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.
Also the people who are in charge of the planning of this project have repeatedly stated that there will not be any new taxes added on to what we're already paying to pay for this, yet you keep assuming that the public is going to be forced to fit the bill for the whole thing and using that as your reasoning for why we shouldn't build it! Perhaps we should wait until an actual financial plan is laid out before assuming the worst. There is a lot that can happen still on this issue and it seems a lot of people have already made up their minds about how they feel about it when nobody even knows what's going to happen yet! Sooo much negativity in this city no wonder nothing gets done.
I'm way too lazy to tackle all of the rambling points that you're making so I'll just kinda wing it.
The current Railroad Museum gets several hundred thousand visitors a year from all over the world--and yes, plenty of people literally do travel long distances just to look at old trains. Technology museums typically draw more people than history museums--and the expanded museum will focus on technology, not just the past but also the future. Of course, education is important too--and part of the mission of the expanded museum is vocational education. And it's not the only museum planned for the neighborhood: the Powerhouse Science Center is also coming together just north of the Railyards on Jibboom Street. That makes for a row of museums, from the California Museum to the newly expanded Crocker to the Sacramento History Museum to CSRM to the new science museum, all within a mile or so walk. That adds up to more visitors.
Infrastructure being laid out is required before anything else can be built--it is a necessary step before anything else can be built. It sounds like you want to jump straight to the end of this development cycle without the intervening planning and construction and work that comes in between. That's a recipe for failure--which is exactly the same thing that happened at 3rd & Capitol. Too much "vision" and not enough planning out how to get from here to there.
Second Saturday is a lot more than the drunken barn dance that follows it--although, in addition to Second Saturday, our nightlife is becoming a regional draw. People sick of the Bay Area club scene schedule trips up here from the Bay Area to visit Sacramento nightclubs. Yes, Midtown is where the cool bars are--and the cool restaurants, the cool theaters, the cool dance clubs, and the cool shops, and the cool people. Which is why people go there to visit and spend money and hang out, and why people want to live there, and why even when the real estate market is collapsing, houses and rents are still higher than most of the region. Supply and demand, baby. Maybe you just come down here to get toasted and drunk-drive home, but there's a lot more to Midtown than that.
Not sure if you have visited the vicinity of K Street in the past year, but it's starting to shape up, especially along the 1000 block, and despite some fairly ridiculous problems, things are shaping up there too, and work is being done. If anything, it's livelier at 10th & K on the weekends than it is in Midtown! The projects underway are based on the idea of turning downtown back into what it once was--like Midtown, a neighborhood where people lived, worked, shopped, and were entertained, but there is more potential downtown, especially if the adjacent Railyards become part of that neighborhood.
What we want and what we can afford are two different things. The line that "fees will pay for it" is not backed up by facts--and, quite simply, YOU CANNOT PAY FOR THINGS WITH MONEY YOU HAVE NOT EARNED YET! Even if the future income source is clear, in order to build the arena, we will have to take on massive debt--and then hope that the revenue meets expectations. If it doesn't, and if other cities are any example, it most likely will not, then that debt will have to be paid with general fund money. And those funding sources aren't "free money," they are other words for taxes--hotel taxes, car rental taxes, special tax assessment districts, parking revenue, surcharges on tickets and food and concessions. All of those expenses get passed along to the taxpayer, there is simply no way of getting away from it no matter how often you repeat the lie.
And, again, I am not opposed to the idea of an arena--but I'd like to see a plan that makes sense, including a plan that includes what the heck will happen to the current arena site. But there are a lot of other things we could use in the central city that I would consider higher-priority: like a full-sized central city university, or a new streetcar system to expand the capabilities of light rail, or an urban growth boundary to rein in our metastasizing suburbs and focus the energy of new growth into the urban core instead of building more subdivisions on farmland.
Want to know what annoys me? Our seeming citywide low sense of self-esteem that leaves us vulnerable to any set of con artists who tell us what a cruddy cow town we have, and how the only way we can feel better about ourselves as a city is if we buy into their plan to build a fancy skyscraper or an arena or some other dang thing. Take another look at that hole at 3rd & Capitol and realize it's a lot more similar to this arena plan than you seem to be willing to admit.
Want to know what annoys me? Our seeming citywide low sense of self-esteem that leaves us vulnerable to any set of con artists who tell us what a cruddy cow town we have, and how the only way we can feel better about ourselves as a city is if we buy into their plan to build a fancy skyscraper or an arena or some other dang thing. Take another look at that hole at 3rd & Capitol and realize it's a lot more similar to this arena plan than you seem to be willing to admit.
Well I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree here. The way I see it, the people like yourself who would rather argue over small things than be open minded to progress are the reason why we have such low self esteem as a city, and deservedly so! Any city that is more concerned about legalizing backyard chickens than saving their only professional sports franchise probably doesn't deserve the franchise in the first place. I for one want this city to progress and reach new heights and become the great city that I know we have the potential to be. Squabbling with each other back and forth over every issue is not going to accomplish anything.
You obviously know a lot about this city so I'm not going to argue this with you further. I want this to get built and I will continue to hope for the best and support the effort to get this done.
Last thing I will add is that I don't think any big time investors are going to show too much interest in stepping in to get this done without putting the burden on the taxpayers if all the people that live here don't even support the concept in the first place! Can we as Sacramentans at least pretend like we want to see this happen to inspire a big fish with deep pockets to come save us?
Also I have lived in midtown/downtown for the last 3 years up until very recently
That's just it--I don't think we need "saving." There's a big difference between investors choosing to buy in because they think it's a good plan, and hoping someone will take pity on us. The multitude of small projects going on in the central city, both those that are completed and those that are underway, make a bigger difference in the aggregate than big "Hero Projects." Concentrate on the small stuff that knits together the city fabric, and bigger plans become easier and more practical--because investors will come begging to us, instead of us crawling to them. Nobody likes a suck-up.
I'm skeptical because I care about this city, and don't want to see us ripped off. Details matter. The ongoing efforts regarding things like urban chicken-keeping, food trucks, etc., are little parts of that process--but you can use little parts to build big things!
What sort of progresses is being fleeced to pay for another stadium for the Maloofs'? I'll pass on that progress. While I don't agree with all the little Redevelopment projects and find it pathetic that the only development I see occurring in Sacramento is Redevelopment projects, I agree that they are more important than forking out $600 million, or whatever it is now, for another stadium for the Maloofs. Maybe if the Maloofs weren't so eager to leave. Maybe if stadium made any sort of financial sense with (let alone without, which is all to likely to be the case) the Kings. That's not the case. Even under the most optimistic projections, most of what the stadium would do is take business and lousy, seasonal jobs away from Power Balance and relocate them a few miles.
In 1963 Penn Station was demolished to make way for a new train station with an arena on top. On one hand you had the Robert Moses camp arguing that we needed to destroy the old train station to make way for in a new arena the would help spur redevelopment in midtown Manhattan. On the other hand you had Jane Jacobs arguing again it. Right now the Sacramento region is basically rehashing a lot of the same arguments.
In terms of theories of redevelopment, building a new Arena is more from the Robert Moses school of redevelopment, not the Jane Jacobs school of redevelopment. You get shiny new stuff. But the shiny new stuff you build is subtracting more than adding to the vitality of the neighborhood where its built. Arenas take up a lot of space in an urban area, but sit mostly empty most of the day, for most of the year. So while you might have 20,000 people visit the arena for 3 hours during the 41 home Kings games and you might have 7 or 8 thousand people show up for 3 hours to attend the Disney on Ice show and other concerts on maybe another 60 days a year, the rest of the time the building is sitting mostly empty. This is why no one wants to own the arena it sits empty so often that the owner loses money on the building. Moreover all this dead time kills the pedestrian traffic in the area surrounding the arena. Its tough to create a business that can survive on just the three hour rush when the arena is full when the area surrounding it is dead the rest of the time. Moreover a lot of the sales are going to be captured inside the arena. During half time, how many people are going to leave the arena to get something to eat across the street? How much spill over does the rest of Natomas get from Arco Arena? Even someone as beloved by Kings fans as Chris Webber couldn't make a go of it with his Center Court restaurant in Natomas. Similarly the Sacramento Capitols team tennis team now has bounced between the Sunrise Mall, the Roseville Mall and back again because the truth of the matter is that the cost of hosting the team tennis match pretty much eats up most of the gains from hosting the teams tennis match. So no mall owner will pay much for the opportunity to host it. So why should the city spend a bunch of money to host the Kings downtown?
Moreover handling the traffic loads of these peak demand events tends to create kind of isolated areas. Look at the current Kings arena in Natomas. Because the fire marshall demands access for ambulances and firefighters, plus a desire to handle all of the traffic coming in and out during game times the streets surrounding these facilities are huge and auto oriented. Arena Blvd, Truxel and Del Paso Blvd are anything but lively pedestrian zones. Similarly look at Expostion Blvd in front of Cal Exp. Again the area is anything but a walkers paradise. Why add these types of development into the downtown mix?
Jacobs argued for a diversity of land uses ideally with lots of local residents living nearby. Thus ensuring that there are lot of people in the area to support local businesses and lot of pedestrians on the streets to keep plenty of eyes on the street to ward of crime. She was highly skeptical of buildings taller than six stories and skeptical of large single use buildings that overwhelmed the surrounding neighborhoods. Arenas are large single use buildings that overwhelm the surrounding neighborhoods.
The region doesn't need more bad redevelopment projects. I suspect the arena project is going to turn into another East End Capitol project. The new development will be new and shiny, but won't really add anything to vitality of the region surrounding it. If you look at the blocks downtown with just lots of State office buildings, the area surrounding them are kind of dead. Large single use development areas kill street life in urban areas.
Second its going to have another bad consequence for downtown, its going to encourage the demolition of older buildings in the area financed by revenue from new off street parking lots. Look at the area around Staples Center. Once Staples Center went in, the demand for new parking and higher parking rates in the area during games made bulldozing old buildings and turning them into parking lots more profitable. Building Staples Center really didn't make that part of downtown LA better. Instead what has worked in downtown LA was rehabbing the older buildings and turning the older office buildings into residential units downtown which is occuring more along Broadway in downtown LA. Staples was mistake in LA, the way Madison Square Gardens was a mistake in NY. Why do we want to make the same mistake again here? Particularly if the city and the county and not corporate donors are footing the bill?
a lot of similarities there as in sacramento.
city wants a new arena
city broke and has to pull a huge loan to pay for it
city does and picks a bad part of town to build
arena goes up and overall flops
city is in debt with no way out
sacramento needs to think long and hard before investing that kind of money. they can learn alot form stocktons mistakes on this venue. I would rather see them think this through and wait till the economy clears up some then drop the money and get screwed.
Meanwhile Fresno, with no pro franchise, recently built a 450,000 sq ft arena for a bit over $100 million. The college basketball team has a total of 13 home games scheduled for this season.
Thankfully, I'm certain Kevin Johnson will manage to get the arena built. We'll know a lot more when they present the detailed financing plan on Sept 8th.
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.
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.
