Is Hansen really going to quote numbers from a 2004 land study?

In this post from Chris Daniels, King5 reports that the Hansen group is likely going to bring up the 2004 study stating the Downtown Plaza would be the most expensive of 7 sites researched for a new arena. The report apparently cites a high cost for the land and high construction costs.

Sources say Hansen’s group is pointing to a Sacramento City Commissioned “Sports Arena Site Analysis” done back in 2004. That study, still active on the city’s website as of this writing, looked at several locations for a new Kings arena. A “Cost Comparison Matrix” showed that of seven possible locations, the Downtown Plaza site (7th and K) was the most expensive.

Yes, you read that correctly. A report on land and structure values from 2004. In other news from 2004, my parents' house (in Sacramento area) which they purchased new for $300k in 2002, is now worth $660k. But back in reality (i.e. 2013), my parents' house is worth about $215k.

Beyond this, the land has changed hands and now belongs to JMA Ventures, who is actually on board with the arena at the DTP.

Oh yeah, and cost overruns for the development of the arena will be picked up by the investors--the 4 whales who build stuff for a living--okay, so only 2 of them are primarily known as developers...

Chris Daniels actually points to the change in ownership and the responsibility of the investors to pick up any cost overruns, and yet he gives them nothing more than cursory acknowledgement. His very next statement is that the Hansen investment group "could use the old study to make an argument that the math doesn’t add up."

Excuse me Mr. Hansen. I have some math that doesn't add up here. It's called using a study that was completed nearly a decade ago! It's called trying to poke holes in numbers regarding the feasibility of development when the investors are signed off to pick up any extra cost for development. The math that doesn't add up is in trying to use statements that call the purchase of the site as "expensive" when JMA owns the property and is participating in the development of arena and surrounding properties. The math that doesn't add up is using the value of land from 2004 in the heart of the Sacramento Valley in California when the California economy has been turned upside down in the 9 years since the completion of the study. Mr. Hansen, your math is the one that doesn't add up.

And Mr. Daniels, your reporting on this was just lazy.

(This is a FanPost from a member of the Sactown Royalty community. The views expressed come from the member, and not Sactown Royalty staff.)

Log In Sign Up

Log In Sign Up

Forgot password?

We'll email you a reset link.

If you signed up using a 3rd party account like Facebook or Twitter, please login with it instead.

Forgot password?

Try another email?

Almost done,

By becoming a registered user, you are also agreeing to our Terms and confirming that you have read our Privacy Policy.

Join Sactown Royalty

You must be a member of Sactown Royalty to participate.

We have our own Community Guidelines at Sactown Royalty. You should read them.

Join Sactown Royalty

You must be a member of Sactown Royalty to participate.

We have our own Community Guidelines at Sactown Royalty. You should read them.




Choose an available username to complete sign up.

In order to provide our users with a better overall experience, we ask for more information from Facebook when using it to login so that we can learn more about our audience and provide you with the best possible experience. We do not store specific user data and the sharing of it is not required to login with Facebook.