Why won't Sacramento politicians go balls in on a new Arena/Kings? (Oakland: loans, hotel)

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by daddiesgirl

KC6ZLV's post is as clearcut as it can get. Most people are not aware that the stadium is built with taxpayer dollars while it creates very minimal jobs and the private corporations taking all the profits. There are better things to put money to, such as education or better highways to start.

And how much do the Maloofs still owe the city on it? Some things seem to never change!

[Nikefutbolero]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

And, yes, I no longer live there (three children and three grandchildren still do) but all this was being discussed and second-guessed while I was. Obviously, little has changed.

Thank god you don't live here anymore. Older NIMBYs like yourself are the reason Sacramento has had it's growth stunted.

[Malloric]

Originally Posted by Majin

It doesn't matter if a large portion of people in Sacramento has no interests in the kings. That's the point I'm trying to make, and that's the point that politicians, sac bee editorials, and the business community gets. The issue is MUCH LARGER than most Sacramento residents realize.

As been stated MANY TIMES, the Arena is MANY OTHER USES than the Kings. Closing the Arena means the lost ALL of the entertainment that uses Acro for it's venue. Concerts, MMA, a lot of other shows.

Plus losing the Arena would hit jobs HARD in a already high unemployment region. And it's NOT JUST JOBS RELATED TO THE ARENA. Jobs connected to supplying/maintained of the arena. Related kings staff, training facilities, and surrounding business in Natomas. It would be a economic disaster.

NOT TO MENTION FUTURE PROSPECTS OF JOBS. It is the responsibility of a region to ATTRACT JOBS to the region. We already have a hard time doing that, how much harder is it going to be with the loss of our only pro sports franchise? MUCH MUCH harder. Look at Stockton's economy, do people want that?

Look at sac bee articles, look at business journal articles, read what the local chamber of commerce has to say about it. They all say the same thing, it would be a disaster.

Yes it does. A fairly vocal minority of their constituents is tired of the Maloofs and their ****. It's not the local business journal, the chamber of commerce, or the Sac Bee that will be paying for it. If it would be such a disaster maybe the special interests in the chamber of commerce should pay for it. The voters clearly spoke and aren't interesting in paying for another stadium to line the Maloof's pockets. The majority of the money to build the Maloof's their new stadium so a few politically connected retailers could rent seek off the public doles comes from people who have no interest in going to a Kings game.

How many jobs do the Kings provide? Not enough for $600 million stadium. Go make a $600 million dollar tax break to a productive company. That's A not money out Sacramento's pocket and B could actually produce more than a handful of higher than minimum wage jobs.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Nikefutbolero

Thank god you don't live here anymore. Older NIMBYs like yourself are the reason Sacramento has had it's growth stunted.

And blindness to reality and ageism like yours is the reason it will stay stunted. Dream on, Dude!

[wburg]

I'd rather see something more along the lines of a four-year university in the central city: there are a ton of small "pocket universities" in the central city, we're adjacent to several large campuses, and there are a lot of educated people here, but we get an anti-intellectual reputation because there isn't an identifiable college campus in the downtown core. Considering the shape that the CSU/UC system is in, a private college would be a better bet--and, of course, if that college had sports teams, they would need someplace to play. I suppose they could use Memorial Auditorium or Arco (sorry, Power Balance) until something better comes along.

[skadet]

Originally Posted by wburg

we get an anti-intellectual reputation because there isn't an identifiable college campus in the downtown core.

UC Davis is 15 minutes one way; Sac State is 10 minutes the other. Sacramento gets an anti-intellectual reputation because it's populated with Government workers, hippies, and the homeless.

[wburg]

Originally Posted by skadet

UC Davis is 15 minutes one way; Sac State is 10 minutes the other. Sacramento gets an anti-intellectual reputation because it's populated with Government workers, hippies, and the homeless.

Government workers tend to be more highly educated than the general workforce: plenty of those government workers have advanced degrees, but they aren't glamorous or highly-paid jobs. And would you call Berkeley, Los Angeles or San Francisco cities that are free of hippies and/or homeless?

And yes, there are two major universities close to downtown Sacramento, and a dozen or so satellite universities and small campuses in or close to downtown.

[sacramento916]

It's not the state workers that give Sacramento an anti-intellectual reputation, it's the very working class/middle class backbone of the city.

Sacramento has historically lacked the entrepreneurial and commercial energy of other California cities. Because of this, it has over-relied on the government and real estate sectors, and has not been able to attract or produce enough high income producing industries. This lack of dynamism gives Sacramento a staid feel in comparison to other major cities in California, and does not attract the "movers and shakers" that typically are behind the vibrancy of major urban areas.

Instead, Sacramento has historically been known as a quieter, laid back city where one can have a stable life (both in employment and in residential family life). That type of expectation and reputation does not lend itself to exciting intellectualism.

That's not to say that there are no intellectual currents going on in Sacramento. It's just not as dynamic as San Francisco or Berkeley or Oakland or San Jose (although less artistic and more techie). Unfortunately, Sacramento is close to the bay area and will always be compared to it.

[sacramento916]

BTW, I think it would be tragic for Sacramento to lose the Kings. It is the only major sports team in town and losing them would also take out the inertia from building a new arena downtown.

This is about far more than the Maloofs. This is about the direction of Sacramento's future. Sacramento has come a long way in the past ten years, but it still has a long way to go. I want to see Sacramento be in the big leagues, to be a world class city. I think having a professional sports team, the recognition that it commands, is part of that.

[Stan Darsh]

I am not sure if it is a vocal minority or a majority of people that don't want the Kings to stay.

Seeing as I don't live in Sacramento, or California for that matter, but I have a vested interest in the progress of the city, I personally feel that losing the Kings would be a huge blow. It isn't the dollars and cents of immediate impact that are worth noting, it is about maintaining a level of awareness on the national level.

Having a major sports team isn't essential to being a great city... but it definately doesn't hurt. I think that Sacramento needs to get a new arena and try to make itself relevant again. If the team bolts, Sacramento will look (even though it isn't) as just being a cow pasture small big city.

From what I have heard, the Maloof's are in deseperate need of cash and moving the team would allow them some breathing room. You can't blame them for wanting to move if a city wants to give them a lot more.

I am still trying to figure out if people in Sacramento really care or not... but right now it seems that the strongest opinion is to run the Maloof clan out of Sactown unless they pay for an arena themselves.