November 19, 2010
Sacramento arena plans only mostly dead
Two months after the NBA stuck a fork in its Sacramento Kings arena lobbying efforts, Mayor Kevin Johnson isn't taking "dead" for an answer:
The mayor is calling on developers once again to come up with proposals to replace aging Arco Arena — or "tweak" plans they previously proposed — and submit them to a task force Johnson is reconvening.
Johnson's task force will meet today, one year after the mayor first commissioned the group to act as community liaison for ideas on how to get an arena built. ...
Johnson said this week that he will ask the task force to review any proposals submitted by the end of the year. The group will likely conduct a public hearing in late December or early January in which development teams will present their plans, Johnson said.
The mayor said he wants the task force's recommendation to go to the City Council early next year.
So, basically, this is a fishing expedition to see if anyone can come up with a more viable plan than the three-way land swap that was shot down by Cal Expo in September. Expect lots of far-fetched financing ideas, heated public rhetoric, and speculation that the team will move back to Kansas City if an arena deal isn't done for real this time — oh, look, there's one now.
Mayor Kevin Johnson is just trying to avoid the embarrassment of a former NBA player who made his name and most of his money from the league lose his City's NBA team. What part of much of Sacramento is government employees whose agencies are not going to buy luxury boxes the mayor doesn't understand? Also, why would a city that suffered from the foreclosure crisis more than most want to pay for a basketball arena that most couldn't afford tickets to? This Sacramentan is ok with the Kings moving somewhere else as long as they insist on a taxpayer-funded arena.
Posted by Art Vandelay on November 19, 2010 01:13 PM
They still haven't identified a source of funding for this, and at the same time, they now seem to be re-thinking the idea of 7th and K, which would EASILY be the most expensive plan (due to the demolition and close proximity to thousands of jobs#, at the same time entirely ignoring the cheapest solution #build it next to the current arena#.
Even at that, it's not the taxpayer's fault that the Maloofs allowed Arco to fall into disrepair. Why should the taxpayers even be interested?
One comment one of the Maloofs made stuck with me: He said he could get new signage rights worth twice the current rights #about $700,000/year). Who, recently, has sold signage rights for $1.4M?
Posted by MikeM on November 20, 2010 03:38 AM
Sacramento is a nice town filled with nice people. The Rubicon Brewery is a great spot. There's a lot to like about it now and there will be a lot to like about it in a few years when the Kings are playing in Kansas City or in Kentucky at the KFC Yum! Center. It's time for Sac to think about an MLS team instead.
Posted by Anderson on November 21, 2010 08:30 AM
Anderson, they can't. Ironically the Earthquakes own the rights to the Sacramento area (and all of NorCal). Indeed they've held a friendly up there already.
Posted by Dan on November 21, 2010 04:21 PM
I feel bad for the Maloofs as they have tried so hard in Sacramento for years.
The area is not viable to build an arena with private money and much like Oakland with the A's a public subsidy is needed.
I am with Neil D on General Fund money never should be used for a sports facility. Redevelopment funds are OK since they can't be used for General purposes.
In this case neither helps and the Kings are done in Sacramento.
San Jose would gladly take them on and support the team. Sharing a facility would enable a "team effort" for a new place down the line in Silicon Valley or a major renovation to the HP Pavilion.
The corporate support would be there for privately done projects that Sacramento cannot do.
The Maloofs need a corporate base to thrive and San Jose is the only logical place where an NBA team has not tapped into its vast corporate base.
I feel bad for the Maloofs as they have tried so hard in Sacramento for years.
The area is not viable to build an arena with private money and much like Oakland with the A's a public subsidy is needed.
I am with Neil D on General Fund money never should be used for a sports facility. Redevelopment funds are OK since they can't be used for General purposes.
In this case neither helps and the Kings are done in Sacramento.
San Jose would gladly take them on and support the team. Sharing a facility would enable a "team effort" for a new place down the line in Silicon Valley or a major renovation to the HP Pavilion.
The corporate support would be there for privately done projects that Sacramento cannot do.
The Maloofs need a corporate base to thrive and San Jose is the only logical place where an NBA team has not tapped into its vast corporate base.
For the record, I've never said that general fund money should never be used for a sports facility. I can think of plenty of situations where using general fund money on a stadium would be a good deal (Metrodome, for one), as well as ones where a stadium would be a bad deal even without general fund money going for stadium construction (New Yankee Stadium, anyone?).
Posted by Neil deMause on November 29, 2010 08:23 PM
@Neil- Please describe to me in what way would General Fund Money be appropriate for a new stadium? You can use the Metrodome as an example if you wish.
Posted by Sid on December 3, 2010 02:45 PM
The Twins and Vikings' rent payments repaid the general fund cost of the Metrodome, with interest.
Unfortunately, that's pretty much the last time that's happened.
Posted by Neil deMause on December 3, 2010 02:49 PM