Closed - New thread started

[Deleted member 38182]

I'm not gonna copy and paste the article because the formatting would be all weird I think....

check it out tho if you don't have anything else to do and want a good laugh at the biggest douche who's been ******** on Sacramento since the Seattle news broke in January

http://www.awfulannouncing.com/2013/may/twitter-wars-darren-rovell-vs-the-world.html

 

[Deleted member 38182]

Also to your post, LW..... "too much talking, not enough doing" 

 

[SneakerProSr.]

How do you yall feel about a public vote on the arena funding?

It seems that would only be right.

Its still crazy to me that a city like Sacramento is about to pour maybe 300 million into a basketball arena and the way they plan on getting the money back is parking.

 

[Deleted member 38182]

a public vote would be a waste of tax payer money IMO.

Plus this, just like any vote on using public monies, would get shot down if there was a vote. Same reason why Sacramento didn't put up the $1 billion airport project up for vote either.

There could be a vote on the cure for cancer and that would get shot down as well.

I've said this to you before, but I understand as an outsider not understanding this. Which is also why if this were to go to a vote it would get shot down, too many uninformed people on this matter. They automatically see public funds being used and get weary. But those people read anti-arena articles filled with un-factual, over-inflated numbers and immediately have their minds made.

This financing mechanism is definitely out of the box and demands a little dynamic, critical thinking.

Bottom line is, the arena will be fine as long as the parking revenue maintains the same input as years past. There are around 27k public parking spots in a 1 mile radius around the site.... as of right now there is only about 10-20% usage of that public parking during the daytime (8 am-5 pm) and at night time that usage is basically 0%. Reaching those numbers to replenish and contribute the general fund thru parking rev isn't nearly as farfetched.

I'm not trying to take shots at you btw and just like you and the folks in Seattle, I truly do appreciate you guys trying to look out for Sacramento's best interest (kind of). 

But IMO, KJ, Steinberg, Gaines wouldn't be putting their career fingerprints all over this deal if they thought it would be a detriment to the city.

 

[SneakerProSr.]

a public vote would be a waste of tax payer money IMO.

Plus this, just like any vote on using public monies, would get shot down if there was a vote. Same reason why Sacramento didn't put up the $1 billion airport project up for vote either.

There could be a vote on the cure for cancer and that would get shot down as well.

I've said this to you before, but I understand as an outsider not understanding this. Which is also why if this were to go to a vote it would get shot down, too many uninformed people on this matter. They automatically see public funds being used and get weary. But those people read anti-arena articles filled with un-factual, over-inflated numbers and immediately have their minds made.

This financing mechanism is definitely out of the box and demands a little dynamic, critical thinking.




Bottom line is, the arena will be fine as long as the parking revenue maintains the same input as years past. There are around 27k public parking spots in a 1 mile radius around the site.... as of right now there is only about 10-20% usage of that public parking during the daytime (8 am-5 pm) and at night time that usage is basically 0%. Reaching those numbers to replenish and contribute the general fund thru parking rev isn't nearly as farfetched.

I'm not trying to take shots at you btw and just like you and the folks in Seattle, I truly do appreciate you guys trying to look out for Sacramento's best interest (kind of). 


But IMO, KJ, Steinberg, Gaines wouldn't be putting their career fingerprints all over this deal if they thought it would be a detriment to the city.

You don't the see irony in saying a public vote is waste of public money but spending 300 million on a basketball arena isn't.

 

[Deleted member 38182]

a public vote would be a waste of tax payer money IMO.

Plus this, just like any vote on using public monies, would get shot down if there was a vote. Same reason why Sacramento didn't put up the $1 billion airport project up for vote either.

There could be a vote on the cure for cancer and that would get shot down as well.

I've said this to you before, but I understand as an outsider not understanding this. Which is also why if this were to go to a vote it would get shot down, too many uninformed people on this matter. They automatically see public funds being used and get weary. But those people read anti-arena articles filled with un-factual, over-inflated numbers and immediately have their minds made.

This financing mechanism is definitely out of the box and demands a little dynamic, critical thinking.




Bottom line is, the arena will be fine as long as the parking revenue maintains the same input as years past. There are around 27k public parking spots in a 1 mile radius around the site.... as of right now there is only about 10-20% usage of that public parking during the daytime (8 am-5 pm) and at night time that usage is basically 0%. Reaching those numbers to replenish and contribute the general fund thru parking rev isn't nearly as farfetched.

I'm not trying to take shots at you btw and just like you and the folks in Seattle, I truly do appreciate you guys trying to look out for Sacramento's best interest (kind of). 


But IMO, KJ, Steinberg, Gaines wouldn't be putting their career fingerprints all over this deal if they thought it would be a detriment to the city.

You don't the see irony in saying a public vote is waste of public money but spending 300 million on a basketball arena isn't.

 I mean, haven't we had this discussion before tho? I'm going to say stuff about the arena revitalization of the surrounding area, you'll respond with having read numerous reports of sports arenas not having that effect, I'll respond with copying and pasting reports that support the development of arenas and the surrounding areas, and neither of us will change out minds.

I don't understand your objective? Especially posting this in the Kings thread? You could probably ask it in the Seattle thread and they'd likely agree with you, especially since their arena isn't exactly a true public subsidy since it has the guaranteed backing of Hansen/Ballmer, but that isn't what the NBA is looking for.

What is the response you are looking for from me or the few Kings fans (since you posted in here)? That we think building an arena is stupid, a waste of money, and not in the best interest of the city? That we think this project is a failure?

I rather look at the positive of potential growth and influx in investors, you clearly are looking at this the other way in a negative light can predict the future and see this as a massive failure on the city-state level. I don't get what your interest is in this. Worry about your own damn city 

 

[SneakerProSr.]

I just want you admit you just want the Kings to stay no matter the cost and quit trying say this arena is going to revitalize your city economically.

To me there is a civic pride that comes from a sports team that you can't put a price on and that should be the justification not this economic bs people are selling,

And the reason why this is important to me is because this is going to set the precedent for all NBA arena deals in the future and I don't want the city of Dallas being held hostage in 10-15 years if Cuban dies or sells the team.

Plus my family is from Michigan and I can see the city of Detroit being held hostage the same way Sacramento was.

 

[Deleted member 38182]

I just want you admit you just want the Kings to stay no matter the cost and quit trying say this arena is going to revitalize your city economically.

To me there is a civic pride that comes from a sports team that you can't put a price on and that should be the justification not this economic bs people are selling,

And the reason why this is important to me is because this is going to set the precedent for all NBA arena deals in the future and I don't want the city of Dallas being held hostage in 10-15 years if Cuban dies or sells the team.

I agree that this likely isn't a good precedent to set for the rest of the NBA in the future... especially since for Sacramento, having KJ and the state govt on board to support this project is a pretty rare situation to have and likely not going to be replicated again.

But if I were you, I wouldn't be worried about Cuban or the owners, its all about the local government and how much they are willing to participate in a partnership with Cuban/owners of the NBA. Because I'm sure there are a few owners that could build arena s on their own (Hansen/Ballmer would be one of them, as would Cuban)

Also, I hope Cuban has more than 10-15 years left on this planet, he ain't that old is he?

Of course I want this to be built because it would mean the Kings staying. But the revitalization/development/growth of my hometown is not a grandeur of mirage I'm spitting around, I want to see a downtown where I can walk around at night and not have to walk 10 blocks just to see a human being walking on the sidewalk 

 the Kings staying is an added bonus. 

The cost that the Kings are staying, IMO is justified and a worthy risk to take on. Especially since, as I mentioned a few posts back, the replenishing of the tax $$  general fund via parking revenue is manageable.

 

[crcballer55]

I think the most glaring thing that's been missing from this whole argument is the income tax aspect. I haven't followed Sacramento politics in quite a while, but I know that California has one of the highest income taxes in the nation, and will benefit A LOT from keeping the Kings in California. I'm not sure if Sacramento has an income tax as well, but if so, they'll benefit GREATLY from having millionaires come through 41 times each year and paying that to the city. If they don't already have one, I'm sure it's something an economically liberal city like Sacramento would consider to help fund this.

Otherwise, as Sneaker Pro may not know, Downtown Sacramento is a ghost town after 5:00. All of the state and local government officials book out of there as soon as possible for West Sac & the suburbs and leave any semblance of an economy in waste. With a downtown arena, those businesses will thrive, bringing in sales tax revenue to the city and keeping people there longer then they currently do. Not to mention Light Rail downtown would be expanded and see more people use it, thus making it a cash positive venture.

 

[Deleted member 38182]

^I mentioned the parking statistics... that should be a glaring indicator of the populace of downtown Sac after work/5 pm. There is literally no reason for the general public to be in downtown after folks leave their state jobs 

 

[SneakerProSr.]

Dallas's downtown is bad for a area with so many people. It was even worse before the AAC

If Sac's is really that bad I can respect spending the money.

 

[lightweight champion]

If Dallas is bad than Sacramento has to be worse.

 

[SneakerProSr.]

Where is Arco?

 

[Deleted member 38182]

over by the Sacramento Airport in a town called Natomas.... about 10-15 minutes from downtown Sac. 

 

[SneakerProSr.]

Yeah if the downtown is devoid of anything fun to do its worth it. Which is what rck said months ago

 

[Deleted member 38182]

Its not that its just devoid of fun things to do, its that there is zero development, and in some cases regressing. 

Like the site where the new arena will go, is where a somewhat booming outdoor mall was in the early 2000s, now its literally a ghost area with nothing but just homeless people there 

these are all pictures that were taken at the K St mall around noon 

 

[lightweight champion]

I already have mental images, I didn't need a reminder of how depressing it is

 

[Deleted member 38182]

I had to walk thru there last summer for a 3 on 3 tournament... it was kinda scary 

But I think that picture of the parking lot, best illustrates why I think the financing mechanism will work. I can't see us not hitting our parking numbers or getting worse numbers than we already are. I literally don't think the parkings stats could get any worse... which is both sad/sobering and also a good thing for paying off the arena.

 

[senorroboto2k5]

A nice arena would bring a lot to Sacramento, whose main destination right now is... the state capitol?

Downtown Sac has a few nice restaurants and bars for the night scene, but other than that, the capitol is the only "noticeable" thing about it - or any of the surrounding Sac areas.

The mall - the site where the arena would be - was one of Sac's booming spots not too long ago , and even then it wasn't anything more than a standard mall. (But it was enough to qualify to be included in the following: "What is there to do in Sac? Well, there's the capitol. Kings games. And downtown mall.") But like rck said, it just died. Now what's there to do in Sac? Well, there's the capitol. And the Kings games in a ****** arena, which we thought they were about to bounce from until a week ago. And... not much else.

An arena would help a lot.

 

[thedeek]

Its not that its just devoid of fun things to do, its that there is zero development, and in some cases regressing. 

Like the site where the new arena will go, is where a somewhat booming outdoor mall was in the early 2000s, now its literally a ghost area with nothing but just homeless people there 

these are all pictures that were taken at the K St mall around noon 

Damn, I can't even remember the last time I've been in the downtown mall.

 

[Deleted member 38182]

Seriously, last summer was the first time I've stepped foot in there since probably 2004 when I was a kid 

Anyways, minor update.......

Source close to Sacramento group says @kjrmitch report that contingent soliciting more investors is "100 percent false." #NBAKings
— Ryan Lillis (@Ryan_Lillis) May 8, 2013

Paperwork for Sacramento group led by @vivek and Jacobs family has been filed. Group is being vetted by NBA.
— Ryan Lillis (@Ryan_Lillis) May 8, 2013

.@vivek continues to turn away interested investors who want to be part of Sacramento group. #NBAKings
— Ryan Lillis (@Ryan_Lillis) May 8, 2013

 

[senorroboto2k5]

Last night Chris Webber tweeted a bunch about a book he's working on. Said he'd be talking about the Fab 5, Peja & Vlade, a chapter about Game 6, exhibition game with Rick Fox, producing for Nas, Jim Mcilvaine and George Muresan, and "that clown" who's "lost now."

i'm excited

 

[SneakerProSr.]

Last ntalkiight Chris Webber tweeted a bunch about a book he's working on. Said he'd be talking about the Fab 5, Peja & Vlade, a chapter about Game 6, exhibition game with Rick Fox, producing for Nas, Jim Mcilvaine and George Muresan, and "that clown" who's "lost now."

i'm excited

Damn who he talking about?

 

[senorroboto2k5]

He didn't say. Jalen??

 

[SneakerProSr.]

He didn't say. Jalen??

That's what I was thinking.

I can't have them beefing because Jalen is my guy but you can kinda see the writing on the wall.