Sacramentans could vote on Kings arena funding measure in June, unless they don’t

Aw, man, did I forget to tell you guys that the Sacramento arena ballot petitions got certified? Well, they did, last week, and now there will be a vote on whether financing of any pro sports facility should require a public vote, which would take place on June 3. (The vote on whether to vote would take place on June 3, that is. The actual vote on the Kings arena in particular would take place in November.)

Except that the county registrar still needs to rule, possibly as early as today, on whether those multiple versions of the petition mean some should be tossed, and regardless of what she says, there will be a lawsuit over this whole thing anyway. So we probably won’t know for a while yet whether there will be a vote. Hey, here’s an idea: Why don’t we have people vote on whether to vote on whether to vote? I’ll get a petition going…


15 comments on “Sacramentans could vote on Kings arena funding measure in June, unless they don’t

  1. One item of note regarding this petition: The opposition to the petition submitted more than 15,000 withdrawals. Of these 15,000, only 9,000 were legible and signed by registered voters in the County of Sacramento. Of the 9,000, only1,400 were registered voters in the City of Sacramento who had signed the petition. Why hasn’t the229 offered to reimburse the county for verifying their signatures?


  3. I was kind of hoping the press release would include the copies of the 9 different versions of the petition with differences highlighted.
    Concolino said STOP failed to include an enacting clause on any of the nine versions of the petitions. An enacting clause notifies signers of an initiative petition that the measure being proposed will be enacted into law if passed by the voters.

    “The Sacramento City Charter provides ‘the enacting clause of each ordinance enacted by the initiative or referendum process shall be, ‘Be it Enacted by the People of the City of Sacramento,’” the clerk wrote. That passage was left off all of the petitions, she said.

    Concolino said signatures were gathered on petitions that omitted an entire paragraph from a notice of intent the measure’s supporters filed with the clerk when they began gathering signatures. Those petitions also included “entirely new language” that did not appear in the notice of intent, as well as statements ending in incomplete sentences.

  4. Time for those 22,000 disenfranchised voters to show up at every city council meeting to demand a vote and the resignation of all these corrupt sycophantic city officials. This action by the city clerk could and should backfire on the Team KJ hype machine.

  5. It was the City Clerk who rejected the petitions. The County Registrar only determines whether there were enough valid signatures. I can’t imagine that anyone was surprised that the City Clerk rejected the petitions. If the issue goes to the ballot, it’s very unlikely that the arena deal would pass, as City of Sacramento voters are the poorest in the region, while those who can afford to attend Kings’ games live in the richer outlying areas.

  6. The letter from the clerk can be found here:

  7. To me, if you look at points 3 and 4 in the clerk’s letter, that indicates just plain incompetence on STOP’s part. The way more than sufficient number of people who, with all good intentions, signed this petition, should be extremely angry at STOP, for their incompetence. They really F-ed this up.

  8. Not at all a surprise. STOP was deader than dog crap before Chris Hansen put $80K into their campaign, and it was plain for all to see that Camacho didn’t have the intellectual candlepower to advocate or even discuss his side’s position in any kind of an adversarial forum.

    When you put your trust in D-minus students, D-minus work is typically what you get.

  9. I watched a feature on Real Sports about Vivek Ranadive last night. I don’t trust him at all. The guy thinks he’s a legend in his own mind. He’s playing Sacramento.

  10. Let’s give credit to STOP for suiting up, taking the bull by the horns, getting off the couch to take on the City Hall wallet-pluckers! Where are all the involved citizens of Sacramento? Lot’s of Monday-morning QBing, but narry a body out on the streets gathering signatures, or helping with petition expertise. This city is full of do-nothings, chronic crybabies, who enjoy posting their electronic pontifications, but do nothing to make this a better city. A Nation of Sheep? Sacramento is a City of Sheep. If this bankrupting arena gets built, the blame goes directly to the rump-scabbers of this city.

  11. Funny, I watched the Real Sports feature and got a very different impression. Not a whole lot of ego in evidence and he’s obviously not entirely comfortable with the public attention. Subsidizing his plaything is still a bad idea, but I didn’t get the feeling he’s a bad guy – especially when judged on the Sports Owner Curve.

  12. You know, if you read this article here:

    You reach the inescapable conclusion that this is a terrible investment for the City of Sacramento. You put up $258M, and if the best-case scenario works out, you increase tax revenues by $2.7M. Um, STOP! There’s no way I’d do it. A responsible Mayor would walk away. The bond-holders are going to make 5%+, while the City MIGHT make 1%.

    Unbelievable. Who’s happy with this deal?

    Oh, and by the way, the subsidy is worth closer to $350M. Just makes it even worse.

  13. Come now MikeM. They cite that restaurant that pulls in an extra $1,500 – 3,000 on nights with a Kings game or concert, respectively. With 40 home games and perhaps 40 concerts, that’s over $180,000 a year more in sales at a restaurant and those 8.5% sales taxes won’t be going to Natomas but to Sacramento !

    Yes, it would probably be more cost efficient for the city to just pay the restaurants directly, but civic pride and world-classness is priceless.

  14. ChefJoe

    The current restaurants cited in the article are located in the City of Sacramento – Natomas is a neighborhood within the city, not a separate city. All it means is that the taxes and sales generated in one neighborhood are transferring to another neighborhood. There is no net increase in revenue for the city.