Traffic congestion from new arena? (Sacramento: school, live in, money)

[ryuns]

Originally Posted by wburg

I'm not so sure about that--in many ways, the corporate arena-rock model is like the corporate chain-store model: it doesn't return as much to the local economy as a locally owned business. This applies to music venues and bands as much as it does to mom & pop retail vs. chains. Not to say there isn't room for a corporate venue, but on a dollar-for-dollar basis, the small music venue is more important. Typically the parking and beer revenue go to the corporate arena promoter (AEG or LiveNation) with a relatively small ratio of those funds entering the local economy.

I understand the benefit of smaller venues and smaller businesses, but my post wasn't comparing small to large, I was comparing large venues here vs large venues there. The fact that a dollar spent here at a large music venue has far more benefit to the local economy than a dollar spent in the Bay Area on the same thing is a tautology, because it's basically saying "something" is bigger than "nothing". Besides, those places do employ people, people do eat and drink before and after shows, they might park in lots owned by the city, and the arena is, technically, owned by the city, so the city coffers do see some benefit.

I know you'd love it if all of our disposable income went towards local coffee at the Witch Room while listening experimental noise music. But I do think there will always be people with us who occasionally enjoy a big concert. (This is coming from someone who hasn't been to a concert in an arena since probably 2001 when the Eagles played Fresno and I escorted my mom and her friends.)

[Mr. Opinionated]

Originally Posted by ryuns

...I know you'd love it if all of our disposable income went towards local coffee at the Witch Room while listening experimental noise music. But I do think there will always be people with us who occasionally enjoy a big concert. (This is coming from someone who hasn't been to a concert in an arena since probably 2001 when the Eagles played Fresno and I escorted my mom and her friends.)

Yes, and I happen to be one who enjoys both the larger as well as smaller intimate engagement. I think there is room for both, and that one need not overshadow the other. Or that Sacramento needs to keep thinking small, while simultaneously hoping to be viewed as large.

[wburg]

I don't see a problem with thinking big and small simultaneously. Cities are built of a thousand little projects that add up to a bigger whole. That's why I support the idea of a downtown arena in theory, despite the accusations of folks who are convinced I'm the living embodiment of some kind of small-town mentality, but have some pretty serious concerns about the financing model and ancillary development. But apparently that isn't good enough for some folks, who think any criticism or questioning of the arena plan somehow gets thetans all over everything.

[ryuns]

Originally Posted by wburg

I don't see a problem with thinking big and small simultaneously. Cities are built of a thousand little projects that add up to a bigger whole. That's why I support the idea of a downtown arena in theory, despite the accusations of folks who are convinced I'm the living embodiment of some kind of small-town mentality, but have some pretty serious concerns about the financing model and ancillary development. But apparently that isn't good enough for some folks, who think any criticism or questioning of the arena plan somehow gets thetans all over everything.

I think you've read too many baseless criticisms of your otherwise well thought-out perspectives, because now it seems you're responding to criticisms that weren't there. I'm not saying that the arena plan is positively the best idea (nor accusing you of being against it) or that it's a better use of the funding than, say, finding ways to spend the money that does a better job incubating local businesses, encourages residential development in the grid, etc. I'm not sure, though I'm hoping it works out for the best. My only point, and one of biggest reasons for optimism about the plans as they stand and the progress the grid has made (whether or not it's attributed to the arena plans) was that Sacramento does have a lot to gain, whether it's large venues or small (or something else completely), simply because so much of our spending power escapes to the Bay Area. We have a lot of other things to gain too, such as having more people move back to the city, creating more vibrant spaces that don't rely on people driving in from the 'burbs for entertainment, less crime due to more eyes on the street, more people trying to make their own neighborhoods better, but that was beyond the scope of my comment.

Originally Posted by wburg

Our identity is already here, it's just a matter of rediscovering it and taking pride in it rather than making it up at "brandathons." And it's a heck of a lot more interesting than the "farm to fork" silliness.

Whether our identity is "already here" and we just need to rediscover or whether we're finding it is semantic, and you can argue that marketing campaigns are pointless. But the point, I think, is that more people recognize something unique and worth embracing here. I'm much more concerned with the outcome than whether the arena backers or KJ or DSP or MBA or, say, SOCA tries to take credit for it.

[Chimérique]

Originally Posted by Mr. Ozo

I don't believe this true, Bay Areans (?) will drive to Sacramento to see a show they want to see that is only playing in Sacramento. It happens all the time with stuff at the convention center. Once in a blue moon Sacramento is the only Northern California date on a tour. With new Arena Downtown taking the train is more of option as well.

Very good point, and downtown Sacramento hotels will attest to this. Lots of Bay Arean and SoCaler's come up here for conventions etc. Build a great music venue and they will come and come ever more,

[Chimérique]

Originally Posted by bluevelo

Great post.


a gigantic arena that will be empty in a few years when the next set of Kings owners moves them elsewhere - there is no such as an unbreakable contract; and, if the ground breaking is too delayed by lawsuits, that's going to happen anyway. I've never actually believed the arena will happen - this deal was structured to remove the Maloofs from the NBA entirely and throw up smoke for whereever the Kings eventually will land (undoubtedly with a new team name as well).

Your hatred of the Kings and sports is so irritating and shameful; it's so anti-Sacramento. What will be your response when it's deemed a windfall and money-maker for all? Or if it simply breaks even on its windfall for all involved; instead of the doom and gloom you HOPE for.

[Mr. Opinionated]

Originally Posted by wburg

I don't see a problem with thinking big and small simultaneously. Cities are built of a thousand little projects that add up to a bigger whole. That's why I support the idea of a downtown arena in theory, despite the accusations of folks who are convinced I'm the living embodiment of some kind of small-town mentality, but have some pretty serious concerns about the financing model and ancillary development. But apparently that isn't good enough for some folks, who think any criticism or questioning of the arena plan somehow gets thetans all over everything.

That's cool too. And I happen to believe that there is hopefully room for plenty of schools of thought about how Sacramento might define itself. How it ends up doing that should reflect the best interests of its people with regard to its claims of diversity. How you feel about the arena project is your prerogative. Unfortunately, I have not noticed much flexibility from those 'in charge', whoever they are, about what direction the city takes. Everyone seems to want it to be their personal little project, tailored to some singular objective.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Chimérique

Your hatred of the Kings and sports is so irritating and shameful; it's so anti-Sacramento. What will be your response when it's deemed a windfall and money-maker for all? Or if it simply breaks even on its windfall for all involved; instead of the doom and gloom you HOPE for.

While it may irritate you, what you're in essence saying is that if one doesn't care for the Kings then they must necessarily hate sports and are anti-Sacramento.

Do you even have the glimmer of a clue of how close-minded and provincial that is? Never mind. Of course you don't. I lived in Sacramento for 20 years, most of them downtown. I never cared for basketball and in fact, have never cared for professional sports at all. Therefore it follows that I couldn't have cared less about the Kings and found the worship of them and the taxpayer expenditures for them irritating.

Shameful? I'll tell you what's shameful. It's shameful that any putative adult would be acting like a junior high school cheerleader about anything and everything about a location which, if it's so wonderful, should stand on its own merits.

I look upon Sacramento as my adult home city as Uncle Sam moved me all over the country and the world for most of my life and as a civilian I finally came to rest there. I have a real loyalty toward it, especially as my three daughters, both of my wife's and a bunch of grandchildren still live there. There is a great deal of good about it but at the same time, I'm not blind to what needs to be made better about it so the mindless "rah-rah" and pro-Sacramento arguments are not just unnecessary and counter-productive but irritating as well.

Please let Sacramento rest on its own merits which are truly legion. Thank you!

[Malloric]

It goes beyond that.

I don't really care about basketball myself, but fully feel the Kings bring something to the city. I also very firmly oppose taxpayer funded arenas. If there's a democratic vote on it, that's one thing. While I'd vote no to pretty much any such proposal for funding the arena proper (infrastructure to support the arena I would vote for -- eg, the SF Giants stadium model which was privately built with significant taxpayer expenditures for infrastructure). However, if there were a vote and the people approve spending money on building the arena itself, I would accept the outcome. I wouldn't agree with it and oppose it, but that's a democratic process. You don't always get what you want in a democracy. I didn't vote for Obama in '12, but he's still my president.

[sacite]

Originally Posted by wburg

I don't see a problem with thinking big and small simultaneously. Cities are built of a thousand little projects that add up to a bigger whole. That's why I support the idea of a downtown arena in theory, despite the accusations of folks who are convinced I'm the living embodiment of some kind of small-town mentality, but have some pretty serious concerns about the financing model and ancillary development. But apparently that isn't good enough for some folks, who think any criticism or questioning of the arena plan somehow gets thetans all over everything.

Stop trying to keep this town Mayberry!. Kidding. You at least support your positions well.