do you think Sacramento will get a new arena built for the Kings? (Davis: credit, cost)

[wburg]

Sacramento council vote shows arena plan is no slam dunk - Sacramento City News - sacbee.com

With Sacramento's arena negotiations entering a pivotal stretch, the City Council came within one vote Tuesday night of derailing the project before knowing what the plan would look like.

And that's where opinions differ sharply--whether or not a basketball arena constitutes "infrastructure."

A note about Indianapolis: They're actually a lot bigger than Sacramento, 829,000 people, which is also bigger than Portland or Austin, or San Francisco.

[NewToCA]

Originally Posted by wburg

A note about Indianapolis: They're actually a lot bigger than Sacramento, 829,000 people, which is also bigger than Portland or Austin, or San Francisco.

The city of Indianapolis is a much larger area than the city of Sacramento. The correct way to evaluate the locations is as metro areas, and Sacramento is about 2.2 million folks vs Indy's 1.8 million. Also, you can consider total personal income by metro area, and again Sacramento is larger than Indy, $87 billion vs $69 billion.

What Indianapolis has done is much annexation, making the county the same as the city. It would be the equivalent of the city of Sacramento annexing unincorporated areas such as Arden-Arcade, Carmichael, Rosemont, Antelope and North Highlands.

No matter what your arena opinion is, the Sacramento area is a bit bigger than Indianapolis. Not only is it larger, it is also wealthier.

[wburg]

So what? The rest of the MSA isn't going to be stuck with paying for the arena, Sacramento is. So far Roseville and Citrus Heights and other cities in the metro area haven't offered a penny--which is probably why the arena has more support out of Sacramento than in it. Sacramento County isn't offering to sell their stuff or raise taxes to pay for this--nor is Placer or Yolo or El Dorado etcetera, despite the fact that those include some of the wealthiest parts of the region. The city of Sacramento is going it alone, which is why MSA size is a misdirection.

Indianapolis has a unified city/county government, so it can combine those efforts, and its combined statistical area is a bit over 2 million folks, pretty much the same as Sacramento but with a much larger primary city.

[ryuns]

Originally Posted by msamhunter

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.

They won't (and we won't) know until the numbers are in, but that means that it's a gamble, and opinions differ as to whether it's worth a gamble, or even worth a small loss to have a better downtown and a better river district. It might be--it's hard to quantify (and many attempts are made to do so) pride, appreciation, and enjoyment in one's city. I'll happily throw in my $2 a month (or whatever), but it doesn't mean it's the best decision or that KJ is going about this the right way.

I will say, if we see some other folks stepping up to share some costs (the 'burbs, the Maloofs, AEG, whomever), I'd be an enthusiastic supporter. We'll see--I'm excited to see things start to happen out there and hope that it transforms itself. Even if that doesn't involve an arena.

[wburg]

So far, none of them (the burbs, the Maloofs, AEG, whatever) have promised a penny. It's all entirely on the back of the city, and thus the taxpayers, despite assurances that it wouldn't be paid for with taxes (just things that are currently used to generate city revenue, like parking.) Another odd bit: the super optimistic, best-case-scenario economic study done by the arena supporters figured the arena would result in about $7 million a year in increased city revenue, including all of the available financing options (parking sharing, ticket surcharges, rental car and hotel room fees, etc) but the hit to the city general fund just from the loss of parking revenue is minimum $9 million a year.

There are a lot of other things we could be doing with our money, time and energy--promoting infill, incentivizing adaptive reuse, building new transit systems, promoting arts, maybe even using some of the abundant vacant buildings in the region to house the homeless. But instead we're stuck talking about a sports arena--and no matter how often people try to say "it isn't about the Kings" when they start losing games, it's still a sports arena, even if it can also be used as other things.

[msamhunter]

Originally Posted by ryuns

They won't (and we won't) know until the numbers are in, but that means that it's a gamble, and opinions differ as to whether it's worth a gamble, or even worth a small loss to have a better downtown and a better river district. It might be--it's hard to quantify (and many attempts are made to do so) pride, appreciation, and enjoyment in one's city. I'll happily throw in my $2 a month (or whatever), but it doesn't mean it's the best decision or that KJ is going about this the right way.

I will say, if we see some other folks stepping up to share some costs (the 'burbs, the Maloofs, AEG, whomever), I'd be an enthusiastic supporter. We'll see--I'm excited to see things start to happen out there and hope that it transforms itself. Even if that doesn't involve an arena.

True, but I put it into this perspective when it came to Indianapolis. Convention/Tourism accounts for 66k jobs and 3.6 billion in economic product to the city. Having top notch facilities is important for a city like this one. Sac, it may or may not, it just depends on what you cater to. A city like Buffalo would be a giant waste.

[Howest2008]

Originally Posted by wburg

Sacramento council vote shows arena plan is no slam dunk - Sacramento City News - sacbee.com
And that's where opinions differ sharply--whether or not a basketball arena constitutes "infrastructure."

A note about Indianapolis: They're actually a lot bigger than Sacramento, 829,000 people, which is also bigger than Portland or Austin, or San Francisco.

Metro Sacramento is 2.5 Million and Indianpolis is 1.8 Million Metro Wise...

[wburg]

Howest: Metro Sacramento technically goes all the way to the Nevada state line. You're comparing the wrong things, though: Sacramento's MSA is 2.1 million, its CSA is 2.5 million. Indiana's MSA is 1.7 million its CSA is 2.1 million.

Sacramento metropolitan area - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Indianapolis

Sacramento's convention/tourism accounts for about $2 billion in economic product to the city--we could certainly use a bit more, although it would help if the local Convention & Visitors Bureau actually marketed Sacramento as a tourist destination instead of as a safe but boring place to have conventions.

[ryuns]

Originally Posted by wburg

So far, none of them (the burbs, the Maloofs, AEG, whatever) have promised a penny. It's all entirely on the back of the city, and thus the taxpayers, despite assurances that it wouldn't be paid for with taxes (just things that are currently used to generate city revenue, like parking.) Another odd bit: the super optimistic, best-case-scenario economic study done by the arena supporters figured the arena would result in about $7 million a year in increased city revenue, including all of the available financing options (parking sharing, ticket surcharges, rental car and hotel room fees, etc) but the hit to the city general fund just from the loss of parking revenue is minimum $9 million a year.

There are a lot of other things we could be doing with our money, time and energy--promoting infill, incentivizing adaptive reuse, building new transit systems, promoting arts, maybe even using some of the abundant vacant buildings in the region to house the homeless. But instead we're stuck talking about a sports arena--and no matter how often people try to say "it isn't about the Kings" when they start losing games, it's still a sports arena, even if it can also be used as other things.

Exactly my point--it's discouraging that 100% of the discussion to this point and 100% of the commitment has come from the city.

Yours is another good point: there's a huge opportunity cost here. It's not just about whether the arena is a good or bad investment, but whether it is a better or worse investment than other alternatives, including the time and energy and political capital spent on this project.

[NewToCA]

A rather strongly worded article from the Sacramento Bee's Aileen Voisin:

When we ask the question 10 years from now - "How do you like me now?" - will we hear favorable comparisons to Indianapolis, Kansas City, Minneapolis and Charlotte, among others, or be regarded as an underperforming community co-opted by petty politicians and others who couldn't get things done...We live in the capital of California. It's time to permanently ditch the inferiority complex, and, from this day forward, to throw nothing but high heat.


It's crunch time for the Kings and Sacramento future - Sacramento Living - Sacramento Food and Wine, Home, Health | Sacramento Bee (http://www.sacbee.com/2012/02/12/4257745/its-crunch-time-for-the-kings.html - broken link)


I completely agree with Ms Voisin.