do you think Sacramento will get a new arena built for the Kings? (Brea: bankruptcy, calculation)

[wburg]

Originally Posted by NorCal Dude

And I am not dismissing Sac's music scene, I am dismissing you and people like you who have low-brow taste. There is nothing wrong with local music venues (which i support all the time), but part of what makes a music scene fully loaded, is attracting big name venues. Every generation has their big name acts.

-Elvis, beatles, zepplin,kiss, acdc, the police, u2, jay z, deftones. Nothing wrong with popular music.

I find it funny that you would think I dismiss Sacs music scene when I was one of the thousands of people that actually went to see the deftones in 100+ degree heat. I don't even like Korn or the other bands. I was there just for the Deftones.

But the real issue is not me, it's you. You only support redevelopment that benefits yupster midtown. You bemoan things like suburban freeways which have thousands of people who use them daily, in favor of light rail which hardly anyone in the region uses. Not hard to see where your priorities are.

My apologies--your appreciation of the Deftones obviously marks you as an individual of rarefied and impeccable highbrow tastes!

So...I only like projects that benefit the central city and don't like projects for people who drive cars, which is why I am opposed to a downtown arena that will not have a parking lot, is located right next to light rail, and will be paid for by raising parking rates? Hm.

[wburg]

Originally Posted by CeJeH

Ya don't mean to derail too much, but I've lived here for 25+ years ( 3 of them in downtown/midtown) and not only have I never been on light rail but I've only known a handful of People that have been on a Sacramento light rail train at all, with only 1 of them using light rail more than once a month

Our light-rail system is one of the busiest in the country, with a ridership of about 45,000 people per day. And if you like the current arena plan, you should probably note that it will depend heavily on light rail ridership: there is no plan for a parking lot, and the arena is located right next to the light rail station at the Amtrak depot--part of the justification for not having a parking lot is the ease of light rail access.

[Mr. Opinionated]

Originally Posted by NorCal Dude

You only support redevelopment that benefits yupster midtown. You bemoan things like suburban freeways which have thousands of people who use them daily, in favor of light rail which hardly anyone in the region uses. Not hard to see where your priorities are.

Originally Posted by CeJeH

I've lived here for 25+ years… and not only have I never been on light rail but I've only known a handful of People that have been on a Sacramento light rail train at all, with only 1 of them using light rail more than once a month

Originally Posted by wburg

Our light-rail system is one of the busiest in the country, with a ridership of about 45,000 people per day. And if you like the current arena plan, you should probably note that it will depend heavily on light rail ridership: there is no plan for a parking lot, and the arena is located right next to the light rail station at the Amtrak depot--part of the justification for not having a parking lot is the ease of light rail access.

Thats a great Idea. And I dont think a handful of people compares to a ridership majority. I have only lived here eight years. Most of those in and around Mid and Downtown. And while I do own a vehicle, I have always prefered the lightrail, along with its ever increasing ridership [nearly full or packed cars regularly] in spite of the consistent vagrant and hoodrat patronage on certain stretches. Im sure that some folks may consider it 'slumming' as opposed to long searches for free or at least, reasonable street parking rates, higher insurance and gas prices or just the vain california car culture. However, Id rather leave the driving to someone else and let RT officers deal with the 'rail loitering'.

[NorCal Dude]

Originally Posted by wburg

My apologies--your appreciation of the Deftones obviously marks you as an individual of rarefied and impeccable highbrow tastes!

So...I only like projects that benefit the central city and don't like projects for people who drive cars, which is why I am opposed to a downtown arena that will not have a parking lot, is located right next to light rail, and will be paid for by raising parking rates? Hm.

I don't think I claimed to have rarefied or impeccable taste. But I have enough common sense to know that for a city and metro of Sacramento's size there should be more than THE entertainment venues found in Anywhere College Town, USA.

That doesn't make you a bad person, it does not make you an evil person, and it certianly does not make you a lesser person, IMO.

But to me, it does show that you have fairly simple taste and not much comprehension of the reality of the quality of the arena. The NBA, NCAA, and many in the music industry have deemed arco Sub par. Yet you try to argue that because it can still bring in country music acts or a monster truck rally, that it is some how a good venue.

I personally would like a downtown arena, but I'd settle for Cal Expo, or even natomas. People like you would oppose the arena even if it was 99% privately funded. If Sacramento had to foot the bill for the bulldozers, people like you would huss and fuss and complain that it costs too much. "But the cops, think of the children, blah blah blah"

And I am glad you brought up light rail. Light rail has a daily rider ship that culminates to roughly 2% of the Sacrmento Metro. There are literally hundereds of thousands, maybe even a million people who have never ridden it in their lives. If you took all the money that has been pumped and dumped into light rail, since its inception you could have:

A top notch arena, a more robust bus service, capable of servicing the arena, and likely the money left over to lay a foundation for a river walk district.

That is what is so comical. You try to act all rilled about "subsidies for millionaires and subsidies for suburbanites" yet you support one of the biggest financial boondoggles in the region.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by NorCal Dude

And I am glad you brought up light rail. Light rail has a daily rider ship that culminates to roughly 2% of the Sacrmento Metro. There are literally hundereds of thousands, maybe even a million people who have never ridden it in their lives. If you took all the money that has been pumped and dumped into light rail, since its inception you could have:

So in contrast, what percentage of the Sacramento metropolitan area has ever been to a King's game, cares about the Kings or in this day-and-age, can afford to pay the price to see the Kings. And how often have the Kings played in Sacramento on average per year vs how often light rail riders use the system?

[NorCal Dude]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

So in contrast, what percentage of the Sacramento metropolitan area has ever been to a King's game, cares about the Kings or in this day-and-age, can afford to pay the price to see the Kings. And how often have the Kings played in Sacramento on average per year vs how often light rail riders use the system?

You clearly missed the point. I was talking about financial impact. And I am not sure why would focus just on the kings. Arco had like nearly 200 events last year if I am not mistaken, most of which did not involve the kings, ROFL.

Who can't afford a kings ticket? You can get kings tickets for as cheap 10 dollars sometimes. Even a crack head in Alkali Flats can afford that. I know thats considered top dollar in the Ozarks, but this is California.

[CeJeH]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

So in contrast, what percentage of the Sacramento metropolitan area has ever been to a King's game, cares about the Kings or in this day-and-age, can afford to pay the price to see the Kings. And how often have the Kings played in Sacramento on average per year vs how often light rail riders use the system?

The Kings make up only a fraction of the events that would be going on throughout the year in a new arena, something which all the naysayers seem to conveniently ignore.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by NorCal Dude

You clearly missed the point. I was talking about financial impact. And I am not sure why would focus just on the kings. Arco had like nearly 200 events last year if I am not mistaken, most of which did not involve the kings, ROFL.

Who can't afford a kings ticket? You can get kings tickets for as cheap 10 dollars sometimes. Even a crack head in Alkali Flats can afford that. I know thats considered top dollar in the Ozarks, but this is California.

If I'm not mistaken, that $10 might just pay for parking at Arco during an event. Here in the Aux Arcs we at least get our money's worth for a sawbuck.

[NewToCA]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

So in contrast, what percentage of the Sacramento metropolitan area has ever been to a King's game, cares about the Kings or in this day-and-age, can afford to pay the price to see the Kings. And how often have the Kings played in Sacramento on average per year vs how often light rail riders use the system?

Enough to support the franchise.

Regarding support for the Kings, it is lower than you'd see in many comparably sized metro areas in other parts of the country, but I attribute that to being a "California thing".

If you take the wonderful metro area of St Louis, in your home state, and compare their cost to support pro sports franchises against Sacramento, it would show that the St Louis area has a gross economy only a little over 30% larger than Sacramento ($117.4 billion total personal income for St Louis vs $86.9 billion for Sacramento), yet they support three pro sports franchises. The Cards had 3.1 million in attendance this season (87% of capacity), the Rams had 450 thousand (86% of capacity) and the Blues had 785 thousand (100% of capacity).

Per capita income in metro Sacramento is almost identical to metro St Louis, at a little over $40,000.

So affordability isn't the issue, the folks out in California (and this includes the other major metro areas too) just aren't as into their franchises as places such as St Louis.

But, they can certainly afford to support the team.

[Malloric]

Originally Posted by CeJeH

The Kings make up only a fraction of the events that would be going on throughout the year in a new arena, something which all the naysayers seem to conveniently ignore.

Not really, I just don't see why corporate welfare is necessary for people to see a Lady Gaga concert anymore than for a Kings game. I'd rather see that money be spent on education or youth sports or homeless shelters or police officers or mental health clinics or any number of other uses than on subsidizing Lady Gaga concerts. The people who can afford $100 to drop on those concerts don't need artificially lower ticket prices, and I see little societal benefit of providing it to them. If you have to provide welfare benefits for Lady Gaga concerts, which is in general dumb, then they should go to poor kids who might want to see it but whose parents can't afford to send them.