Sacramento - New Arena Plan

[sugit]

Welcome to boards Sudden...

If put in the railyards and you live downtown it should be walkable or a light rail ride to close by.

a) The tax is a 15 year tax, so it is supposed to go back down the 1/4% after the 15 years is over.

b) There is no profit sharing. The city gets an average of 4M a year for 30 years from the Maloofs and 20M upfront. As is reported the idea is that 1/2 of the tax revenue could potentially go to pay off the arena and the other 1/2, maybe more, will go to the cities in the county to use as they feel nessassry. That could be police, fire, schools, entertianment and culture venues, parks, community centers, or anyting I have not mentioned.

[Sudden Valley]

Originally Posted by sugit

Welcome to boards Sudden...

If put in the railyards and you live downtown it should be walkable or a light rail ride to close by.

a) The tax is a 15 year tax, so it is supposed to go back down the 1/4% after the 15 years is over.

b) There is no profit sharing. The city gets an average of 4M a year for 30 years from the Maloofs and 20M upfront. As is reported the idea is that 1/2 of the tax revenue could potentially go to pay off the arena and the other 1/2, maybe more, will go to the cities in the county to use as they feel nessassry. That could be police, fire, schools, entertianment and cutlure venues, parks, community centers, or anyting I have not mentioned.

Thanks for the specifics. By walkable, I don't mean physically achievable, but more in the vein of alluring and well-connected. (I have browsed the plans, but I hope the reality actually interlaces imperceptably with existing surrounding areas, so you don't feel like the entire railyard development is a gated theme park.)

I can't wait for the cutlery venues.

[sugit]

Originally Posted by Sudden Valley

Thanks for the specifics. By walkable, I don't mean physically achievable, but more in the vein of alluring and well-connected. (I have browsed the plans, but I hope the reality actually interlaces imperceptably with existing surrounding areas, so you don't feel like the entire railyard development is a gated theme park.)

I can't wait for the cutlery venues.

I hear ya. If you live downtown or in midtown, you are within walking distance to just about anything Weather or not it's an interesting and well-connected walk, that's a different story.

[tuy]

The Generation Gap can be overcome with good marketing. I said it in a post somewhere else. The supporters have to make sure that they show that the Arena is not just for the Kings or sports in general. They need to play up all the different events that will be held in the Arena. From Wiggles/Circus/Disney on Ice for children to concerts and other events that appeal to Seniors. I was going to say Lawrence Welk concerts, but he is long gone. Not sure who the Seniors listen to these days.

[innov8]

Originally Posted by Sudden Valley

after the arena is built and profitting a) Will the tax return to its current rate? b) Can the City be repaid, at least in the form of profit-sharing, and at least until the loan is repaid? (the school system could totally use it, as mentioned below)
Can the tax be on something more specific to entertainment? I really don't think its fair to people on fixed incomes, such as seniors, no matter how much I would like an arena.
I have lived downtown for 10 years, and am about to buy a house as close to downtown as I can afford, so I want an active, dense, vibrant city. But since I am planning to live here for a while, I also want a well-funded school system, so the next generation of Sacramentans can be well-educated, and care about things like architecture and what makes great cities.

Alright then.

HA!!! It sounds like you have been over loaded with propaganda from the
anti-arena crowd.

Let's start with a) the tax goes for 15 years and then the county tax returns to what it is
now. b) The city won't need to be repaid because they will out-right own the
arena... the Maloofs will have no say in it or make any money from selling
it in the future if the city decided to do so. As for the School system, they already
get huge amount of taxes (over %50) of the state budget goes to schools.
In almost every election cycle propositions are on the ballot to fund schools
by bonds, and the voters in the last few years the have approved some of
the bonds and rejected many others. So that “either or” situation just doe's not
cut it here. If the schools need more money they can put it to the voters like they
have many times before. The tax money collected after the arena is paid for is
spent how the county and city choose to. They have listed several ways how
they plan to do that.

I understand you thoughts on seniors but that statement is over simplified.
Do you mean poor seniors because there are also seniors how have retired
and have lots of money too.

I'm confused Sudden Valley... your statement to me reads that it is OK to
tax seniors and fixed income people for the school system and entertainment
but not for an arena that will be used nearly 100% of the time for entertainment?
You did say ”specific to entertainment” right?

[TowerDistrict]

if they put a 1/8 of a cent tax to improve schools, crime, unemployment and homelessness on the ballot in November, I seriously doubt it would pass. I know that's just speculation - but with this we get both. without it, we get neither.

and you can't tax entertainment if you don't have any to tax.

[Sudden Valley]

Originally Posted by innov8

HA!!! It sounds like you have been over loaded with propaganda from the
anti-arena crowd.

Let's start with a) the tax goes for 15 years and then the county tax returns to what it is
now. b) The city won't need to be repaid because they will out-right own the
arena... the Maloofs will have no say in it or make any money from selling
it in the future if the city decided to do so. As for the School system, they already
get huge amount of taxes (over %50) of the state budget goes to schools.
In almost every election cycle propositions are on the ballot to fund schools
by bonds, and the voters in the last few years the have approved some of
the bonds and rejected many others. So that “either or” situation just doe's not
cut it here. If the schools need more money they can put it to the voters like they
have many times before. The tax money collected after the arena is paid for is
spent how the county and city choose to. They have listed several ways how
they plan to do that.

I understand you thoughts on seniors but that statement is over simplified.
Do you mean poor seniors because there are also seniors how have retired
and have lots of money too.

I'm confused Sudden Valley... your statement to me reads that it is OK to
tax seniors and fixed income people for the school system and entertainment
but not for an arena that will be used nearly 100% of the time for entertainment?
You did say ”specific to entertainment” right?

Nope on the propaganda-I'm pretty damn skeptical, which is why I was more questioning than opining.

The statement I made about education funding is very general of course, and doesn't go into use mis/management of funds,the text of previous bonds that have passed or failed, etc. I just know some teachers, and things are a mess.

Regarding seniors, I was speaking of the seniors that fall into the category of those on fixed incomes.

If the arena tax was on something entertainment-related, then those paying it would tend to be mostly those with some amount of discretionary income.

If we were talking about a tax meant to provide necessities, such as infrastructure, then the tax base should be widened.

[Schmoe]

Originally Posted by sugit

"It's a step forward," said Jim Battles, a 39-year-old acute care nurse who grew up in Sacramento. "The truth is that Sacramento is growing up and we need to decide what kind of community we're going to be."

Urban, you got quoted!!! Way to represent, bro!

[bennywah]

^
more also needs to be pointed out that even someone on a fixed income isnt looking at some massive tax increase, most people probablly wont notice the difference they pay for goods becuase in reality its a very, very small increase in the sales tax

Only people spending money on lux items like new cars, big tv's home theater systems, ect will notice an increase and even then it still isnt huge in comparison to what there spending. Also when did groceries i.e food items start getting taxed, oh wait there not so a family who needs to buy essential items wont see an increase other than on items like detergant, or toilet paper, ect you get the point, and those items aren't expensive.

and on a final note the other 1/2 of the money going to the needs of the city and county should be played up, its a wonderful compromise to get an ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT, and MONEY FOR SOCIAL NEEDS. I think it'll pass and help spur along the development of the railyards, maybe create an area like the east village around petco park which has really started to go up and clean up an ugly area otherwise negelected.

[Sudden Valley]

That is an excellent point!

[sactjs]

I agree with everyone about the benefits of a downtown arena.

That said I'm still undecided on how I will vote this issue.

If this tax is passed we're on the hook for 86-88% of the arena cost, if it stays on budget...and more than that if it goes over budget(likely in my opinion).

If we are already willing to pay nearly the entire cost, and assume the risks of cost overruns, why not just pay for the whole dang thing? The tax proposed is twice what we need to pay for a brand new arena downtown and own it outright! That I would definitely vote for.

I wonder why those who were negotiating on our behalf were willing to give away all naming rights and profits in order to save 12-14%(or less) off the arena cost?

[ICSACON99]

That last post is the very thing that most upsets me. I am so f*^#ing tired of hearing what a great deal the county/city got. Bulls*^t !! Just raise the entire funds nescessary & get the naming rights & all use related conscessions! Ok..We all know why they didn't do it this way...Goey & Gavy wouldn't sign off on any deal that didn't give them the kickbacks & the politicians didn't have the balls to ask for a fully taxpayer funded arena...So we get " Look how much the Maloofs are putting into the Arena". Not enough in my opinion for all the goodies like naming rights & venue related conscessions for ALL events ???? Good deal...sorry guys, I'd have to vote no on this one.

[ICSACON99]

Ok OK : I've calmed abit, but really, why did we give up all the conscessions if we're funding the lion share of this thing including any cost overruns??? I can see the Magoofs getting the windfall during Kings/Monarchs related events...maybe sharing in the windfall from naming rights....but every event & the whole multimillion dollar naming rights windfall...the city/county gave up way too much for how much the residents are being asked to spend. I'm sorry but when it comes to public funding I'm not a believer in the theory that a bad deal is better than no deal at all...

[joninsac]

If we are already willing to pay nearly the entire cost, and assume the risks of cost overruns, why not just pay for the whole dang thing? The tax proposed is twice what we need to pay for a brand new arena downtown and own it outright! That I would definitely vote for.

Any arena-specific tax would require a 2/3 majority to pass, and it wouldn't even get close to that number at the ballot box. By adding the half billion dollars for community needs, hopefully we can get the votes of those who keep asking, "What do we get out of this?", and it's the only way this measure has a chance of passing.

[joninsac]

It's also important to note that the county will be controlling the design and construction of the arena, so i would hope and expect that the final cost will come in somewhat nearer to the lower range of the estimated cost.

[sactjs]

we could pay the maloofs share in it's entirety, and still have 400 million give or take for community needs.

[creamcityleo79]

Originally Posted by ICSACON99

Ok OK : I've calmed abit, but really, why did we give up all the conscessions if we're funding the lion share of this thing including any cost overruns??? I can see the Magoofs getting the windfall during Kings/Monarchs related events...maybe sharing in the windfall from naming rights....but every event & the whole multimillion dollar naming rights windfall...the city/county gave up way too much for how much the residents are being asked to spend. I'm sorry but when it comes to public funding I'm not a believer in the theory that a bad deal is better than no deal at all...

I'm glad you're not voting since this is not a Yuba City issue!

[joninsac]

we could pay the maloofs share in it's entirety, and still have 400 million give or take for community needs.

That doesn't do the city or county any good though because the Maloofs would still demand control of all the revenue from the arena. Don't forget that the Maloofs, even though they get all the revenue, are still the ones who are footing the entire bill for running the place.

[enigma99a]

Originally Posted by joninsac

That doesn't do the city or county any good though because the Maloofs would still demand to control all the revenue from the arena. Don't forget that the Maloofs, even though they get all the revenue, are still the ones who are footing the entire bill for running the place.

Right. In fact I was suprised how much it will take to run it all year. I think it was around $15-20 Million a year.

[sactjs]

ok i just did some reading up on this and the more i learn the worse it seems

this is what I think is on the table, please let me know if I have anything wrong:

if we approve the tax, we will actually be paying for 100% of arena construction costs and 45 million parking garage cost. The maloofs pay zip, but they set aside 20 million for maintenance and pay off a loan early. Also, kings agree to rent the facility for 30 years at approx 4 million/year.

yes, Maloofs will pay operating costs but will keep all revenues, which they know are going to exceed expenses or they wouldn't agree to it.

The way I see it, we need to look at 2 issues separately:
1.)Kings renting the facility and
2.)Maloof Sports & Ent. operating the arena and keeping all the revenues.

If you consider that the kings would still have to pay rent anyway, even if M.S.E didn't operate the facility, and that the maloofs would have to pay back their loan anyway, what exactly are the Maloofs putting on the table in order to be entitled to full control of all arena profits? the only thing left is the 20million maintenance fund (squat)

Since we're paying for 100% of the arena construction costs, i have to wonder why the arena operations contract isn't being put out to bid, and the kings rental contract being negotiated separately with Maloof Sports & Entertainment.

This is a terrible deal and i think the politicians pushing this are more concerned about their legacy than anything