do you think Sacramento will get a new arena built for the Kings? (purchasing, property taxes)
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.
Read the term sheet, don't just look at it. The description of the concession model on Pages 16-17 has one paragraph of its advantages and five paragraphs of drawbacks--it locks up city parking for longer than the arena will last, desired city concessions reduce the value of the contract, $52 million will have to pay off the existing city parking structure debt, city retains less revenue, and the RFP process will cost a few million and take more time.
Add to that the other restrictions on parking that came from the deal with the Maloofs. Under the deal with the team, the Maloofs keep ALL parking revenue on Kings game nights, and the city keeps all revenue from other arena event nights. The parking contract was issued with the assumption that this parking contractor would make most of their money on nights when the arena was in use--but this deal means that the parking contractor would get NOTHING on those nights! Based on 40 Kings games and 160 arena events (the estimates given for expected use) the contractor would only get revenue from their investment 165 days a year--all on days when the arena is CLOSED.
That's not just a bad deal, it's an embarassingly bad deal. The parking concession model is dead, the city is just clearing the way for the bond issue.
Anti-Arena folks will spin this every which way they can to put doubt in peoples minds including maligning the leaders of the plan.
Excellent, credible, successful groups are involved:
AEG - the best entertainment/arena operator in the world. AEG says (with this ARENA) Sacramento will get ALL big popular shows and concerts all year long.
AEG's deal is designed so that the more money this arena makes, the less they make--which means it is in their best interest for the arena events to be so-so, but not earth-shatteringly good, because more of the money would go to the city. AEG also stands to lose $500 MILLION in media revenues if the Kings move to southern California--for an investment of $58.5 million, they prevent that from happening for 30 years.
Quote:
NBA - committed to making basketball competitive and profitable for small markets like Sacramento.
Also committed to ensuring that small-market teams serve primarily as "farm teams" for the big-city teams, which is why Sacramento's talented players get traded to the big cities if they do well. Also committed to ensuring that NBA host cities are so fearful of losing their teams that they will put up taxpayer money, and take out big loans, to do so.
Quote:
ICON - Successful Construction Company - They built the Pepsi Center and Sports Authority Stadium in Denver, Sprint Center in Kansas City, O2 in London.
David Taylor - the local guy construction company who has built some of the best and largest Sacramento projects to date.
Also stand to make the lion's share of that $400 million, with no financial investment on their part. Yes, David Taylor builds stuff, and I don't doubt he wants to build this, but he does it to get paid, not out of the goodness of his heart. Now, there's nothing wrong with getting paid, but the assumed risk is tremendous, and the actual fiscal reward is unlikely. The "it takes money to make money" line doesn't apply to Taylor in this case--he makes money by taking our money.
Quote:
The city will own all assets, and will receive share of profits from both AEG and the Maloofs.
Unless the Maloofs don't make enough on parking, in which case the share of profits that would have gone to the city goes back to the Maloofs. The city will also have to pay for all infrastructure improvements in the surrounding area--that is not included in the arena price, or in Taylor/ICON's cost-overrun guarantee.
Quote:
Parking revenue is guaranteed to go up because the Arena will bring a valuable asset to downtown, which means profits for all involved including the City.
Except that those estimated profits, as calculated, will be less than the interest of a bond issue with an interest rate of 2%--and rates these days are closer to 5-6%, especially considering that the city is already carrying a lot of debt. So the expected revenue, even though it is increased, is still less than the payments on the loan. The pages in the term sheet about parking monetization explain exactly what that means--the general fund will have to pay the balance, just as cities like Kansas City and Stockton have to do--even if the arena is a "success" for the private operators and a windfall for the construction company! The private sector is guaranteed profits--the city takes all the risk, and there doesn't appear to be any likelihood of reward.
Anti-Arena folks will spin this every which way they can to put doubt in peoples minds including maligning the leaders of the project.
Excellent, credible, successful groups are involved:
AEG - the best entertainment/arena operator in the world. AEG says (with this ARENA) Sacramento will get ALL big popular shows and concerts all year long.
NBA - committed to making basketball competitive and profitable for small markets like Sacramento.
ICON - Successful Construction Company - They built the Pepsi Center and Sports Authority Stadium in Denver, Sprint Center in Kansas City, O2 in London.
David Taylor - the local guy construction company who has built some of the best and largest Sacramento projects to date.
The city will own all assets, and will receive share of profits from both AEG and the Maloofs.
Parking revenue is guaranteed to go up because the Arena will bring a valuable asset to downtown, which means profits for all involved including the City.
Last edited by Chimérique; 03-05-2012 at 02:19 PM..
ANTI-Arena folks are motivated by greed, envy, small-mindness, ignorance, lack of vision.
Greed - They want all public funds to feed THEIR special interests - any dime that may go to Arena endeavors ENRAGES them.
Envy - They don’t like to see successful people do well in our City. Big business is evil in there eyes. They hate major league sports, the players and owners. They despise Kevin Johnson because he is a fair LEADER, something this city lacks.
Small-mindness/Ignorance - Half these folks don’t know what they are missing, they have no idea what it’s like to have top-notch venues available to them year round. They don't value big entertainment venues. So we are forced to Bay Area venues.
Petty - They don’t see value in Arenas so they don’t want the rest of us to enjoy them. These are the same people who vote EVERY thing down - River Cats Stadium, Crocker Art Gallery Expansion, Modavi Center in Davis. If they had it their way, these venues would never have been built.
ANTI-Arena folks are motivated by greed, envy, small-mindness, ignorance, lack of vision.
Greed - They want all public funds to feed THEIR special interests - any dime that may go to Arena endeavors ENRAGES them.
Envy - They don’t like to see successful people do well in our City. Big business is evil in there eyes. They hate major league sports, the players and owners. They despise Kevin Johnson because he is a fair LEADER, something this city lacks.
Small-mindness/Ignorance - Half these folks don’t know what they are missing, they have no idea what it’s like to have top-notch venues available to them year round. They don't value big entertainment venues. So we are forced to Bay Area venues.
Petty - They don’t see value in Arenas so they don’t want the rest of us to enjoy them. These are the same people who vote EVERY thing down - River Cats Stadium, Crocker Art Gallery Expansion, Modavi Center in Davis. If they had it their way, these venues would never have been built.
Uh, Greed like the Arena fans who want all the parking revenue for their special interest you mean. The Kings are not succesful. They're a losing team and a losing enterprise. That really doesn't have anything to do with anything, however. They could be a winning team and winning enterprise and I still wouldn't be all that excited about tax dollars going to them.
People who want stuff should pay for it on their own and not expect the tax payers to subsidize their Kings Tickets. Buy your own condoms.
Speak for yourself. I just don't support arenas for professional sports teams. I'd be all for funding an amateur sports facilities or city youth leagues. Raley Field was privately financed, which is how it should be. I've never seen the "Modavi Center" or Raley Field in downtown. Could you explain exactly how I can find them from, say, the State Capitol.
Uh, Greed like the Arena fans who want all the parking revenue for their special interest you mean. The Kings are not succesful. They're a losing team and a losing enterprise. That really doesn't have anything to do with anything, however. They could be a winning team and winning enterprise and I still wouldn't be all that excited about tax dollars going to them.
People who want stuff should pay for it on their own and not expect the tax payers to subsidize their Kings Tickets. Buy your own condoms.
Speak for yourself. I just don't support arenas for professional sports teams. I'd be all for funding an amateur sports facilities or city youth leagues. Raley Field was privately financed, which is how it should be. I've never seen the "Modavi Center" or Raley Field in downtown. Could you explain exactly how I can find them from, say, the State Capitol.
Then why bother coming in here and arguing if youre going to be mad at the outcome no matter what?
I can't wait until this whole thing is done and finalized so all the naysayers can shut up and find some other ground breaking future changing project to ***** about.
They could be a winning team and winning enterprise and I still wouldn't be all that excited about tax dollars going to them.
It's NOT tax dollars. It's future revenues that are possible only because of the Arena. Revenue that benefits the city!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric
People who want stuff should pay for it on their own and not expect the tax payers to subsidize their Kings Tickets. Buy your own condoms. I'd be all for funding an amateur sports facilities or city youth leagues".
Didn't you just say above that people should pay for their own stuff. What's it going to be?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric
Raley Field was privately financed, which is how it should be.
Public funds were used to pay for infrastructure improvements in West Sacramento which benefited Raley Field and the OWNERS OF THE RIVER CATS. They also got tax breaks and incentives for the STADIUM -- an Asset that benefits the Sacramento Region.
In case you don't know or have never been to the "Modavi Center"; it's a performing arts center LIKE AN ARENA, used for CULTURAL smaller musical, dance and dramatic performances. It's sits on PUBLIC LAND, at A PUBLIC UNIVERSITY where PUBLIC funds benefit the entire SACRAMENTO REGION.
[/quote]
That's a new one. The Kings are a performing arts team... well, it would explain why the suck so badly. Maybe that should stop prancing around with their fancy makeup and fiddling on them goofy stringed instruments.
Futures revenues that will repay only a portion of leveraging parking revenues, the majority of which will be paid for by either bonds or the general fund. So yeah, the Arena will partially pay for itself. Instead of a $1 surcharge it should be a $10 surcharge or whatever is necessary. I don't have an issue with public funds paying for the infrastructure for the arena. Public funds should pay for infrastructure. Public funds are going to pay for infrastructure. That's funds above and beyond and completely separate from the arena costs.
And no, I've never heard of the "Modavi Center" in downtown. Please do direct me on how I can get there.
It's tax dollars when repaying the construction bonds eats into the general fund, and when the new income from the arena is clearly less than the amount of money that will be diverted from parking funds in either scenario. It sounds like Chimerique has decided that addressing the facts is a losing battle, so he's just reverting to telling the same lies and making hilariously inaccurate accusations about the nature of anyone who dares question the wisdom of this arena plan.
The $60 million Mondavi Center was paid for 50% by a private capital campaign, 25% a loan from the UC Regents, 25% from the University.
80% of the $100 million Teel Pavilion was paid for by private contribution. The city of Sacramento contributed $12 million, Sacramento County donated $2.5 million, and the state kicked in $4 million.
This arena plan puts the city on the hook for about a quarter-billion dollars, representing two-thirds of the project cost. So yes, it's seriously above and beyond any of those other projects, none of which I personally opposed. And if the financing portfolio looked like that, with a 25% or so public contribution, my main objection would be the location (it really should be on the other side of the Central Shops, where there is plenty of room for an arena and parking structure that doesn't sit on top of our railroad depot) rather than the financing. As it is, it's a bad plan in the wrong place.
It's tax dollars when repaying the construction bonds eats into the general fund, and when the new income from the arena is clearly less than the amount of money that will be diverted from parking funds in either scenario. It sounds like Chimerique has decided that addressing the facts is a losing battle, so he's just reverting to telling the same lies and making hilariously inaccurate accusations about the nature of anyone who dares question the wisdom of this arena plan.
The $60 million Mondavi Center was paid for 50% by a private capital campaign, 25% a loan from the UC Regents, 25% from the University.
80% of the $100 million Teel Pavilion was paid for by private contribution. The city of Sacramento contributed $12 million, Sacramento County donated $2.5 million, and the state kicked in $4 million.
This arena plan puts the city on the hook for about a quarter-billion dollars, representing two-thirds of the project cost. So yes, it's seriously above and beyond any of those other projects, none of which I personally opposed. And if the financing portfolio looked like that, with a 25% or so public contribution, my main objection would be the location (it really should be on the other side of the Central Shops, where there is plenty of room for an arena and parking structure that doesn't sit on top of our railroad depot) rather than the financing. As it is, it's a bad plan in the wrong place.
I fully supported all of those projects, donated money for them, and attend events at them regularly.
Interesting, every one of those projects involved PUBLIC FUNDS, BONDS, and worse EDUCATIONAL FUNDS. A little hypocrasy, and a bit of a double-standard on your part don't ya think.
The Sacramento Arena will bring in more revenue than all of those projects. All of these projects, including the Arena, are different in the type of cultural offerings, talent, and entertainment value they bring to our community.
The current Arena site includes city owned land. Using the other side of the central shops would cost more money.
Last edited by Chimérique; 03-06-2012 at 12:05 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $53,000 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.
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.
