Sacramento Kings Sold ? (Anaheim: to move, deposit, arena)

[wburg]

Originally Posted by Chimérique

When is the last time private interests were willing to invest so much of their own money into downtown Sacramento - never.

2004, actually--the Saca towers proposal at 301 Capitol Mall, a $300 million project. How did that turn out?

http://www.bizjournals.com/sacrament....html?page=all

Oh yeah, and Thomas Enterprises' Railyards project, another project with a private developer interested in investing a few hundred million. How's that coming?

http://www.sacramentopress.com/headl...s_on_Railyards

See, this is why it's important to scrutinize the financing beforehand.

[Chimérique]

Originally Posted by wburg

2004, actually--the Saca towers proposal at 301 Capitol Mall, a $300 million project. How did that turn out?

Default notice given on Saca Towers loan - Sacramento Business Journal

Oh yeah, and Thomas Enterprises' Railyards project, another project with a private developer interested in investing a few hundred million. How's that coming?

Sacramento Press / Inland forecloses on Railyards

See, this is why it's important to scrutinize the financing beforehand.

You are so predictable, I knew you would bring up those two projects - If Saca towers were built, downtown would be prime and ready to go for the next economic wave and upturn. Instead we have to go through a decade of endless town meetings, objections, and people like you to stop future development downtown.

Half the towers would be filled with upper-income empty nesters, and young professionals, and they would have a place to call home when a private company or state gov't starts hiring again in the downtown core. These people could walk to the arena, raley field, crocker art galllery, walk to work, ride the future streetcar. They would give suburbanities a reason to not complain about the homeless, low-income folks. They would want to come downtown.

[Malloric]

Originally Posted by wburg

2004, actually--the Saca towers proposal at 301 Capitol Mall, a $300 million project. How did that turn out?

Default notice given on Saca Towers loan - Sacramento Business Journal

Oh yeah, and Thomas Enterprises' Railyards project, another project with a private developer interested in investing a few hundred million. How's that coming?

Sacramento Press / Inland forecloses on Railyards

See, this is why it's important to scrutinize the financing beforehand.

Kind of like how with Redevelopment projects the County Successor Agency got stuck with $180+ million in liabilities despite the projects being mostly paid for with free honey jar money from the State? At least the hole in the ground isn't going to end up costing the tax payers anything.

[wburg]

Originally Posted by Chimérique

You are so predictable, I knew you would bring up those two projects - If Saca towers were built, downtown would be prime and ready to go for the next economic wave and upturn. Instead we have to go through a decade of endless town meetings, objections, and people like you to stop future development downtown.

Why did you ask how long it had been since a private developer was interested in spending $200 million downtown if you knew the answer was "a couple years ago"?

Phooey on the "people like me" libel. I supported the Railyards project and had no problem with the Saca towers--and people who opposed creating those projects weren't people like me. But neither were they the reasons that those projects didn't get built--that blame I put squarely on the shoulders of people like you, who don't think they need a stable financing plan to move forward, just "vision" and some fancy renderings.

Half the towers would be filled with upper-income empty nesters, and young professionals, and they would have a place to call home when a private company or state gov't starts hiring again in the downtown core. These people could walk to the arena, raley field, crocker art galllery, walk to work, ride the future streetcar. They would give suburbanities a reason to not complain about the homeless, low-income folks. They would want to come downtown.

If you add up all the central city market-rate infill projects that actually did get built since the collapse of the Saca Towers finance plan, it adds up to more than those we would have gained with the towers. That's not counting the affordable and mid-income housing that was added, and was greatly needed. Not that we still don't need high-rise residential towers--we certainly do, just as we also need the additional 10,000 households in a built-out Railyards. What we don't need is another hole in the ground because some overeager salesman substituted "vision" for sound planning and fiscal responsibility.

[webdev]

Originally Posted by wburg

webdev, you're comparing things that the state of California is doing with things the city of Sacramento is doing. Transportation infrastructure is generally a good investment over the long term--sports arenas are not. Prop. 30 is a temporary budget fix and tax increase, like the Measure O increase the city passed.

Sports' "connotation" has nothing to do with it. Although it would be nice to see a major university planned downtown rather than an arena--a university would also presumably have sports teams, and that would require an arena.

Failure To Follow NBA Procedure Could Cost Sacramento Group - capradio.org

You have a point.

All I'm saying is that this arena deal is a risk with greater benefit (in my opinion) than some of the other ridiculous bond measures and tax increases voters have approved in the past. Having a professional sports team and arena put you on the map as a city. It will help do more for downtown than opening K street up for traffic. Thinking that making traffic flow through K street will improve the area is small town mentality. That will barely make any difference at all. Sure it might make people who live downtown visit certain locations more, but it's no incentive for people from the suburbs to come downtown and spend their money. An arena will make people from all over Sacramento come downtown for various entertainment. West Sac has already proven that with Raley Field.

We are unfortunately at a critical point regarding this arena deal. There isn't much time to meander about spending another few months, a year trying to figure out what will please everyone. This is it. This is probably the best we are going to get. It does suck that we have such big investors who are only willing to fork up 42%, but the difference is that we will own the arena. We could allow for full ownership in return for a larger investment but that's part of what people didn't like with the Maloof deal.

[NewToCA]

Major deadline today, if the Sacramento bidders meet the deadline with an acceptable deal it looks like the team stays put in Sacramento.

[wburg]

Sounds like the NBA wants Sacramento to pay back the $30 million deposit Hansen paid to the Maloofs, in addition to the Maloofs asking for a firm offer matching Hansen's by noon today. At this point it seems like they're just trying to figure out how far KJ & Company can stretch.

[NewToCA]

Originally Posted by wburg

Sounds like the NBA wants Sacramento to pay back the $30 million deposit Hansen paid to the Maloofs, in addition to the Maloofs asking for a firm offer matching Hansen's by noon today. At this point it seems like they're just trying to figure out how far KJ & Company can stretch.

Per Sam Amick of the USA Today, the $30 million doesn't seem like a "supplement" to the Seattle bid. Rather, it seems like Sacramento tried to use this as a potential discount:


Because the Hansen-Ballmer group gave the Maloofs a $30 million deposit that was characterized as "non-refundable" in early February as a sign of their commitment, the Sacramento group, according to the person who was at the meetings in which both sides addressed the NBA's relocation and finance advisory committees, attempted to come in $30 million lower than Seattle as an initial strategy. Their hope was that the NBA would consider those funds the cost of doing business for Seattle, and that the deal would be deemed acceptable as long as the Maloofs walked away with the same amount of profit from their pitch.

Yet when the NBA indicated that the approach was not acceptable, according to the person, it was made clear that they were prepared to fully match.


USA TODAY

[wburg]

In other words, the NBA says we have to pay back Hansen's deposit as part of the deal. If the Sacramento group was considering Hansen's $30 million as part of their offer (based on the fact that he wouldn't get it back if the Maloofs balked at his offer) then I'm not too surprised...that's kind of a sleazy move.

[NewToCA]

Originally Posted by wburg

In other words, the NBA says we have to pay back Hansen's deposit as part of the deal. If the Sacramento group was considering Hansen's $30 million as part of their offer (based on the fact that he wouldn't get it back if the Maloofs balked at his offer) then I'm not too surprised...that's kind of a sleazy move.

Or, more likely they could have added Hansen as a minority partner.