Sacramento: We can name that arena plan in eight days!

Posted on by

Not content with having moved up their city council meeting on a new Kings arena plan to March 26, the city of Sacramento is now planning to hold a public forum on the plan next Thursday, March 21. Which means the plan has to be ready by then, leaving only eight days to figure out what the heck they’re going to build, and how the heck they’re going to pay for it.

This is a “very tight timeframe,” city manager John Shirey understated last night, but then, his job right now appears to be putting a happy face on a process that, by any standards, is pretty nutso. Among the things that Shirey told the Sacramento Bee yesterday:

  • There have been hours of conference calls between one of Shirey’s staff, city arena finance consultant Dan Barrett, and a top officer from would-be Kings buyer Ron Burkle’s private equity firm, and “things are moving along.”
  • Burkle and Mark Mastrov haven’t asked for a larger public subsidy since David Stern said Friday that they need to increase their bid for the Kings. (Though since at last report Burkle and Mastrov were already asking for more than the city wants to give, it’s tough to say exactly what this means.)
  • Negotiators haven’t settled on an exact site at the Downtown Plaza location, or an exact price tag on how much an arena would cost.
  • Nobody knows how much public money will be required, though future parking revenues are still expected to be the bulk of the city’s contribution. Shirey said he doesn’t think “we’re going to be far off from last year in terms of value,” despite the fact that the arena would displace some parking spaces, because the remaining parking spaces would be more valuable at a more central location.
  • He wants there to be a better way of replacing those lost parking revenues than in last year’s plan, which won’t be hard given that last year’s plan threw up its hands in the end and said it would rely on “other sources.”

That doesn’t sound so much like “moving along” as “we’re all agreed on what we haven’t agreed on,” but hey, benefit of the doubt here. The trick, obviously, isn’t just to come up with a site and a price — anybody can do that if you’re not too picky about whether the site and price will be the final one — but a funding mechanism that 1) actually will be guaranteed to pay for the thing regardless of what happens with parking revenues, and 2) can pass the city council.

Speaking of the council, one councilmember, Steve Hansen, said yesterday that while he’s glad there will be the public meeting next Thursday, “Coming down to City Hall is not the same [as holding neighborhood meetings]. We can’t afford to cut corners on a public process.” And Hansen warned that if there isn’t enough community input, he doesn’t know if there will be enough information for the council to vote on March 26. Not that that’s stopped the council from voting on things like this before, but several new members were elected last fall, including Hansen, who has been publicly wary about agreeing too quickly to a dicey arena financing plan. Next Thursday is shaping up to be very, very interesting.


31 comments on “Sacramento: We can name that arena plan in eight days!”

  1. Well, we’re in the most dangerous possible position we can be in:

    Eight days to plan something that really should take eight months;

    Five days to debate something that really should take five weeks to debate;

    A mayor who will support anything, and five votes willing to go along with him.

    Honestly, I can’t think of a worse position to be in. This thrown-together plan is going to pass. Welcome to Hamilton County, California. Oh well, at least the building will be pretty. Envision Sacramento is allowing interior decorating tips!

    http://www.envisionsacramento.com/entertainment-and-sports-center-at-the-downtown-plaza

  2. Mike, even if the City Council unwisely approves this stitched-together arena plan, the NBA BOG will see right through it. They’re already undoubtedly watching and reading all the reports coming out of Sac and are smart enough to know this is merely a hastily-organized effort to give KJ something to present on April 3rd. There will be way too many holes and questions concerning the financing and planning to make this a realistic project filled with uncommitted dollars and preliminary dream sheets.

    Kings to Seattle.

  3. Jeff is right. The NBA BOG will like the commitment but they’ll see it’s unrealistic. I’m ready to move onto MLS in Elk Freaking Grove.

  6. NEW POPE!!!

    First question: Which name do you prefer?

    Follow up: Where do you stand on this whole SEA/SAC thing?

  8. Since when did a realistic financing plan have anything to do with building stadiums?!? Everybody knows the original ‘plan’ is just a phony placeholder for the real plan, which is to hose the taxpayers as needed. Does anyone think the pols in Minnesota actually believed those pulltab thingys were going to pay for a stadium? Of course not. The plan is pretty much always the same: put together something for the pols to hide behind (and the rubes to believe), then get some dirt moving.

  9. I would have to think that the NBA will say no simply because Sacramento won’t contribute more money, even with the large amount they already have stated would be spent. Plus, even if these things “go through”, the arena is still at least one year behind Seattles, and we haven’t even seen the eventual lawsuits yet. There’s just too much that has to be done and not enough money to do it, so looks like it’s over. I’m sorry Sacramento, you tried, but at the moment it seems that in the end, the Kings are dead; long live the Sonics.
    Also, I’d bet money right now that the reason why MLS is trying to go to Sacramento is because they know if Sacramento loses the Kings and pretty much knows there is no chance in hell they can get another NBA team for a long time, they might be willing to try to land a team for a different sport. It’s surprising the NHL hasn’t tried to do the same, especially if a lot of things involving an arena pass through……….oh wait, no it isn’t, Gary Bettman is the stupidest man in all of sports, with 2-30 on the list being the 29 owners who won’t fire him.

  10. Ryan, Ryan, Ryan… It’s not Elk Grove!

    Elk Freaking Grove.

    You heard it from Neil first.

  11. Next Thursday’s “term sheet” will be very much the Rube Goldberg device held together by gum, spit, scotch tape, and paper clips. I’m sure the $255M will be on the table plus loan refinancing or forgivness. What might NOT be on the table is the location or any real committment of a private contribution. KJ may ask for more time.

  12. You forgot one thing, Jason: That overconfident KJ smile, 100% of the time.

    But, you’re right, I expect a $50M gap accompanied with a big smile and a “We. Will. Win.”

    Will there be enough Council members to accept loan forgiveness? Actually, I want to see them try.

  14. Never question my greatness. KJ and myself wil be worshipped very soon. The Arena will be done and the tax payers will bend the knee. Sacramento needs the Kings.

  16. I’m actually a fan of steep upper decks, as they help get seats closer to the court. (Think about sightlines for a second, and you’ll get it.) The article you link to, ChefJoe, is about building railings too low to keep from obstructing fans’ views, which is a separate issue.

  18. That’s a bad rendering, there. It’s hard to tell exactly what’s going on, though I’m sure was better when Mario and some Goombas were still in there for scale.

  22. If Hansen builds his arena on only two city blocks (about 5 acres) and can buy the property needed from 5 different parties then Sacramento can assemble the arena core property… as it’s already owned by JMA.

    http://nosonicsarena.com/wp/?p=402 Hansen’s properties.

  25. I am indeed cited, looks like, but they spelled my name wrong. I don’t know whether that invalidates the legal challenge.

  27. When I read about the threat of legal action, the old People’s Court (pre Ed Koch, may he rest) started playing in my head. #HereWeGoToCourt

  28. By my reading MikeM, they’re saying that if not presented to voters (fat chance) they’ll seek to put a referendum together to refer the issue to the voters. They may be lawyers, but it sounds like they’re going through the legislative powers given to voters/petitioners rather than initiating a legal challenge.

    We had one of those in Seattle after the council started a grocery bag tax of 0.20 per paper or plastic bag (with bag police) that was then overturned via a referendum that was voted on. Of course the next time they all got together the council passed a plastic bag ban with mandatory fees on paper bags.
    http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Seattle_Plastic_Bag_Tax,_Referendum_1,_2009

  29. That KCRA report is really something. 37 separate owners. Wow.

    They could all agree to move tomorrow, and it’d still be very complex.

    I honestly thought it was 3-4 owners, and leases. 37 owners is a horse of a different profession. Dang.

  31. I stand corrected, Jason; you are 100% correct.

    The obstacle here isn’t the number of parcels, it’s the number of owners, which appears to be about 4. Much easier, for sure. Just not easy, that’s all.

    You would think the displaced businesses that have leases in those buildings will want some sort of compensation. How many lease-holders are there? I haven’t seen that part reported; that will also be an issue, though. If that AT&T store there demands compensation, it kinda seems like they’ll be entitled to it.