Sacramento Sports Scene

[econgrad]

Originally Posted by Majin

I'll come out and say it I'm for tax money for everything. Tax money for arena, tax money for public transportation, tax money to high rise condos, tax money for railyards, everything.

Thank you Majin! Thank you for being honest! Although we completely disagree, you are being consistent in your thinking.

[wburg]

Originally Posted by econgrad

^ Please point out any evidence to where I have supported subsidies for suburbs. As I thought, you cannot answer your own inconsistency. No tax money for an arena, but yet tax money for luxury condos Wburg? There is no difference between the two.

You have expressed support for more roads and freeways--public-funded projects that subsidize suburban development.

When did I come out in favor of tax money for luxury condos?

[ltsmotorsport]

Yeah, suburban development has been subsidised almost since the beginning with almost all infrastructure costs payed for by tax money. It's part of the reason suburban development is cheaper.

There's currently a bill in the state legislature to pull these suburban incentives and direct those funds toward TOD and more urban projects, so changes may yet be coming.

[econgrad]

Originally Posted by wburg

You have expressed support for more roads and freeways--public-funded projects that subsidize suburban development.

When did I come out in favor of tax money for luxury condos?

Roads and Freeways are used by all, they are not part of the suburbs nor any subsidy for the suburbs. suburbs are not subsidized like you and itmotorsport think, hence why you cannot come out with examples.

[wburg]

Originally Posted by econgrad

Roads and Freeways are used by all, they are not part of the suburbs nor any subsidy for the suburbs. suburbs are not subsidized like you and itmotorsport think, hence why you cannot come out with examples.

I'm not sure what to say about this except "you're wrong." Highway and freeway expansion are the major reason why our suburbs look the way I do: far-out suburbs and exoburbs would not be possible if not for the highway system. I cited it as an example of a subsidy to suburbs that you personally support. I also mentioned that you don't seem to consider taxpayer-funded things "subsidies" if you personally benefit from them, which is why you don't consider freeways a subsidy, but no, you're wrong.

They aren't the only example.

Public utilities are another example. Until about 3-4 years ago, developers building new projects paid a single flat fee to connect to public sewer systems, regardless of whether they were building in the central city, where infrastructure was already in place, or out in new-growth areas, where new pipes have to be laid to provide sewer systems. So, in effect, anyone doing a sewer connection downtown was paying a big cash subsidy to reduce the expenses of people building in suburbs.

Part of the Clean Water Act, signed by Nixon, included massive public-works projects bringing water supplies into new growth areas (in other words, suburbs) at public expense, to the tune of hundreds of billions. This was a huge public subsidy of suburban development.

The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) was set up during the Depression. Prior to the FHA, mortgages only covered 30-40% of the cost of a home. The FHA program covered loans up to 90% of the price of the mortgatge, but there were two restrictions: they would not lend to buy properties in non-white neighborhoods (generally in central cities) and they gave the highest rating to new growth areas--almost exclusively suburbs. FHA loans are still around, although the restriction about non-white neighborhoods was removed in the 1970s.

After World War II, VA loans provided even more subsidy to veterans, but again, the loans were only applicable in new growth areas. This, combined with the new freeway systems, produced an explosion of suburban growth, subsidized by taxpayer-funded transportation (freeways) and taxpayer-backed loan programs.

In more recent history, the deregulation of the banking industry that allowed the explosion of the subprime loan market (the same explosion that is throwing shrapnel through most of the economy these days) drove suburban growth even more. But that growth isn't possible unless highway expansion allows more traffic to move out to the new suburban growth areas, and other utility connections (like the aforementioned subsidized sewer connections) are provided by nearby municipalities.

I have mentioned most of these things over and over, you just kinda tend to forget them.

[cozmoose]

So when...and if....the new arena for the Kings get built, what will happen to the current Arco arena?

1. Demolish it for new houses and strip malls?

2. Leave it as is?

3. Perhaps remodel and scaled down to more intimate 8,000 - 10,000 seat arena? like the Stockton arena.

I'm hoping for #3...it could be a good venue for midsize shows and secondary sports like minor league hockey, arena football, and boxing.

Thoughts?

[wburg]

My guess is #1. Assuming of course that the levees are reinforced so the building moratorium ends.

[TWAK]

how about a factory outlet mall, like the one in Vacaville only better?
us suburbanists can go there while the rest of you can pay 90$ for a pair of pants at some artsy clothing store with no parking.

[ltsmotorsport]

Demolish half the building and turn the remaining structure into an amphitheater.



























As if Natomas residents would let that happen.

[BrianSac]

An Amphitheater.........that is actually in Sacramento......is it possible?
Thats a great idea, eventually light rail will go there too.

[otnemarcaS]

Amphitheater is a great idea but will never fly. Too much residential around that area now. Natomas residents can handle the traffic but surely will not accept or allow the noise pollution that comes with an outdoor amphitheater.

My guess is it will be converted into some kind of office building.

Or maybe simply demolished like the Miami Arena (which was built in 1988 after Arco Arena). Ironically, I watched a Miami Heat game at the Miami Arena when I visited friends in Miami back in 1998. It truly was a horrible arena for NBA and the Heat did a good thing to move to the new American Airlines Arena after only 12 seasons there. Now if only the Kings can do likewise.

[econgrad]

Originally Posted by wburg

I'm not sure what to say about this except "you're wrong." Highway and freeway expansion are the major reason why our suburbs look the way I do: far-out suburbs and exoburbs would not be possible if not for the highway system. I cited it as an example of a subsidy to suburbs that you personally support. I also mentioned that you don't seem to consider taxpayer-funded things "subsidies" if you personally benefit from them, which is why you don't consider freeways a subsidy, but no, you're wrong.

They aren't the only example.

Public utilities are another example. Until about 3-4 years ago, developers building new projects paid a single flat fee to connect to public sewer systems, regardless of whether they were building in the central city, where infrastructure was already in place, or out in new-growth areas, where new pipes have to be laid to provide sewer systems. So, in effect, anyone doing a sewer connection downtown was paying a big cash subsidy to reduce the expenses of people building in suburbs.

Part of the Clean Water Act, signed by Nixon, included massive public-works projects bringing water supplies into new growth areas (in other words, suburbs) at public expense, to the tune of hundreds of billions. This was a huge public subsidy of suburban development.

The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) was set up during the Depression. Prior to the FHA, mortgages only covered 30-40% of the cost of a home. The FHA program covered loans up to 90% of the price of the mortgatge, but there were two restrictions: they would not lend to buy properties in non-white neighborhoods (generally in central cities) and they gave the highest rating to new growth areas--almost exclusively suburbs. FHA loans are still around, although the restriction about non-white neighborhoods was removed in the 1970s.

After World War II, VA loans provided even more subsidy to veterans, but again, the loans were only applicable in new growth areas. This, combined with the new freeway systems, produced an explosion of suburban growth, subsidized by taxpayer-funded transportation (freeways) and taxpayer-backed loan programs.

In more recent history, the deregulation of the banking industry that allowed the explosion of the subprime loan market (the same explosion that is throwing shrapnel through most of the economy these days) drove suburban growth even more. But that growth isn't possible unless highway expansion allows more traffic to move out to the new suburban growth areas, and other utility connections (like the aforementioned subsidized sewer connections) are provided by nearby municipalities.

I have mentioned most of these things over and over, you just kinda tend to forget them.

Your so wrong with these theory's Wburg, the highway system may have led to more suburbs being built, but that is not the reason the hwy system was built for, therefore not a subsidy for suburbs. You need to stop reading revisionist history...What obscure text book did you get this garbage from? These connections you are trying to make are just plain, ludicrous.

[wburg]

Even if the specific purpose of a program wasn't necessarily to subsidize suburbs, their ACTION subsidized suburban development. It's not the name on the label that matters, it's the end result. While there were other reasons for building highways, expansion of cities into nearby regions (through suburban development) was a primary reason to build them--and most suburbs simply couldn't operate without the highways. And kindly read the rest of my post to learn that highways weren't the only suburban subsidy: there were plenty of others. That's not even counting the way that suburbs depend on urban centers to take responsibility for things the suburbs don't want to pay for, like homeless shelters and other social services.

I could cite my sources, but you wouldn't read them anyhow. I can see that you aren't interested in the facts when they don't meet your opinions, econgrad, so I'm declaring this discussion "game over," at least in the sports thread. We can continue it elsewhere.

[econgrad]

Originally Posted by wburg

Even if the specific purpose of a program wasn't necessarily to subsidize suburbs, their ACTION subsidized suburban development. It's not the name on the label that matters, it's the end result. While there were other reasons for building highways, expansion of cities into nearby regions (through suburban development) was a primary reason to build them--and most suburbs simply couldn't operate without the highways. And kindly read the rest of my post to learn that highways weren't the only suburban subsidy: there were plenty of others. That's not even counting the way that suburbs depend on urban centers to take responsibility for things the suburbs don't want to pay for, like homeless shelters and other social services.

I could cite my sources, but you wouldn't read them anyhow. I can see that you aren't interested in the facts when they don't meet your opinions, econgrad, so I'm declaring this discussion "game over," at least in the sports thread. We can continue it elsewhere.

Facts? Your simply wrong. There is a direct subsidy for urban renewal and development. Your argument is trying to make connections that sprung out suburban growth, not directly linked to suburban growth. This is ludicrous and you know it. You just have a blind hatred for the suburbs and therefore will bring up obscure connections that really have nothing to do with suburban development. All your connections are linked to Gov trying to create economic growth and jobs, not suburb creation. Open your eyes man...

[cozmoose]

so what has happened to the proposed stadium near cal expo? Is it dead?

Suppose the stadium does get built, how should it look like?

Something retro and traditional style like the Conseco Fieldhouse in Indianapolis?


Or something ultra modern like the BOK Center in Tulsa...thats right Tulsa!

[otnemarcaS]

Conseco Fieldhouse in Indianapolis - $183 million construction cost.
BOK Center in Tulsa - $196 million
New Arena at Cal Expo, Railyards, Natomas, anywhere in Sacramento - $500 to $650 million at least.

Any questions?

Talks continue between the NBA and Cal Expo. I think progress is being made but they are really keeping this low key and not throwing out nibbles here and there.

[wburg]

If it's at Cal Expo, I'm thinking modern. They're still talking, but I assume they're keeping it under the radar to avoid public burnout, and so they can hop out with a big plan all at once.

Remember, the main reason why they want a new arena is because Arco is supposedly worn out, kind of funny considering the building is like 20-25 years old. It will be a suburban tract area or a shopping center, or, more likely, allowed to sit and decay for a decade or two until it's no longer a good tax write-off.

[jsf8278]

Originally Posted by otnemarcaS

Conseco Fieldhouse in Indianapolis - $183 million construction cost.
BOK Center in Tulsa - $196 million
New Arena at Cal Expo, Railyards, Natomas, anywhere in Sacramento - $500 to $650 million at least.

Any questions?

Talks continue between the NBA and Cal Expo. I think progress is being made but they are really keeping this low key and not throwing out nibbles here and there.

WOW...that's really an eye opener. It makes you wonder why the hell it would cost so much. Materials more expensive now; higher costs associated with the land?

[otnemarcaS]

Originally Posted by wburg

Remember, the main reason why they want a new arena is because Arco is supposedly worn out, kind of funny considering the building is like 20-25 years old.

Definition of "worn out" is left to interpretation. Miami Heat built the Miami arena in 1988 after Arco arena yet they've since moved into a new building on Dec 1999. That's got to be a brand new to brand new record move for any sport. Orlando also built theirs the same year as the Kings and they are already constructing a new arena in downtown Orlando. Old arenas can survive decades in college. Not in the corporate world of the NBA.

[arod74]

Originally Posted by jsf8278

WOW...that's really an eye opener. It makes you wonder why the hell it would cost so much. Materials more expensive now; higher costs associated with the land?

Your correct about costs for materials. They have increased quite a bit just ask John Saca. A healthy chunk of the estimate is also going toward the refurb of the fairgrounds and all the retail components needed to make the project feasible and payoff the issued bonds. Elements those other projects didn't need as far a I know.

As for the design, I am also thinking we would probably see a modern take on the arena a la Staples Center in LA. A "old-timey" looking building would stick out like a sore thumb around that area surrounded by movie domes, strip malls, and random office buildings. As for the current arena, the team's need for a new building is based more so on the fact that the current arena just can't povide the revenue streams to keep the franchise competative with teams with new arenas, not that the building is worn out. Though Arco was built on the cheap and is basically a concrete, flop-walled warehouse with wooden stands. Never a good recipe for standing the test of time. The newer buildings have several more luxury boxes, retail, and dining options built into the facility to keep the cash registers ringing..