that's only the case if parking revenue reaches the absurdly high levels they had to gin up to make the deal appear to work. If parking revenue doesn't reach expected levels, the money will be backfilled with transient occupancy tax revenue, which, like parking, currently goes to the general fund.

Schools and parks are an investment--the best way to ensure a community's long-term prosperity is educated citizens, and parks have a positive effect on land value and community health. Arenas, on the other hand, are generally money losers for municipalities--the public "investment" is intended to absorb risk for the private developers and make the NBA's business model more profitable by lowering their bottom line. They're a vanity purchase, something people buy so others will think they're wealthy, not a generator of wealth.

Scoring a point is not the same as winning the game. KJ & Company scored a point, but it's a bit premature to start doing victory dances during the first quarter.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3071  
Old Posted May 16, 2013, 7:04 AM
NikeFutbolero's Avatar
NikeFutbolero NikeFutbolero is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 98
oh yeah, what a bidding war it turned out to be...
__________________
SAN FRANCISCO 49ERS
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3072  
Old Posted May 16, 2013, 4:23 PM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
It did, we just won the bidding war--which may still turn out to be a Pyrrhic victory.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3073  
Old Posted May 16, 2013, 11:23 PM
Majin's Avatar
Majin Majin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Downtown Sacramento
Posts: 2,221
Wburg, if I paid you $10,000 and paid 1 year rent at the apartment of your choice, would you move to Bakersfield?

I think you mind end up liking it there anyway so I probably would be doing you a huge favor.
__________________
Majin Crew: jsf8278, wburg, daverave
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3074  
Old Posted May 16, 2013, 11:25 PM
Majin's Avatar
Majin Majin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Downtown Sacramento
Posts: 2,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by sugit on Oct 11, 2005, 10:12 PM
I figured we should kill the DT Arena thread cause it's not going to happen.
I beg to differ.
__________________
Majin Crew: jsf8278, wburg, daverave
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3075  
Old Posted May 17, 2013, 3:51 AM
CAGeoNerd CAGeoNerd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 353
Quote:
Originally Posted by innov8 View Post
So did any of you guys hear what Sacramento's city manager, John Shirey,
said the other day? He delivered a sobering report to the City Council telling
members that the capital city is nearly $2 billion in debt and that handling it
will be an ongoing challenge. .....
Very interesting, as I saw John Shirey at Firestone last night celebrating with many other Kings fans and fans of Sacramento in general. I overheard him talking to some guys next to me about how excited he was and all of the doors this will open for the city and new development and transforming downtown, yadda yadda... you know, basically everything that all us arena proponents have been saying this whole time while arena opponents have gone on harping about how much better off Sacramento will be if Kings move and we do nothing. Again, this deal has always been about what will Sacramento be like if we don't do this. What are the costs of doing nothing, as opposed to this investment in redeveloping the city? There is no study on that, but I would wager the city stands to lose more money than it would under this scenario of investment.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3076  
Old Posted May 17, 2013, 4:49 AM
ThatDarnSacramentan ThatDarnSacramentan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,047
Vivek Ranadive is the new owner of the Sacramento Kings. Yippee-ki-yay, Sacramento.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3077  
Old Posted May 17, 2013, 4:49 AM
Majin's Avatar
Majin Majin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Downtown Sacramento
Posts: 2,221
Deal reached. New Arena will be under construction within a year. Welcome to Armageddon.
__________________
Majin Crew: jsf8278, wburg, daverave
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3078  
Old Posted May 17, 2013, 4:55 AM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
Sorry Majin, I like it here. Bakersfield's just going to have to live without me.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3079  
Old Posted May 17, 2013, 7:01 AM
NikeFutbolero's Avatar
NikeFutbolero NikeFutbolero is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 98
Yes! Finally arena and arena-related development just waiting to happen that is sure to make innov8 and wburg angrier than they are!
__________________
SAN FRANCISCO 49ERS
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3080  
Old Posted May 17, 2013, 3:00 PM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
Too much good stuff going on--I ain't got time to be angry. I'll just wait for the suburbanites to start fuming when they have to feed a meter to park on the street at midnight, that will be amusing. As I have said before, this is the best location in the central city for an arena--far better than the Railyards site--my main issue has always been the funding part. We'll see how that works out.
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 5:46 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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