September 22, 2006
Appendices and other addenda
I was out of commission much of this week dealing with a minor family medical emergency (anybody need a spare appendix, slightly used?). We'll return to our regularly scheduled news updates next week - in the meantime, here's an abridged version of this week's events:
- The plan to surround the new Washington Nationals stadium with condo-wrapped parking garages is dead, after the city and developer Herbert Miller were unable to agree on a financing plan. (Guess the Nats owners had something with their complaints that the plan was "speculative.") With the city contractually required to build 1,225 parking space for the Nats, Mayor Anthony Williams is now proposing simply paving over five acres of land north of the stadium to use as a temporary parking lot, but added that this could force the city to bust its $611 million stadium spending cap. (Guess the city council was right to worry that the spending cap was a load of crap, though it would have sounded more sincere if they hadn't voted for it anyway.)
- The campaign for a proposed downtown Sacramento arena may not have a tenant, but it does have $2 million in funds, courtesy of a downtown developer. NBA league officials also chimed in on the controversy this week, saying that it wants to see the Kings and the city agree to an arena financing deal before the plan goes before voters on November 7. Agree on a plan before a vote? Now that's just crazy talk.
- Initiative 91, the referendum to require that any stadium or arena subsidies return a fair-market profit for taxpayers, is officially on the November ballot, after the city council unanimously approved it on Monday. The group Citizens for More Important Things, which collected more than 18,000 signatures to get the measure on the ballot, says this would allow citizens to file lawsuits to challenge any Sonics arena deal that failed to repay the public investment, with interest. One question that I haven't been able to find out yet: Is "return" defined to just include direct cash payments from the arena, or such indirect (and easy-to-fudge) factors as "economic impact"?
- The city council in Blaine, Minnesota is set to consider a resolution to ask for a voter referendum before any sales-tax hike for a new Minnesota Vikings stadium. Bill sponsor Dick Swanson is in a tight race with a stadium-tax opponent for a seat on the county board.
- The Pittsburgh-Allegheny County Sports and Exhibition Authority has just about completed the purchase of land targeted as the site of a potential new arena for the Penguins. Pittsburgh Mayor Luke Ravenstahl is also considering asking prospective buyers of the team to commit to accepting the "Plan B" arena-financing plan proposed by Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, which the current Pens ownership has so far balked at.
- The "seat option bonds" that helped build the Dallas Cowboys' Texas Stadium in 1971 - basically an early version of personal seat licenses, where fans pay a fee to reserve the right to buy tickets - will finally be repaid in 2008, reports the Dallas News. Though "repaid" is a matter of opinion: Bondholders will get $300 for each $250 bond purchased in 1968, leading one holder of a pair of season tickets to tell the paper: "In 40 years, I make $100 off of them. Isn't that wonderful? Can't beat interest like that."
- The New York Red Bulls broke ground for the nation's most expensive soccer stadium (either $140 million or $220 million, depending on who you believe) on Tuesday in Harrison, New Jersey - giving Harrison a claim to fame other than being the last stop on the PATH train before Newark. Taxpayers will be putting up $120 million of the cost, though the public could make some of it back from parking fees and increased tax receipts.
Now that the Maloofs have pulled out of the campaign for Q&R (I personally think they will not be back), there are now hints that a "Plan B" is being hatched, based on a plan that was discussed last year. Read RE Graswich's column in today's Bee.
Even that plan may be hard to put in place. It involves rezoning a very large portion of the east part of Sacramento County, something that could still require voter approval. Also, it would probably also assume that AKT would develop the railyard, but since Thomas Enterprises of Atlanta already has the property in escrow (and has for over two years now!), that could also be a problem.
Good articles in yesterday's Bee, too, with a "cautionary tale" of Portland and Seattle, and one today that holds up Indianapolis and Memphis as examples of how to do things right.
Yes, they're insane. I read the doctor's reports.
I went through appendicitis hell myself in July. I woke up about 40 minutes after my surgery, and they told me my appendix was fine; I simply had the stomach flu. Brilliant; they give appendectomies to everyone who has a stomach flu, I guess.
Posted by: MikeM on September 25, 2006 12:34 PM
The new article in today's Bee (9/26) points out that the Maloofs' demands for a sphere of influence around the arena and for 8,000 parking spots that they own 100% of the time are unprecedented; that even Indy's and Memphis's deals weren't that generous. Imagine if Heisley owned Beale Street, by law; that's the proposal in Sac.
It's about time someone pointed that out.
Anyway, here it is, 9/26, and the election is in 6 weeks, and there's still no agreement.
The City and County, if it had any guts, would call the Maloofs' bluff. After all, you don't just walk away from a fan base like this. Local officials have way more bargaining chips than they realize.
Here's a starting point: I don't think this area's voters will accept contributing any more than 30% to this project. At 30%, it's 50-50 for it to pass, but at the proposed 90% or so, forget it.
So pols should tell the Maloofs they don't want them to leave, but Q&R look dead, and they'll try to put something else on the ballot in a year, when they've had more time to assemble a deal. If the Maloofs don't want that, then tough beans, it's been nice knowing you.
They'll probably have another snit at that point, but once cooler heads prevail, even after a threat or two, they'll probably get back to talking.
If the pols and Maloofs throw all their eggs into the Q&R basket and decide to give up if that approach fails, well, it's been nice knowing you, Joe and Gavin.
Posted by: MikeM on September 26, 2006 12:57 PM
