October 30, 2006
Secrets of the Kings MOU revealed!
The city of Sacramento lost its court case today, and was forced to reveal the details of its latest arena offer to Kings owners Joe and Gavin Maloof. The revelations, according to assemblymember Dave Jones, a prominent arena opponent, contain "a number of bombshells":
- The city and county had offered to pay $45 million to build a 2,000-to-3,000-space parking garage, and to provide an additional 5,000 parking spaces within a ten-minute walk of the arena. (It looks like the Maloofs would get all the revenue from these spaces, though the MOU itself is unclearly worded on this.)
- The city and county would have prohibited vendors who might compete with arena concessions from gathering on the open plaza outside during arena events. (In other words, no buying black-market kettle corn and eating it before you go in.) They also would have prohibited "inappropriate and non-compatible retail and commercial uses" from the surrounding development, although this apparently didn't go as far as the ban on competing restaurants that the Kings owners wanted.
- The Kings would get all the money from selling naming rights to the plaza. And from a publicly subsidized billboard on Interstate 5. And from the governor's first movie. (Okay, I made that last one up.)
All of which seems to be the sort of stuff you'd want voters to know before casting ballots on the arena initiative. But hey - what's good enough for San Diego must be good enough for Sacramento, right?
And, finally, a sports columnist (Marcos Breton) is mad at the Maloofs. Read his column; he's not going to the party at the Palms at New Years, that's for sure.
Anyway, when you have incompetent politicians negotiating with lying team owners, I'm not sure how we could have expected a different outcome here.
Oh, and by the way, the developer, who still does not own the land, still insists that the land is worth $5.5 million/acre. How can anyone buy land when the seller still doesn't own the land? Aren't land values supposed to be tested on the open market first?
Posted by MikeM on October 31, 2006 12:22 PM
One of the funnier aspects of the City's proposed MOU to the Maloofs was a misspelling. They repeatedly referred to the big electronic sign near the freeway as the "Marquis."
I know these folks are masochistic, but that's ridiculous.
Posted by MikeM on October 31, 2006 02:28 PM
Do you know if there are any vending restrictions in the new Yankees and Mets deals? I know street vending in NYC much more entrenched than in other communities and enjoys some legal protections not found in other cities. I used to always get my hot dogs at the vendors across the block from the Stadium because they were much cheaper. I don't want that option taken away.
Posted by joejoejoe on November 1, 2006 01:58 AM
I'm not aware of anything in the formal agreement between the city and the teams. That said, while there's obviously no way the Yankees can force the Court Deli to shut down, I'm dead certain there won't be any independent vendors on the plaza out front of the new stadium.
I also wouldn't be surprised to see both big-league teams put in place a ban on bringing in outside food, as many other teams have done when opening new stadiums, and as the Brooklyn Cyclones already do to force you to buy your Nathan's hot dogs at ballpark prices instead of from the actual Nathan's down the block.
Posted by Neil on November 1, 2006 08:06 AM
I know now there are vendors at McComb's Damn selling food in by the park. Since there will be no more park and the existing Stadium is turning into a parking garage I'm just wondering if they'll ban vending outside the new parking garage (site of the existing stadium).
Posted by joejoejoe on November 1, 2006 06:59 PM
http://www.carlsjr.com/ontv/
Has anyone else seen the commercial for the $6K combo meal available exclusively at their hotel?
According to an article in Saturday's Bee, it turns out we may have accidentally activated a clause in the original $73.7 million loan of 1997 that allows the Kings to leave Sacramento WITHOUT having to repay the loan.
I consider this a stretch, but since the contract doesn't specify exactly what triggers this escape clause, this leaves the decision to the courts, and I don't think I like that uncertainty.
One question: What genius allowed that clause into the contract?
Posted by MikeM on November 6, 2006 12:18 PM
Am I the only one to notice how the TV ads supporting Q&R have disappeared from the airwaves in the past two weeks. I would think this would be the time when the airwaves would be saturated. I guess the Sacto Chamber of Commerce which were funding the ads have given up or realized the Malouffs, who I believe have not spent a dime on Q&R took them to the cleaners.
Posted by Michael on November 6, 2006 01:21 PM