New Arena = Officially Dead

by Tom Ziller on Sep 22, 2006 8:13 AM PDT in Arena

When Tab Berg, a respected Sacramento political consultant, says that Measure R - the 15-year quarter-cent sales tax designed to fund a new arena and more - "believes the arena effort can't be salvaged" and it's an understatement, well then, it's over.

The results of Berg's poll?

MEASURE Q (Advisory measure to fund arena and other projects)
SUPPORT 42
OPPOSE 45
UNDECIDED 13

MEASURE R (Sales tax measure)
SUPPORT 21
OPPOSE 62
UNDECIDED 17

What a disaster. Absolute disaster.

Thomas Enterprises is wasting its money by throwing it at the pro campaign at this late stage. The Maloofs would do well to hold a press conference to tell fans they're going to work on a deal for the next county ballot. (This letter to the fans isn't quite the right note - no one will ever feel sorry for billionaires. Ever.)

The ship has sunk. Let's just focus on the season to come now. Screw this politics crap.

Tweet Comment 15 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Re: New Arena = Officially Dead

In a conservative town like Sacramento, it is an uphill battle to gain support for projects like an arena. The proposed 1/4% sales tax increase was a strategy which would have been "easy on the pocketbook" --would have cost me only $2.50 per month--a small amount to pay for such a significant project.

The railyard will still need to be redeveloped and the need for a "state of the art arena will continue to get attention. Alternate avenues for financing these projects will be explored.

Yes, it is now time to turn our attention to the '06 - '07 season and have some fun.

by aspen on Sep 22, 2006 8:42 AM PDT reply actions

Re: New Arena = Officially Dead

Berg, who said he isn't involved in campaigns for or against the measures, believes the arena effort can't be salvaged. He plans to advise his political clients to steer clear of it.

I am a casual acquaintance of Tab Berg, and if he says the thing is dead, I'd believe him. The guy is a straight shooter, and has his finger on the pulse of this city as much as anyone.

We will see what happens now, but I agree with you TZ - this fight has pretty much wrapped up.

River City Squawkbox

by otis29 on Sep 22, 2006 9:25 AM PDT reply actions

Re: New Arena = Officially Dead

Aspen,
I agree with what you wrote - except this: Sacramento is not a "conservative" town. Based on party affiliation and voting patterns, it is overwhelmingly liberal and Democrat, which just makes this even a tougher hill to climb.(Indeed, look at the core opposition - hard core Leftists led by David Jones.) The fact is that a tax increase of any type - and especially for professional sports - is very, very difficult in this state regardless of liberal/conservative labels. Right now, the only people supporting this are us die-hards. There ain't enough of us. I'm feeling pretty dejected right now.

by Kusian on Sep 22, 2006 9:49 AM PDT reply actions

Actually...

Aspen is correct. Sacramento is no longer a reliably "liberal" town. Take a look at this article (it's a few years old, but the trend was already set): http://dwb.sacbee.com/content/politics/projects/voters/story/10963817p-11881148c.html

I agree with the rest of your points - these measures are regularly getting ripped by the conservative and liberal radio stations in this city, as well as by the singular newspaper of record. It's obvious that any type of tax increase in this state faces an uphill battle from both sides of the fence.

Dejected is a good word for how I feel as well.

River City Squawkbox

by otis29 on Sep 22, 2006 10:22 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: Actually...

Otis,

Thanks for the directions to the Sac Bee article relating to the changing demographics--very interesting. Looks like we'll have to navigate around tax increases and find another way to finance the arena. Any Ideaa?

by aspen on Sep 22, 2006 11:09 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: Actually...

I'm stumped. I agree with TZ, what we can do know is start to move past this Arena debacle, get amped up for basketball season and see how things shake out.

One of the biggest problems we face now is the inherent mistrust that has built between the Maloofs and the city. Most likely, only time is going to heal that wound - and time is, unfortunately, a commodity we don't have a lot of.

I will tell you what I expect, as an eligible voter in Sacramento city and county - and that is the expectation that the city councilman and assemblymen (that means you Dave Jones) need to work hard to find a solution that benefits the city and allows the Maloofs to feel like they are not getting screwed by staying here compared to moving the franchise somewhere else.

And yes, I mention Dave Jones because I'm tired of him being an automatic voice of opposition on anything arena-related. He may not believe this, but he answers to the voters of his district and should get hammered appropriately if the Kings end up leaving town.

River City Squawkbox

by otis29 on Sep 22, 2006 1:06 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Actually...

Thanks for the link, Otis. I knew about the trends associated to some of the surrounding counties - especially Placer. I was talking about the city limits proper. Regardless, it wouldn't matter. I think no matter the majority political affiliation that this deal - as things stand now - would get hammered in Sac County, Placer County, Yolo County, etc, etc. I guess there is something for everybody to hate in it. Now, how do we manage to to substitute "love" for "hate" in my preceding sentence? Maybe, I'll just engage in wishful thinking for the time-being and hope that an MOU will get signed soon and the forces of good will coelesce and lead us to victory! (My God can I be naive :-)

by Kusian on Sep 22, 2006 12:44 PM PDT up reply actions

Optimism is good!

We are turning into a bunch of negative Nellie's here, so it's good to have the power of positive thinking manifested on Sactown Royalty. :-)

Just 6 and 1/2 weeks to go though...these guys need to get on the same page ASAFP.

River City Squawkbox

by otis29 on Sep 22, 2006 1:10 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: New Arena = Officially Dead

0oops--GIANT MISTAKE--My face is RED. I meant to type "liberal"--guess I was not fully awake and in a big hurry. It is frustrating to live in California and constantly be battling the liberals. But, you're exactly right when you mentioned the difficulty of getting support for professional sports. My optimism regarding Q & R has been gradualy diminishing for a couple of weeks.

This battle may be lost but the war can still be won. I'm confident that the developer, the city, and the Maloofs will be creative and come up with a new plan.

Kusian, thank you for alerting me about my error and for your insightful remarks.

by aspen on Sep 22, 2006 10:50 AM PDT reply actions

Re: New Arena = Officially Dead

Changing the subject a bit: Any thoughts on how a championship might change this debate? Would a championship guarantee a new arena?

by Kusian on Sep 22, 2006 1:28 PM PDT reply actions

Re: New Arena = Officially Dead

I seriously doubt whether a championship would sway the voters. There is a significant aggregation of voters here who are anti-sports.

They don't value sports the way some of us do. I think that was part of the rationale for increasisng the scope of the Q & R proposal to include other county wide improvements--a tactic to make the sales tax increase more appealing to those who aren't into sports. (The main reason of course being the difference between a simple majority as opposed to a two-thirds approval to pass the proposal.)

I'm all for a championship, thought--and I think Geoff Petrie and everyone else in the organization is working toward that goal. Many fans are growing impatient but I'm quick to point out to them that it takes time to rebuild. And thus far, we've done it w/o falling out of the playoff picture.

by aspen on Sep 22, 2006 2:29 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: New Arena = Officially Dead

Well, I KNOW I'm naive, I'll continue to shill personally because I KNOW this could be good for downtown Sac & ESPECIALLY for the poor, it would clean up the core, improve the job situation, accelerate competition with venues downtown for live/work like is present in downtown Oakland, etc.

Overwhelming odds perhaps considering the opposition to the tax, but a couple of thoughts:

1)The buffer zone around the new arena in downtown the Maloofs would want:
a)Why can't they be involved in developing
/financing aspects in this core themselves?
Seems like it would behoove their image to
contribute in downtown Sac like they do
in Lost vega$ to the entertainment.Better
yet, be seen partying here more than the
players.Within reason, of course.
b)Is it unresonable to expect them to talk
about what's being gained with their
collabaration with the city instead of
what they perceive they're loosing?
This only feeds perceptions of them as
greedy for the public money.
c)If their product is the most 'desirable'
& marketable in said area, wouldn't they
be the most successful?This would make them
more competitive in their entertainment
approach to Sac. I'm sure they're that way
in their view of the Vega$ market.
Sacramentans resent being treated as if
they're uncosmopolitian yokels.It makes
them feel their being talked down to as
residents of a 'cowtown'.This doesn't
suffuciently massage the egos of the power
brokers here; especially at the Bee.

2)Their needs to be a way to address the constiuents of Davey Jones so as to make him less than relavant on this issue:

a. Obviously, field a candidate
against him when he comes up
for re-election.
b. Said candidate needs to have a profile
in social justice/a track record, who
sees the benefit of downtown
redevelopment & a new arena. A
King's fan, ideally.

3)Of course, the Maloofs should have already signed a deal with me about my song to publicize social justice, since it's raised $5,050.00 so far for Hurricane Katrina survivors, but at least this way, I control all the fund disbursement; so the present(non) deal works for me.

http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/rhondda
Youtube video shoot at Weber point, Oct. 7th!

by Rhondda Nunes on Sep 22, 2006 3:56 PM PDT reply actions

Re: New Arena = Officially Dead

I am not sure the voters are anti-sports. It seems that over the past few years, there has been a explosion of anti-tax organizations following in the footsteps of the Howard Jarvis group. They are in vogue. Their m.o. is against any tax regardless of its need or attractiveness. These people seem to have the idea that while they want and need governmental services, they should be free or at least someone else paying for them. As a result, you get this knee jerk reaction to any public funded endeavor like the new arena. You would think when they had their garbage sitting in their front yard for a couple of weeks it might have driven home the fact that there are certain services that we require that only government can provide in a cheap and efficient manner. But they are still unwilling to pay for them. What has to take place is a campaign to point out there are other benefits which will result from the tax increase and if it is voted down, you are still faced with paying for cleaning up the railyard. As for Dave Jones, forget any retribution. He has the solid backing of the machine and doesn't come up for reelection for a while. The memory of the public is about 2 seconds.

by Observer on Sep 23, 2006 8:45 AM PDT reply actions

Re: New Arena = Officially Dead

Not anti-sports. You can love sports but have a problem with big taxpayer subsidies.

by dayglo on Sep 23, 2006 10:39 AM PDT reply actions

Re: New Arena = Officially Dead

That's true, but has Observer pointed out, the public in the form of the county government will have to pay for the cleanup of the railyards....Might as well get a new arena outta that if public money is spent....

Are you aware that public funding for a new arena happened in Stockton WITHOUT the public voting for it?Not sure that's a ringing endorsement for Stockton politics, but it is what it is.

http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/rhondda

by Rhondda Nunes on Oct 1, 2006 12:57 PM PDT reply actions