Sacramento Kings Sold ?

[Chimérique]

Originally Posted by cityx

one wonders what mountains we could have moved if we channeled this energy into more productive endeavors.

Nobody is stopping you, you can still create productive endeavors in Sacramento if you actually lived here, or moved back.

Great cities, like Sacramento, have more than one big project, the new Arena is just one of them.

A little pride and boosterism never hurts either; sure is better then hearing from people who don't care about Sacramento and only post when they have something negative to say about our great City.

[zdg]

Originally Posted by STORM-SHADOW

Well, you live in the State of Granolas & Flakes

What state are you referring to? It's difficult to follow, since you're in a forum about CA and we're discussing the state capital.

aka CA.

Oh, ok, whew. Glad you explained your very witty joke to us. We were all pretty confused there.

Glad I got the hell out!

That makes 38 million of us. Enjoy your inferior alternative.

[sacite]

E

Originally Posted by bluevelo

Yes, I know, there's all sorts of national concert acts that aren't coming to Arco now that will magically start showing up with a new arena.

Dude, that stuff goes to the Bay Area because they sell out there. A new arena that's "nicer" isn't going to entice any more stuff to come here that isn't here already.

Although it probably means the gun show that happens about every 4-6 weeks at Cal Expo will start going to the new arena, so we've got that going for us.

I don't think it will sit empty 300 nights a year, but I also don't think its going to be used any more frequently than Arco is now. Most rock bands could care less how "nice" the arena is... but VIPs want these ridiculous luxury suites so they can feel even more important.

You're the delusional one for calling people names that don't agree with you that public financing for the basketball and arena is a "sign of progress." You are also not listening to my point, which is that private financing is FINE as far as I'm concerned, but if public money in the 100s of millions is involved, the voters should have the right to determine whether this is a good investment for Sacramento - or not, because there's no way politicians whose campaigns are being paid for by the boosters of these facilities are going to vote in the public's best interest.

And I've never said it isn't OK to like the NBA - I don't like the NBA, but people are free to make their own decisions on that and I would still buy you a beer in real life. My point is I don't think this is a good deal to the long-term financial health of the City of Sacramento and its a really bad investment of scarce public resources when there are so many other pressing needs.

Actually a new arena will entice more stuff. At least according to the people that host the stuff. There was no stuff in Spokane's old memorial collesium because it was old and delapidated. When they buit a new arena, suddenly they hosted stuff like political debates, nationally televised ice skating competions, and college basketball's march madness. None of that stuff came to the city before, because no suitable venue existed to host it. Those events bring in quite a bit of money for the city, so of course the city has to foot some of the bill for the stadium that makes it possible.