do you think Sacramento will get a new arena built for the Kings? (Los Angeles: unemployed, buy)

[Curmudgeon]

At this point it all sounds like kabuki to me, but I'll continue to watch with interest. It's better than soap operas or reality shows and has twice the entertainment value as the so-called evening news. If it ever happens I'll have to pay a visit to see it. Of course, I only have a finite number of years left!

[NorCal Dude]

Originally Posted by wburg

To some extent...a couple members of the Council are interested in seeing what bids are generated even if there is no arena, as theoretically the money from a parking contract could be used for any purpose the city sees fit.

We'll also see what kind of restrictions the city puts on the contract: they want to retain city staff rather than letting a contractor hire their own, don't want parking rates to go up exorbitantly (as they did in cities like Chicago) and don't want to lose the $9 million per year in parking revenue the city currently gets (that would be lost to a parking contractor.) Several council members are not comfortable with a 50 year contract and asked for the RFQ to mention potentially shorter contracts, maybe 30 years. So, if a contractor has to use city labor, can't raise prices too much, might have to pay back much of the profits to the city anyhow, and may last longer than 50 years, the contractor stands to make that much less money. And the less money a contractor can make, the less money they will be willing to pay for the rights to run our parking program.

I love how nitpicky you are through every step of the way. LoL. If only people had been like this with the debacle that is RTD.

[Mr. Opinionated]

Originally Posted by wburg

Everyone knows Sacramento is not a small town--we are, in fact, a big city. Everyone knows that an arena can be used for things besides Kings games. Everyone knows that having the Kings move to Anaheim is dumb, except maybe the Maloofs. But everyone also knows that Sacramento is broke. If no private investor steps up to pay for it, Sacramento will have to borrow money to build an arena. And no matter how much nonsense gets bandied about regarding "paying for" the arena with ticket fees or hotel taxes or parking revenue, nobody dares to mention that these methods aren't what would actually pay for the arena, because of course the arena has to be built BEFORE we start charging ticket fees.

That means the city HAS to take out a big, big loan. And if ticket sales or parking revenues or hotel occupancy is lower than projected, and there isn't enough money generated to pay for the loan payment, then the city of Sacramento has to pay the difference out of their general fund! So much for "it won't cost taxpayers a cent"! Several other cities, like Kansas City and Cincinnati, are now stuck with arenas that are drains on their general fund--and Kansas City doesn't even have a sports team for their arena.

So, to repeat. Yes, we are a big city. Yes, we deserve a basketball team. Yes, an arena has uses other than Kings games. Everyone realizes this, it is obvious--but it is also utterly unimportant compared to the real issue: There is no money to pay for it, and the only method suggested so far to pay for it REQUIRES that the city borrow a large amount of money, almost certainly from bank/vampire squid conglomerate Goldman Sachs. And if examples in other cities are any indication, the city of Sacramento will end up paying for a good chunk of that loan out of the general fund--the same fund that has been so savaged that we're laying off a large chunk of our police department even though we have among the lowest ratio of police to population of any American big city.

I dont have to be a native or an expert historian as yourself to realize, and respect everything you say here. It just seems that unlike myself, some people in key positions, and many who are not, from many conversations I have had over the years, refuse to accept what you say about the size of the city [no longer a quaint RFD] and it's financial state. And I wish I had some ideas about how the city might attempt to generate revenue for similar projects. Maybe later. But then, if there is refusal to acknowlege the need, well then...

[wburg]

If someone thinks that Sacramento is a quaint country town, I would question their knowledge of Sacramento. If someone thinks that Sacramento's city budget is in great shape and can easily afford the cost of an arena, I would question their sanity. If someone thinks both things are true, I would doubt they had the ability to tell Shinola from a hole in the ground. Although there are plenty of people who know both to be false, but will happily lie about Sacramento's current urban status and fiscal position if they think it will help convince our city government to write them a big fat check.

As far as how to generate revenue, there are some good models to follow--like what Los Angeles has done to revitalize its central city by promoting infill in existing buildings, and reinvesting in their transit system to regain what was once the biggest interurban electric railroad in the country.

"No longer a quaint RFD"? Feh. Sacramento was a major West Coast city when Los Angeles was still a cluster of cattle ranches.

[sacramento916]

What is RFD?

[wburg]

"Rural Free Delivery"--basically a reference to small-town Americana (as in "Mayberry RFD," an "Andy Griffith Show" spinoff from the Sixties.)

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by wburg

"Rural Free Delivery"--basically a reference to small-town Americana (as in "Mayberry RFD," an "Andy Griffith Show" spinoff from the Sixties.)

Well, I guess you really CAN teach an old dog new tricks. I always thought it stood for "Rural Farm District." Thanks to you I now know I was wrong as it's currently used.

Ya learn something new every day!

[Mr. Opinionated]

Originally Posted by wburg

If someone thinks that Sacramento is a quaint country town, I would question their knowledge of Sacramento. If someone thinks that Sacramento's city budget is in great shape and can easily afford the cost of an arena, I would question their sanity. If someone thinks both things are true, I would doubt they had the ability to tell Shinola from a hole in the ground. Although there are plenty of people who know both to be false, but will happily lie about Sacramento's current urban status and fiscal position if they think it will help convince our city government to write them a big fat check.

As far as how to generate revenue, there are some good models to follow--like what Los Angeles has done to revitalize its central city by promoting infill in existing buildings, and reinvesting in their transit system to regain what was once the biggest interurban electric railroad in the country.

"No longer a quaint RFD"? Feh. Sacramento was a major West Coast city when Los Angeles was still a cluster of cattle ranches.

And your point being? At one time I was wealthier than Will Smith, as if that would interest him now. Lol

[wburg]

My point being that anyone who claims Sacramento is some quaint little country town is a liar.

[sacramento916]

Originally Posted by Mr. Opinionated

And your point being? At one time I was wealthier than Will Smith, as if that would interest him now. Lol

LOL Even though I've lived in LA before and hated it, I still found this response hilarious.

Obviously, Sacto is not comparable to LA in big city amenities, you are comparing a catfish to a shark in that respect. But Sac's a nicer place to live IMO and it is close to SF which definitely trumps LA in urban amenities IMO.