do you think Sacramento will get a new arena built for the Kings? (Fresno: home, colleges)

[CeJeH]

Once again, let's go ahead and wait until they actually announce how it will be funded before assuming that the taxpayers are going to have to front the whole bill. At this point your whole argument about it being a bad thing because we're going to get stuck with the bill is based entirely on speculation. At no point have they said that we will end up paying the whole thing and KJ+company seemed to generate quite a bit of interest as far as private financing goes during the fight to keep the team in town for another year.

[CeJeH]

Developer says he's interested in building around new arena - Sacramento Business, Housing Market News | Sacramento Bee (http://www.sacbee.com/2011/09/01/3878517/developer-says-hes-interested.html - broken link)

[wburg]

Of course, it's the same developer who is also interested in building the arena. So why wouldn't he want to build more things near one of his own projects?

[Malloric]

The voters have already had their say about built period no matter how it's done as long as it's done.

[CeJeH]

I'm sure Taylor isn't the only one interested in building around it if it gets built and I'm sure they will put in a lot more than just a hotel.

[Malloric]

Just so long as Redevelopment money pays an appropriate ratio to build their private developments, I'm sure you're right. That appropriate ratio is apparently 50 to 75%. No thanks. I'd love to see private development, however.

[shelato]

Originally Posted by NorCal Dude

First off, I am not agreeing with you. The notion that arenas are not revenue generating entities has been economic dogma for the last 20-30 years. But that does not make them unique among various infrastructure entities in that regard.

Here we agree.

Originally Posted by NorCal Dude

Second, No one needs your MOD CUT list in order to determine whether or not they feel arenas are a benefit to the quality of life . Any way, as to your points

Most people feel that entertainment venues are vital to a city. Ask people in the bay how they would feel with out the shoreline amphitheater, or the HP pavilion, or candlestick, or att park, or oracle, I could go on and on. I mean should we drive to the bay for everything? Public safety is important to infrastructure, but the bulk of the dollars there go to Cadillac pensions. You can't sit there and act like other quality of life forms of infrastructure do not have their flaws.

Right now there are city police and fire stations being closed on a rolling basis because the city doesn't have a enough money to fund them. Yet somehow the city is supposed to come with money to fund an arena? In terms of priorities, I see firefighting and public safety much higher than funding entertainment venues. In an era of limited budgets, police and firefighting are essential government services, professional basketball players are not. If it is possible to raise government money to support an arena that money should be used to restaff the police and firefighting stations first. Once those needs have been addressed then we can worry about the millionaire basketball players.

Originally Posted by NorCal Dude

Using your logic we should not have crocker art museum because it does not generate revenue the city, and it does not offer any educational enrichment that the internet can not provide. Guess we should cancel that new science center they are building down town too folks! Same goes for the zoo!

I believe in funding priorities first. This probably means postponing building a new science center and cut backs for Crocker unless some wealthy donor(s) step in.

Originally Posted by NorCal Dude

The average person uses an airport less than a dozen times in a decade, should we stop funding the airport? Was that expansion a mistake because airlines did not help chip in to fund it?

The costs of running and expanding the airport it come from fees tacked on to plane tickets of people using the airport. The primary hidden subsidy of the airport is that as a government owned entity it doesn't pay property taxes on its property and it can issue low cost municipal bonds in which the interest is exempt from federal taxation for investors (which results in lower borrowing costs for the airport authority). If the cost of the new arena is funded by fee on tickets sold and the new arena, I would support that. But from what I have heard discussed that is unlikely.

Originally Posted by NorCal Dude

You obviously don't really know anything about sports, the kings have been losing money as a franchise. And the Maloof's lost their family heirloom, a beer distributorship as well as controlling interest of their casino. The Maloofs are struggling right now like everyone else.

I don't know where some people get the idea that the maloofs are scrooge mc ducks that live in an ivory tower who jump off diving boards into pools of money. I think part of it is what local sports commentator grant napier hit on during his show:

There's just too many yokels in this town that simply resent anyone with money. People act like the Maloofs have not poured millions of dollars into various charitable entities in Sacramento. Why people think the maloofs should fund an arena that they wont even use for more than a few months is beyond me.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for them footing some of the bill, but the people are going to have to meet them and private investors some where on the map.

I know you lived in Sacramento when the town was the size of bakersfield, but you need to accept that those days are gone.

The track record of the Maloofs is that they are dilettante playboys. They inherited a bunch of money that have managed to squander through a series of colossally stupid financial decisions. Now they are looking for a government handout. They lost beer distributorship, and casino while pretty much running the Kings into the ground. What they are asking us to hand over is far more money than the Kings have donated to charity. It would be far cheaper for the city to distribute the money to the disadvantaged directly rather than handing it over to the Maloofs.

The issue is why you think it is the cities responsibility to spend millions to fund arena that on good days will be used for a few hours a day a few times a week at best is beyond me.

If Sacramento is such a great market for professional sports, than again, let the owners of the professional sports teams build the arena.

[NewToCA]

Originally Posted by shelato

The track record of the Maloofs is that they are dilettante playboys. They inherited a bunch of money that have managed to squander through a series of colossally stupid financial decisions. Now they are looking for a government handout. They lost beer distributorship, and casino while pretty much running the Kings into the ground. What they are asking us to hand over is far more money than the Kings have donated to charity. It would be far cheaper for the city to distribute the money to the disadvantaged directly rather than handing it over to the Maloofs.

The issue is why you think it is the cities responsibility to spend millions to fund arena that on good days will be used for a few hours a day a few times a week at best is beyond me.

If Sacramento is such a great market for professional sports, than again, let the owners of the professional sports teams build the arena.

I still find it odd when comparing city facilities. For example, Sacramento has a slightly higher total metro income than Cincinnati, $86 billion for Sacramento and $83 billion for Cincinnati. Sacramento also has a slightly higher per person income than Cincinnati.

Yet, Cincinnati has Paul Brown Stadium for the Bengals, Great American Ballpark for the Reds, the Cintas Center for Xavier University and Fifth Third Arena for the University of Cincinnati. In addition, they have US Bank Arena in the downtown area.

I'm not stating their approach should be our model...but we can't afford a single arena? And yes, I do support some taxpayer money to fund the facility.

[wburg]

Originally Posted by NewToCA

I still find it odd when comparing city facilities. For example, Sacramento has a slightly higher total metro income than Cincinnati, $86 billion for Sacramento and $83 billion for Cincinnati. Sacramento also has a slightly higher per person income than Cincinnati.

Yet, Cincinnati has Paul Brown Stadium for the Bengals, Great American Ballpark for the Red, the Cintas Center for Xavier University and Fifth Third Arena for the University of Cincinnati. In addition, they have US Bank Arena in the downtown area.

I'm not stating their approach should be our model...but we can't afford a single arena? And yes, I do support some taxpayer money to fund the facility.

How many of Cincinnati's arenas were paid for with taxpayer funding?

[Malloric]

Originally Posted by NewToCA

I still find it odd when comparing city facilities. For example, Sacramento has a slightly higher total metro income than Cincinnati, $86 billion for Sacramento and $83 billion for Cincinnati. Sacramento also has a slightly higher per person income than Cincinnati.

Yet, Cincinnati has Paul Brown Stadium for the Bengals, Great American Ballpark for the Red, the Cintas Center for Xavier University and Fifth Third Arena for the University of Cincinnati. In addition, they have US Bank Arena in the downtown area.

I'm not stating their approach should be our model...but we can't afford a single arena? And yes, I do support some taxpayer money to fund the facility.

And Sacramento Metro has Power Balance Pavilion for the Kings, Raley Field for the River Cats, Aggie Stadium for UC Davis, the Pavillion for UC Davis, Hornet Stadium for CSUS.

Sac is also located less than two hours from the Bay Area. Candle Stick, AT&T Park, Coliseum, HP Pavilion, Oracle Arena.

Don't ask that, wburg. Paul Brown was a fiasco that officially went $170 million over budget -- impressive, when you consider it was only supposed to cost $280 million. But it's the Midwest and they do love their sports.

South-Western: Municipal Sports Stadiums