HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1241  
Old Posted Sep 17, 2006, 6:48 AM
brandon12 brandon12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 998
Snfenoc, while I agree with much of your political/fiscal phisosphy in general, I do have a few points of contention with some of your ideas expressed above.

I think that the role of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT should be to defend the nation from foreign antagonists, etc. I also believe the role of LOCAL governments should be to facilitate whatever local endevours the electorate deems worthy. If the local jurisdiction wants to keep a major-league sports team, then it is the charge of the local government(s) to help it happen. Intervening in local issues is expressly what local governments should be doing (as opposed to confusing it's business with national issues (ie proclamations against foreign wars, etc.) One has to be realistic in accepting that municipalities are involved in the modern reality in which there are more cities that want major-league sports than there are major-league teams available. Specifically speaking to small-market areas, it's often (if not always) necessary for the taxpayers to subsidize arenas. If they didn't, there would be 10 NFL teams in NYC, and 10 MLB teams in the greater LA area (as examples). I don't think this is what anyone in America wants (even New Yorkers or Angelinos). Sports are a significant enough part of the American culture that I believe market intervention is necessary to ensure cities like Indianapolis, SLC, San Anotonio, Portland and Sacramento, etc. have major-league sports franchises.

The fact of American life is that if you don't agree with the decisions of your local government, you have two choices: You can move, or you can vote against the issues you disagree with. (this is scenario is essentially different than if the federal government is involved in something you don't agree with whereas your only recourse is to vote against the political movement you disagree with (assuming you wish to continue living in the United States.)
As far as I'm concerned, the more the federal government concerns itself with national issues and the more local governments concern themselves with local issues, the better.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1242  
Old Posted Sep 17, 2006, 7:57 AM
snfenoc's Avatar
snfenoc snfenoc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Steve in East Sac
Posts: 1,143
Local governments should be concerned with local protection and justice. State governments should be concerned with statewide protection and justice. The federal government should be concerned with nationwide protection and justice, as well as settling disputes between the states. That is just the way I see it. I cannot be convinced; and, unfortunately, it appears neither can any of you.

In the end, people can vote however they want. Nowhere in any of my rants did I say voters are not allowed to make terrible decisions, like increasing the size of government. If people want socialism, they get socialism. Keep in mind, just because the socialism is delivered locally does not change the fact it is SOCIALISM.

You brought up smaller markets as an example of why local government "involvement" (socialism) is important: "snfenoc, without local government "involvement", cities like Sacramento would miss out on sports teams, entertainment venues, etc." Your breakin' my heart. First of all, I don't care; I would rather do without. I do not base my happiness on arenas, sports teams or skyscrapers (it really hurts me to include that last one). Secondly, I think it is sad people like you believe the only way small markets can compete with large markets is by introducing socialism. Why not start small and work your way up? "No, that takes too much time, I want an arena NOW!!!!" Well, OK, Veruca Salt, you are free to vote your way into instant gratification. It's just too bad you are willing to be taxed so the local government can entertain you. I would rather be a free man who is forced to make his own entertainment (insert masturbation joke.......here) than be a slave who has it "handed" to him by a "benevolent" government.

Last edited by snfenoc; Sep 17, 2006 at 8:07 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1243  
Old Posted Sep 17, 2006, 6:25 PM
foxmtbr's Avatar
foxmtbr foxmtbr is offline
Finger Lickin' Good.
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 3,656
Arena clash's asphalt rumble
Parking fees play a crucial, if little-known, role in the Sacramento Kings' bottom line.
By Jon Ortiz - Bee Staff Writer
Published 12:00 am PDT Sunday, September 17, 2006
Story appeared in MAIN NEWS section, Page A1

Print | E-Mail | Comments

In the ultracompetitive, multimillion-dollar National Basketball Association, asphalt has become as important as acquiring a key big man to putting a team over the top.

That's why, after weeks of intense talks and what they said was an agreement to build a downtown arena to suit their business needs, Sacramento Kings owners Joe and Gavin Maloof last week shut down dialogue with local officials and the potential developer of the Union Pacific railyards.

The stalled negotiations and ensuing sharp-elbowed public talk highlight the difficulty in harmonizing the complicated workings of a small-market pro sports operation with the equally complex task of revitalizing one of the biggest chunks of developable metropolitan land in the nation.

Parking is particularly vexing: The Maloofs, whose Maloof Sports and Entertainment owns the Kings, the WNBA Monarchs and Arco Arena, charge $10 a vehicle and earn an estimated $4 million a year in parking fees from Kings games.

Sports financing experts say it's easier to tap into parking revenue than to raise ticket prices, especially for the Kings, whose average ticket price is among the league's highest.

"The question for the Kings isn't how many people you get through the door, because they've been selling out games for years," said Rod Fort, a Washington State University sports economist.

"The question is, 'How can we get more spending per game per person?' Parking helps get you there."

The Maloofs say parking money is vital to the financial patchwork they must weave to stay competitive with other teams, especially those in bigger markets with more lucrative TV deals and bigger corporate sponsors.

"Parking could be the difference between making money and losing money for a year," Gavin Maloof said in an interview last week.

But that can sharply clash with the priorities of the railyards' potential developer, Thomas Enterprises. The Atlanta-based firm wants to keep parking spaces from unnecessarily chewing up land inside the 240-acre infill zone where buildings could stand.

And vast oceans of parking also dampen what Sacramento County's economic development chief, Paul Hahn, called the "social goals" of local government -- a railyards zone where visitors take light rail, a train or a bus to ease traffic pressures and improve air quality.

The Maloofs said last week that they were "blindsided" by the developer's proposal to chop the footprint of the arena from 8.5 acres to 4.5 acres and reduce the parking the team would control from 8,000 spaces to between 2,000 and 3,000 in a single multistory garage.

The Maloofs said they believed they had an agreement for 3,000 covered parking spaces adjacent to the arena and 5,000 spaces of surface parking.

Sacramento Assistant City Manager John Dangberg has denied the parties agreed on the number of parking spaces.

Last week, Thomas Enterprises agreed the "plan did not reflect the deal" and said it would redesign it to address the Maloofs' concerns.

Still, negotiators shouldn't have been surprised the scaled-back deal sent the Maloofs into a tizzy. Nearly every major league sports team uses parking to pad the bottom line, earning millions each year.

The average parking fee in the NBA last year was $11.67. The most costly: The Miami Heat's $25 vehicle charge for each of its 1,147 on-site spots, according to the Team Marketing Report, which tracks team-by-team fan costs to attend games.

The New York Knicks and the Houston Rockets tied for second, charging $20 per car.

Parking at 12 of the NBA's 30 venues cost more than at Arco Arena. Ten cost less.

In Memphis, FedEx Forum visitors pay what Kings fans pay -- $10 for one of 1,800 spaces in an on-site parking garage.

Parking fees for the NBA's Grizzlies total about $2.8 million a year, but the team, which controls the revenues from the arena and the garage, makes an additional $700,000 a year by selling the garage's corporate naming rights to Ford Motor Co.

John Thomas, president of Maloof Sports and Entertainment, wouldn't divulge total Arco Arena parking revenues.

He did say, however, that Kings games account for a little less than a third of the events Arco Arena hosts in a year but draw about 40 percent of the traffic to the building's 11,000-space parking lot.

At $10 per car for the roughly 8,000 cars the Kings say use the lot each game, Maloof Sports earned roughly $4 million in parking fees spread over roughly 50 Kings games, Thomas said.

That means parking fares from other events equaled about $6 million, or $10 million for all events combined.

Parking is "a major revenue stream, one of the top five or six for us," Thomas said.

Forbes magazine estimates the Kings earned about $10 million during the 2005-06 season on revenues of $119 million before deductions for things such as taxes, wear and tear on equipment, and debt payments.

Thomas called the Forbes figures "a joke," but declined to provide specific numbers.

Parking also is part of a larger package of amenities that teams offer their prized premium ticket holders, the customers who purchase high-priced suites, club seats and courtside spots.

They are usually affluent and more likely to spend freely on food, drinks and memorabilia -- and want extras like parking that is close to the building and VIP access.

"You know how you get Jack Nicholson to your game? With the extra stuff," Fort, the sports economist, said.

"And those are the people who get your team financially over the top."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1244  
Old Posted Sep 17, 2006, 6:45 PM
creamcityleo79's Avatar
creamcityleo79 creamcityleo79 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Robbinsdale, MN
Posts: 1,787
Quote:
Originally Posted by snfenoc
Local governments should be concerned with local protection and justice. State governments should be concerned with statewide protection and justice. The federal government should be concerned with nationwide protection and justice, as well as settling disputes between the states. That is just the way I see it. I cannot be convinced; and, unfortunately, it appears neither can any of you.

In the end, people can vote however they want. Nowhere in any of my rants did I say voters are not allowed to make terrible decisions, like increasing the size of government. If people want socialism, they get socialism. Keep in mind, just because the socialism is delivered locally does not change the fact it is SOCIALISM.

You brought up smaller markets as an example of why local government "involvement" (socialism) is important: "snfenoc, without local government "involvement", cities like Sacramento would miss out on sports teams, entertainment venues, etc." Your breakin' my heart. First of all, I don't care; I would rather do without. I do not base my happiness on arenas, sports teams or skyscrapers (it really hurts me to include that last one). Secondly, I think it is sad people like you believe the only way small markets can compete with large markets is by introducing socialism. Why not start small and work your way up? "No, that takes too much time, I want an arena NOW!!!!" Well, OK, Veruca Salt, you are free to vote your way into instant gratification. It's just too bad you are willing to be taxed so the local government can entertain you. I would rather be a free man who is forced to make his own entertainment (insert masturbation joke.......here) than be a slave who has it "handed" to him by a "benevolent" government.
Socialism sounds like something you don't like, snfenoc! Just a guess! I happen to BE a Socialist and I'm proud of it. I look at cities like Chicago, Denver, and others and think how wonderful a place Sacramento could be if we just spread some of our wealth around. I said this on another forum I belong to, and I'll say it again. When you die, noone cares how much money you made, they care how much of your life(money included) you shared! I am not willing to let corporations take over, as some would like, to the point where everything is red tape. I am adamantly against many corporations in this country because they are unethical and unfair to workers and they're only about their bottom line. This is why I agree with brandon when he says that he believes it is the role of local gov't to do the will of the electorate in cases like this. Because they have the best interest of the electorate in mind NOT their profits. I'd rather have a publicly subsidized arena in Sacramento that was paid for by the people without the ulterior motives and profit seeking executives that go along with corporate sponsorships. Maybe it's just me but the problem with America today is that we've become so money hungry that we forgot what makes humanity great...helping people with nothing expected in return. End rant!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1245  
Old Posted Sep 17, 2006, 6:47 PM
econgrad econgrad is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 795
Why is it such a big deal to put the arena somewhere else, like Cal Expo or somewhere where there is plenty of space and parking and everyone is happy? Put it closer to DT than Arco, just not in the railyards. We keep the Kings, everyone is happy. The railyards have had plans come and go to be developed for more than 40 years, I do not think it is wise to risk losing the Kings over wanting to see the railyards developed. Sacramento is a car town, let the people drive to the games and park. Screw the railyard/arena idea. Build up the railyards without the Arena so we can put more people to live and work in DT Sac.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1246  
Old Posted Sep 17, 2006, 7:48 PM
foxmtbr's Avatar
foxmtbr foxmtbr is offline
Finger Lickin' Good.
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 3,656
^ Cal Expo actually sounds like a good idea, I wonder if they've thought of that? The railyards could still be developed, but perhaps with a live theater or smaller-scale arena/concert hall.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1247  
Old Posted Sep 17, 2006, 7:59 PM
Dieler Dieler is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by foxmtbr
^ Cal Expo actually sounds like a good idea, I wonder if they've thought of that? The railyards could still be developed, but perhaps with a live theater or smaller-scale arena/concert hall.
I don't think I could support such a plan with my vote.

In my opinion, if the public is going to invest $500-600M, some larger good needs to come out of it. Jump starting a vibrant downtown expansion fits the bill in my mind.

Keeping the Kings in town matters, but not enough for the deal that is on the table.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1248  
Old Posted Sep 17, 2006, 9:13 PM
Phillip Phillip is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 562
Quote:
Originally Posted by econgrad
Build up the railyards without the Arena so we can put more people to live and work in DT Sac.
I agree. The #1 thing Sacramento could do to build up its Downtown is get more middle and upper income people living in the railyards. A LOT of people; the more the better.

How many townhomes and lowrise apts/condos will fit on 8 or 18 acres? A lot! The people who live there will shop and eat and work Downtown. Thousands of parking spaces, empty 90% of the time, don't contribute to Downtown's vitality.

An arena in the backyard with its inevitable traffic gridlocks will discourage people from moving to the railyards, not attract them, imo.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1249  
Old Posted Sep 17, 2006, 9:38 PM
Majin's Avatar
Majin Majin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Downtown Sacramento
Posts: 2,221
What I don't understand is if parking is the main, issue, why dont they just use the 8 arces they have been given more efficiently by using high-rise parking instead of surface parking lots? Something like a cluster of parking garages like the one at 15th and K. A few of those combined with some surface parking should be plenty.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1250  
Old Posted Sep 17, 2006, 9:52 PM
foxmtbr's Avatar
foxmtbr foxmtbr is offline
Finger Lickin' Good.
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 3,656
^ Exactly! That's what confuses me. Why don't they just build more and/or taller parking garages? Maybe even underground parking? There are simple ways around the issue, Maloofs. You don't need more land for more parking. Just go vertical.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1251  
Old Posted Sep 17, 2006, 11:40 PM
Schmoe's Avatar
Schmoe Schmoe is offline
NIMBY Hater
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 1,054
I think one of the Maloofs was quoted complaining that the garages take a long time to get out of. I was thinking about this and thought that if I went to a game downtown and decided to drive, I would probably stay late and hit the bars nearby afterward. That's something I really can't do right now at Arco Arena.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1252  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2006, 12:15 AM
brandon12 brandon12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 998
Quote:
Originally Posted by urban_encounter
Does anyone honestly believe that this still has ANY chance of passing???
.
Yea, it'll pass.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1253  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2006, 1:16 AM
creamcityleo79's Avatar
creamcityleo79 creamcityleo79 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Robbinsdale, MN
Posts: 1,787
Quote:
Originally Posted by brandon12
Yea, it'll pass.
I think that it will pass, too!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1254  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2006, 1:21 AM
Phillip Phillip is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 562
Has the Bee run an opinion poll on Q/R yet? Seems about time. I'm waiting for a preliminary poll on Schwarzenegger/Angelides too.

If Q/R is 45/55 now maybe there's a chance it will pass and the Yes camp can gear up to spend some $$ and try to convince people. If it's 32/68 now then it's hopeless and the parties involved can start making other plans.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1255  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2006, 1:28 AM
creamcityleo79's Avatar
creamcityleo79 creamcityleo79 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Robbinsdale, MN
Posts: 1,787
Funny you should ask...the Sac Business Journal had one that I just now saw...58% YES 36% NO. The question was originally asked Friday 9/15/06. That looks pretty good. But, then, it's the Business Journal. So, it may be a little skewed for downtown development. Also, as far as Schwarzenneger/Angelides goes it's A.S. 47% and P.A. 39%. That's a lot of undecideds and, historically, the challenger takes most of the undecideds. But, we'll see. That's from www.rasmussenreports.com. Also, in case anyone was wondering, the 2006 Senate Election is being followed by the very popular www.electoral-vote.com guy. Check it out. The site is updated daily with the latest poll #'s. I can tell you this...it's going to be REALLY close!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1256  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2006, 1:45 AM
Phillip Phillip is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 562
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuhickman79
Funny you should ask...the Sac Business Journal had one that I just now saw...58% YES 36% NO. The question was originally asked Friday 9/15/06. That looks pretty good. But, then, it's the Business Journal. So, it may be a little skewed for downtown development.
Thanks for the info, neuhickman79. I guess the validity of Bizjournal's poll (I haven't seen it) depends on who they asked. The reader comments posted on sacbee.com are mostly against Q/R but maybe that's not a representative sample either. It will all come clear soon enough.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1257  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2006, 1:56 AM
urban_encounter's Avatar
urban_encounter urban_encounter is offline
“The Big EasyChair”
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: 🌳🌴🌲 Sacramento 🌳 🌴🌲
Posts: 5,979
Quote:
Originally Posted by brandon12
Yea, it'll pass.

Do you drink Light, Medium or Dark Roast????






All kidding aside, i hope that I'm wrong, but I feel pretty confident that (not only I'm I right about this), but i predict it loses big.
__________________
“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
     
     
  #1258  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2006, 2:06 AM
urban_encounter's Avatar
urban_encounter urban_encounter is offline
“The Big EasyChair”
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: 🌳🌴🌲 Sacramento 🌳 🌴🌲
Posts: 5,979
Quote:
Originally Posted by econgrad
Why is it such a big deal to put the arena somewhere else, like Cal Expo?


Because the same Nimby's who stopped Bill Graham Productions from building the new Sacramento Valley Amphitheater there, would move forcefully against any proposed arena and you can bet that Steve Cohn would lead the charge......
__________________
“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
     
     
  #1259  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2006, 2:44 AM
innov8's Avatar
innov8 innov8 is offline
Kodachrome
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: livinginurbansac.blogspot
Posts: 5,079
Yep, there is no chance an arena would be built at Cal Expo.
unless the the legislators under the dome passed a
bill saying this is where it can be built... it would never
happen otherwise. IMO, I think that would be the worst
location of them all.

Well, at least if an arena is built next to the old Arco
someday, light rail will come within a block of that building.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1260  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2006, 7:27 AM
econgrad econgrad is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 795
I did not know about the Bill Graham Amphitheater for Cal Expo, that is too bad it never happened. As far as the arena, I just meant that why not use the money from Q & R and build the arena somewhere else where you can have all the parking needed for the Kings organization to make a profit. Tear down Arco, build a bigger better arena, and since the light rail will be a block away, build one of those transit villages, similar to the one being built on 65th and Folsom blvd. I know it does not benefit the railyards, but we get to keep the Kings. Develop around the new arena and create a destination, another great area in the Sac metro. Or maybe even West Sac, or North of the railyards in the area of the proposed Gold Rush Park...we can get creative and still make something great, with $600 mill. Just my 2 cents. What do you guys think? Just for fun: What would be an alternative area to put an arena and why?
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



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:49 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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