Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > Sacramento
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-27-2012, 12:01 PM
 
Location: SW MO
23,593 posts, read 37,462,837 times
Reputation: 29337

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by NewToCA View Post
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.
Well thankfully, we're almost 300 miles from St. Louis so attending sporting events is not a real viable option, even if we were inclined to do so.

It's not that Sacramento can't come up with the means, although I think there are more pressing concerns. It's more a matter of coming up with the will. Lotsa talk and little action during the almost 20 years I lived there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-27-2012, 01:33 PM
 
Location: San Leandro
4,576 posts, read 9,159,099 times
Reputation: 3248
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewToCA View Post
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.
Bingo.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2012, 10:32 PM
 
Location: Sacramento
14,044 posts, read 27,208,139 times
Reputation: 7373
An update from Mayor Kevin Johnson:

In terms of the NBA, our goal was always to get a term sheet, which is essentially a financing plan, a term sheet, that would be in place by March 1. That's been the deadline. And if we can meet that goal then certainly we felt that we would've create an environment where this will be the final resting place of the Sacramento Kings.

There's a lot of work to be done over the next two or three weeks. But I do think we're on track and striking distance to make that happen.


Mayor: Arena Effort, Parking Deal 'On Track' - Sacramento News Story - KCRA Sacramento
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2012, 08:35 AM
 
8,673 posts, read 17,274,555 times
Reputation: 4685
Johnson is always confident, even when failure is clearly imminent. We have yet to see any cash commitment from the Maloofs, or our supposed saviors at AEG, but his plan currently calls for $150 million from those two parties. The Maloofs are hovering around bankruptcy, do you seriously think they will give us $100 million? AEG gave Kansas City $50 million in return for becoming the arena operator and the rights to skim profits from KC's arena before the city did--but in this case, the primary tenant Maloof Sports & Entertainment would be the arena operator, so what incentive does AEG have to invest if they don't stand to make money off the deal?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2012, 02:05 PM
 
1,321 posts, read 2,651,150 times
Reputation: 808
A recent NPR story/podcast about that talks a lot about the economics of publicly-financing arenas/stadiums. The Friday Podcast: Is Hosting The Super Bowl Worth It? : Planet Money : NPR

I have noticed that, at least on this particular debate, people (I mean in general, not necessarily referring to this thread) are not actually very interested in weighing the evidence, which is disappointing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2012, 09:57 PM
 
Location: Sacramento
14,044 posts, read 27,208,139 times
Reputation: 7373
The Sacramento Bee's Marcos Breton basically stating something I've repeatedly observed, the difference between Sacramento and similar type/size cities across the country. In this case, he was comparing us to Indianapolis:

Indy committed millions of tax dollars for football stadiums, arenas and other facilities that helped spur development downtown.

The people of Indy didn't see these as "scams" or "schemes" but as investments.


Marcos Breton: Indianapolis has been super, Sacramento in a stupor - Sacramento News - Local and Breaking Sacramento News | Sacramento Bee


There was also this very good film (about an hour) showing the evolution of Indianapolis around their sports venues. I have had the great pleasure of making fairly frequent visits to the city from the mid-1970's up through last year, and the transformation has been quite spectacular.

And it really did start with their basketball team, the Pacers.

Naptown to Super City

Last edited by NewToCA; 02-08-2012 at 10:13 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2012, 11:05 PM
 
8,673 posts, read 17,274,555 times
Reputation: 4685
Meh. Sounds a lot like "The Next American Dream," another puff piece. But the descriptions of Indianapolis before their heroic sports heroes saved the day don't bear much resemblance to downtown Sacramento today.

Super Bowl Lands on Taxpayers
Quote:
Plans for the 63,000-seat stadium that opened in 2008 as the home of the Indianapolis Colts were unveiled almost a decade ago. Since then, the collapse of the auction-rate bond market has led officials to restructure what grew to $666.5 million of public debt.
CIB expects to lose money during Super Bowl | 2012-01-16 | Indianapolis Business Journal | IBJ.com
Quote:
The Capital Improvement Board of Marion County is budgeting for total Super Bowl expenses of $8 million and revenue of nearly $7.2 million, leaving a loss of $810,000.
Pacers | The Indianapolis Star | indystar.com
Quote:
Plans for the 63,000-seat stadium that opened in 2008 as the home of the Indianapolis Colts were unveiled almost a decade ago. Since then, the collapse of the auction-rate bond market has led officials to restructure what grew to $666.5 million of public debt.
So Indianapolis doesn't mind forking over tax money to millionaires? So what? Who wants to be a city of suckers?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2012, 12:50 AM
 
660 posts, read 1,081,127 times
Reputation: 377
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewToCA View Post
The people of Indy didn't see these as "scams" or "schemes" but as investments.[/b]
This line and the last line of the post above me combined to give me a solid chuckle
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2012, 01:19 AM
 
1,348 posts, read 2,856,560 times
Reputation: 1247
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
Meh. Sounds a lot like "The Next American Dream," another puff piece. But the descriptions of Indianapolis before their heroic sports heroes saved the day don't bear much resemblance to downtown Sacramento today.

Super Bowl Lands on Taxpayers


CIB expects to lose money during Super Bowl | 2012-01-16 | Indianapolis Business Journal | IBJ.com


Pacers | The Indianapolis Star | indystar.com


So Indianapolis doesn't mind forking over tax money to millionaires? So what? Who wants to be a city of suckers?
It's not about forking money to millionaires. It's about investing in infrastructure that will allow Sacramento to become a destination city, thus becoming more of a magnet for investment and for growth.

Look, Sacramento has a TINY downtown area for a region of 2.3 million people. Sure it's got a decent restaurant/arts scene going on, but there are cities 1/5th of Sacramento's size that has the same size of a scene going on in their cores! Sacramento needs to be competing with cities like Portland and Austin, and right now it's being bested by Indianapolis?! Come on!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2012, 03:51 AM
 
3,004 posts, read 5,147,548 times
Reputation: 1547
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
Meh. Sounds a lot like "The Next American Dream," another puff piece. But the descriptions of Indianapolis before their heroic sports heroes saved the day don't bear much resemblance to downtown Sacramento today.

Super Bowl Lands on Taxpayers


CIB expects to lose money during Super Bowl | 2012-01-16 | Indianapolis Business Journal | IBJ.com


Pacers | The Indianapolis Star | indystar.com


So Indianapolis doesn't mind forking over tax money to millionaires? So what? Who wants to be a city of suckers?
Honestly, it all depends on who you ask out here. There will always be skeptics of any public-private venture but there are those that understand you have to spend money in order to make it. Being a convention city, for me personally, it was well worth the investment as it allows Indianapolis to do what it does best.

As far as the CIB is concerned, really won't know until the numbers are tallied but no one was expected 1.1 million visitors downtown so it could be about right, the same or make a profit. Either way the amount they were looking to lose is akin to about $2 per tax payer once you do the calculations. People hear tax and they automatically cringe but $2 a person for one month and it's paid for. Not to mention the bid fee of 25 million non-refundable was actually put up by corporate donations. Well worth it for the exposure alone but that's just my opinion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > Sacramento

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top