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.
You are speaking with certainty about things that haven't happened yet, which is always a bad sign. You don't know what is going to happen, and nothing you have said is irrefutable--there is always plenty left to debate. All of your arguments are merely statements that success is inevitable, because others have occasionally succeeded, so there is no need to analyze or question what is going on in Sacramento.
A "bubble" is exactly what we're talking about here--an artificial inflation in market prices that is not representative of true market value. Real estate prices in the CBD are approaching or exceeding their 2008 value. Yes, the arena is now a factor in downtown demand--but, again, so were all of the other redevelopment projects when they were shiny and brand-new, followed by a decline when the sheen wore off. The question remains as to whether that factor will be sustainable in the long term.
Nope. Like I posted, a bubble is when prices are artificially driven up beyond their true value. "Artificial" meaning there is nothing of substance backing the value of the asset. Again, the recent housing market crash is an example that's constantly overstated. But, that only happened because there were not real dollars backing those homes. People that could not afford the homes were given creative loans that they could pay in the short term but would inevitably default on later. So, the homes never were worth what they were paid for.
Similar thing may happen with student loans, as the cost of education has far outpaced its return and students have borrowed beyond what they can pay back. This has led to a degree become severely over valued. You can find an example in the Dot.com era of the mid-late 90's, as people everywhere bid on startups that in many cases had no proven track record of any success and minimal assets. Those businesses were also severely over valued and the market inevitably crashed.
This is apples and oranges to what you're comparing the stadium to. People are coming here with real money. The businesses that are coming have real value. And Sac is growing dude. Look at the population. There's no "artificial" spike LOL. You have a lot of money coming from the bay. Why? Because the value of residential and commercial properties ARE over valued there, and so people see they can stretch their dollar here. They can buy homes. This is why Sac is literally one of The top housing markets in the entire country right now. People can also rent properties to set up their own businesses. This is why you see more and more small businesses opening every day in Sac. According to what you posted though, there's a finite amount of money and all of those businesses are just funneling it from somewhere else like Natomas, or Arden Arcade or, who knows. That's not the case. Sac's population is growing, its economy has recovered (like all cities, it was hit during the recession) and it will continue to grow. So, the idea that the stadium is comparable to a failed mall or the G1C is headed toward a similar fate ignores pretty much everything that's going on here. Like I posted before; different time, different factors.
Also, I noticed that the articles you posted continually dismissed the notion of exposure as a legitimate factor in growth or investment. If that's the case, why do cities spend millions to revitalize areas with parks, improvements to infrastructure with NO expected direct financial return? Why do companies pay millions of dollars for naming rights on stadiums? Because it doesn't work? All of these billionaire owners and investors are dummies, and they don't understand that their name will only create a temporary "bubble" and no real value? It's kind of a ridiculous notion. You're claiming that I'm guessing what will happen in the area, but we've already seen Kaiser in the process of opening an extension directly across from the arena, Golden 1 opening a branch. They're all wrong, throwing darts at a board and don't "get" the reality, which is that people are just excited for something new? No. They understand that their will be consistent foot traffic for 200+ events every single year. Their name will be on TV. Their name will be seen by other people visiting from other areas. This is real, it's already happening to an extent that is much quicker than even I or the most optimistic people expected.
Anyhow, you are right in that we will see in the future.
You're presuming that success for downtown as a whole and success for the arena developers are the same thing--they are not. I don't doubt that the arena developers will be successful in their aims of getting paid a lot to build an arena, with the cost subsidized by local taxpayers, which means the arena project itself will be a lot more profitable, and that public subsidy also draws a lot of nearby investment and ancillary development. I also don't doubt that these investors will see a return on their investment, and because they are paying a subsidized rent for the space, will be able to operate the arena profitably more easily than if they had borne the entire cost. They didn't get involved with this project to lose money, after all. But that's not the same as success for downtown.
The last three tries at redeveloping downtown were also profitable for the builders and the investors, but not successful in revitalizing downtown Sacramento, because they were based on bringing people downtown from elsewhere, instead of being based around people living downtown. That's what I have learned from looking at what has happened before--in each case, the promise was that the project would revitalize downtown once and for all, and people would inevitably flock to downtown Sacramento forever--to do business in the beautiful new Capitol Mall, to shop on the K Street pedestrian mall, to be entertained at America Live! in the re-done Downtown Plaza--and the rest would take care of itself. In each case, the developers made plenty of money and the office landlords did quite well. So there is no reason to believe that this project will result in something different, because it is based on fundamentally the same principles, and in many cases involves either the same companies or the descendants of the same people involved in earlier redevelopments of the same neighborhood. These are the same sort of folks who don't mind real estate bubbles at all, because many of them make lots of money off of real estate bubbles, so it doesn't bother them at all that others are hurt when those bubbles pop, or that downtowns hurt when a project hailed as the savior of the urban core fails to result in long-term change.
You have events in your city and you are complaining about police and city lights??
Yes, I am complaining about the city suddenly finding $1.7 million in the lighting budget because it relates to the arena when the lights in my neighborhood have been broken since before the arena construction started - "We have them on our schedule and will repair them as soon as money is available in the lighting budget."
As for the police, we were promised that the expense for security for events would fall on the kings. It has not. It has fallen on the city as most of those against this project predicted. Where are those patrols being pulled from? Or, are the officers being given extra shifts on overtime? The city is projecting a $40 million deficit yet can afford anything needed for the area around the arena. Other events are billed for these expenses - the kings are not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sacite
Some of you would have preferred to keep the DT of a city of almost 500,000 a complete dump, with no resson to come for visitors or businesses.
No. I would prefer the city quit remaking downtown in an effort to become a "world class city". Does anyone else remember how much the Rivers of America down K Street cost: to build, to maintain, to settle with those hurt, to remove. The city's policies and pipe dreams killed downtown. The city's policies and pipe dreams will not resurrect it.
... I would prefer the city quit remaking downtown in an effort to become a "world class city". Does anyone else remember how much the Rivers of America down K Street cost: to build, to maintain, to settle with those hurt, to remove. The city's policies and pipe dreams killed downtown. The city's policies and pipe dreams will not resurrect it.
I almost agree with you. In the early 80s I visited Sacramento on business and enjoyed the downtown area finding it reasonably clean and vibrant for a small city. Following my visit I made it an eventual goal to move my family there. In 1990 I got transferred there and moved my family. It didn't take long to discover that the downtown had 'suffered' in the intervening years and crime seemed to have increased considerably. Worse, the downtown seemed to be virtually ignored by City Hall and the Downtown Plaza began failing, store-by-store some years later. In retirement 20 years later I moved from Sacramento and the state.
Having been brought up in the military and spending some eight years in it myself I moved from state-to-state and country-to-country. I considered Newport Beach in SoCal my childhood home having spent many formative years there between living elsewhere and considered Sacramento my adult home as I lived there continuously longer than any other place in my life. I even married a Sacramento native. Between us we have five daughters and their families in and near there.
What has happened in Sacramento over the years has saddened both my wife and myself. There is so much good about the city and so much potential but the City Fathers seem disinterested. Instead, energies and dollars have been concentrated on a center for the cowbell ringing portion of the population rather than on infrastructure for the rest of the population. But the powers that be get "free" tickets to box seats. How commendable!
Sacit, here are some facts to help to in your disagreement with the naysayers.
Currently, at least half or more of the K street Mall is an original or historic structure. When the K Street Mall was first built the primary change was transforming it into a pedestrian mall from a two-way street for automobiles. It was not about demolishing structures, and very little K Street housing was displaced if any at all when it became a pedestrian mall. The success or lack of success of the K Street Mall involved more than just than City policies. It has involved the demographics of the central city, meaning there was very little housing for the middle or upper middle classes in downtown proper (16th street to the River). The economy, and the lack of any synergy, and the lack of non-governmental high paying jobs in the central city were huge factors in the success/failure of the K Street Mall. The fact is the K Street Mall and Downtown Plaza had various levels of success throughout their lives. The Downtown Plaza had a very good solid run when it was remodeled in 1993ish. Its good years lasted up until 2008 when the economy tanked and more importantly when shoppers started to turn away from those types of malls and went to big box stores, the internet, and the Roseville Galleria.
One of the first structures built as part of the K Street Mall/Downtown Plaza was the Macy’s Store built in 1963. It has been successful ever since 1963 and it’s still there and will continue to be a part of the new DoCo/Arena Center while traditional Department Stores are being shutdown nationwide. The Downtown Macy’s continues to survive in this new area of Amazon and Internet shopping. It may get a boost from the Arena as well, as Arena patrons may be energized to return just so they can be around the synergy that occurs once the Sawyer Hotel, DoCo, and 700 K Street block of housing is completed - which includes affordable housing as well. And if that new Hyatt Hotel is ever built. What's up with that? Do you know anything?
I am to the point of not believing anything stated by those who see the arena as the savior of Sacramento. It was forced down the throats of residents who were promised that the sole expense for the city was the $255 million contribution. But the lies and the expenses to the city and to the residents of the city keep piling up.
Now it turns out that the city will be paying for increased police patrols beyond what the kings organization is funding - but only on nights when there is an arena event. The city is paying $1.7 million to add street lights in the four blocks surrounding the arena. The county is funding free rides on RT and discounted fares for Lyft and Uber for people to get to an RT station for arena events. RT is increasing service for arena events, discounting fares for arena events, increasing security on trains that are serving the arena, and adding assistants to stations for arena events - all being paid for out of its already limited budget. We were told that only those attending arena events would be paying the increased parking charges - another lie. Parking rates have increased throughout downtown and are being charged to everyone. I'd love to know what the final accounting of expenses is, but that will be a closely guarded secret.
Deal with it or move to Galt where there is no arena.
Sacite, with progress comes disadvantages, such as those who can no longer afford rent to live in Midtown or downtown Sacramento. Luckily I own, but who can afford to pay $2195 for a 300 sq ft roach infested apartment that hasn't been remodeled since 1947? You need to come right back down to Earth, especially in a town where the per capita income is around $32,000 per year. There's a reason why Sacramento now has a larger homeless problem than ever before: working people are being forced to live in on the streets or in their cars, thanks to the greed of overzealous, greedy landlords, and people - such as yourself - who move here and try to stir things up.
This is why we long-termers LOVE AND MISS the depressing days of Downtown Plaza's ghost town during the middle of the day. It was calm and peaceful. Most people miss Sacramento being a ghost town after 6 p.m., when the state workers fled back to their condos in the suburbs. It wasn't boring unless you were boring, but it was exciting because of the element of the unknown that lurked around the corner. You had hot girls living in cheap apartments that you can socialize with. You can have deep, philosophical conversations with some bum who was in between 40 oz bottles of St. Ive's malt liquor. Nowadays, you got these yuppies here, driving around in Midtown in their Audi's, BMW's, and Prius'.
The soul of Sacramento is now gone and will soon be broke.
The arena should have never been built, especially during these economic times. The economy is going right back into the gutter, with Verizon cutting 1,000 jobs in Rancho Cordova (just for starters), and with more jobs being lost in the year to come. And opening a bar or restaurant near the Chapter 9 Bankruptcy Arena/Jiffy Pop Pavilion is NO guarantee of success when the economy comes caving back into the ground.
Sacit, they are plenty of people in Sacramento who do not agree with the prior post. Any problems Sacramento had before the Arena existed well before the Arena, and a lot of those challenges are because of the very naysayers who want to keep Sacramento from progressing. These people do not want housing Downtown unless it is only tax-supported quasi-gov't run housing that meets their every demand. They are dictators, the control-freaks that impose their will on everyone else, and their financial contribution is minimal.
The fact is downtown Sacramento for that last 60 years has had challenges in creating an income diverse neighbor that supports all social-economic backgrounds. Most of the existing housing now is tax-supported affordable housing of some type or another which is fine to a point. We need people with upper incomes living downtown in larger numbers so they can support small business, all businesses. As small business is strapped with new challenges like the minimum wage hikes which make it more difficult to run a business, we need folks with higher incomes living downtown.
This does not mean I agree with landlords or bay area property managers/owners from raising rents to astronomical levels. But we as the voters and often vote in laws and mandates that make it difficult to create more housing which would help ease rents increase by way of supply and demand, and competition.
Some of the complaints people have are so cowtown.
Boohoo, there is traffic and parking prices went up. Duh, that happens in every major city. Do you think there is traffic when the Dodgers play in LA? How cheap is parking in SF near the ball park? Good grief.
Or how people compare hair brained schemes of the past to this. Sorry, putting a suburban mall in the heart of downtown or removing cars from K street is not the same thing as half billion dollar arena.
Or the general denial of success. Nevermind big name acts already booking shows, some clumsy soccer mom from Galt slipped and fell! Tear it down!!!!!!!!!!
Nevermind new hotels being built, old ones being spruced up, new business flourishing on K street, and people other than crack heads walking on K street. We miss the old downtown!
Newflash, semi-affluent yuppies have been reclaiming urban cores for the last 20 years. And in true Sacramento fashion, Sac is very late picking up on this trend. If you want a downtown with toothless wonders, boarded up buildings, that shuts down after government workers leave at 5, than Stockton is the city for you.
Some of the complaints people have are so cowtown.
Don't be so hard on Sac with it's Cowtown image. There is a good and bad side to this. Most of California, especially Southern Cal is "cowtown" if you associate "cowtown" with suburban, freeway, non-walkable spread-out non-dense neighborhoods. Don't get me wrong, I know LA is not "cowtown" never really has been it's not in its bones, nor has SF been "cowtown" it's not in their bones, never has been.
Historically, Sacramento was one of the most "urban" cities in California with a grid, smaller blocks, density, streetcars, plenty of train connections to the Bay Area and LA before it exploded with suburban growth.
Some of these "cowtown" folks are really just suburbanites who were never given the chance to experience a middle to upper middle class environment that is also within a dense, urban, walkable, mixed use neighborhood, but we are now!!
In the last 60 years, Sacramento's affluent, middle to upper middle classer, 1%er's, lived in Suburban neighborhoods.... and we still do as in Folsom, Roseville, Elk Grove, El Dorado Hills, Land Park, etc. etc.
Sacramento was never really "Cowtown" as there were plenty of well-travelled, educated folks, we simply choose not to partake in urban environments in the past and we had SF. But that changed 15 years ago, now our monied educated folk want urban cultured amenities in our neighborhoods like other cities such as Portland.
We take pride in our "cowtown" image in the sense we are much more connected with the outdoors, we are gardeners, farmers. We are humble and understated, we know we may not have the greatest art museums and so on an so on. We know we are not super wealthy like Seattle, SF, Portland, Silicon Valley, but we do very well on the culture, music, art scene considering our demographics and income levels which sit right in the middle national speaking.
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.
[/rant]
