do you think Sacramento will get a new arena built for the Kings? (refinance, purchase)

[krudmonk]

Congratulations, but **** AEG.

[Chimérique]

Originally Posted by ryuns

Negatives: Still a ton of uncertainty, still a ton of upfront money from the city, still a ton of uncertainty associated with the Maloofs' solvency and ability to borrow.

What is so uncertain about $65 million in cash from AEG, $75 million in cash from the Maloofs, $200 in cash from the parking operator?

Once the arena is built, Sacramento becomes a much more desirable place for the NBA. If the Maloofs can't finish their end of the deal, a new owner along with the NBA will keep the team here.

Look at the NBA's commitment to New Orleans (they do not have an owner, so the NBA owns the team for now, and they are committed to keeping the team in New Orleans).

Sacramento's loyal fan base, and 25 plus years of supporting a mostly losing team speaks volumes of our ability to support the team.

The NBA is in the business of raising the bar on its credibility and integrity to baskeball. They will follow the NFL's lead and bring in a team-revenue sharing strategy to keep small markets like Sacramento competitive -- its good for professional basketball in the long run.

They want to see the smaller markets compete with the big markets -- it's good for their business. The general idea is the big markets like LA and NY share their revenue with small markets like SacTown, so the small markets can keep good players and have good teams -- which guarantees big dollars for the Sacramento economy.

[Chimérique]

Originally Posted by ryuns

I'm still with wburg that the future of downtown/river district/railyards should feature people actually living there. That supports a vibrant community better than an arena--people who spend all their time there with a stake in its future. But when I look at that part of town now, it's pretty tough to imagine. But at least, where we stand, a new courthouse and a new arena would mean a lot of traffic. Maybe that's a decent start. Maybe.

I'm all for bringing in housing to the railyards. Building an arena only adds to the value of the site.

Look at the neighborhood where the SF's Giants play. That stadium is located in a neighborhood full of housing ----- the Stadium came first, and it was the catalyst to that neighborhood's success -- and when put to a vote it was voted down, and plenty of naysayers fought tooth and nail to prevent it from being built -- eventually it still got built, and now everyone agrees it was a success and it was good for the neighborhood and good for SF. We can do the same here --- as has Kansas City, Indianapolis, and Orlando to name a few.

[wburg]

Originally Posted by Chimérique

What is so uncertain about $65 million in cash from AEG, $75 million in cash from the Maloofs, $200 in cash from the parking operator?

Well, for starters, it's $60 million from AEG, not $65, the Maloofs will have to borrow or sell stuff to pay that $75 million, and there isn't a parking operator yet--plus the new limitations on income from parking (city will keep parking income on arena event nights, which is more than half the year and the busiest nights) call the viability of the parking concept into serious question. Some folks are now talking about floating bonds--which makes things still pretty darn uncertain, especially because taking on new debt isn't exactly a popular option right now (as in, right after Stockton is getting ready to declare bankruptcy because of the bond debt from building their arena.)

[wburg]

Originally Posted by Chimérique

I'm all for bringing in housing to the railyards. Building an arena only adds to the value of the site.

Look at the neighborhood where the SF's Giants play. That stadium is located in a neighborhood full of housing ----- the Stadium came first, and it was the catalyst to that neighborhood's success -- and when put to a vote it was voted down, and plenty of naysayers fought tooth and nail to prevent it from being built -- eventually it still got built, and now everyone agrees it was a success and it was good for the neighborhood and good for SF. We can do the same here --- as has Kansas City, Indianapolis, and Orlando to name a few.

Actually, the neighborhood around the new Giants stadium was already in mid-habitation due to the housing boom and SF's incredibly inflated housing market. And the SF project was almost entirely privately funded--not nearly the public giveaway we are facing. Kansas City is currently paying for construction bond debt out of their general fund--their deal with arena operator AEG pays AEG first, and the city gets paid after the operator with whatever is left--but so far, the money the city gets is far less than the interest and payments on the construction bond.

[Chimérique]

Originally Posted by wburg

Actually, the neighborhood around the new Giants stadium was already in mid-habitation due to the housing boom and SF's incredibly inflated housing market. And the SF project was almost entirely privately funded--not nearly the public giveaway we are facing. Kansas City is currently paying for construction bond debt out of their general fund--their deal with arena operator AEG pays AEG first, and the city gets paid after the operator with whatever is left--but so far, the money the city gets is far less than the interest and payments on the construction bond.

You can't deny the impact of SF's Giants stadium in the China Basin/SoMa neighborhood. The stadium came first. I know lived in that neighborhood before the stadium was built. I lived in a crude warehouse loft conversion. It was one of the first 8 story warehouses converted into lofts - it was crude, like living in a warehouse. Few people wanted to live anywhere in that area. It was a dark scary warehouse district and looked nothing like it does now. There were no prime office space as there is now. There were no restaurants, nor daytime entertainment venues. The waterfront was uninviting, and not developed for pedestrian use. There were no new condos, and apts. There was no multi-use structures. There was no light rail, as there is now. It was a doddy, ugly warehouse district with shipping, packing, and storage facilities and business related to that.

The catalyst was the stadium. The synergy started after the stadium was built. There were plenty of naysayers like you who voted it down, thank goodness it still got built.

You are wrong about the use of public funds for SF's Stadium. It sits on city owned land, and the city put in $90 million in infrastructure costs in today dollars. It cost $423 million in todays dollars, more than Sacramento's Arena.

Other success stories: Indianapolis, Orlando, Oklahoma City, NYC-Brooklyn is currently building an arena.

[NewToCA]

Originally Posted by Chimérique

Other success stories: Indianapolis, Orlando, Oklahoma City, NYC-Brooklyn is currently building an arena.

Add in Columbus, Ohio too. The Arena District didn't exist until after they built Nationwide Arena.

Downtown Columbus Apartments + Condos | Arena District | Downtown Columbus Ohio

[sacramento916]

Originally Posted by Chimérique

You can't deny the impact of SF's Giants stadium in the China Basin/SoMa neighborhood. The stadium came first. I know lived in that neighborhood before the stadium was built. I lived in a crude warehouse loft conversion. It was one of the first 8 story warehouses converted into lofts - it was crude, like living in a warehouse. Few people wanted to live anywhere in that area. It was a dark scary warehouse district and looked nothing like it does now. There were no prime office space as there is now. There were no restaurants, nor daytime entertainment venues. The waterfront was uninviting, and not developed for pedestrian use. There were no new condos, and apts. There was no multi-use structures. There was no light rail, as there is now. It was a doddy, ugly warehouse district with shipping, packing, and storage facilities and business related to that.

The catalyst was the stadium. The synergy started after the stadium was built. There were plenty of naysayers like you who voted it down, thank goodness it still got built.

You are wrong about the use of public funds for SF's Stadium. It sits on city owned land, and the city put in $90 million in infrastructure costs in today dollars. It cost $423 million in todays dollars, more than Sacramento's Arena.

Other success stories: Indianapolis, Orlando, Oklahoma City, NYC-Brooklyn is currently building an arena.

I concur. I'm from San Francisco and no one wanted to go down to SOMA after night fall. Sure, there were people living there but it was one of the least desirable and depressing areas of the city. It was primarily just warehouse and industry there.

The stadium really transformed that area. I was just there the other day and actually had dinner at a very nice restaurant. There were tons of people walking around, residential buildings, nice shops, groceries. Really, it was night and day from what the place was like just 12 years ago.

I couldn't help but think about how Sacramento's arena would transform the railyards as well. I think the arena and the fact that the Kings are staying are long needed shots in the arm for this city. A few bright spots amid the never ending supply of bad news Sactown has been facing for at least 5 years now.

[wburg]

I suppose I'm just not buying the "never ending supply of bad news" line. Downtown Sacramento is more interesting than it has been since the 1950s when they knocked over our old nightlife district, with a nearly constant barrage of new businesses, new housing, old things getting fixed up, etcetera. I suppose the past 5 years have been downers for the folks who don't recognize anything downtown unless it is "world-class" or a brand-new skyscraper, but for the rest of us, the central city is flourishing. Bright spots we got--the arena plan is based on this assumption that all of the activity, culture and civic life I see around me every day just doesn't matter.

[sacramento916]

Originally Posted by wburg

I suppose I'm just not buying the "never ending supply of bad news" line. Downtown Sacramento is more interesting than it has been since the 1950s when they knocked over our old nightlife district, with a nearly constant barrage of new businesses, new housing, old things getting fixed up, etcetera. I suppose the past 5 years have been downers for the folks who don't recognize anything downtown unless it is "world-class" or a brand-new skyscraper, but for the rest of us, the central city is flourishing. Bright spots we got--the arena plan is based on this assumption that all of the activity, culture and civic life I see around me every day just doesn't matter.

I acknowledge that the central city has gotten a lot more interesting in the past few years, which is nice, although it's still far too small for a city of Sacramento's size.

But the last few years has been a never ending supply of bad news when it comes to the local economy, the death of development here, real estate prices, unemployment, etc etc.