Vegas arena plans, Anaheim Kings subsidies, and more

A few items that fell through the cracks over the last week:

  • Those plans for a tax-increment-financing-funded arena on the Las Vegas Strip got officially killed last week by the Nevada legislature — which then immediately expressed its intention to put a different arena plan on the ballot in 2012.
  • The Anaheim city council is considering paying for upgrades to the Honda Center if the Sacramento Kings move there. No word on how much the renovations would cost, how they would be paid for, or why the city would have any reason to pay for them in the first place.
  • Bronx borough president Ruben Diaz Jr. reiterated his call for a new hotel near the Yankees‘ stadium to help bail out those money-losing parking garages. Diaz presumably is more interested in using the garage fiasco as leverage to get more development for his borough; why city taxpayers should want to throw good money after bad is another question…
  • A Canadian government analysis projects that for the federal government to pay for a Quebec hockey arena and a Saskatchewan Roughriders stadium, it would require ticket taxes of as much as $42 per ticket to pay off construction costs. That sounded crazy to me at first, but given that we’re only talking about a million fans a year (combined NHL and CFL), it actually makes sense: A $42 ticket tax would generate $42 million a year, which is about enough to pay off $600 million in costs spread across two stadiums. It would also be insane, of course, but it’s a good reminder of why teams don’t generally jump to build stadiums with their own money — new sports facilities face a hugely uphill battle to earn back their own construction costs.

12 comments on “Vegas arena plans, Anaheim Kings subsidies, and more

  1. Here’s more on the “Mystery Plan” in Sacramento:

    www.sacbee.com/2011/03/25/3502615/two-kings-figures-from-long-ago.html

    Pretty impressive. They’re going to put together a JPA involving several counties and cities in the next 20 days to fund an arena, but, of course, it won’t involve tax revenues.

    Yes, as a matter of fact, I did have trouble typing that with a straight face. How’d you know?

  2. “We’re the only borough without a four- or five-star hotel,” he said. “It just makes sense.”

    what? this doesn’t make sense.
    there’s a good reason why ‘da bronx is 4/5 star-less, there’s no demand for it! who’s gonna stay at 161st st. during the winter months? who’s gonna bail-out the hotels when they’re not full?

    demolish one of the garages for a hotel (see daily snooze story)? sounds like the beep was read the riot act by bond holders – bail us out or you’re out! either that or he’s come down with a case of hotel-envy.

    with occupancy rate at the already established hotel businesses flat, they’ll fight to keep their market share.

  3. Anaheim will sell $75M in bonds to finance the move.

    blogs.sacbee.com/sports/kings/archives/2011/03/anaheim-propose.html

  4. Source document for the Anaheim bonds:

    www.anaheim.net/docs_agend/questys_pub/MG34583/AS34622/AS34627/AS34628/AI34634/DO34647/DO_34647.pdf

    (Dang, Neil, when you gonna start paying me?)

  5. So according to the documents, the bonds will be paid exclusively by “revenues generated by the Honda Center.” What the heck does *that* mean? Current revenues? New revenues? Lease payments, kicked-back TIF revenues, what? Bob Wingenroth got some ‘splainin’ to do.

  6. Mike – Here’s the vendor contract

    www.anaheim.net/docs_agend/questys_pub/MG34583/AS34622/AS34625/AI34638/DO34643/DO_34643.pdf

  7. Neil

    Just an update on the Canadian story regarding the Roughriders and Quebec. The Stephen Harper government has collapsed with Harper failing a no-confidence vote. I am willing to bet that Toronto will get the 2020 Olympics before the other two get their share.

  8. Here’s an analysis of the lease terms:

    www.sbnation.com/nba/2011/3/25/2072605/anaheim-sacramento-kings-lease

    Folks at sactownroyalty are thinking it’s not a good deal, based on what the Maloofs now have. But a deal in Sac in a new arena would likely cost more than this deal in Anaheim does. The fans aren’t comparing the Anaheim deal with anything they’d get in Sac.

    But, in fact, there is no deal in Sac.

    Bird in the hand. It’s not a bad deal, and they don’t have much to compare it to. It’s done; they’re leaving.

    The group involved with selling the bonds is the same Sacramento law firm that recently applied for the Royals trademarks. Niiice.

  9. And now, the Maloofs have rejected the “Mystery Plan”:

    blogs.sacbee.com/sports/kings/archives/2011/03/maloofs-latest.html

  10. Now it turns out that the City of Sacramento actually DOES own Power Balance Pavilion.

    www.cityofsacramento.org/treasurer/public_finance/official_statements/documents/pdf/OS_List_1997%20Lease%20Revenue%20Bonds%20Arco%20Arena%20Acquisition.pdf

    Anyone have any idea how mad this makes me? All these years, it was a “loan.” That’s a lie — it was a purchase. Unbelievable.

    Can’t recall that Council now.

  11. Mike;

    Assuming ‘they’ get a favourable decision from the league/Lakers on territorial rights, I would agree that Anaheim is likely a better deal.

    But if the Lakers demand $250M? Do you really think that the Maloofs will be better off paying the Lakers/Clippers that kind of money? In the end, this looks like it has the potential to be a better deal for Mr. Samueli than the Maloofs.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *.
NOTE: Personal attacks on other commenters are not allowed in comments, and will be deleted.

HTML tags are not allowed.

758,195 Spambots Blocked by Simple Comments