HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1041  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2006, 5:51 AM
snfenoc's Avatar
snfenoc snfenoc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Steve in East Sac
Posts: 1,141
From the Bee...
http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/s...15095176c.html
Supervisors to vote on "Arena" measure again; is it legal?
By Mary Lynne Vellinga and Terri Hardy -- Bee Staff Writers
Published 6:30 pm PDT Tuesday, August 1, 2006

Sacramento city and county leaders are racing to nail down final details on an agreement with the Sacramento Kings for public financing of a new arena.

But the questions they put before voters in November will offer none of those myriad specifics. The ballot measure calling for a quarter-cent sales tax boost won't mention an arena. A companion advisory measure will ask in vague terms whether voters want to spend the money on an arena and various community projects.

Indeed, the county's entire strategy hinges on being as non-specific on the ballot as possible. By design, the county is trying to make promises without specific language on the ballot to enforce them, thus avoiding a requirement that taxes destined for clear-cut purposes pass by a two-thirds rather than majority vote.

Is the approach legal? If voters approve the arena funding plan in November, it will likely emerge as a test case.

Opponents say the strategy is an attempt to dodge the two-thirds requirement. They promise a court challenge.

"It is very likely that if this moves forward, we will be filing suits," said Kris Vosburgh, executive director of the statewide Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

Even proponents acknowledge that the county may be venturing onto unknown legal territory.

"I believe we're on solid legal ground here, but it hasn't been tested," said Sacramento County Counsel Bob Ryan.

Supervisors Wednesday are expected to vote to place the complicated "A plus B" financing plan for the arena on the November ballot. It was carefully crafted to avoid California's requirement that taxes for specific purposes win by a two-thirds margin.

One ballot measure will simply ask voters to adopt the new quarter-cent sales tax for 15 years. A companion, advisory measure will ask voters if they would like to see $1.2 billion raised by the tax divided between the arena and community projects throughout county.

While the money clearly would be intended for an arena and other projects, legally the county could still spend it on anything. Thus, proponents argue, the tax is general.

Even if Sacramento County's approach holds up in court, a legal challenge could delay the planned 2010 opening of the new arena in the downtown railyard.

Sacramento County Supervisor Roger Dickinson, one of the crafters of the arena deal, said he's not sure if construction would start even if the new tax to pay for it was being challenged in court.

"I don't think that question can be answered with absolute certainty at this point," he said in an email message Tuesday. "It would depend on the specifics of the suit and all the facts and circumstances at the time."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1042  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2006, 6:23 AM
creamcityleo79's Avatar
creamcityleo79 creamcityleo79 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Robbinsdale, MN
Posts: 1,787
Quote:
Originally Posted by snfenoc
From the Bee...
http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/s...15095176c.html
Supervisors to vote on "Arena" measure again; is it legal?
By Mary Lynne Vellinga and Terri Hardy -- Bee Staff Writers
Published 6:30 pm PDT Tuesday, August 1, 2006

Sacramento city and county leaders are racing to nail down final details on an agreement with the Sacramento Kings for public financing of a new arena.

But the questions they put before voters in November will offer none of those myriad specifics. The ballot measure calling for a quarter-cent sales tax boost won't mention an arena. A companion advisory measure will ask in vague terms whether voters want to spend the money on an arena and various community projects.

Indeed, the county's entire strategy hinges on being as non-specific on the ballot as possible. By design, the county is trying to make promises without specific language on the ballot to enforce them, thus avoiding a requirement that taxes destined for clear-cut purposes pass by a two-thirds rather than majority vote.

Is the approach legal? If voters approve the arena funding plan in November, it will likely emerge as a test case.

Opponents say the strategy is an attempt to dodge the two-thirds requirement. They promise a court challenge.

"It is very likely that if this moves forward, we will be filing suits," said Kris Vosburgh, executive director of the statewide Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

Even proponents acknowledge that the county may be venturing onto unknown legal territory.

"I believe we're on solid legal ground here, but it hasn't been tested," said Sacramento County Counsel Bob Ryan.

Supervisors Wednesday are expected to vote to place the complicated "A plus B" financing plan for the arena on the November ballot. It was carefully crafted to avoid California's requirement that taxes for specific purposes win by a two-thirds margin.

One ballot measure will simply ask voters to adopt the new quarter-cent sales tax for 15 years. A companion, advisory measure will ask voters if they would like to see $1.2 billion raised by the tax divided between the arena and community projects throughout county.

While the money clearly would be intended for an arena and other projects, legally the county could still spend it on anything. Thus, proponents argue, the tax is general.

Even if Sacramento County's approach holds up in court, a legal challenge could delay the planned 2010 opening of the new arena in the downtown railyard.

Sacramento County Supervisor Roger Dickinson, one of the crafters of the arena deal, said he's not sure if construction would start even if the new tax to pay for it was being challenged in court.

"I don't think that question can be answered with absolute certainty at this point," he said in an email message Tuesday. "It would depend on the specifics of the suit and all the facts and circumstances at the time."
What happens if the majority of voters vote for the tax AND vote yes on the advisory measure? Would the Howard $u*kin' Jarvis Taxpayers blah blah blah still take legal action? I'd like to see massive protests at the Capitol in favor of both measures and directly against these jokers in the friggin' taxpayers association. I can't stand these people!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1043  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2006, 3:22 PM
innov8's Avatar
innov8 innov8 is offline
Kodachrome
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: livinginurbansac.blogspot
Posts: 5,079
Cohn makes some good points... but I think he knows deep inside
that the city would not have had a chance to keep them otherwise.


R.E. Graswich: Cohn says leaders shot an airball in striking arena deal with Maloofs
By R.E. Graswich -- Bee Columnist
Published 12:01 am PDT Wednesday, August 2, 2006

Money matters: Sacramento City Councilman Steve Cohn figured taxpayers would get a raw deal from the new Kings arena proposal. Then he ran the numbers. It's much worse than Steve dreamed. "Incredibly, we would be better off building the arena and giving it away to Joe and Gavin Maloof," said Steve of the happy Las Vegas brothers who own the Kings. "The rent they will pay is less than what they would pay in property taxes, by 2 or 3 million dollars a year." As proposed, the public will own the new arena. That means zero property taxes. Big mistake, Cohn thinks. The rent deal was cooked up by Sacramento City Councilman Rob Fong and county Supervisor Roger Dickinson. The pols negotiated with the Maloofs. Our reps gave up almost everything. The Maloofs would pay about $4 million in rent for 30 years. Joe and Gavin keep ticket sales, parking, food, beverage, even naming rights. If the Maloofs owned the building, they would pay close to $6 million each year in property taxes, Cohn figures. "We came up with a worse deal than just giving the damned thing away," Steve said. "You would think it's impossible. But we did it." Even Dickinson admits the deal isn't great for taxpayers. He says it's "the best" he and Rob could manage. Fong and Dickinson want the public to vote on the tax giveaway Nov. 7. Can't wait. …
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1044  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2006, 4:15 PM
TowerDistrict's Avatar
TowerDistrict TowerDistrict is offline
my posse's on broadway
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: in an LPCA occupied zone
Posts: 1,600
I would figure the councilman would be above this.

Forgive me if I'm off base... but how does Steve Cohn plan to get millions of dollars in property tax when absolutely no private party is willing to build or own a new arena? He's distorting the facts to sound as though we lost out on this money, when in reality - it was never going to come anyway.

I understand the crowd Cohn is trying to reach with this paranoid rant, but exactly how would he get an arena built by the Maloofs? Last I checked, there weren't any billionaires hiding in East Sac. And if there were, I'm sure they wouldn't be leaping at the opportunity to pay MORE property taxes.
__________________
---------------------------------------------------------------
Map of recent Sacramento developments
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1045  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2006, 6:37 PM
Majin's Avatar
Majin Majin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Downtown Sacramento
Posts: 2,221
I thought the whole idea was to have a publically owned arena anyway?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1046  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2006, 11:27 PM
sugit sugit is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: DT Sacramento
Posts: 3,076
Something is going on with the county meetings. There are trying work out some issues...not sure what that means...The vote was suppoed to happen at 2:00

The meeting is reconvening at 7:30
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1047  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2006, 1:12 AM
Jay916's Avatar
Jay916 Jay916 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: North Sacramento
Posts: 136

Vote to put arena funding plan on ballot delayed
By Terri Hardy -- Bee Staff Writer

Published 4:57 pm PDT Wednesday, August 2, 2006

A vote to put an arena funding plan on the November ballot hit an unexpected bump in the road Wednesday with the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors.

The supervisors' vote has been postponed until 7:30 p.m. to allow officials "to get the appropriate agreements in place," said County Executive Terry Schutten.

Schutten said "things were moving smoothly," but tight-lipped county officials would not offer more specifics. Schutten didn't elaborate on problems encountered, except to say "with any situation like this there is a very complex set of issues involved."

Chris Holben, a spokesman for the arena negotiating team, said parties involved in the arena plan were finalizing all terms reached last month.

"They're attempting to dot the I's and cross the T's," Holben said.

It's unclear what portions of the agreement between the city, county and the Maloofs, owners of the Sacramento Kings, are being discussed. Arena negotiators hammered out an agreement last month. City and county officials at the time said a finalized and detailed "Memorandum of Understanding" would be completed in October, but never before mentioned the need for more discussion on basic deal points.

Last week, supervisors held a four-hour hearing on the arena issue, and their vote tally was the same. By law, a second hearing was required, and supervisors had said Wednesday's action was viewed as a formality.

The supervisors Wednesday night will address if they will place on the November ballot a quarter cent sales tax for 15 years. A companion advisory measure will ask voters if they would like to see the $1.2 billion in revenue raised by the tax divided between the arena and a host of community projects throughout the county.

Last edited by Jay916; Aug 3, 2006 at 1:19 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1048  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2006, 1:17 AM
joninsac joninsac is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 688
Sounds like this could be a problem. Ch. 3 news reported that the vote had been pushed back several times and that Dickinson and Peters didn't show up for the last meeting at 4:00 or so, and that members of the city/county arena team were meeting with the Maloofs. They speculated that one of the supervisors may have flipped their vote.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1049  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2006, 1:52 AM
joninsac joninsac is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 688
Roger Dickinson was just on Ch. 3. He said that they're trying to turn the oral agreement into a written one and it's just taking a little bit longer than they expected, but that he expects this vote to have the same result as the first.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1050  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2006, 2:25 AM
snfenoc's Avatar
snfenoc snfenoc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Steve in East Sac
Posts: 1,141
You can't put anything on the ballot; the language needs to be perfectly written. So, I wonder if they are trying to make sure the ballot language is safe from a court challenge by the opposition. If I were them, I would make sure the initiative is as general as possible (only a simple majority needed).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1051  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2006, 3:52 AM
creamcityleo79's Avatar
creamcityleo79 creamcityleo79 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Robbinsdale, MN
Posts: 1,787
Passed!!!

Supervisors, Maloofs agree: Issue goes to voters in November


Published 4:57 pm PDT Wednesday, August 2, 2006


[Updated: 8:40 p.m. Wednesday] A proposed quarter-cent sales tax increase to fund a new Kings arena will go before voters on the November ballot.

But like most everything related to the arena issue, the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors' ultimate 4-1 vote Wednesday night didn't come easily.

Supervisor Roger Dickinson had promised that Wednesday's vote to place the issue before the public would merely be a "formality."

The board last week voted to move forward with the issue, and the second hearing required by law is usually a rubber stamp.

But supervisors, confronted by an intensely controversial issue, wanted to see the deal points in writing and signed by the representatives for the Maloof family, the owners of the Kings. Until Wednesday, the agreement had been verbal.

Drafting the non-binding written "term sheet" behind closed doors took more time than expected. A lot more.

"I'm surprised it was as difficult as it turned out to be," Dickinson said.

But hours of back and forth Wednesday, representatives from the city, county, and the Maloofs walked into the supervisors meeting chambers a few minutes before it reconvened at 7:30 p.m., some smiling and some flashing a thumbs up.

"It's been an interesting day," Paul Hahn, the county's economic development director deadpanned to supervisors.

In the end, the supervisors voted 4-1 to put the proposed quarter cent sales tax increase on the ballot, clearing the last administrative hurdle to putting the issue before voters.

Supervisors Dickinson, Susan Peters, Illa Collin and Don Nottoli voted yes. Roberta MacGlashan voted no.

Earlier, after the board adjourned, officials said the day meetings were postponed to allow them "to get the appropriate agreements in place."

County Executive Terry Schutten said "things were moving smoothly," but tight-lipped county officials would not offer more specifics.

Chris Holben, a spokesman for the arena negotiating team, said parties involved in the arena plan were finalizing all terms reached last month.

"They're attempting to dot the I's and cross the T's," Holben said.

Arena negotiators had hammered out an agreement last month. City and county officials at the time said a finalized and detailed "Memorandum of Understanding" would be completed in October, but never before mentioned the need for more discussion on basic deal points.

Last week, supervisors held a four-hour hearing on the arena issue, and their vote tally was the same.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1052  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2006, 4:26 AM
sugit sugit is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: DT Sacramento
Posts: 3,076
Since the deal was first announced, have you become more or less supportive of the arena plan?
Choice Votes Percentage of 409 Votes
More 113 28%
Less 254 62%
No Change 42 10%


Not a good start.....
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1053  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2006, 5:44 AM
creamcityleo79's Avatar
creamcityleo79 creamcityleo79 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Robbinsdale, MN
Posts: 1,787
Quote:
Originally Posted by sugit
Since the deal was first announced, have you become more or less supportive of the arena plan?
Choice Votes Percentage of 409 Votes
More 113 28%
Less 254 62%
No Change 42 10%


Not a good start.....
The media is not spinning this one very well and there's only 3 months left until it comes to a vote. It's time for those ads to start running PRONTO!!!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1054  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2006, 5:53 AM
brandon12 brandon12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 998
the measures just made the ballot a few hours ago. Prior to tonight, there was no way you would see any real campaigning. In the next few weeks, expect that some campaign fund-raising events will be announced.

Remember, it's more important to have the momentum in October/ealry November than it is to have the momentum in early August.

It'll pass!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1055  
Old Posted Aug 4, 2006, 12:29 AM
enigma99a's Avatar
enigma99a enigma99a is offline
Megalonorcal 11M~
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Rocklin
Posts: 2,251
LOL @ Cohn

On Cohn's comment about giving the arena to the Maloofs.

"Someone has no clue of what he's talking about."
"Raiders pay $400,000 a year, Chargers pay under $400,000 year, LA Angeles pay $500,000 a year"

The tax wouldn't be based on construction costs, but other factors, thus it is low. Even the Giants got their yearly taxes down to $2.9M going forward.

Cohn is an idiot.

http://www.kxtv.com/storyfull2.aspx?storyid=19130 (Then click the video)

Last edited by enigma99a; Aug 4, 2006 at 12:50 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1056  
Old Posted Aug 4, 2006, 1:33 AM
joninsac joninsac is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 688
When renderings of the arena are released and people get a tangible idea of what they're getting for their money, I think opinion will swing back our way a bit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1057  
Old Posted Aug 4, 2006, 4:09 AM
Jay916's Avatar
Jay916 Jay916 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: North Sacramento
Posts: 136
Post

Downtown not the only possible site for an arena
By Mary Lynne Vellinga and Terri Hardy -- Bee Staff Writers

Published 7:31 pm PDT Thursday, August 3, 2006

http://www.sacbee.com/content/sports...15104899c.html

The proposed site for the new downtown arena at the old railroad yard, north of downtown. The plan calls for the arena to be built where the mounds of asbestos-contaminated soil are currently located. Sacramento Bee / Bryan Patrick

If plans to build a new Kings arena in the downtown railyard run into problems, city and county leaders have agreed to look elsewhere, including North Natomas.

Revitalization of the dormant railyard is one of the key selling points proponents plan to use when asking voters to adopt a new quarter-cent sales tax to pay for the arena.

They paint a picture in which people will ride Amtrak or light rail trains to basketball games and concerts, catching a bite to eat or a drink while they're downtown.

On Thursday, leaders of the arena effort downplayed the idea that it would go anywhere else. But they acknowledged that the railyard presents a number of potential challenges, including: delays in an ownership transfer from the Union Pacific railroad, toxic contamination, and lack of streets, sewers and other infrastructure.

"The railyard site is, by far, the hardest place to negotiate a deal," said Sacramento Vice Mayor Rob Fong.

The information about alternative sites is contained in a list of deal points negotiated over the past few days between representatives of Sacramento city and county and the Maloofs, owners of the Kings.

One alternative would be land around Arco Arena that is owned by the city and the Maloofs. Another could be Cal Expo.

"It is our hope and expectation we won't have to use those alternatives, but we need to have them," said Paul Hahn, the county's director of economic development.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1058  
Old Posted Aug 4, 2006, 5:12 AM
sactjs's Avatar
sactjs sactjs is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by joninsac
When renderings of the arena are released and people get a tangible idea of what they're getting for their money, I think opinion will swing back our way a bit.
Jon, I think you're right. It's easy to oppose this idea in the abstract, but when we see actual images of what we will be giving up by voting no, I think things may change.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1059  
Old Posted Aug 4, 2006, 7:24 AM
brandon12 brandon12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 998
Of course it will.

Attention everyone: I'm going to host a pro-arena fund raiser at my house sometime in September. It's gonna be huge. I haven't figured out any of the details (in fact, it just crossed my mind this instant). but give me a show of hands as to how many people could make it. Thinking of something like a $30,$40,$50 cover, full bar, entertainment, the works. All proceeds will go to the arena campaign. I'd like to see a show of hands of at least 10 people on this forum, plus guests. that might be $1,000 raised, less expenses, just from the regulars on this forum. If I can raise $5,000 total, that might be enough to buy 20 tv ads.

So, ARE YOU IN?

Last edited by brandon12; Aug 4, 2006 at 2:04 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1060  
Old Posted Aug 4, 2006, 3:53 PM
sugit sugit is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: DT Sacramento
Posts: 3,076
Quote:
full bar, entertainment, the works"
I'm in!!


What's this for again? jk
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 9:59 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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