New Sacramento arena plan based on bizarro math, failed Yankees parking garages

So yesterday was a big day in Sacramento, with a community forum scheduled to discuss the latest Kings arena plan, which meant that a term sheet for the arena plan was actually set to be released, so that there’d be something to, you know, discuss. As the appointed late afternoon release time approached, anticipation mounted, until:

Well, then. The community forum, of course, still went on ahead, with city manager John Shirey presenting vague descriptions of what will be in the term sheet in place of actual details. Piecing together what we have from various news reports and Twitter feeds, we have:

Anybody spot the problem here? (Other than that the rendering in the video is pretty horrible.) In order to help fund a basketball arena, the city will divert $9 million a year in future parking revenues to a non-profit, which will use the money to pay for the arena, then take whatever’s left over and repay the city for its $9 million in — wait just a cotton-pickin’ second here…

Unless the Sacramento city manager really thinks that you can make money magically multiply by shuffling it back and forth really fast between two cups, then, the only thing really new about this deal is the introduction of a non-profit shell corporation to actually sell the bonds and collect the parking revenues. And if “non-profit shell corporation” and “parking” rings some bells, you’re probably recalling this headline:

Yankees garages headed for default by April 1

In the Yankees deal, a non-profit was created to receive future parking fees that would go to pay bonds on new garages, with the expressed goal of getting a lower interest rate (just like in Sacramento), but with the added bonus that, when the parking revenues turned out to be massively below projections, it would be the non-profit’s bondholders that took a bath, not the city or the team. Without seeing the term sheet, there’s no way of knowing whether Sacramento plans to attempt a similar dodge — though it seems inconceivable they’d get away with it, since if they don’t promise to backstop the parking money with city dollars, bond buyers won’t touch it with a 50-foot pole. And if they do make that promise, then the city will be ultimately on the hook for these expenses regardless.

We’ll know more, hopefully, once the actual term sheet is released, which could be in time for Tuesday’s council meeting, according to Shirey, or might be delayed until closer to the April 2 council meeting, the night before the bid has to be presented to the NBA. “I do not have that feeling that we’re not going to come together,” said Shirey yesterday of the arena talks, a statement that was as well-formed as his description of the funding plan.

Oh, right, and there’s a third whale who’ll be joining Sacramento’s proposed ownership group, something that hogged all of today’s headlines. No matter what’s going on, it can always get knocked off the front page to make room for a rich guy.


55 comments on “New Sacramento arena plan based on bizarro math, failed Yankees parking garages

  1. Is this even legal? Our tax codes need to be revised… It seems like it’s either a gift of public funds to an independent entity, or it’s not an independent entity, which makes it all a badly disguised sham the IRS will not allow.

  2. Ok, I need to be educated. As a Seattle citizen, I have a general question for SAC posters on this blog who have some common sense and oppose this “robbery” of SAC citizens. Why is it that this nonsense of a plan is even being debated in your city when it would be laughed at in most large NBA cities? How did it get to this point? How does a sports team hold so much sway? People like sports in other cities as well but they are told to shut up by people who have more common sense and bigger priorities. Why is the reverse the case in SAC? What did I miss?

    You have a majority of your council ready to “blindly” support any arena plan. And by blindly I mean just that. They won’t even read the plan, if there is ever one. And yet, they keep getting elected? WTF is going on in that city?

  3. Do you people read the newspaper? Downtown malls are dying and (many, not all) downtown arenas surrounded by retail/hospitality developments are doing well. Why would people in Sacto be opposed to using parking revenues and hotel taxes to facilitate a move from the dying to the thriving?

  4. My advice to both Griffin and Ben…read the book and your questions will be answered. Yes it seems like there are many more on the pro-Subsidy side of the house in Sacramento than most cities probably because it is the only team in town. Seattle isn’t immune to this type of activity either but it was a little more split when the Mariners & Seahawks pushed their agendas. As a result we (I live in Seattle as well) now have I-91.

    At Ben, yes you might revitalize an area with an anchor property but you are taking away from somewhere else that people will stop going. Malls turnover no matter where they are. You don’t create any significant economic growth with the amount of “investment” being asked from tax payers.

    Read the book…very enlightening & rather disturbing.

  5. Mike,

    I would doubt Sacramento could issue bonds without a public vote. I used to work in a city in Colorado that pulled a similar trick to build a palatial city hall. But the non-profit can issue the bonds legally but not sure of California law. The rationale is that at the end of the day the city is not liable for the shortfall and hence it is not an increased liability to the city. But I bet the City also pledges arena revenues because there is not enough money in the parking lots to make the annual payments.

    Remember, in the aborted Maloof’s deal the city guaranteed the Maloof’s 2.4 million a year from parking revenues. Hard to believe this group will strike a less favorible deal and there is also the revenue loss from the destruction of some of the parking spaces.

    The part I anticipate being a deal breaker is the length of the lease. I think the City needs a commentment for at least thirty years from the new owners which is something the Maloof’s ultimately not do. KJ said in his press conference that the City had to have a 30 year lease to successfully finance the loan, which means they plan to plege the arean revenues to repay the debt. But why would an out of town onwer want to committ to 35 years in an arena? Sacramento is a small market and while the area has a history of great fan support I think the owner will want a buyout clause in case it falls apart for some reason in Sacramento.

  6. Per California law, a large percentage of the parking (the on site metered kind) cannot be monetized this way.

    When this was brought up before (term sheet 1), it was explained as “Oh we’ll get that law changed”.

    This new deal, which offers even less parking because of the destruction of parking at the proposed site, hasn’t seem to addressed this very important issue.

    I hope the NBA BOG and their observers are cognizant of this very real legal hurdle.

  7. Isn’t raising the price of parking and including an arena surcharge on tickets something that could raise parking revenue beyond what it is currently? Generally councils can issue bonds without public vote if paid off by existing city revenue/bond capacity but if new taxes needed they get voted on. Hence the filter of a nonprofit that is on the hook for shortfalls. But pro sports subsidies rarely learn a lesson from one previous mistake so NYC doesn’t count ;-)

  8. Parking is already quite expensive. Raising that will incur an opportunity costs as less people want to pay and stay away from downtown.

    If there’s an arena built there, a large group of locals will probably go out of their way to avoid the area on game days, likely hurting local retailers as the arena owners clean up on in house concession sales.

  9. Griffin,

    In a Democratic Society people with DIFFERENT priorities (not bigger, just different) are not allowed to tell others to “shut up”.

    In Seattle the voters passed an Initiative that might has well been written in crayon it was so poorly crafted. It was a pure “feel good” measure that was designed to let people think they accomplished something when they actually did nothing. It is a non-factor from a legal standpoint.

    What it did accomplish was that it gave the city the ability to do a deal for a new facility and when anyone tried to pull the old “We want to vote on it” line they could respond “You already did. I-91 set the rules, we followed the “‘spirit’ of them”. But from a legal standpoint it means nothing.

    1) This is a PFD partnership between the City and County. It isn’t bound by I-91
    2) The city can exempt the deal from it (like they did for the Storm)
    3) I-91 can be modified or eliminated with the stroke of a pen.

    But despite that Seattle has become the model for doing these deals right. Safeco Field was a huge success for everyone. So much so it was paid off 4 years early. Seahawks Stadium has been an even bigger success. Now the new Sonics Arena has set an even higher standard for deals. The city has been protected in every possible way. Only revenues generated by the facility are being used to pay for it. Since no one can predict the future. A fund will be created with private money to back the payments on the facility in the event of a shortfall. And when the building is paid off the city has the right to demand it be torn down at private expense. So they either end up with a building completely debt free or the property that they can use for whatever purpose they desire free and clear at no cost to the taxpayer.

    Frankly this deal is so good for the city it is shocking that the developer agreed to it.

    I realize the purpose of this blog is to sell books so all these deals are going to be lumped together as “bad” no matter what the details. But this one here was the result over 2 years worth of work crafting it specifically to satisfy the intent of the voters even though I-91 is as useless as a rubber hand grenade.

    Now the Sacramento proposal is also a non-issue for different reasons. They are not attempting to craft a win/win deal they are stalling for time. They are trying to put together a smoke and mirrors deal that will get them past the April 18/19 B.O.G. meeting. All they want is to get past that date and hope they can kill the Seattle deal and then convince the Maloofs to sell to their local buyers. At that point they have all the time they need to work on a viable deal. Keep in mind that over 10 years they have been unable to find any way to get this done despite the league getting involved themselves. There just isn’t a path to success there.

    The Mayor knows that the chances of this scheme working are slim and none and Slim is riding into the sunset on a horse with no name. But give him credit, he is fighting as hard as he can to find some way to avoid the inevitable. Seattle had a worthless and corrupt Mayor that had no interest in keeping the team here, just shaking down Bennett for as much money as possible before he let them go.

    It is sad because his corruption and lack of vision has now cost two cities their teams when having a spine would have stopped the relocation of the Sonics and both of these cities would be better off. If the Seattle deal hadn’t come along the team would have relocated somewhere else at some point but at least there would be more time for Sacramento to pull a rabbit of of their hat.

  10. Brilliantly written, especially the last paragraph that sees right through the smoke and mirrors.

  11. RC: Actually, I’ve praised the Sonics deal on this site, albeit faintly. It’s not as perfect a deal as Hansen pretends it is, but it’s a hell of a lot better than most, and if Seattle is likely to end up losing a bit of money on the deal, it’s probably a small enough amount that most people wouldn’t mind spending it to secure an NBA team for the next 30 years. It’s certainly *way* less than what it would have cost to keep Howard Schultz happy.

    On the Mariners and Seahawks stadiums, though, I can’t agree with you: Safeco was paid off early because tax revenues came in faster than expected, but the total amount that the project was underwritten by taxpayers remained unchanged. I helped pay for Safeco every time I went to Seattle and rented a car or ate at a restaurant — if I was hungrier for pad thai than the city had originally anticipated, that doesn’t actually make it a better deal for me, Seattleites, or anyone.

  12. Care to remind us how much of the Mariners “profit sharing provision” has resulted in payments to Seattle over their entire 20 year lease ? By my counts (and the league’s) that’s a bit $0 because the owners accounting determined huge losses before Safeco was even completed.

    Not exactly a windfall for the city and huge success (and it says nothing about the sports success that tax revenues on hotels/rental cars/food were just higher than projected). Unless you really think that’s due to the mariners creating more travel/car rental/and people eating out more.

  13. Right huh! I was there… A non profit…. (A non profit) and all is right with the world. He mentioned something about a waterfall and all I could think of was a log jam.

  14. Here’s a diagram from KCRA’s David Bienick that tries to explain the whole scheme.

    https://twitter.com/kcrabienick/status/315197298772697088/photo/1

    Enjoy. I still don’t see how this would backfill the $9 million in the general fund. Where does the additional property and sales tax revenue come from? I heard about building hotels nearby. When will these things get built and where? This seems like a whole lot of nuthin’ to me.

  15. If people want to call Greg Nickels “worthless and corrupt,” I won’t argue too much, but he did do more to try and keep the Sonics than most people seem to remember (if his ultimate goal was “just shaking down Bennett for as much money as possible” he did a poor job of that).

    As far as Safeco and the CLink, have there been studies done on their economic impact? I know stadiums usually don’t have a positive effect on local economies, but has it been particularly negative? As far as I know it hasn’t caused the sort of problems that have happened in places like Cincinnati.

  16. If SafeCo and Clink had done wonders for economic impact, do you think Hansen would have been able to acquire land so easily near those stadia ? When you think of areas of high growth, high land values, and “up and comming” in the past decade, has SoDo come to mind… even after 3 stadia have been there to create “economic impact” over the past 30 years ?

    http://www.seattle.gov/economicdevelopment/pioneer%20square/Stadium%205%20Year%20Impact%20Study%20-%20City%20of%20Seattle.pdf

    Local restaurants benefit, but neighboring businesses (particularly midweek) suffer and the property values didn’t change.

  17. “On the Mariners and Seahawks stadiums, though, I can’t agree with you: Safeco was paid off early because tax revenues came in faster than expected, but the total amount that the project was underwritten by taxpayers remained unchanged. I helped pay for Safeco every time I went to Seattle and rented a car or ate at a restaurant — if I was hungrier for pad thai than the city had originally anticipated, that doesn’t actually make it a better deal for me, Seattleites, or anyone.”

    – Not really…if it had taken longer more money would have been paid towards interest. And yes, you paid for Safeco every time you went to Seattle…did that stop you from coming to Seattle as often (my bet is no)…so how exactly is that NOT a better deal for Seattleites…they basically just took advantage of you to get something that increased excitement within the community.

  18. And on top of that…for a Seattle citizen is complaining about Safeco and the CLink they will have to explain to me how the quality of their life has improved since the taxes for Safeco were discontinued. Since, I am sure that they didn’t even know they were gone then I find it really hard to accept that they truly considered it a bad deal…

  19. “If SafeCo and Clink had done wonders for economic impact, do you think Hansen would have been able to acquire land so easily near those stadia ? When you think of areas of high growth, high land values, and “up and comming” in the past decade, has SoDo come to mind… even after 3 stadia have been there to create “economic impact” over the past 30 years ?”

    – Obviously the money is going to be taken from somewhere else. I dont see any evidence that would prove that the money being spent at those three games would have been spent in the City of Seattle by the VAST amount of people who come from the very close surrounding cities…from a macro level (the King/Snoho/Thurston County) the impact has not been substantial. But, to say that Seattle doesn’t benefit from those people coming to those cities instead of Bellevue, Lynnwood, Tukwilla or Tacoma…is absurd.

  20. It is actually keeping me from renting a car when I go to Seattle this summer, because I still remember the crazy taxes that inflated the price.

    Yes, more money would have been paid in interest if the tax revenue had come in more slowly, but also it would have been paid later, so the present value of the money is about the same. Again, let’s go back to the home mortgage analogy: If you massively overpay to buy a house, then your income goes up so that you’re able to pay off your mortgage early, does that make it a good deal?

    I haven’t seen any economic impact studies of Safeco and CenturyLink, but I have seen one for the Kingdome, which found that there was a minimal effect on local economic activity, and the effect fizzled out entirely once you were about a block away. There is some impact, but as economist Allen Sanderson says, you need to move the decimal point over one place on the official numbers to get a realistic estimate.

  21. Hello… is this thing on ? See above link. Couldn’t find the 10 year one (yet)

    Safeco Field was developed as the home for the Seattle Mariners, by the Public Facilities District in 1999. Based on the conditions of a street vacation agreement for Occidental Avenue S. for use by Safeco Field, at years 5 and 10 after the construction, the Seattle Mariners were
    required to contribute $20,000 for an evaluation of “business retention, housing, land value and development capacity for the surrounding area.” A report of the valuation is required to be made to the city Council and the Public Facilities District Board .
    The Seattle Mariners made the Year 5 contribution, currently held by the City’s Office of Economic Development (OED), but the required study has not yet been undertaken until now. In the meantime, the Mayor initiated a South Downtown planning effort as part of his Center City Seattle planning strategy, and the Department of Planning and Development (DPD) and OED have agreed to complete the stadium – related study within the context of the South Downtown planning effort.
    This report documents the result of the 5 year impact study. The scope of the study includes the following tasks
    1. Evaluate gross receipts data for area businesses.
    2. Interview 15 – 20 businesses to identify positive and negative impacts.
    3. Interview 5 – 10 property owners to identify issues and tools to encourage a positive business climate.
    4.Evaluate potential tools to address adverse impacts.
    5.Document results.
    6.Summarize implications for South Downtown planning and zoning actions.

  22. That’s not exactly an economic impact study, but I guess it could provide some raw materials for one.

    There are some really weird things in those tables, meanwhile. Like what made retail eating/drinking receipts in Pioneer Square go from $32m in 2004 to $320m in 2005?

  23. But Sea-Tac/Seattle’s Rental Tax has plummeted from 9.7% down to 7.7% now that the SafeCo bonds are paid off (at least since this guy’s 2010 example of Seattle’s fees adding up to 30.8% tax rate). Of course, the airport’s facility charge and energy recovery fees increased 20% to compensate.

    http://www.savvytravel.net/2010/10/outrageous-rental-car-taxes/

  24. Maybe they shifted a decimal point ?

    They do say this, but it seems like more than an extra quarter of anomaly.

    Eating/drinking with an apparent anomaly in the data for 2005. (Two
    entries in the fourth quarter appear to be data entry errors.)

  25. I forbid any talk of this. The sperm whales are here and they wil win the bid. We have an extra Whale from the Chuck. E. Cheese empire to add his funds as well.

    I ‘m giving away upper deck tickets to whom ever bends the knee and kisses my rectum. They are my treat. You will get to watch a 17 win team and get free Cheetohs and a Sprite.

    Once again this discussion on this team leaving is done, I’m better than you all and I know more than you all.

  26. Still no term sheets, and yet, the third public forum to discuss these term sheets is scheduled for tomorrow morning.

    At some point, someone has to realize that the Council vote is 7-2, the end. Term sheets not needed; we approve of them.

    The term sheets could specify that all of Vice Mayor Ashby’s children shall be sent to live with Neil’s family, and she’d still vote for this. She doesn’t care.

  27. As regards the difference in eating and drinking at Pioneer Square between 2004 and 2005. I started hitting the bottle pretty hard at the end of 2004, but that went into overdrive in 2005. It says drinking and “eating”; but it was drinking. I would have the bars write dinner on my credit card receipts. It was drinking. Anyway, I am the reason that the drinking and “eating figures” went up 10 fold in a year. I might add that it was a very fun year.

  28. Vice Mayor Ashby’s district will be the one left with a hole in the ground (in what used to be Sleep Train arena) if this thing ever get’s built. I wonder what she thinks will go in there in its place. It’s a good piece of property in one sense, good freeway and road access, but deep in the heart of a highly flood prone area. I know that the downtown developers will “help” redevelop that area.

    But anyway, unfinished term sheet notwithstanding- Sacramento is in worse shape relative to Seattle on this. We’re seeing the outlines of a plan that is highly unworkable, a city government that has made a mockery of its own public processes, and a new “whale” who even with his wealth and connections still doesn’t add up to Hansen and Ballmer in those areas. This whole thing will be resolved by April 3rd with the team going to Seattle and Sacramento fleshing these plans out to make a run for an expansion or relocated franchise in the future.

  29. Also, we’ve just been talking about the Sacramento City Council (possibly, the worst legislative body this career government employee has ever seen), but what about the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors? The “deal” they are talking about shows some kind of county contributions. When do they get to weigh in on this?

  30. Are you sure Hansen even has wealth and connections ? Hansen’s hedge fund has $2.7 billion under management but Hansen himself does not appear in Forbes’ list of billionaires and his personal guaranty states he will have a net worth of over $300 million. My best guess would be Hansen’s net worth is just above $300 million (and that’s ignoring the possibility of Ballmer paying him money/granting extra ownership to set this whole NBA acquisition up).

  31. It is really pathetic. It shows how dreadful and pitiful the Sacramento area is. Putting up a fight for a franchise that is considered the “Tampa Bay Rays “of Basketball. And beating your chest on loyalty.

    There’s loyalty and there is boredom. It’s boredom for Sacramento.

    Sacramento should be deleted from the Golden State. It degrades and lowers the iq of California. Nobody wnats to live there. Most have no choice and come from other cities. This city is where those who can’t afford the Bay Area or L.A. or even San Diego end up.

    Pull the birth certificates and you would be shocked at the percent of residents from somewhere else, and can’t escape. Loyalty means nothing when it comes to the Sacramento Kings.

    It’s the only game in town. It’s in a town where there is literally nothing to do but watch old “Hee Haw” repeats and go Grocery shopping. If you ended up in Kansas – you would feel like your in Sacramento.

    If you ended up in Seattle you would feel like your in San Francisco. Sacramento is an embarassment to California. Everything California is about, Sacramento is not. People from Tuscaloosa think Sacramento is Paris.

    People go to Kings games because they have nothing to do and have no life. And the “Dueling Banjo’s” Sacramento media twists into the city having the greatest fans. No, it’s simply out of sheer boredom. A person can only go to Raley’s so many times.

    You can’t even compare Seattle to Sacramento. Seattle is the closest thing to San Francisco. Sacramento is the closest thing to Topeka. Seattle has beautiful views, while Sacramento has smog and flat areas.

    Seattle has everything and is a great sports town that has millions to do and supports it’s teams. Also it’s sophisticated, not goofy.

    People in Sacramento, Kansas really think they are something great, Seattle doesn’t need the NBA. Nor does it need the Kings. Something better will come( high iq” people always see ahead,) and some other franchise with a better back round will come to Seattle.

    It is an insult for Sacramento and Seattle to be in the same vocab. Seattle sports announcers are born and bred, while Sacramento broadcasters have to import dorks and wannabees from other states- who suffer from inferiority complexes.

    Please Sacramento- keep your Kings, enjoy the next 30 years of shitty basketball and a dead economy.

    Seattle’s economy is thriving, and the city will get an NBA and NHL franchise when this little school yard fight is over.

    Now please go back to shopping at Raley’s and watching the Sacramento Kings Glory years -all 2 of them.

    PS

    Stop supporting Bay Area teams, you are insulting us.

    Go San Francisco 49ers!!!

  32. Jason, With the Seattle arena plan, we have seen the Seattle City Council make a mockery of its own process, and a mockery of adherence to I-91. The Hansen/Ballmer proposal does not meet I-91. We have seen a Mayor, who had nine months of secret meetings with Hansen, and then produced a proposal that gives all benefit to Hansen. The Mayor even hired Carl Hirsch, a sports marketer, in secret. The Mayor will give no information about the secret meetings, or the activities of Carl Hirsch, who has been getting payed about 20,000 a month. Hirsch is probably Minister of NBA Propaganda.

    The Seattle arena proposal is being imposed. The first thing that Council Member Sally Clark said about the arena was “No, Public Vote”. They know Seattle would vote against the Hansen arena proposal overwhelmingly.

    The Hansen proposal is a publicly subsidied arena with a bunch of bells and whistles to make a Citizen not notice the publicly subsidized nature of the proposal. The Hansen proposal has been marketed with lies, and a corrupt Mayor, and Seattle City Council. The secret meetings, and the inside politics payed lobbyists used by Hansen, mean only one thing, and that is corruption.

    So, don’t be so hard on the Sacramento Government, I have seen no action of the Sacramento Government that even gets close to the corruption of the current Seattle Government. It is so blatantly corrupt in Seattle that it is sickening.

  33. I really wish that the Unites States Attorney for the Northwest region would investigate the Seattle Mayor’s secret meetings with Hansen. One of the results of the secret meetings is Seattle being the Captive Buyer for Hansen’s land. Seattle is the Captive Buyer of the Hansen land, with no price for the land in the MOU. The land would be appraised later, and Seattle has to accept the price a private corporate appraiser decides. The MOU causes the land value to increase, without the MOU the land value would not increase.

    The only estimate for the price Seattle would pay for the land is 100 million dollars. That more than doubles the current value of the land, which was already inflated due to Hansen buying parcels up.

    So, in secret the Mayor agrees to write an MOU that at least doubles the value of Hansen’s land, contracts Seattle to buy the land at the higher valuation without even stating a price, and this is all decided at secret meetings with Hansen.
    The Mayor guarantees Hansen profit on a land sale payed for with public funds in secret meetings, and the Mayor engineers the doubling of value of the Hansen land in the same MOU; all in secret. That is what the US Attorney needs to look into.

  34. KJ announces that they have a deal.
    https://twitter.com/KJ_MayorJohnson/status/315599923213119488

  35. Well, isn’t that what the NBA wants? Downtown arenas that are publicly subsidized? If the proposal is legit, and the Sacramento attempted ownership group has the financing to purchase the Kings; it would seem that the Kings would not be relocating to Seattle.

    Frankly, a California market is better.There are much more people in California, and having four teams in California gives a good chance that a California team will make it far in the playoffs. Were the Kings to be good, and make the playoffs, the ratings for the Kings games would be higher with the Kings in California, than in Washington State.

    If the Kings were the only California team left in the playoffs, every NBA fan in California would be a Kings fan. That would be millions more fans than Washington State.

    California has a population of about 40 million. Washington State has a population of about 6 million; with all things being equal in a bid for a team, the smart business decision would be to decide for Sacramento, and the 40 million population of California. It would make no sense to move the team.

  36. http://sacramento.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=21&event_id=1953&meta_id=396718 Mayor Johnson’s terms sheet has emerged.

  37. Thanks, ChefJoe. Downloaded it as soon as it came out, been reading/tweeting:

    https://twitter.com/fieldofschemes

  38. It’s San Francisco 49ers. The name stays. Please Sacramento do all a favor.

    1. Create your State. Suceed from the Golden State.

    2. Please refrain from following Bay Area teams. These are the San Francisco Bay Area teams not yours, and no we don’t want to share with your city.

    3. Realize your not San Francisco and will never be.

    4. The San Francisco 49ers and Giants are not yours.

    5. You have Sacramento State and the River Cats and Kings. Those are your teams. Enjoy them.

    And the “Mighty” UFL Mountain Lions. Focus on their support. Wear their gear.

    6 Your Mayor has mastered the “Dog and Pony” show. If he were in the Bay Area, he would be mocked.

    7. Get a real sports broadcaster that actually has a normal accent and does not sound like a duplicate of “My Cousin Vinny1″

    8. Seperate yourself from all Bay Area affairs and politics and especially sports teams.

  39. It looks like Mayor Ruckus math is behind.

    Seattle peoposal is 700 Million.

    Sacarmento’s proposal is 468 Million. Wow, I wonder which one the league will approve of. Maybe if Mayor Ruckus brings a ” Were the Number One Fans In Sports” plaque, Commish Stern will certainly have to lean in Sacramento’s favor?

  40. Hmm. Does insulting Sacramento as a whole count as a personal attack? This is an interesting theological question.

  41. Also, Bay Area/SF 49ers, please stop posting under multiple names, it’s confusing.

  42. Oh, that “new media” stuff on Twitter. Not that it’s much, but it does seem like the $1M per year minimum on profit sharing from Arena to the city is a nice touch. Certainly didn’t work out so cleanly with the Mariners profit sharing.

  43. Yeah, except that the $1m in profit sharing is earmarked to pay back the lost parking revenues that are funneled to the arena. So the profit sharing wouldn’t actually provide the city with any profit.

  44. Also, I plan on posting more fully here on Monday, once I’ve read the term sheet after a good night’s sleep. Just felt like I needed to comment my kneejerk analysis somewhere immediately, especially since by Monday we’ll only be 24 hours away from a council vote.

  45. Jared,

    Nickels was dishonest and corrupt. That was a common thread in everything he did as Mayor. That aside for anyone to even remotely think he did anything to help keep the team is delusional. He refused to meet with the fan groups, had staff shake them down for political favors letting them think they were “friends” when in fact he was undermining their every move. He never once did anything to lobby on behalf of his own proposals and prevented staff from doing anything that might have helped keep the team here. In the end he broke several city laws in order to assist Bennett in making sure he had a free path out of town.

  46. you can analyze manure until the cows come home

    and you can cut the Sacramento manure into a million pieces

    shit is still shit

    One has a Sacramento Pedophile Mayor backed up by some purple dildo, Carmichael Dave, running around the county sleeping in his own excremental blather…and anyone believes these BS artists?

  47. That is uncalled for.

    Sacramento is doing everything they can to save their team and they should. In the end the NBA is going to move this team and the city knew it. The surprise to them is that the Maloofs agreed to sell the team. There is no need to insult them or act immature, they don’t deserve it and we should be better than that.

  48. The new arena in DT is whispered to be called Food 4 Less Forum.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

250,028 Spambots Blocked by Simple Comments

HTML tags are not allowed.