Ryan Lillis of the Sacramento Bee thinks the Kings arena referendum is going to get on the June 2014 ballot:
https://twitter.com/Ryan_Lillis/status/360127288861396992
The referendum push is getting help, the Bee revealed today, from a conservative Southern California-based PAC that has a history of acting as a conduit for big-money donations and which won’t reveal its donors. The Bee doesn’t say how much the PAC, Taxpayers for Safer Neighborhoods — a name that makes you wonder if they have an evil nemesis called Tax Scofflaws for Unsafe Neighborhoods — has actually spent on the campaign, but it adds one more layer of intrigue to what is already way, way more entertaining than any petition drive has a right to be.
I think that tweet is probably the only source of info I’ve seen indicating this drive has a chance. Let’s assume it’s correct, and they get 20k+ valid, legal signatures; then what? The NBA would have to reconsider this, because I think they know it’d fail in a public vote. I know they have conditions on this sale, and the arena effort has to hit milestones. Is it possible that simply getting this on the ballot is a show-stopper, or do you think they’d go in full-speed ahead?
By the way, it’s pretty well known that two Sacramento politicians — Rob Stutzman and Robby Waters — went to Orange County to run a petition drive to stop OC from getting the Kings; the petition would have forced a vote on what their BOS did. How is what this OC group did worse than what Waters and Stutzman did?
What I don’t like is the Bee’s phony indignity about how this PAC refuses to disclose its funding, even after their minimal reaction to who funded Think Big: The Maloofs.
That wasn’t a conflict of interest? Who are they trying to kid?
This is what MikeM is referring to.
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/anaheim-298527-city-bonds.html
The Sacramento Bee went apopletic over “Orange County” because they know this thing will go to a vote despite their awful propogandizing. But the Sacramento Bee didn’t expose Sacramento’s hypocrisy after what happened in the article above.
Note that even if it gets on the ballot, the pro-arena forces could pour enough money into a campaign to win. That’s what happened in Santa Clara. $5 million to win the stadium ballot measure. The ‘no’ votes started out polling at about 60%. Money does buy elections.
I sincerely wish the petitioners the best of luck in collecting enough signatures. I hope they are able to get this on the ballot.
But it’s been proven that the signature gatherers have been lying as far as the tax situation is concerned. This makes you wonder how this will play out legally.
The pro arena people are going to have their day in court. If they can prove the underhanded manner in which the petitioners gained their signatures, and that’s easy since it’s on tape, then I have to think they’ll win.
It won’t matter. The signature gatherers for the 49ers stadium initiative (the initiative written by the 49ers attorneys, not by our city staff) lied to people to get them to sign so that the misleading initiative with the wording the 49ers wanted made it onto the ballot. The signature gatherers made things up (or were told to provide mis-information), such as ‘if we don’t use the redevelopment money on the stadium, the state will take it back’ (it never was state money, RDA is local property tax money) or ‘if you don’t sign this, you won’t get a chance to vote’ which wasn’t true – the city council could have put a more neutral city-staff written ballot measure on the ballot.
It won’t matter that the signature gatherers make stuff up, as long as the signatures are from valid, registered voters, and enough are collected, it will go to a vote. Voters have the responsibility to read the text which is required on the initiative they are signing. And it also won’t matter if either side lies during an arena ballot campaign – campaign materials and the lies included within won’t mean diddly in a court of law because of freedom of speech. So pro-arena forces are free to lie to the public to try to get a ballot measure for an arena to pass.
Good luck Sacramento!
The more I think about Mark’s comments yesterday about the parking fees, the more it makes sense to me that this entire structure could easily fall apart. Will a court see this as a disguised tax hike, where they raise parking fees to pay for something unrelated to parking and traffic? I know things can get twisted around in the courts, but we all know this money will be used to pay for arena construction. A good lawyer will be able to challenge this.
They originally said that the term sheets would be turned into a contract by June 2013, and I assumed that was an error. They later corrected that to June 2014, which seems more plausible.
@MikeM
All I know is that the NBA has mandated that the Kings open their new arena by November of 2017. Legal ramifications aside, they have the right to force Vivek to sell the team if this stalls in any way, shape or form.
The biggest concerns that the Kings face are from STOP but also the lawsuits that will most likely be filed at the conclusion of the EIR process. Steinberg’s bill mandates that you file within 3 months of the end of the EIR process. With the EIR finishing up in the summer of 2014, that gives them ’til around September or October to file a lawsuit. If a judge thinks any of these lawsuits have merit and it goes to trial, it could push things past the summer of 2015. And if that’s the case, the league has the right to take the team away and force a sale since a post summer of 2015 groundbreaking would mean that they won’t have it ready by November of 2017.