Eminent domain for new stadium? (San Diego, San Francisco: section 8, sales, condo)

[wburg]

Actually there already was a "vote" for a Seattle arena, called Initiative 91, that defined the minimum return Seattle expected from an arena plan as equivalent to a 30 year Treasury bond. Any arena plan in Seattle that can demonstrate it can meet that requirement is approved--because it satisfies the requirements set forth by the voters of Seattle. Apparently some folks in Seattle felt that the latest Hansen plan didn't make that minimum threshold, but it never got to that point, and it demanded less treasure from Seattle than the Sacramento arena plan does.

Hansen's money went to the Orange County nonprofit that hired petition gatherers, not to STOP--so please STOP trying to make that connection.

No major-league team would ever allow municipal ownership a la Green Bay, which is basically a holdover from the era of small-town NFL teams. It's a publicly traded company but trying to move the Packers to another city is a virtual impossibility because of the way that corporation is set up. Major league sports' business model is based around creating a "monopsony," where there is limited supply of a product with high demand (sports teams.) This results in increased prices for the product, because there are not enough to go around, and they are very hard to tie down to a particular city. This means that teams can make noises about leaving town to extract additional funding from their host city, and other cities willing to offer more money for teams end up getting the teams, regardless of any sort of "our team" fan base. That's why Sacramento won over Seattle even though the purchase price for the team was higher--Seattle had a citizen-enforced minimum return requirement for any new arena deal, and Sacramento was willing to spread its legs as far and as wide as the NBA wanted. The NBA's business model is based on cities paying their overhead, so the money they make is pure profit. The cities end up paying the tab on empty promises of return, and mythical "catalyst development" that may or may not appear--and may or may not have anything to do with the presence of a stadium.

[wburg]

Originally Posted by shelato

It was widely reported. It was repeatedly the front page story in the Bee on the days leading up to the vote and it was the lead story on the Television News programs in the days leading up to the vote. Anyone who was interested and a lot of people who were interested still knew the city was going to vote on this project and fully understood the consequences of this vote. For several years people knew the Kings were trying to get a new Arena deal done. Well before the vote was taken the people opposed to the project had plenty of opportunity to make their voices heard as well as to organize to stop this project. But they failed to stop the project.

The problem is, you can't respond to a proposal you know nothing about, and no elements of the term sheet/arena deal were made public until the three-day weekend before the Council meeting. You can't go to a Council meeting and file an objection to a project that hasn't formally been proposed yet, and the way it was timed, there were only a few hours before the one council meeting that was packed to the rafters with shills, making it difficult to even get into the Council chambers, let alone to speak. A lot of people didn't bother showing up in opposition because they knew it was political theater--the system was being gamed against them in order to force through a plan without a chance for public review of any sort. So, no, there was not plenty of opportunity to make their voices heard or to organize to stop the project--there were deliberate efforts to avoid revealing details, and to make the decision on that day a foregone conclusion by shutting out public debate.

There were multiple other arena plans--but they weren't the same as this plan, and not in the same spot. Each proposal had different specifics, different locations, different designs, different financing schemes, and each failed for different reasons.

I wouldn't march down to city hall and just voice a generalized opinion that there shouldn't be an arena in downtown Sacramento--first, because there is no point (as I said, you can't just say "I generally don't want you to do X" and expect to be taken seriously) and, second, because I don't oppose the idea of a downtown arena in general.

Was this a good idea, I agree probably not. But the City of Sacramento has made bad decisions in the past and will probably make bad decisions in the future. But at this point the decision has effectively been made. Once it emerged that the signature gathering effort was paid primarily by the backer of the Seattle Arena and that local opponents of the arena deal didn't have enough money/organizing drive to get the signatures to put the arena deal to a vote without his money, the decision had effectively been made.

It ain't over until the fat lady sings. My best-case scenario is for the city to revisit the funding mechanism for this arena proposal in a manner that allows it to be paid with new revenue, which it will need, and a comprehensive plan for new residential infill downtown that will perform the urban repair that is needed far more than an arena. If we can get a few thousand new residents in the central business district, they will create more of an economic effect on downtown's economy than 18,000 arena visitors, but if there is no plan and they just assume the new residential will magically appear, it won't.

[wburg]

Originally Posted by CeJeH

Also, it's not just the Maloofs that claim we need a new arena, it's the NBA as well.

The Maloofs didn't just "claim" they needed a new arena--they were the primary contributor to the "Think Big" study that promised the economic benefits of the new arena.

And guess what? Mayor Kevin Johnson failed to report that they were the contributors until after the deadline, and got slapped by the FPPC:

Editorial: Checks to K.J.'s Think Big pose big questions - Editorials - The Sacramento Bee

To say it looks bad is an understatement.
One issue is that Think Big, which repeatedly promised to put taxpayers first in any arena deal, was relying on a financial pact with one of the key parties at the negotiating table – the Kings. Think Big claims there was no conflict because it wasn't the Kings' own money, only corporate cash it was passing through.
The other problem is that the mayor waited so long to report the donations – a delay that has the attention of the state Fair Political Practices Commission. The mayor's people blame a clerical error that was found recently, and say they will do better in timely reporting.
The foundation reported receiving a total of $732,410 in donations last year and spending $529,939, including $276,202 given to Think Big. While the foundation was not required to disclose who gave that money, the mayor must report donations he directly solicits, known as behested payments.
[LEFT]
Read more here: Editorial: Checks to K.J.'s Think Big pose big questions - Editorials - The Sacramento Bee[/LEFT]

[CeJeH]

Originally Posted by wburg

Hansen's money went to the Orange County nonprofit that hired petition gatherers, not to STOP--so please STOP trying to make that connection.

And Taxpayers for Safer Neighborhoods, the Orange County company in question, received that money specifically to support STOP in their campaign to derail the arena plan. It doesn't matter if Hansen handed Julian Camacho 100k in person or went through intermediaries to support the campaign, the money was still intended to support STOP and their campaign! Enough with the nitpicking here.

Camacho himself has acknowledged that they received Hansen's money to collect signatures, that he was thankful that Hansen made the donation, that STOP was going to continue to use Hansen's money for as long as they can and that they will still submit the signatures (which were obtained illegally and subversively through Hansen's donation) in order to put the arena vote on a ballot. Hansen himself stated that he contacted Loeb and Loeb specifically to "...canvas the various opposition groups to gain an understanding of their efforts and the prospects of their success." You can read all about it here as well as many other places. But yyou already know that .

[CeJeH]

2013 NBA Arena Rankings - Stadium Journey

[wburg]

Thanks for clarifying that STOP did not receive the funds, this "Taxpayers for Safer Neighborhoods" group did.

[CeJeH]

Originally Posted by wburg

Thanks for clarifying that STOP did not receive the funds, this "Taxpayers for Safer Neighborhoods" group did.

Oh c'mon now, Wburg! I'm not trying to be confrontational with you, but this is exactly why people give you so much ****. If you can't see that Hansen funded STOP, either directly or indirectly, it means one of two things can be assumed about you. You are either ignorant or pedantic, and I would like to think that you aren't ignorant. Hansen funded Taxpayers for Safer Neighborhoods. Taxpayers for safer neighborhoods funded STOP. Therefore, Hansen funded STOP. Who cares if the check wasn't written to STOP? That's where the money was intended to end up, and it got there! The leader of STOP himself said so! Just give it a rest already, nitpicking over little bull**** details doesn't prove any points, further your agenda, or make you look any better.

[Majin]

I've given up on wburg, hes a lost cause. He's "arguments" don't even make sense anymore, which doesn't matter because his opinions are clearly in the minority along with bluevo and sacbee commenters.

[wburg]

Kind of like how the Maloofs funded the "economic impact" report proving the need for a new arena?

[CeJeH]

Originally Posted by Majin

I've given up on wburg, hes a lost cause. He's "arguments" don't even make sense anymore, which doesn't matter because his opinions are clearly in the minority along with bluevo and sacbee commenters.

Well I haven't given up yet, because the guy does have lots of good info on the history of our city. I learned more about the old West End from him than the rest of the internet combined. However, he is completely wrong about this arena project. That's fine, however the little pedantic bull**** nitpicking just drives me mad. If you want to make an argument and present a case that is relevant and makes sense, please do. This whole thing about STOP though is ridiculous.