Sacramento - New Arena Plan

[BrianSac]

Originally Posted by wburg

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.

I want to make it clear, I know and understand the value of the Central Shops. I envision the central shops sort of like SF's ferry building restoration. The RTM will be an awesome asset for our region.

It just gets really frustrating when words and comments like public give aways, sabotage, cherry best case, and groovy rendering are used to describe the Arena deal. We have folks who are willing to invest their money in our city and bring a proven money maker to our town.

You can be a skeptic or you can be an obstructionist; it can be a fine line. I really believe the Arena will benefit the Central Shops in the long run. The whole area can be a multi-use office/residential, nightlife spot, and a destination for toursits. And hopefully, companies like VIP, Apple, and Google will set up shop in the railyards.

[wburg]

Originally Posted by NME22

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 Maloofs can't sell Arco until the building moratorium in Natomas is lifted. The money is needed before, not after, the new arena construction starts. And when a bank lent them $75 million, it was with the assumption that they would still have that asset or its equivalent as collateral. If they are getting rid of that collateral item, what else do they have to put up in its place in order to refinance and double their loan amount?

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.

Re-read that agreement--it was for a $25 million stake in the team AND Arco.

Sacramento's collateral still includes Arco Arena and its 80 surrounding acres, as well as a $25 million stake in the team.

http://basketball.ballparks.com/NBA/...ings/index.htm

[wburg]

From today's Bee:

Editorial: Don’t build a big barrier in railyard

...Yet in a bold, important, clear statement that city officials should heed, U.S. Rep. Doris Matsui, D-Sacramento, has made it clear that the design of the arena must fit the site – without overshadowing the elements that give the railyard its sense of place, the historic old depot and the Central Shops.

"It is imperative that an arena located behind the historic depot is well-designed," she wrote the day after the City Council's historic vote to move forward, "and can co-exist with both the planned intermodal transportation center, and future Railyards redevelopment."

Unfortunately, the first plan released by the mayor's office last week, by the Populous architecture firm, depicts a bulky arena bowl plunked down between the old depot and Central Shops – and it towers over those buildings. Sacramento can do better.

Fortunately, the city does have alternatives. For example, the Rose Center of the Urban Land Institute last year chose Sacramento as one of four cities nationwide for a yearlong program that emphasized land-use challenges in the railyard. An eight-person panel from across the country offered recommendations.

The ULI conceptual plan would place a public plaza in the corridor from the depot to the Central Shops. The arena would be as far west as possible on the site and transportation facilities as far east as possible. Why? "The scale and massing of the entertainment and sports complex must not overwhelm the historic Depot and Central Shops."

Significantly, the ULI idea did not crowd the site with three items that turned up in the Populous site plan – a hotel, a practice facility and a VIP parking garage for luxury box holders. Those can be close to the site but need not box it in.

The city has said that fitting an arena to the west of the site doesn't leave enough room for loading docks, though it doesn't seem credible to say that the site can fit a hotel, a practice facility and a parking garage but not trucks for circus giraffes and elephants. The loading issue clearly needs to be further explored.

The city does want to do a follow-up panel with ULI's Rose Center. Wise move. That outside perspective, bringing in experience and expertise without special interests tied to any particular design, is valuable. It should happen soon....

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/03/11/432...#storylink=cpy

[BrianSac]

You knew an article like that was coming:
A grassroots arena plan is put in place, our local leaders do some due diligence. Then, the obstructionists start calling in some favors - Jerry Brown, Matsui, really.

Let’s send the current arena plan down the toilet like every other plan. So we can pride ourselves on sending our of only major league sports franchise packing. Let’s create more Doubt and procrastination, so the obstructionist's special interest can creep along forward -- with no funding, maybe a hand-out from the feds and state will come along in 5-20yrs, so we can build more SRO, and rehab a building or two. As long as we stop that Arena from getting built we will have another victory.

[NME22]

Originally Posted by wburg

The Maloofs can't sell Arco until the building moratorium in Natomas is lifted. The money is needed before, not after, the new arena construction starts. And when a bank lent them $75 million, it was with the assumption that they would still have that asset or its equivalent as collateral. If they are getting rid of that collateral item, what else do they have to put up in its place in order to refinance and double their loan amount?

The building moratorium does not prevent the sale of existing land or commercial real estate. The moratorium is expected to be lifted shortly, before the construction of the arena is set to begin, pending a congressional vote.

Not sure how you are measuring the $75 million. Are you stating that the city has to loan the Maloofs the money, or a private bank? Again, anyone loaning the Maloofs money are going to look at their entire financial situation and assess the risk. They won't get the money if there is risk. I believe you're oversimplifying their finances as well.

Re-read that agreement--it was for a $25 million stake in the team AND Arco.

You're right. My memory failed me on this part.

[ozone]

BrianSac there's no set design plan yet- only a conceptual one. I doubt very seriously that if the city ended up following ULI's recondmendations that it would put the kibosh on the whole deal.

[BrianSac]

Originally Posted by ozone

BrianSac there's no set design plan yet- only a conceptual one. I doubt very seriously that if the city ended up following ULI's recondmendations that it would put the kibosh on the whole deal.

It could be a deal breaker for AEG or the Kings.

The obstuctionist-Anti-Arena folks will pull out all guns at this point. Brown, Matusi, distortion of the ULI report, who or what's next?

A "Sense of Place" my you know what. More like a "Sense of Chernobyl" for the next 20yrs. We've waited since 1980, why not wait another 20yrs. Let's put in jeopardy this plan over the Central Shops that may never come to fruition and if it does will never generate the positive economic impact the Arena will bring.

The Central Shops will be huge public give away - we must protect the line-of-sight of a Gigantic Body Shop. Few know those structures are even there.

[Pistola916]

Interesting commentary in the Washington Post.

Sacramento silliness: Once again, taxpayers foot the bill for a new arena

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports...p5R_story.html

By Norman Chad, Published: March 11

In my beleaguered home town of Washington, the license plates say, “Taxation Without Representation.” In the beleaguered capital of my adopted home state of California, the license plates should read, “Taxation Without Reason.”

Congratulations, Sacramento, the good news is you’ve kept your NBA franchise.

The bad news is that you’ve struck another deal against common sense and civic responsibility.

Yes, once again ordinary citizens will pay an extraordinary price to pay for a new rich-people’s playpen. To prevent the Kings from leaving, a compliant Sacramento city council voted, 7-2, to foot two-thirds of the cost of a new arena. The arena project was spearheaded by former NBA star Kevin Johnson, who was elected mayor of Sacramento but acts more like mayor of the Sacramento Kings.

(Couch Slouch is worn out, my friends. Trust me, I’m tired of preaching. I don’t even have the right clothes to deliver a sermon; I own only one suit, which I use for weddings and court appearances. Besides, this is supposed to be a humor column — proselytizing and punch lines don’t mix.)

Last year I began my “No More Stadiums, With or Without Tax Subsidies” Tour. We went all across Sports Nation — well, actually, I ran the whole operation from my Barcalounger — trying to convince folks to stop financing sports complexes and to start rethinking solutions to critical community problems.

My efforts were a bust. Nobody cares that, as a rule, public investments in sports buildings seldom are justified by public benefits; everybody just wants a shiny new arena or stadium, with plenty of parking.

Alas, I’m one part stubborn and two parts stupid, so I’m back again, with a retooled “No More Stadiums . . .” Tour.

(Before going any further, let’s get back to our nation’s capital. A previous group of local leaders in D.C. okayed a taxpayer-financed $611 million baseball park. Now, the current local leaders are angling to pitch a sweetheart deal to get the Washington Redskins to move their training facility into the city on a 30-acre piece of prime public land that was designated for health care, recreation and education use 10 years ago. Hmm. Why not? I mean, if choosing between mixed-use development that delivers amenities the region needs OR a weight room for pro athletes, I’ve got to say: Bring in the dumbbells, ASAP!)

In 2006, voters in Sacramento overwhelmingly rejected funding an arena through a sales tax increase. The city had already helped build two other arenas since 1985 – the feckless civic leaders there are serial subsidizers. And, now, Sacramento will contribute $255.5 million to the cost of the Kings’ new $391 million palace, largely through parking revenue.

“This city is on the verge of insolvency,” said councilwoman Sandy Sheedy, a rare dissenting voice who contends the project “will scoop up every nickel and dime” left in the budget.

The happy recipients of the city’s largesse are Kings owners Joe and Gavin Maloof, broke millionaires getting a bailout from people who can’t even afford to attend NBA games.

(If you want to go to this Sunday’s Timberwolves-Kings game in Sacramento, a good mid-court ticket will run you $169, something behind the basket costs $114 and the nosebleed seats go for $50 a pop. If a family of four goes the cheap route, it’s still $250 with parking and concessions. What I would do is this: Get a bucket of Popeyes for 20 bucks and watch the game at Sears and, if we get thrown out, listen to the rest of it on the car radio.)

It’s sick: We need creative, progressive minds to tackle difficult education, transit and housing problems, and, rather, we get a line of bodies shouting for new arena construction.

Because of budget cuts in California, the state likely will eliminate all money for school buses next year. That’s right — no school buses. Why stop there? Why not eliminate all schools? Then you could convert the empty buildings into basketball arenas and replenish state coffers with parking fees.

Dang — I think I’ve stumbled on a platform to get elected!

[BrianSac]

Pistola: Interesting, why the hell is the Washington Post writing a story about Sacramento.

Do a search in the Washington Post, practically every story is about the Kings. Really, the Kings, thats how we make it into the Post.

Who the hell is Norman Chad? -- a resident of California who writes for the Post.

Final note: "A previous group of local leaders in D.C. okayed a taxpayer-financed $611 million baseball park."

[NME22]

Originally Posted by BrianSac

Pistola: Interesting, why the hell is the Washington Post writing a story about Sacramento.

Do a search in the post, practically every story is about the Kings. Really, the Kings, thats how we make it into the Post.

Who the hell is Norman Chad? -- a resident of California who writes for the Post.

Final note: "A previous group of local leaders in D.C. okayed a taxpayer-financed $611 million baseball park."

The article made me chuckle a bit, after getting past some blatant innacurracies like stating the city had financed 2 arenas already for the kings, and overstating ticket prices for upper level seats. The article does fail to mention that Nationals Park was 100% publicly financed. It was obviously meant to be a shock piece trying to stir up emotion.

[BrianSac]

Originally Posted by NME22

The article made me chuckle a bit, after getting past some blatant innacurracies like stating the city had financed 2 arenas already for the kings, and overstating ticket prices for upper level seats. The article does fail to mention that Nationals Park was 100% publicly financed. It was obviously meant to be a shock piece trying to stir up emotion.

Expect more until the day we walk through doors of our new Arena. It's gonna be a long long road.

[BrianSac]

Originally Posted by NME22

The article made me chuckle a bit, after getting past some blatant innacurracies like stating the city had financed 2 arenas already for the kings, and overstating ticket prices for upper level seats. The article does fail to mention that Nationals Park was 100% publicly financed. It was obviously meant to be a shock piece trying to stir up emotion.

Just a hunch -- I bet, the writer of the Post article is a resident of Anaheim or Orange County.

I punched in "Sacramento" in the Washington Post search engine, and the first 10 or so articles were about the Kings. For good or bad, the only way Sacramento can make it into the Washington Post is by way of the Kings!

This should you tell something about the power of major league sports and why we don't want to lose our only major league sports franchise.

[NME22]

Originally Posted by BrianSac

Just a hunch -- I bet, the writer of the Post article is from Anaheim or Orange County.

I punched in "Sacramento" in the Washington Post search engine, and the first 10 or so articles were about the Kings. For good or bad, the only way Sacramento can make it into the Washington Post is by way of the Kings!

This should you tell something about the power of major league sports and why we don't want to lose our only major league sports franchise.

Sports are universal. It's why the Olympics bring the world together. The World Cup brings the world together. People who don't even watch sports can tell you where the Yankees play, or where the Packers and Lakers play.

Makes no difference if a few people don't like the Kings/Maloofs, or think that their particular interest is vastly more important or righteous than sports. The world doesn't see it that way.

The thing that people seem to misunderstand is how government or their rights work. The idea that every day people are supposed to vote on every project is not how it has ever worked. We live in a republic, not a democracy. You vote your rep in and they make the tough choices. You don't like their job, you vote them out.

Tax is a trigger word that gets people to shout in defiance, even when they don't even know what they're protesting. You get taxed one way or another and 9/10 times it goes to something that you have no interest in or doesn't benefit you directly. Presidential candidates always use taxes as the go to subject to get people on their side. We all get taxed, it just gets packaged different by different candidates.

This guy screaming about how the tax payer is being screwed is just trying to earn brownie points with the segment of the population cries for a revolution when they hear the word tax. That song and dance plays real well in California.

[wburg]

Hm. Seems like those folks in Anaheim feel differently about the economic stimulus potential of their own planned intermodal depot, and they don't even have rail service yet!

http://www.articinfo.com/

Economic stimulus and job creation for the local economy

The ARTIC Project has funding commitments for up to $184.2 million; this level of investment has great potential for stimulating the local economy.
Job creation – 5,000 jobs created, during and after construction.
Funding supports construction industry job creation (consultants, contractors, and construction workers). Wage earners who work in Orange County benefit and inevitably spend more in Orange County’s retail, hospitality, medical, educational, and housing industries.
Future economic benefits include Public Private Partnership (P3) opportunities in the vicinity of ARTIC, additional job creation, and increased sales tax revenue.

[NME22]

Originally Posted by wburg

Hm. Seems like those folks in Anaheim feel differently about the economic stimulus potential of their own planned intermodal depot, and they don't even have rail service yet!

http://www.articinfo.com/

Awesome find Wburg. Can't help but notice that the intermodal depot pictured is right inbetween the Honda Center and Angels Stadium. Two sports venues.

I found a quote from an Anaheim paper as well. Imagine the economic impact on Sac when we build our intermodal and arena together like Anaheim plans to do. We will have the best of both worlds.

"A 2010 study commissioned by the Greater Memphis Chamber of Commerce says that more than 1,300 full-time-job equivalents and more than $223 million in economic impact are created by the relocation of the Grizzlies NBA team and arena activities"

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/-295585--.html

[NME22]

If we play our cards right, Sacramento sports could approach the impact of Charlotte's sports scene. That's as long as it doesn't take 15 - 20 years of infighting to complete every project.

"Charlotte Sports Industry Produces $2.1 Billion Economic Impact
Supports More than 23,000 Jobs in Charlotte MSA

Charlotte, N.C. - According to a new study entitled “The Economic Impact of Sports and Sports Events on the Charlotte MSA Economy,” the Charlotte sports industry generated an economic impact of $2,188,207,639 and supported 23,136 jobs in 2011 for the Charlotte Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA)"

http://www.crva.com/news/newsroom.aspx?id=1148

[ltsmotorsport]

Not quite so sure about being even with Charlotte, seeing as they have an NFL franchise and is the HQ city for NASCAR in addition to their NBA franchise.

[NME22]

Originally Posted by ltsmotorsport

Not quite so sure about being even with Charlotte, seeing as they have an NFL franchise and is the HQ city for NASCAR in addition to their NBA franchise.

Yes sir, you are very correct. We would have a long ways to go. My point is that their approach to sports projects is very different than ours, and it's netted them an NFL, NBA, NASCAR, PGA tour event and so on. The reason is that they put themselves out there to attract these things and to be business friendly. What ended up happening in Charlotte is that the more entertainment options and business friendly laws they provided, the more fortune 500 companies came. The more fortune 500 companies that came, the more those companies invested back into the community to keep the entertainment going. Sacramento metro is larger than Charlotte metro, but you'd never know. Charlotte thinks big. They are not mired in red tape and law suits and people screaming "not in my back yard" or not with "my" tax money. They invest in their city and everyone wins. Even those who don't watch sports.

Investing in sports venues is not an automatic loss as some would love for you to believe.

Oh yeah....their downtown basketball arena is 100% publicly funded. They will have made that money back with one event when they host the DNC. Why are they hosting the DNC? Because they're not afraid.

I don't honestly wish that Sacramento spends all of their efforts with sports. What I want from Sacramento and it's residents is to stop being afraid to do anything and stop throwing law suits out left and right anytime a business wants to do a project in this town. That doesn't advance anyone's cause. It just keeps more big business from coming , unemployment rates high and young talent fleeing for a more lucrative and supportive market.

[Schmoe]

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/03/21/435...-poiu-poi.html

So, can 21,000 signatures really derail this?

[Ryan@CU]

Originally Posted by Schmoe

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/03/21/435...-poiu-poi.html

So, can 21,000 signatures really derail this?

Delay? Yes. Derail? Highly unlikely.