U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > Sacramento
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
Unread 09-07-2011, 03:58 PM
 
Location: The State Of California
5,431 posts, read 5,093,020 times
Reputation: 1613
Kansas City Missouri Sprint Center Arena

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/econ/facul...youbuildit.pdf
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Unread 09-08-2011, 01:10 PM
 
6,885 posts, read 6,997,847 times
Reputation: 2636
Quote:
Originally Posted by CeJeH View Post
Oh imagine that, a plan with a vision for the future that an entire city agrees on! Something that will NEVER happen here as long as people are allowed to vote on it.
It looks like Tulsa's population DID vote on it...and the voters approved it.

Welcome

The last time we voted on an arena, it was voted down because it was a bad plan. Not because Sacramentans don't have a positive attitude or want to do things, but because the plan was a stinking pile of, well, let's just call it "fertilizer." We were told that this was wonderful, healthy fertilizer that would make us grow, but the people of Sacramento recognized it for what it was--although use of that term violates City-Data's TOS regarding langauge. So they turned it down.

Want to get the voters to support a plan? Come up with a good plan! Not a snow-job.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 09-08-2011, 05:27 PM
 
Location: The State Of California
5,431 posts, read 5,093,020 times
Reputation: 1613
Think Big Sacramento well this is the visible blue print of the arena Capitol Alert: AM Alert: Steinberg, Gaines to talk up Sacramento arena plan State Rep and Sen join in with Mayor Kevin Johnson push the new arena.

Last edited by Howest2008; 09-08-2011 at 05:47 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 09-08-2011, 09:18 PM
 
6,885 posts, read 6,997,847 times
Reputation: 2636
"Visible" is a bit of an overstatement--it is still very vague on details, contains no firm financial commitments from anyone, and doesn't even mention the fact that construction will depend on a loan from Goldman Sachs.

Arena plan relies on a hodgepodge of funding sources - Sacramento City News - sacbee.com (http://www.sacbee.com/2011/09/08/3894447/arena-plan-relies-on-a-hodgepodge.html - broken link)
Quote:
The so-called "Nexus Report" is sketchy in many respects. It doesn't specify how much money officials expect to raise from each funding source - including the anchor tenant, the Sacramento Kings. That and many other financial others are to be negotiated over the next few months.[LEFT]
Read more: Arena plan relies on a hodgepodge of funding sources - Sacramento City News - sacbee.com (http://www.sacbee.com/2011/09/08/3894447/arena-plan-relies-on-a-hodgepodge.html#ixzz1XQD893kk - broken link)
[/LEFT]
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 09-08-2011, 11:46 PM
 
Location: Sacramento
6,343 posts, read 3,420,399 times
Reputation: 4453
Well isn't that interesting. According to the sales consultant group hired to sell the project the new arena will bring in $775,000 in annual income to the government as well as $11.3 million during the construction phase. I wonder how much the city is going to rob Peter to pay Maloofs to get this "winner" of a deal.

Oh, and 49% of Downtown's economy is government. Hint, hint, time to diversify and seriously work on bringing in some other industries than government, Sacramento. Oh, and Intel provides twice as many jobs as this arena is supposed to, not to mention they aren't minimum wage type jobs. I wonder how many hundreds of millions in subsidies Intel got to help build their business campus. And I wonder how many city assets were sold, how many dollars were siphoned off from hotel taxes, parking, car rentals, tobacco taxes, and so forth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 09-08-2011, 11:49 PM
 
6,885 posts, read 6,997,847 times
Reputation: 2636
I gave a couple suggestions on other industries where Sacramento once excelled, and might excel again, on the thread about attracting the A's baseball team:

http://www.city-data.com/forum/20771096-post42.html

What do you think, malloric? What sort of industries could Sacramento attract, and what could we use to attract them?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 09-10-2011, 11:11 AM
 
Location: Sacramento
6,343 posts, read 3,420,399 times
Reputation: 4453
I guess the two big ones would be tech fleeing Bay Area costs and the manufacturing base that's building up rapidly in Arizona. What enticed Intel and the rest of the tech companies that followed them to Folsom? I assume it was some sort of tax break which beats the hell out of paying hundreds of millions of dollars to generate $750,000 in tax revenue a year. As for the manufacturing in Arizona that's a tougher issue. California is at a disadvantage due to the volume of environmental regulations, employment laws, taxes, and so on. On the other hand, Sacramento has cheap land, energy prices, low cost of living, and is far better located than Arizona. As of now, the Sacramento port is lightly used and mostly exclusively for ag. There's no particular reason the port could not expanded and the deep water channel dredged. There's also existing rail infrastructure which is more attractive for shipping as fuel prices continue to rise.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 09-10-2011, 05:33 PM
 
Location: Sacramento
13,306 posts, read 14,647,924 times
Reputation: 4961
Statement from Kings ownership:

"The Kings organization views The Nexus Report as a very positive step toward the goal of a new entertainment and sports complex that will bring substantial economic benefits to the entire region and we hope will enable the team to continue playing in Sacramento," the statement read. "We were pleased with the report's conclusion that funding for the project can be achieved using various revenue sources, none of which involve any broad-based tax. We look forward to continuing to work with all interested parties to bring the project to completion."


Paul Westphal talks Kings arena, Kevin Johnson, more - Sam Amick - SI.com
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 09-10-2011, 06:20 PM
 
Location: Sacramento
6,343 posts, read 3,420,399 times
Reputation: 4453
In English: We are pleased that the report's conclusion suggests that public funding can be achieved using various revenue sources, none of which involve a tax-payer vote. We look forward to continuing to work with all potential sources of income so that we may minimize our capital contribution in bringing this project to completion.

Let the meter rates rise, the hotel taxes increase, the City assets be sold. We've got an arena to fund! Honestly, it's not all bad. They've managed to avoid a few of the most obvious pit-falls such as co-signing a loan for nothing and selling city parking to a private company who jacks the rates up making a 100% windfall profit. Of course, I do see an issue with the idea that the Kings be allowed to sell their Natomas real estate without that money going to repay their existing debts. Considering the default clause on their loan consists repossession of the real estate and partial ownership of the Kings going to Sacramento, I don't see how that's going to work.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 09-10-2011, 06:42 PM
 
6,885 posts, read 6,997,847 times
Reputation: 2636
actually, this absolutely WILL require the city taking out a loan for construction costs (not co-signing, but selling bonds to fund construction that the city will be responsible to pay back) and anyone capable of elementary math can tell you that the maximum funds that could be generated by the "Sacramento First" team's smorgasbord of funding options is not enough to actually pay back the loan--several hundred million dollars short, in fact.

And yes, if you read the report, selling city parking to a private company (who jacks up the rates) is very definitely part of their funding package.

As to the Kings' existing debt, the Maloofs don't actually owe that money to the city, they owe it to Goldman Sachs, who bought the city-issued bonds (the city just ends up having to pay the bonds if the Maloofs default.) So since Goldman has skin in this game already, and is the only investment bank serving in this non-city task force, they seem like the natural choice to be the purchaser for the construction loan bonds--over 30 years, they can expect to get back $700-800 million from the city for a $400 million loan.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2011 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $74,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > Sacramento

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:19 AM.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top