The Maloofs Fully Funding an Arena? Ha!

by Ziller on Jun 8, 2006 8:47 AM PDT in News Comment 5 comments

Marcos Breton thinks the Maloofs should fully fund the new arena. He holds up Peter Magowan and the San Francisco Giants as an example. He also builds a straw man, which I guess I'm going to have to burn to the ground:

On one level, the movement to publicly fund an arena in Sacramento -- taking shape behind closed doors -- seems preposterous, given that precious tax dollars should be going to fix crumbling levees before many of us are paddling in rowboats across our front yards.

Sacramento is a flood disaster waiting to happen -- no one disputes this. Yet precious time, energy and money, along with our collective attention as a community, are going to be focused on an arena?

Okay, Marcos...

A tax measure for downtown revitalization (presumably) and a new sports arena has nothing to do with Sacramento's levee issues. NOTHING. It's ridiculous to bring them up together, as no one is pushing/proposing a countywide tax measure to fix the levees (which is presumably a state and federal issue).

A giant statewide bond measure which will fund levee repairs and improvements is already on the November ballot, and it has pretty solid support around California. And it shows the right way to deal with intercounty and interregion problems - everyone pitches in. So if the measure passes in November, what better excuse will Breton come up with then? And when that problem gets fixed?

If you don't want the public to be asked to fund the arena, then just say so. Stop creating false excuses to play to man's base emotions/needs for shelter and security. It's bush.

Public co-funding of this arena is not going to cut anyone's services, hurt the levees, take money away from the roads or hospitals, damage Sacramento's school districts. It is a new tax. The only thing it will affect is individual consumers, who will have to pay another 50 25 cents for every $100 they spend. No one is proposing to shift funds from police, fire, public works, or parks to this new arena. Nothing the cities or county provide will get scrimped.

It's probably cliche to say, but I just want there to be a real debate on the issue instead of sensationalistic nosepicking and self-aggrandizement on both sides. No Maloof power plays, no Breton appeals to irrelevant fears. Just an honest debate, with the voters deciding whether this plan is worth it.

Of course, with columnists like this in the mix, there's no chance of that happening.

Update [2006-6-8 11:47:34 by TZ]: Whoops! Maybe Breton should read this story from The Bee's own David Whitney. Maybe next week we can find out what Breton's new reason for opposing the arena is! I'm sure it will change many times this summer and fall...

0 recs | Comment 5 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Well said TZ

The problem is, this is one of the talking points that will inevitably be used by opponents to a publicly funded arena. He's certainly off base on the levee issue, but the greater point remains: If the Giants can put together a private financing package to build their own stadium, why can't it be done here?

by otis29 on Jun 8, 2006 9:05 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

25 cents?

TZ,

I thought it was 25 cents on $100? I could be off base.

San Francisco can put a financing package to build a stadium because it's a metropolitan area of 8 million people with countless coroporate headquarters within 5 miles of the stadium.

Sacramento is MUCH, MUCH smaller, is getting zero cooperation from outside the county, and derives a large part of its economy from Government operations, not from corporations. The corporate money is simply not here to pay for an arena.

by Carl on Jun 8, 2006 3:24 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Whoops, yeah

Yeah, I'm stuck on the half-cent thing. Will update. Thanks for the catch.

by Ziller on Jun 8, 2006 3:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Are arena's profitable?

Private funding boils down to one issue, Return on investment. I don't know the first thing about running an arena. It seems to me that they should be profitable. They get advertised by the NBA, charge way too much for parking, beer, mementos, food, luxury suites, etc. If they are designed properly they can be used for multiple events (my high school graduation ceremonies were held at the old Arco). Why aren't investors lined up around the block to build and own an arena in Sacramento? Especially Northern California investors. Who owns the current arena, and what will it be used for when / if a new one is built? Eveyone here loves the Kings, but not everyone in the Sacramento area does. Investors, however, all love to make money.

by dccamp on Jun 9, 2006 6:52 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs