HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #2721  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2012, 12:19 AM
NME22 NME22 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by innov8 View Post
NME22, so which PR firm do you work for? Many of the arguments and phrases you have
used are nearly identical to PR people who have sent me emails via my blog. Care to disclose?
C'mon innov8. You're better than that.

If I worked for a PR firm and chose the intials NME, I think I'd get fired pretty quick.

You need to point to who is sending you these emails so I can know who is stealing my comments.

Last edited by NME22; Mar 9, 2012 at 1:08 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2722  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2012, 1:04 AM
NME22 NME22 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
As much as folks like nme22 try to slander arena opponents as a bunch of anti-growth old fuddy-duddies with bow ties and weird musical instruments, the issue is really the finances.
Now, now Mr. Burg. I've never called anyone a name on here. I am blunt and direct, but that's about it. I never physically stereotyped an arena opponent or slandered anyone. I never brought up a musical instrument either.

I respect what opponents have to say as long as the numbers aren't distorted and they don't resort to taking shots at me personally. I enjoy the discussion with people with differing views.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2723  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2012, 2:21 AM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,378
ozone: Sorry to hear about your brother, I wish the best for his recovery. I'll just do what I can to share the most important facts, but if people want to know where I get that information, there are sources to review if they don't believe me.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2724  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2012, 4:54 AM
innov8's Avatar
innov8 innov8 is offline
Kodachrome
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: livinginurbansac.blogspot
Posts: 4,940
Quote:
Originally Posted by NME22 View Post
C'mon innov8. You're better than that.

If I worked for a PR firm and chose the intials NME, I think I'd get fired pretty quick.
What I suspected is not all that farfetched. Take for instance; when
Meridian II was going through the approval process I submitted some
comments on the project with the commissions reviewing the proposal as
well as here and the blog. It was not long before someone on behalf of the
project started posting here and the blog. In Meridian's media blitz to gain
approval for the tower, someone starting posting here and taking shots at
me and on my blog saying I was tiring to kill the tower. What? I’m one person which I don’t
think anyone takes seriously. Anyway, that person sole purpose was to
refute criticisms on the tower using eerily similar posts in both locations.
As soon as the project failed to break ground and get through the approval
process the poster disappeared all together. So having you arrive here at
just the right time when the arena issue is gearing up and then getting
behind it like it’s your baby caused me to wonder? In any case, good to
have you here.

Last edited by innov8; Mar 9, 2012 at 5:17 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2725  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2012, 5:47 AM
BrianSac's Avatar
BrianSac BrianSac is offline
CHACUN SON GOÛT
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,646
I give up. I don't care anymore. You win. I don't want an Arena. I want the Kings to leave town. I want a parking lot between the Intermodal and the Central Shops.

After the tracks are moved and a gravel pathway is chalked in to the tracks from the depot. What is the next step for the railyards, this year? What is supposed to happen with the Central Shops, the brick buildings and the gigantic tin shacks, this year, or next year?
__________________
C'est le moment ou jamais
C'est facile comme tout

Last edited by BrianSac; Mar 9, 2012 at 6:30 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2726  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2012, 7:30 AM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,378
This year? Completion of the new track realignment means they can make the track connection between the Railroad Museum and the two buildings that will be the Railroad Technology Museum (the Boiler Shop and the Erecting Shop.) That puts us one step closer to the RTM and greatly simplifies moving equipment between the main museum and the restoration/maintenance/repair operation that already goes on in those two buildings. Completion of the track realignment also comes with completion of the pedestrian passageways under the tracks, allowing direct access to the Shops, and completion of the 5th and 6th Street bridges over the tracks. The "Green Line" light rail line will also start running past the Shops on the way to Richards Boulevard. The path from the train station to the tracks, in addition to the underground tunnel, is planned to be paved and supplied with shade structures, not just a gravel path. While it's not really in the spots you mention, technically the 7th and H SRO replacement building is within the overall Railyards plan boundaries, and it should be completed by next year--the first residential housing units in the neighborhood since it was part of the old Chinatown.

In terms of the rest of the Shops buildings and property, I haven't heard much. Inland hasn't been exactly forthcoming about their plans for the site, other than letting them sit there. Given my druthers, once the means of getting into the Shops area is possible three different ways (pedestrian, light rail and road) it would be kind of neat to do more events at the Paint Shop (the most fully stabilized of the 5 Shops buildings that Inland owns) along the lines of the big "Farmer's Market" event that Thomas Enterprises held a few years back. Obviously the site has a lot of limitations, but if you approached it with "guerrilla urbanist" ethos we could hold events similar to Concerts in the Park or the Heritage Festival concert series in the shadow of the Shops. Set up an indoor stage in the Paint Shop, vendors and food trucks outside, some porta-potties, and have a series of live music and mobile food to "break the ice" between Sacramento and these buildings. Once there is access, we can generate more ideas within the local creative community as to what else we could do--and hopefully we can light a candle under Inland to start working more visibly with the local development community. I'm not sure how accessible or usable the other buildings are--there was a few million spent to do toxic cleanup and stabilize the buildings in preparation for eventual rehab and reuse, but they're a long way from being ready to utilize. Getting them ready depends on a plan for the use of those buildings.

The point of keeping those other five Shops buildings isn't enshrining them as monuments to the past--it's really about uses for the future. Old buildings are great places to put new uses, whether it's a live music venue or a startup company.

And, of course, except for the pedestrian surface path from the depot to the tracks, none of that stuff is ruled out even if there is an arena under construction. In fact, it's pretty much unrelated to whether or not an arena gets built, especially since ground wouldn't be broken until next year.

I guess I just see more potential here--the choices aren't limited to "an arena or nothing."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2727  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2012, 9:23 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
...make the track connection between the Railroad Museum and the two buildings that will be the Railroad Technology Museum (the Boiler Shop and the Erecting Shop.)
Are you talking about the existing Railroad Museum in Old Sac? So, this year, there will be new track(s) that will go from the Old Sac museum to the two enormous tin shacks?

BTW, Those tin shacks look like Gigantic car repair body shops like the ones on Power Inn Road. Won't those gigantic body shops be out of scale and a bad fit for a multi-use residential neighborhood?

When will the RTM be completely renovated? What type and how much public funds will be used to renovate it? How much revenue does the current Railroad museum contribute to the city? How much revenue will the RTM contribute to the city? How much public funds are used to maintain the current museum, and the future museum?

Shouldn't we stop, think, re-assess weather we want the RTM? Will renovation of the RTM process be an open and transparent transaction. Shouldn't we reserve the right to stop it or at least have another meeting to see if this is what we really want?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
restoration/maintenance/repair operation
What exactly are they repairing, restoring, and maintaining and how often? What type of public funds and how much is being used to repair, restore and maintain whatever it is?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
completion of the pedestrian passageways under the tracks, allowing direct access to the Shops, and completion of the 5th and 6th Street bridges over the tracks.
Where will the pedestrian passageways go? To the current Depot and Old Sac, correct? The planned Arena would sit on top off these tunnels.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
the 7th and H SRO replacement building is within the overall Railyards plan boundaries, and it should be completed by next year--the first residential housing units in the neighborhood since it was part of the old Chinatown.
Is this a brand new building? SRO - what demographic will live there and how much disposable income will they be able to contribute to the businesses in the area? Are public funds being used to pay for it? Will public funds be used to subsidize tenants rent.

What kind of housing and what demographic will likely be able to afford this housing? Will there be public meetings and workshops to decide what exactly is built?........they already started construction, correct?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
events at the Paint Shop (the most fully stabilized of the 5 Shops buildings that Inland owns) along the lines of the big "Farmer's Market" event that Thomas Enterprises held a few years back. Obviously the site has a lot of limitations, but if you approached it with "guerrilla urbanist" ethos we could hold events similar to Concerts in the Park or the Heritage Festival concert series in the shadow of the Shops. Set up an indoor stage in the Paint Shop, vendors and food trucks outside, some porta-potties, and have a series of live music and mobile food
Who would pay for this? Would public funds be used? How often would events be held (once, twice a year). How much revenue would they generate for the city? Where would people park? Wouldn't it generate gridlock on downtown streets?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
And, of course, except for the pedestrian surface path from the depot to the tracks, none of that stuff is ruled out even if there is an arena under construction. In fact, it's pretty much unrelated to whether or not an arena gets built, especially since ground wouldn't be broken until next year.
I agree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
I guess I just see more potential here--the choices aren't limited to "an arena or nothing."
Despite your vision which seems ok to me, NOTHING is planned, and NOBODY wants to invest other than AEG, -59 Million, plus profits; MALOOFS-75 million, plus profits; NBA & AEG- are proven entertainment money makers.
__________________
C'est le moment ou jamais
C'est facile comme tout

Last edited by BrianSac; Mar 9, 2012 at 2:59 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2728  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2012, 4:31 PM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,378
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianSac View Post
Are you talking about the existing Railroad Museum in Old Sac? So, this year, there will be new track(s) that will go from the Old Sac museum to the two enormous tin shacks?
There is one "tin shack"--the wood-framed, corrugated steel Boiler Shop. The Erecting Shop is the brick building just east of the Boiler Shop, connected by a transfer table. And yes, the plan is that the new track alignment will be complete by September, which greatly simplifies getting stuff back and forth between the Railroad Museum and the Shops.

Quote:
BTW, Those tin shacks look like Gigantic car repair body shops like the ones on Power Inn Road. Won't those gigantic body shops be out of scale and a bad fit for a multi-use residential neighborhood?
The shops are there right now. They would be a bad fit if you wanted to build buildings exactly like those in a neighborhood of small-lot single-family homes and small multi-unit homes, but for an expansion of downtown, they fit just perfectly. Little small-lot homes, like the kind found in Alkali Flat and surrounding neighborhoods, are just great where they are but they wouldn't fit well near the Shops. That's where we should be putting big and tall buildings.

Quote:
When will the RTM be completely renovated? What type and how much public funds will be used to renovate it? How much revenue does the current Railroad museum contribute to the city? How much revenue will the RTM contribute to the city? How much public funds are used to maintain the current museum, and the future museum?
Don't know, I don't work there. Currently the Railroad Museum draws several hundred thousand visitors a year, including visitors from out of state and out of the country. The museum makes a profit.
Quote:
Shouldn't we stop, think, re-assess weather we want the RTM? Will renovation of the RTM process be an open and transparent transaction. Shouldn't we reserve the right to stop it or at least have another meeting to see if this is what we really want?
Planning started in 1980, it was refocused on the Shops buildings about 10 years ago and there has been plenty of public process. They aren't asking the city for hundreds of millions of dollars in city support.

Quote:
What exactly are they repairing, restoring, and maintaining and how often? What type of public funds and how much is being used to repair, restore and maintain whatever it is?
Railroad equipment, right-of-way, artifacts and vehicles, constantly. Most of the work is done by volunteers, most of the funds are generated by a private nonprofit.

Quote:
Where will the pedestrian passageways go? To the current Depot and Old Sac, correct? The planned Arena would sit on top off these tunnels.
Go out there and look at them, they are under construction right now. The underground passageways would potentially be usable (assuming that the arena can design around it) but if the arena is in the most recent site there would not be a direct line-of-sight route from the train station to the tracks, as was shown in the earlier renderings and recommended by ULI.
Quote:
Is this a brand new building? SRO - what demographic will live there and how much disposable income will they be able to contribute to the businesses in the area? Are public funds being used to pay for it? Will public funds be used to subsidize tenants rent.
Folks making under $18,000 a year. Generally these are folks without cars, so as long as there are businesses nearby that supply their needs, 100% of their disposable income goes to businesses in the immediate neighborhood. It's also the income demographic of folks who work at places like downtown's many sandwich shops and small retail stores, so this housing would give them very convenient access from home to work.
Quote:
What kind of housing and what demographic will likely be able to afford this housing? Will there be public meetings and workshops to decide what exactly is built?........they already started construction, correct?
Folks working for minimum wage, and folks who might otherwise be sleeping on the street because there is no other housing they can afford. There were already public meetings to decide what would be built--sorry if you missed them.

One thing to note is that this 150 units takes care of the "low-income housing" requirements for the first 1000 units of housing in the Railyards--which means the next 850 can be market rate.
Quote:
Who would pay for this? Would public funds be used? How often would events be held (once, twice a year). How much revenue would they generate for the city? Where would people park? Wouldn't it generate gridlock on downtown streets?
Whoever wanted to promote them, I suppose. Downtown Partnership would be a likely choice--they turned Concerts in the Park into a profitable event (even though the concerts themselves are free) using beer sales and sponsorships. The location of the Shops buildings north of downtown would actually distribute traffic north through North 7th to Richards, rather than all being focused on J Street/I Street.

Quote:
I agree.

Despite your vision which seems ok to me, NOTHING is planned, and NOBODY wants to invest other than AEG, -59 Million, plus profits; MALOOFS-75 million, plus profits; NBA & AEG- are proven entertainment money makers.
I'd go talk to Inland about that, since they're the ones who own the land--and part of the reason why no other ideas have really made the papers is because it's been "all arena, all the time" for the past year.

Oh yeah--how many of AEG or the Maloofs' borrowed money is going towards specific things that will happen in the Shops buildings this year or next? Answer: None, it's for the arena, which is a separate project.

But speaking of the Maloofs' money: They're borrowing the $75 million and refinancing their existing loan, probably rolling both into one with the city playing the same role as the party who gets stuck paying if the Maloofs can't. But the security against the existing loan is Arco Arena, which will be demolished by the time the new arena opens. So what is their collateral for the loan?

Last edited by wburg; Mar 9, 2012 at 8:33 PM. Reason: Mallof money
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2729  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2012, 12:37 AM
Web Web is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 523
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
....But speaking of the Maloofs' money: They're borrowing the $75 million and refinancing their existing loan, probably rolling both into one with the city playing the same role as the party who gets stuck paying if the Maloofs can't. But the security against the existing loan is Arco Arena, which will be demolished by the time the new arena opens. So what is their collateral for the loan?
ding ding ding......again they still will be stretching out the old loan and doubling it with no collateral!!! Wow I wish I could get a 60 yr loan that way.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2730  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2012, 1:00 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 is one "tin shack"--the wood-framed, corrugated steel Boiler Shop.
Is the gigantic Boiler shop the building with "Southern Pacific" painted on it?


Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
The museum makes a profit.
Does the present Railroad Museum contribute some of its profits to the city? I would think it is all state revenue, since the RR museum is owned by the State, none goes to the City.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
They aren't asking the city for hundreds of millions of dollars in city support.
That’s because they already received hundreds of millions from the state. You didn’t say how much the city will be giving away to the Central Shops.


Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
Railroad equipment, right-of-way, artifacts and vehicles, constantly. Most of the work is done by volunteers, most of the funds are generated by a private nonprofit.
Maintenance, Restoration, and Repair - you still didn’t say what percentage of this is pubic give-away monies, nor did you say how many years the public will have to contribute to these projects.

If people are going to be living in the area, I don’t think we should be maintaining, restoring and repairing locomotives and other railroad equipment any where near them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
Go out there and look at them.

.... there would not be a direct line-of-sight route from the train station to the tracks, as was shown in the earlier renderings and recommended by ULI.
I’ve been out at the site several times. The ULI never said that Line-of-sight was necessary or needed. Most major train stations have no line-of-sight route for their trains.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
Folks making under $18,000 a year.

One thing to note is that this 150 units takes care of the "low-income housing" requirements for the first 1000 units of housing in the Railyards--which means the next 850 can be market rate.
You didn’t say how much public give-away went toward the SRO structure under construction.

Why is there more low-income housing (1,000) than market rate housing (850). It seems low-income housing is another public give-away that doesn’t bring in the middle and upper classes to downtown. Low-income housing does not support the general fund because it is exempt from some taxes.

It would be desirable to attract lucrative tech companies to the railyards which bring high paying jobs, SRO type housing does not help in this endeavor and may even repeal it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
Oh yeah--how many of AEG or the Maloofs' borrowed money is going towards specific things that will happen in the Shops buildings this year or next? Answer: None, it's for the arena, which is a separate project.
Why should AEG and the Kings give money to the Central Shops? AEG and the Kings will be helping the railyards by bringing 18,500 people nightly to their doorstep.


Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
But speaking of the Maloofs' money: They're borrowing the $75 million and refinancing their existing loan, probably rolling both into one with the city playing the same role as the party who gets stuck paying if the Maloofs can't. But the security against the existing loan is Arco Arena, which will be demolished by the time the new arena opens. So what is their collateral for the loan?
Any re-structuring of the loan would include language that if Arco is demolished the loan would have to be paid off. You don't know how the Maloofs are contributing their $75 million -- they have other assets that can be used as collateral. The city will OWN the NEW Arena; think of that as collateral. If the Maloofs bail, the NBA keeps the Kings in Sacramento, and AEG along with NBA, and the City will have become quite desirable to another owner. The deal that results could be even better than the Maloofs deal.
__________________
C'est le moment ou jamais
C'est facile comme tout

Last edited by BrianSac; Mar 11, 2012 at 6:50 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2731  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2012, 1:06 AM
BrianSac's Avatar
BrianSac BrianSac is offline
CHACUN SON GOÛT
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Web View Post
ding ding ding......again they still will be stretching out the old loan and doubling it with no collateral!!! Wow I wish I could get a 60 yr loan that way.
The CITY will OWN the NEW Arena --- that's collateral.

In this deal the Maloofs are not borrowing any new money from the city. Nobody knows if the Kings will be refinancing their existing loan nor for how long.

ANTI-Arena folks are masters at double-speak, and planting doubt. It's what they do.
__________________
C'est le moment ou jamais
C'est facile comme tout
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2732  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2012, 1:09 AM
NME22 NME22 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by innov8 View Post
What I suspected is not all that farfetched. Take for instance; when
Meridian II was going through the approval process I submitted some
comments on the project with the commissions reviewing the proposal as
well as here and the blog. It was not long before someone on behalf of the
project started posting here and the blog. In Meridian's media blitz to gain
approval for the tower, someone starting posting here and taking shots at
me and on my blog saying I was tiring to kill the tower. What? I’m one person which I don’t
think anyone takes seriously. Anyway, that person sole purpose was to
refute criticisms on the tower using eerily similar posts in both locations.
As soon as the project failed to break ground and get through the approval
process the poster disappeared all together. So having you arrive here at
just the right time when the arena issue is gearing up and then getting
behind it like it’s your baby caused me to wonder? In any case, good to
have you here.
Fair enough. If it makes you feel better, I don't know who you are or what your blog is, so you're safe from me following you around.

In all seriousness though, my only vested interest in this is to see that Sacramento doesn't fall off the face of the earth because we can't complete a big project. I'm not sure if it's a city that operates out of fear, or if it's run by small special interests. But the end result is that Sacramento is a city that gets absolutely nothing significant accomplished. There is a reason that we're continuously ranked as one of the worst places to live out of major metropolitan areas, and it's not because we haven't done enough to restore our historic buildings. Let me be clear. The people in this city spend more time talking about what we can't do and trying to stop things from getting done, then actually providing viable solutions. If I thought that small incremental changes would be the tipping point to making Sacramento a strong city, I'd be all over it. It's just not how I view it.

By the way, I've been around this board a long time, read opinions and followed projects that all came to a grinding halt during the economic downturn. I just didn't post. It's time to get this city and the railyards going. I don't see building an arena as hindering any project that anyone on this board has suggested we do. I see it as something that can be done in conjunction and would probably help the cause. It doesn't make me a PR guy. It makes me an optimist and opportunist. That is in stark contrast to most of the attitudes in this city, so I know it rubs people the wrong way. But it doesn't mean I'm wrong.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2733  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2012, 1:22 AM
NME22 NME22 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Web View Post
ding ding ding......again they still will be stretching out the old loan and doubling it with no collateral!!! Wow I wish I could get a 60 yr loan that way.
The city isn't loaning the Maloofs another $75 million. Not sure where this information is coming from.

By the way, the Maloofs didn't take out the original loan from the City. The prior owners did. The Maloofs picked it up for the city. Just so we're working from the right frame of reference.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2734  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2012, 1:38 AM
BrianSac's Avatar
BrianSac BrianSac is offline
CHACUN SON GOÛT
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,646
After walking the current proposed site I believe it is a better site than locating the arena north of the central shops.


Issues with locating the Arena NORTH of the Central Shops:

1. The new Arena would be too far from parking garages.

2. A complicated land swap deal would need to occur first.

3. The Central Shops look like a Chernobyl-like blighted war zone and would create a BARRIER for folks who could visit the already built and improved K-Street Mall, hotels and Downtown Plaza areas.

4. If the Central Shops were already restored and generating profit for the city it might be a consideration. But as it stands, putting the Arena on the SOUTH side of the Central Shops can only encourage their restoration.

5. Currently, There is no money, no reasonable economic plan to rehab the central shops. Any plan to rehab the central shops would involve a public give-away and sabotage public funding that could go to entities that are willing to invest their own money in revenue generating projects. Companies like AEG and the KINGS.

The Central Shops (8 structures) will likely look exactly as they do now in 10yrs. Unless, a catalyst like a new Arena is built. The Arena will bring 18,500 people to the site everyday which could incentivize investment in the Central Shops.
__________________
C'est le moment ou jamais
C'est facile comme tout
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2735  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2012, 2:31 AM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,378
From our Congresswoman:

http://matsui.house.gov/index.php?op...d=50:2012-news

Quote:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, March 8, 2012

CONTACT: ALANA JUTEAU
(202) 225-7163

Matsui: Focus Needed on Intermodal and Arena

SACRAMENTO, CA – Today, Congresswoman Doris Matsui (D-Sacramento) released the following statement regarding the arena deal moving forward:

“I am pleased the Council has voted to move forward with plans for a new downtown arena. Now that the vote has taken place, the real work begins. It is imperative that an arena located behind the historic depot is well-designed and can co-exist with both the planned intermodal transportation center, and future Railyards redevelopment.

“The City has a once-in-a-generation chance to get the layout of, and access to, the intermodal and arena sites right, and they must take the time to do so. Last year, over 1.1 million people traveled through the historic depot, while 570,000 people went to Kings games; both numbers will only grow over time.

“All parties must ensure the site is developed in a manner that works for both transportation and arena users. The intermodal center cannot get lost in the shuffle.”
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2736  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2012, 5:40 AM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,378
Quote:
Originally Posted by NME22 View Post
The city isn't loaning the Maloofs another $75 million. Not sure where this information is coming from.

By the way, the Maloofs didn't take out the original loan from the City. The prior owners did. The Maloofs picked it up for the city. Just so we're working from the right frame of reference.
The city didn't lend the Maloofs $75 million, the city was essentially the co-signer on the note that the previous Kings owner got. The loan wasn't of city money, but if the Maloofs fail to pay off that debt, the city gets stuck paying it off for them (but they get Arco and a quarter of the team.) Part of the agreement with the Kings for the new arena is that their current loan would be refinanced, rather than having them start paying principal on it (so far they're just paying interest.) The Maloofs have already said "we can finance it" about their new $75 million--they're not breaking out the cash, they're borrowing another $75 million. I figure they're doubling down on the current loan. And that's where they need collateral--right now, they own 2% of the Sands and the Kings. Do both together equal $150 million?

BrianSac: The city would own the arena, yes--which is why the Maloofs can't use it as collateral. Currently they are using Arco as collateral, but they won't be able to use that as collateral for their refinanced current loan, as their asset will no longer exist!

I suppose I have a less grim view of Sacramento than nme22. I don't think Sacramento will fall into the sea if an arena doesn't get built, nor do I think it's accurate to say "absolutely nothing" gets done here (unless your threshold of "absolutely nothing" is very, very high.) And I consider those rankings of cities to be pretty much nonsense (personally, I think they have two boxes, one with descriptors (fattest, happiest, smelliest, whatever) and another with city names. They pull one descriptor from the first box, 20 names from the second box, and use Wikipedia to find factlets to justify the descriptor. They're marketing gimmicks and something for bored people to read online at work.

I'm not one of those folks who think public money should never be used for anything, so I don't feel much need to defend them. I don't feel much need to knock down straw-men set up about why I like one project but don't like another. Nor am I a person who thinks we must avoid having an arena at all costs, despite how often some folks here tend to tell me I am. But I'm a skeptic at heart--I want to see the facts and the details, not the cheery best-case scenarios and the groovy renderings. If I weigh a project and it's found wanting, I say so. I'm quite certain it rubs people the wrong way. But that doesn't mean I'm wrong either.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2737  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2012, 6:33 AM
Web Web is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 523
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
well the feds have put up money for the terminal right?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2738  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2012, 7:08 AM
BrianSac's Avatar
BrianSac BrianSac is offline
CHACUN SON GOÛT
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Web View Post
well the feds have put up money for the terminal right?
Construction of the intermodal, and restoration of the historic depot has NOT been funded, yet. Federal funds would be absolutely necessary to fully fund these structures.

Track re-alignment, pedestrian tunnels, and bridges to the new tracks have been funded. Construction should be fully complete by year end.

I'm not so worried about the intermodal in terms of future high-speed rail because Sacramento likely will never get high speed rail even if California proceeds with current plans.

Sacramento is last on the list to get high speed rail. Every other major California city will get high speed rail before we do. If high speed rail is a success for SF and LA, Sacramento would still be 10-20 yrs behind them in receiving our connection. Another reason why it was important for us to have completed our new airport terminal. It is very likely, 35 years from now, Sacramento will be the only Nor-Cal city that has numerous regular flights to Southern Cal cities because the other cities use High speed rail.
__________________
C'est le moment ou jamais
C'est facile comme tout

Last edited by BrianSac; Mar 11, 2012 at 5:01 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2739  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2012, 4:40 PM
NME22 NME22 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
The loan wasn't of city money, but if the Maloofs fail to pay off that debt, the city gets stuck paying it off for them (but they get Arco and a quarter of the team.) Part of the agreement with the Kings for the new arena is that their current loan would be refinanced, rather than having them start paying principal on it (so far they're just paying interest.) The Maloofs have already said "we can finance it" about their new $75 million--they're not breaking out the cash, they're borrowing another $75 million. I figure they're doubling down on the current loan. And that's where they need collateral--right now, they own 2% of the Palms and the Kings. Do both together equal $150 million?
Yes it does equal $150 million. Combine that with the fortune they own in Wells Fargo. The Maloofs could not finance anything if they didn't have the collateral in one form or another. So if a bank loans them $75 million, then they must know they have collateral and reasonable protection. However, part of the $75 million pledge will come from the sale of the Arco land. Ashby has already said the Maloofs are working with Natomas to find a replacement business for the land. So they're not borrowing the entire amount, if any.

The agreement with the Maloofs was either 25% of the team or Arco, which at the time was seen to be of relatively equal value. I don't see a reason why refinancing the loan would erase the 25% ownership clause in the agreement. We don't know what the exact terms of the refinance would be, so we can't assume it's an automatic deal breaker. The city is interested in protecting itself and it put the collateral clauses in before, why would just let all protection go this time? It's fair concern and I would expect the city to address it.

Quote:
I'm not one of those folks who think public money should never be used for anything, so I don't feel much need to defend them. I don't feel much need to knock down straw-men set up about why I like one project but don't like another. Nor am I a person who thinks we must avoid having an arena at all costs, despite how often some folks here tend to tell me I am. But I'm a skeptic at heart--I want to see the facts and the details, not the cheery best-case scenarios and the groovy renderings. If I weigh a project and it's found wanting, I say so. I'm quite certain it rubs people the wrong way. But that doesn't mean I'm wrong either.
Fair enough.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2740  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2012, 5:17 PM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,378
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianSac View Post
Construction of the intermodal, and restoration of the historic depot has NOT been funded, yet. Federal funds would be absolutely necessary to fully fund these structures.
Actually, a pretty significant chunk of it has...

http://livinginurbansac.blogspot.com...y-station.html
(Incidentally, nme22, this is a pretty good blog to watch if you follow local urban development. Maybe you think things are so slow because you haven't been reading it.)


Quote:
Track re-alignment, pedestrian tunnels, and bridges to the new tracks have been funded. Construction should be fully complete by year end.

I'm not so worried about the intermodal in terms of future high-speed rail because Sacramento likely will never get high speed rail even if California proceeds with current plans.
An intermodal depot doesn't really have anything to do with high-speed rail--in fact, planning for an intermodal depot started before HSR plans were begun! An intermodal depot is about mode transfer--train to light rail or bus or streetcar or automobile. There is room for a possible future HSR line in our current intermodal depot (assuming it doesn't get squashed by an arena, of course) but it is in no way dependent on the presene of HSR.

Even if HSR doesn't reach Sacramento, if it reaches San Francisco we will need better "regular-speed rail" connections to both SF and the point in the Valley where HSR heads up the peninsula. In fact, we are in dire need of better regional commuter rail whether or not HSR gets built at all--which all points toward expanding our current depot.
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 5:35 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.