HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1081  
Old Posted Aug 9, 2006, 8:40 PM
COASTIE's Avatar
COASTIE COASTIE is offline
Vizcaya Mansion 04/15/06
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Suisun City/Inching towards SAC
Posts: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by foxmtbr
Now, technically, if the first measure passed an the other failed, so we have the tax, but no arena... since the tax is "for any reason" couldn't it go to an arena anyways?
Oh well, that's good news that big name people are taking part in this.
From my understanding, if the first passes and the second doesnt the city could build the arena but it will most likely be delayed from law suits being filed against the city from our most beloved NIMBY farts. . I just hope that we get the votes we need for both so that there is no delay.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1082  
Old Posted Aug 9, 2006, 11:43 PM
innov8's Avatar
innov8 innov8 is offline
Kodachrome
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: livinginurbansac.blogspot
Posts: 5,079
Arena campaign picks its lineup
Political strategists are named as formal papers are filed.
By Mary Lynne Vellinga -- Bee Staff Writer
Published 12:01 am PDT Wednesday, August 9, 2006

The effort to persuade Sacramento County taxpayers to fund construction of a new Kings arena shifted into drive Tuesday with a formal campaign filing and the naming of a team of political strategists.
The Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce on Tuesday filed an official statement of organization for the campaign, Yes on Q & R, with the California secretary of state's office. No contributions have been reported yet, but donations are expected to pour in from Sacramento business and community leaders.

Former Sacramento County Supervisor Sandy Smoley, now a health care consultant, also announced that she would serve as a volunteer spokeswoman and fundraiser for the effort.
In addition to high-profile volunteers such as Smoley, the committee has hired plenty of professional help. They are expected to use television ads, mail and other campaign strategies in their attempt to accomplish what some political operatives consider next to impossible: majority voter approval of a 15-year, quarter-cent sales tax, which is expected to raise $1.2 billion -- half for a new arena in the downtown railyard and half for community projects in the county and its cities.

The chamber-led group has hired McNally Temple Associates of Sacramento to run the campaign. In the city of Sacramento, dominated by Democratic politicians, McNally Temple is known for working with Republican candidates.

Most recently, it helped incumbent Placer County Supervisor Robert Weygandt fend off a well-funded challenge by conservative Jerry Simmons.


Also this week, the group hired Doug Elmets as its professional spokesman. Elmets, also a Republican, is known locally for his public relations work on behalf of two tribes with large casinos, the United Auburn Indian Community and the Rumsey Band of Wintun Indians. He formerly served as chief lobbyist for Arco, the oil giant, and worked in a variety of communications jobs in the Ronald Reagan White House.

Running the television portion of the campaign will be Paul Kinney, a Democratic consultant who has for many years worked with Sacramento County Supervisor Roger Dickinson, who helped negotiate the arena deal with the Maloof family, owner of the Kings.

Working independently but in tandem will be Richie Ross, a Democratic consultant who has represented many local politicians, including Mayor Heather Fargo. He will run the Maloofs' independent campaign efforts and coordinate with the chamber of commerce group, said Dave Butler, senior vice president of the chamber.

Serving as treasurer for the chamber group is local political lawyer Thomas Hiltachk, who has worked for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Kings, as well as a long list of political candidates.

"We're trying to take the best of all the various political and civic parts of our community and put it into place to support this effort," Butler said.

He and others involved in the campaign said no budget had been established yet, and it had not been decided how much McNally Temple, Elmets, or the other consultants would be paid.

"We're literally just starting; we've got to raise money," said Richard Temple of McNally Temple. He predicted that more consultants will be brought on board.

"This is a big undertaking for the whole community, and the whole community has to pull together, Republicans and Democrats, business and labor, in order for this to be successful," Temple said.

Spending on the yes campaign is likely to dwarf that of the coalition opposed to the arena deal. The group of community activists, organized labor and low-income housing advocates has a prominent leader, state Assemblyman Dave Jones, D-Sacramento, but lacks backing by monied groups.

"It's basically going to be big bucks versus the grass roots," Jones said Tuesday. The opposition is recruiting volunteers at www.stopthearenatax.org.

"I have said all along that the people of Sacramento County have a lot of common sense, and they know a bad deal when they see one," Jones said. "But there's going to be a lot of money thrown at the voters to convince them that this is somehow a good deal."

While proponents of the arena deal will likely have the advantage of money, previous polls have shown that the majority of Sacramento voters oppose public financing of a Kings arena. A new poll is expected to begin this week, said people close to the campaign.

Leaders of the arena campaign say the spending is worth it because the arena could speed redevelopment of the dormant downtown railyard, maintain a viable venue for the Kings and other entertainment options, and produce a funding stream down the road for the county and its cities, which are slated to receive over half the $1.2 billion for purposes they choose.

"I really care about the future of Sacramento," Smoley said Tuesday. "I want it to continue to grow and be vibrant. I think this opportunity could really transform downtown, and I really support having it at the railyard."

http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/s...15127965c.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1083  
Old Posted Aug 10, 2006, 12:34 AM
Schmoe's Avatar
Schmoe Schmoe is offline
NIMBY Hater
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 1,047
Anyone a good hacker who can crash that opposition website?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1084  
Old Posted Aug 10, 2006, 1:03 AM
foxmtbr's Avatar
foxmtbr foxmtbr is offline
Finger Lickin' Good.
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 3,656
^ I was thinking about sending the webmaster a 'friendly' email. But I decided that he wouldn't care anyways...

Did you (if you actually checked the website) notice that they were taking donations? Yes, let's all pay money so that we don't have to pay money!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1085  
Old Posted Aug 10, 2006, 5:42 AM
creamcityleo79's Avatar
creamcityleo79 creamcityleo79 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Robbinsdale, MN
Posts: 1,787
Interesting article from the Bee:
Quote:
Big dig: A Sacramento urban legend is ready for confirmation, thanks to the proposed arena tax boondoggle. The legend involves whole steam locomotives buried in the old Southern Pacific railyard. Generations of Sacramentans have heard the legend. Now, with taxpayers being asked to pay for a Kings basketball arena atop the toxic rail waste dump, let's dig into the facts. "I have heard this before from several sources, and believe it is probably true," said Jim Henley, manager of the Sacramento History and Science Division. Sutter's Lake once stood between I Street and the rail shops. The city and railroad filled the lake more than 80 years ago. The depot was built at the lower end. "Old equipment, including locomotives, were dumped into the lake along with railcar loads of soil," Jim said. Construction crews reported driving piles through buried locomotives while building Interstate 5. "There have been very old boilers dug up, but not entire locomotives, as far as I know," said Paul Hammond of the California State Railroad Museum. Kyle Wyatt, history curator at the Railroad Museum, said, "We don't know for certain" if whole locomotives are buried in the yards. But photos suggest a small engine is buried at the proposed arena site, Kyle added. Rail buffs can only dream about the goodies that could be excavated. Taxpayers will get stuck with the bill, you can bet. …
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1086  
Old Posted Aug 10, 2006, 3:49 PM
SacTownAndy's Avatar
SacTownAndy SacTownAndy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The Bridge District, West Sacramento, CA
Posts: 1,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by foxmtbr

Did you (if you actually checked the website) notice that they were taking donations? Yes, let's all pay money so that we don't have to pay money!
I was thinking the same thing. That is the most hypocritical and absurd thing I have ever heard. Any chance the webmaster wears a bow tie?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1087  
Old Posted Aug 10, 2006, 7:15 PM
ltsmotorsport's Avatar
ltsmotorsport ltsmotorsport is offline
Here we stAy
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Parkway Pauper
Posts: 8,064
That is absolutly classic. NIMBYs and ther infallible logic.
__________________
Riding out the crazy train
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1088  
Old Posted Aug 10, 2006, 7:48 PM
foxmtbr's Avatar
foxmtbr foxmtbr is offline
Finger Lickin' Good.
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 3,656
Someone should tell them to raise their own tax to stop this tax.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1089  
Old Posted Aug 11, 2006, 8:26 AM
Jay916's Avatar
Jay916 Jay916 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: North Sacramento
Posts: 136
Post

Interesting article from the bee......
Land deals could offset arena cost, analysis says
By Terri Hardy and Mary Lynne Vellinga -- Bee Staff Writers
http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/s...15136324c.html
Published 12:01 am PDT Friday, August 11, 2006

If a new downtown sports complex is constructed and land surrounding Arco Arena developed, local government would collect more than $542 million over 30 years in taxes and other revenue -- money that would substantially cover the new arena's price tag, a city analysis shows.

The new arena is expected to cost taxpayers between $470 million to $542 million, paid with money from a proposed quarter-cent sales tax increase.

Most public discussions have glossed over one of the downtown deal's potentially biggest money-makers for Sacramento city and county government, schools and local special districts: the sale and development of increasingly valuable land in North Natomas where Arco Arena sits.

The proposed arena deal includes making 185 acres around Arco available for private development, which the city estimates would produce an additional annual $8.3 million in taxes and other payments.

In addition, the city says a bigger arena at the downtown railyard would bring in nearly $4.3 million yearly in taxes and rent payments to local governments, much more than the $1.2 million now generated by Arco Arena.

"The city and the county, the schools and any entity that receives property taxes, will actually be better off," said Sacramento County Supervisor Roger Dickinson, who helped negotiate the arena deal.

State Assemblyman Dave Jones, a leading critic of building the arena with public funds, said the city's figures represent "inflated accounting" because they aren't adjusted for the decreasing value of the dollar over 30 years.

Jones said the city also fails "to factor in the cost of serving any new development (on the Natomas site), which in my experience with residential development, always exceeds tax revenues from that development."

The figures supplied by the city -- compiled at The Bee's request -- don't tell the whole story, said Assistant City Manager John Dangberg. But they are useful in assessing the arena plan.

Sacramento voters will be asked to approve with majority support two ballot measures -- Q and R -- on Nov. 7 that would increase the sales tax and ask if they want the new money spent on an arena and other community amenities.

Getting to a bottom line -- that is, whether the city and county struck a good deal with the Kings' owners, the Maloof family -- is a tricky proposition, finance and policy experts say. Negotiations are still ongoing between the parties.

The city is currently studying what it would cost to build streets, sewers and other infrastructure in the railyard. The arena will be assigned some unknown share of those costs.

Assessing the potential long-term benefits is even more difficult. The arena could be a boon to downtown if it helps jump-start the dormant railyard project. Then, there are the impossible-to-quantify perks, such as a trendier downtown and keeping the Sacramento Kings in town.

"If they're trying to energize development in the railyard, you could actually lose money on the arena and still net money if the larger neighborhood pencils out," said Robert Waste, a professor of public policy at California State University, Sacramento.

"The fair way to evaluate (the deal) is to add up all the known and possible costs and all the known and possible benefits and evaluate how we feel about spending public money on those things," he said.

To examine one aspect of the arena plan, The Bee examined city data on taxes, assessments, rent and fees generated this year from Arco Arena, as well as city projections on the amount of money from the same sources that would flow from a downtown arena and redevelopment of the North Natomas land.

To calculate the long-range numbers, Dangberg used constant 2006 dollars. He also determined a percentage that each type of tax would likely climb every year: 3 percent for utility users and sales taxes and 2 percent for property tax.

The public revenue numbers show that a new arena would generate 20 percent more in sales taxes than at Arco.

"Here at Arco we have a relatively small team store," said John Thomas, president of Maloof Sports and Entertainment. "At a new arena, you'd probably have two stores and much more square footage. Instead of just one concourse, you'd have two, and more concession stands."

In one area, local governments and schools would receive less from a new arena than the current one. Arco and the 85 acres surrounding it are owned by the Maloofs. They pay $700,000 in an in-lieu property tax and $300,000 in Mello-Roos assessments, which repay infrastructure costs.

In contrast, the new arena would be owned by a city-county joint powers authority. As a publicly owned building, the new arena would be exempt from property taxes.

That has generated some controversy. Councilman Steve Cohn said in an interview the public would be better served if Joe and Gavin Maloof held the title to the new arena because they would have property taxes of about $5 million a year.

"Even if you gave the arena away and the Maloofs didn't pay a penny, they'd have to pay $5 million in property taxes vs. $3 million in rent," Cohn said.

Instead of property tax, what is known as a "possessory interest tax" would have to be paid under state law at the downtown arena. That law mandates that if a public building has a private tenant -- like the Maloofs -- the possessory tax is required.

Who pays that possessory interest tax is negotiable; but in Sacramento County it's almost always the tenant, said Kenneth Steiger, Sacramento County assessor.

Under the terms negotiated for the new arena, however, the Maloofs are not on the hook. Instead, the responsibility falls to the public JPA. Dangberg said he estimated the bill would be from $600,000 to $1 million a year.

Arena negotiators said the city and county agreed to pay the possessory tax in order to simplify the arena agreement and get a deal with the Maloofs. The rent they would pay was adjusted during negotiations to cover the possessory tax. "They pay us in their rent," Dangberg said.

The Maloofs would pay $3 million in rent the first year, with the amount increasing 2 percent every subsequent year, for a yearly average of $4 million.

Sacramento's deal is typical, said Dan Barrett, of the Barrett Sports Group consulting firm who represented the city and county in the arena negotiations. "Most teams in the NBA that don't own their facilities don't pay property tax or possessory interest tax."

In California, the only NBA team playing in a publicly owned building is Oakland's Golden State Warriors. The JPA that owns the arena in Oakland pays $472,000 in possessory interest taxes each year, said Pat O'Connell, Alameda County's auditor-controller.

At Arco Arena, a complicated tax situation has developed, causing the Maloofs to actually pay possessory taxes even though they own Arco, said City Treasurer Tom Friery.

Because the Maloofs have a nearly $71 million loan guaranteed by the city, the city actually has a quit claim on the arena, to use in case the Maloofs don't make their loan payments. That means that technically, Arco is city-owned and the building is exempt from property tax, Friery said.

The largest potential public windfall would come from the required sale and development of the Maloofs' 85 acres in North Natomas and the adjacent 100 acres owned by the city. Arco Arena occupies 7 acres.

North Natomas has seen explosive growth in the past five years. Houses, offices and stores now occupy the fields around Arco where sheep grazed not long ago.

Dangberg estimates 80 percent of the property will be developed, with 128 acres going to residential uses and 20 acres for retail. The development would be subject to city approval.

At a minimum, the new development would bring in nearly $8.3 million a year in taxes, Dangberg said.

The Kings' Thomas said the deal, including development of the North Natomas land, promises an "an enormous upside" to local government coffers.

Negotiations are continuing and more details will be known once a memorandum of understanding is reached by Oct. 6.

Sacramento Vice Mayor Rob Fong, one of the arena negotiators, said supporters thus far have mostly talked about the "psychic" benefit a new downtown arena would provide -- evidence that Sacramentans are willing to invest in the cultural life of downtown. He said the figures from the city showed there are more tangible pluses, too.

"There's a dollars and cents benefit as well," Fong said. "Hopefully it will give people comfort that this is really a good idea, an investment above and beyond keeping an NBA team in town."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1090  
Old Posted Aug 11, 2006, 8:44 AM
foxmtbr's Avatar
foxmtbr foxmtbr is offline
Finger Lickin' Good.
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 3,656
Wow! Those figures are astounding! Hopefully that's conveniently located on the front page so that NIMBYs will see it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1091  
Old Posted Aug 11, 2006, 4:00 PM
innov8's Avatar
innov8 innov8 is offline
Kodachrome
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: livinginurbansac.blogspot
Posts: 5,079
The smoke is starting to clear now. Have any of you been reading the comments
by readers about this story on the Bees website? The most tired arguments
is "what about flood control?" When any of you hear this throw them a curve
ball by reminding them that their is a measure on the November ballot address
just that, Flood Control, Proposition 1E, Disaster Preparedness and Flood
Prevention Bond Act of 2006. That seems to be one of the oppositions
crazy notions why this is not a good idea... I enlightened that
lame argument real quick.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1092  
Old Posted Aug 11, 2006, 4:02 PM
innov8's Avatar
innov8 innov8 is offline
Kodachrome
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: livinginurbansac.blogspot
Posts: 5,079
three to many... sorry

Last edited by innov8; Aug 11, 2006 at 4:17 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1093  
Old Posted Aug 11, 2006, 4:03 PM
innov8's Avatar
innov8 innov8 is offline
Kodachrome
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: livinginurbansac.blogspot
Posts: 5,079
slow server... dope

Last edited by innov8; Aug 11, 2006 at 4:16 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1094  
Old Posted Aug 11, 2006, 4:03 PM
innov8's Avatar
innov8 innov8 is offline
Kodachrome
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: livinginurbansac.blogspot
Posts: 5,079
edit
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1095  
Old Posted Aug 11, 2006, 4:22 PM
SacTownAndy's Avatar
SacTownAndy SacTownAndy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The Bridge District, West Sacramento, CA
Posts: 1,260
Wow, finally a pro-arena article from the Bee. Many of those points are simply irrefutable. These are the types of solid facts that they need to be getting out.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1096  
Old Posted Aug 11, 2006, 5:56 PM
joninsac joninsac is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 688
Quote:
Wow, finally a pro-arena article from the Bee.
And on the front page too. Marcos Breton has a good article in the sports section about how Comerica Park has brought new life to downtown Detroit as well. Two positive arena articles in one day. Can you believe it?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1097  
Old Posted Aug 11, 2006, 6:01 PM
sugit sugit is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: DT Sacramento
Posts: 3,076
Breton seems like he has come almost full circle on this issue. He was very much against it at first, but now has started writing some pro-arena columns.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1098  
Old Posted Aug 11, 2006, 10:01 PM
urban_encounter's Avatar
urban_encounter urban_encounter is offline
“The Big EasyChair”
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: 🌳🌴🌲 Sacramento 🌳 🌴🌲
Posts: 5,976
Sacramento is at a crossroads and the vote in Novemeber will determine which way the city/region moves.

A yes vote will move the city and the railyards toward redevelopment of the largest urban infill and extension of any downtown. One that will set itself apart from any city of equal (or some greater) size.


A no vote will mean that like the Sacramento Valley (Bill Graham Amphitheater), and Six Flags Water World yet another (scarce) entertainment venue will soon be gone. Sacramento will be relegated to nowheresville, lose it's only professional team and it's only venue for large concerts.

There will of course be concerts by Los Lobos (no relation) at the Memorial Auditorium and perhaps the city Police and County Sheriff Departments will bring back the Pig Bowl.


Driving around Chicago i'm stunned at the large civic investment in this city's MANY museums, sporting, entertainment and cultural venues as well as its investment in transforming 30 miles of Lakeshore (to include its famed Lakeshore Drive.) Of course Mayor Fargo is no Mayor Daley and there's a huge difference in how people in Chicago view this city as opposed to the indiffernece many NIMBYS view Sacramento.

Hopefully this Quality of Life Measure can get passed for Sacramento. Though i'm not at all optimistic Sacramento will see a new arena and i expect it will lose its Basketball team and ARCO will eventually get bulldozed. But should that happen and Sacramento loses yet another entertainment venue, it will also lose tax revenue and another important recruitment tool for businesses looking to relocate there.

I think that's one of the things that annoys me about Dave Jones. He doesn't have any answers as to how we pay for all the social services he wants to see expanded. Economics 101 is clear that in order to spend tax revenue you have to be able to generate it locally....


Is Sacramento supposed to become the largest nowhere in the U.S.????

No professional sports,
No Arena or venue for Concenrts
Losing a very important asset for recruiting new business??

Opponents of the Quakity of Life measure can't answer how they would raise revenue to pay for mental health and senior services except to expect everyone to pay even more taxes into their pet projects (which i do think are very important and need to be funded). That's one of the biggest scams of the campaign, because opponents aren't really 'FOR' anything. They're only against the Quality of Life Initiative. If that means a drop in local tax revenue coming into the city and county they could probably care less.
__________________
“The best friend on earth of man is the tree. When we use the tree respectfully and economically, we have one of the greatest resources on the earth.” – Frank Lloyd Wright
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1099  
Old Posted Aug 11, 2006, 11:00 PM
innov8's Avatar
innov8 innov8 is offline
Kodachrome
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: livinginurbansac.blogspot
Posts: 5,079
I have 6 tickets to Eighth Annual "Fandemonium" festival. The event will be
held at 6 p.m. on Sunday, October 8 at ARCO Arena. This is your chance to
get a first-look at the 2006-07 Sacramento Kings team. The experience will
be complete with the Kings mascot, Slamson, and the Sacramento Kings
Dance Team.

If anyone is inrested in going private message me telling me how many you want
with your email address and name and I will have them sent to you so you
can print them out.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1100  
Old Posted Aug 12, 2006, 3:12 AM
urban_encounter's Avatar
urban_encounter urban_encounter is offline
“The Big EasyChair”
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: 🌳🌴🌲 Sacramento 🌳 🌴🌲
Posts: 5,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by innov8
I have 6 tickets to Eighth Annual "Fandemonium" festival. The event will be held at 6 p.m. on Sunday, October 8 at ARCO Arena. This is your chance to get a first-look at the 2006-07 Sacramento Kings team.

It may also be your last chance to see a "Sacramento Kings Fandemonium" ...


__________________
“The best friend on earth of man is the tree. When we use the tree respectfully and economically, we have one of the greatest resources on the earth.” – Frank Lloyd Wright
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 9:19 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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