Comments on Dan's Article: (Below)
Sacramento Arco Arena Deal. Maloofs Railyard Arena Proposal Downtown Sacramento. November Ballot Arena Vote, Sacramento.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
steve96158 at 8:11 AM PST Tuesday, August 1, 2006 wrote:
Thank you
Thanks, Dan. Adding insult to injury are the County Supervisors who voted for the shady manner in which the ballot is being presented with the sole purpose to lower the approval requirement. It would be a shame if the voters fell for this costly and deceptive sham.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gldntone at 8:20 AM PST Tuesday, August 1, 2006 wrote:
"It's one thing for the public to build an arena with taxpayer dollars. It's another to build that arena and then hand the keys to a private party to profit from it." That pretty much sums it up! VOTE NO!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gabe2095 at 8:36 AM PST Tuesday, August 1, 2006 wrote:
The proponents
When you ask any proponent of the deal "why should we spend millions to subsidize millionaires and their toys", the only answer you'll get is "it is the price of living in a big city". Things like pollution, traffic, crime, homeless and many other things are the price of living in a big city. Sacramento doesn't need a sports franchise if this is the price that has to be paid. No studies, as of yet, can conclusively prove that a professional sports franchise does anything for the economy. So tell me why we need this...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Old99 at 9:11 AM PST Tuesday, August 1, 2006 wrote:
Agree With Conclusion of Column
Your comments mirror mine. While I believe that an arena would be a positive addition to Sacramento, the deal as proposed is deserving of a no vote. Unfortunately many chose to ignore the economics of the proposal and think that the public should foot the bill for a new arena and turn over the keys to the vault to the Maloofs to keep the Kings in Sacramento. Most troubling is the lack of candor on the part of the Maloofs leading up to the negotiation of the proposal on the table. It was just hints and rumor that they would move the Kings and tear down ARCO if they didn't get a new arena. Something that was missing from your column was that once a new arena is built, the Maloofs have the ability to sell the ARCO property for an amount in excess of $40 million. Just what city willing to build the Maloofs a new arena, fill the stands with fans night after night, with corporate sponsors willing to pay for the luxury boxes, and will allow them all the profits of the arena?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
robertkerry at 9:24 AM PST Tuesday, August 1, 2006 wrote:
yeah, but....
your opinion presumes that the county could handle running the new area profitably for over 30 years & the odds of that are not very good.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
marte at 9:36 AM PST Tuesday, August 1, 2006 wrote:
Cheaper Alternative
Your article correctly points out some of the problems with the Arena deal and highlights again the true only motive of the arena plan -- putting dollars in the Maloof's pockets to keep the Kings in Sacramento. What about a cheapter alternative? Why not just pay the Maloofs outright to keep the Kings in Sacramento using the currently available Arco Arena which utilizes the wonderful new Arena Blvd. to get thousands in and out of Arco? Why go through all the trouble and expense of building a new arena in an area that will bottleneck the 50/80/5 everytime there is an event? How much would it take, Gavin? $2 million a year? $5 million a year? $10 million? Even if we factor in some repair money for Arco, I think we could cut the bill in half, if not more, to keep the Kings in Sacramento. A crude, politically, and maybe legally unfeasible alternative? Probably. Could we build a park for the generations with the $300 million saved? Think about it....
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JOMICA at 10:18 AM PST Tuesday, August 1, 2006 wrote:
NOT A VOTE ON A NEW ARENA
Good, informative and thought provoking article. Except for your misleading characterization of the Board of Supervisors' vote. They will not ask the residents to vote to raise the sales tax to build an arena. They will ask the residents to vote to raise a general tax which may or may not be used to build an arena. Why do you insist on helping the Board of Supervisors promote their fraudlent ballot issue?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DavidPalmer at 10:28 AM PST Tuesday, August 1, 2006 wrote:
Arena
Is anyone else getting tired of the same old arguments against the arena by so many Bee columnists? Some of us are agreeable to spending a few dollars a month to have a new downtown. The old arena is broken down, so that argument doesn't fly. The NBA has guidelines that must be met for a team to be in a city. ARCO no longer meets these guidelines. And what makes anyone think all those people who spoke in favor of the Arena at last week's meeting didn't have validity in their words? What The Bee (who in an editorial said they were against building a new arena) is doing is reminding all of us in creative columns is that this is a bad idea. We know what you are doing--we have our own opinions and you will not change this. We would really like to hear and read both pros and cons about this issue. You know--fair reporting. Since this is not our first request, this apparently going to happen with The Bee. Thanks for listening.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mooreport at 10:39 AM PST Tuesday, August 1, 2006 wrote:
Other cost to consider
Dan, you forgot a few other expenses in this deal. First, the Kings are required to pay the city of Sacramento a $71M lump sum amount for their existing loan. Second, the Kings must demo the existing arena, parking, etc in order to sell their 85 acre ARCO arena site. Third, the city of Sacramento must sell it's 100 acre site next to ARCO in order to buy the downtown UP Railyards site for the new arena. In other words, city residents get to pay the sales tax and also pay for the UP land. The $60M or so the city gets for it's 100 acres could be spent in many other ways rather than to support the Kings. The new arena land costs should be factored into the total arena cost to be paid by the sales tax, and not be borne by the city residents alone.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
steve96158 at 8:11 AM PST Tuesday, August 1, 2006 wrote:
Thank you
Thanks, Dan. Adding insult to injury are the County Supervisors who voted for the shady manner in which the ballot is being presented with the sole purpose to lower the approval requirement. It would be a shame if the voters fell for this costly and deceptive sham.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gldntone at 8:20 AM PST Tuesday, August 1, 2006 wrote:
"It's one thing for the public to build an arena with taxpayer dollars. It's another to build that arena and then hand the keys to a private party to profit from it." That pretty much sums it up! VOTE NO!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gabe2095 at 8:36 AM PST Tuesday, August 1, 2006 wrote:
The proponents
When you ask any proponent of the deal "why should we spend millions to subsidize millionaires and their toys", the only answer you'll get is "it is the price of living in a big city". Things like pollution, traffic, crime, homeless and many other things are the price of living in a big city. Sacramento doesn't need a sports franchise if this is the price that has to be paid. No studies, as of yet, can conclusively prove that a professional sports franchise does anything for the economy. So tell me why we need this...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Old99 at 9:11 AM PST Tuesday, August 1, 2006 wrote:
Agree With Conclusion of Column
Your comments mirror mine. While I believe that an arena would be a positive addition to Sacramento, the deal as proposed is deserving of a no vote. Unfortunately many chose to ignore the economics of the proposal and think that the public should foot the bill for a new arena and turn over the keys to the vault to the Maloofs to keep the Kings in Sacramento. Most troubling is the lack of candor on the part of the Maloofs leading up to the negotiation of the proposal on the table. It was just hints and rumor that they would move the Kings and tear down ARCO if they didn't get a new arena. Something that was missing from your column was that once a new arena is built, the Maloofs have the ability to sell the ARCO property for an amount in excess of $40 million. Just what city willing to build the Maloofs a new arena, fill the stands with fans night after night, with corporate sponsors willing to pay for the luxury boxes, and will allow them all the profits of the arena?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
robertkerry at 9:24 AM PST Tuesday, August 1, 2006 wrote:
yeah, but....
your opinion presumes that the county could handle running the new area profitably for over 30 years & the odds of that are not very good.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
marte at 9:36 AM PST Tuesday, August 1, 2006 wrote:
Cheaper Alternative
Your article correctly points out some of the problems with the Arena deal and highlights again the true only motive of the arena plan -- putting dollars in the Maloof's pockets to keep the Kings in Sacramento. What about a cheapter alternative? Why not just pay the Maloofs outright to keep the Kings in Sacramento using the currently available Arco Arena which utilizes the wonderful new Arena Blvd. to get thousands in and out of Arco? Why go through all the trouble and expense of building a new arena in an area that will bottleneck the 50/80/5 everytime there is an event? How much would it take, Gavin? $2 million a year? $5 million a year? $10 million? Even if we factor in some repair money for Arco, I think we could cut the bill in half, if not more, to keep the Kings in Sacramento. A crude, politically, and maybe legally unfeasible alternative? Probably. Could we build a park for the generations with the $300 million saved? Think about it....
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JOMICA at 10:18 AM PST Tuesday, August 1, 2006 wrote:
NOT A VOTE ON A NEW ARENA
Good, informative and thought provoking article. Except for your misleading characterization of the Board of Supervisors' vote. They will not ask the residents to vote to raise the sales tax to build an arena. They will ask the residents to vote to raise a general tax which may or may not be used to build an arena. Why do you insist on helping the Board of Supervisors promote their fraudlent ballot issue?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DavidPalmer at 10:28 AM PST Tuesday, August 1, 2006 wrote:
Arena
Is anyone else getting tired of the same old arguments against the arena by so many Bee columnists? Some of us are agreeable to spending a few dollars a month to have a new downtown. The old arena is broken down, so that argument doesn't fly. The NBA has guidelines that must be met for a team to be in a city. ARCO no longer meets these guidelines. And what makes anyone think all those people who spoke in favor of the Arena at last week's meeting didn't have validity in their words? What The Bee (who in an editorial said they were against building a new arena) is doing is reminding all of us in creative columns is that this is a bad idea. We know what you are doing--we have our own opinions and you will not change this. We would really like to hear and read both pros and cons about this issue. You know--fair reporting. Since this is not our first request, this apparently going to happen with The Bee. Thanks for listening.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mooreport at 10:39 AM PST Tuesday, August 1, 2006 wrote:
Other cost to consider
Dan, you forgot a few other expenses in this deal. First, the Kings are required to pay the city of Sacramento a $71M lump sum amount for their existing loan. Second, the Kings must demo the existing arena, parking, etc in order to sell their 85 acre ARCO arena site. Third, the city of Sacramento must sell it's 100 acre site next to ARCO in order to buy the downtown UP Railyards site for the new arena. In other words, city residents get to pay the sales tax and also pay for the UP land. The $60M or so the city gets for it's 100 acres could be spent in many other ways rather than to support the Kings. The new arena land costs should be factored into the total arena cost to be paid by the sales tax, and not be borne by the city residents alone.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
posted by Sacramento Arena Watch at 5:46 PM
0 comments
links to this post
