October 13, 2006
More arena woes for Kings
Look up "train wreck" in the dictionary, and you'll find a picture of the proposed Sacramento Kings arena. Or at least you would, if anybody knew what it would look like, or even where it might be built.
The team and the city and county have already missed their self-imposed October 6 deadline to come up with a memorandum of understanding spelling out the details of the arena plan; now the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association has filed suit to force the details of the plan to be made public, noting that absentee balloting has already begun for the arena ballot measures.
And that's even before a previously threatened lawsuit that would charge that the plan to split the arena-funding vote into two measures (one to raise taxes, one to fund an arena with it) is illegal to begin with - or, as one potential litigant put it, a "transparent farce to deliberately circumvent the state constitution." See what happens when you don't pay your protection bill?
—Neil deMause
Nice article about Orlando.
When are you going to write one for the Bee?
Just thought you might want to know that absentee ballots are out. I voted. I let some pro-arena folks know I voted, and they basically told me that I was violating the spirit of absentee voting; that it's there to make voting more convenient, and I shouldn't have voted because the language isn't finalized yet.
Ummm... Three weeks to the election, and there's no contract or MOU yet, and I'm misusing the absentee voting system?
I. Don't. Think. So.
It was up to the negotiators to write up a proposal so the voters would have time to review it, and they failed. Remind me again how that's my fault?
You think I'm outraged?? Gee... Ya think?
Posted by MikeM on October 16, 2006 07:59 PM
The Sacramento Bee, which sells a lot of newspapers because of the Kings (and thus has much to lose WHEN -- not if -- the Kings leave Sacramento) has recommended a NO vote on Q&R.
Posted by MikeM on October 17, 2006 12:27 PM
A court ruled yesterday that the City must release the contents of the latest MOU. This makes sense, since the people have the right to know what they're voting on.
The City has refused to release the document. They appealed the decision; the appeals court will release their decision on Monday, 8 days before the election. Many, many people have already voted.
The Sacramento Bee reported the following exchange in the 10/27 edition:
In a City Hall showdown after the court hearing, Bittle went to the City Attorney's Office for the document, judge's order in hand. He was kept waiting for nearly an hour.
Finally, Trimm emerged.
"I want my document," Bittle said. Trimm replied, "I'm not going to give it to you."
Instead, the city went directly to the 3rd District Court of Appeal in Sacramento to ask for an emergency stay.
I think they're just trying to limit the damage. Not releasing the info is damaging; releasing it is even more damaging.
The court has an extremely easy decision to make on Monday. Transparency is the law in California. That's how the courts will rule.
There is some spectacularly bad lawyering going on here.
Posted by MikeM on October 27, 2006 12:40 PM