Editor’s note: I am happy to give this forum to all types of people with different viewpoints. This opinion piece is by Amir Lak, a fellow Sacramentian who I have known for over 15 years. I welcome the conversation and hope that it sparks a dialogue. -Isaac
Opponents of a new Sports & Entertainment Complex (from here on in referred to as the “arena”) have gone to great lengths to push their pessimistic ideology for why a new arena is such a bad idea and being introduced at such a bad time, given the current state of the economy. These opponents are generally categorized in three different groups: The non-sports fan who doesn’t care one way or another whether Sacramento has a professional sports team, the ill-advised citizen who ignorantly thinks this arena will be paid for by raising his/her personal taxes, and yet others who know that their personal taxes will not be affected, but feel that in this recession-plagued economy, there are many other sectors (i.e., local Police & Fire Depts., School Districts, et al.) who deserve to get funded before any new arena is built. The one thing that all three groups of opponents share is the ability and/or unwillingness to see the big picture.
Proponents of a new arena are also generally categorized in three different groups: The avid sports fan who bleeds black and purple and loves his/her Sacramento Kings, the citizen who may not be too involved or interested in professional sports, but sees the big picture and realizes the true meaning of what an arena would bring to the City of Sacramento, and what the revitalization of downtown would mean to the city. The third group is the individual who is a combination of groups one and two.
I belong to the third group of the proponents of having a new arena built in our city. I love my Sacramento Kings and from a fan’s perspective, I don’t want to see them leave this city. However for the sake of relating to and getting through to the non-sports-fan individuals, I will not make this just about “keeping the Kings in Sacramento.”
This arena is NOT for the Sacramento Kings; it is an arena for the City of Sacramento, and a venue that the Sacramento Kings will call home. The Sacramento Kings will be tenants of this arena, and will occupy it only 44 of the 365 calendar days. For the remaining 321 days, the City of Sacramento is free to do what it wants with this building. I am not going to blindly state that Sacramento stands to gain “$X amount” revenue each year as a result of this arena, simply because I don’t know what that exact figure will be. What I do know as fact though, is that the amount of the revenue that is unknown to me will be much higher than the amount that the former “Arco Arena” is currently raking in for the city, and will definitely be much higher than if there is NO arena. Looking at the big picture, one must not only look into the future, but look to the past, as well. How many events have we as citizens of this Capital City missed out on, due to the lack of an adequate venue for the events to be held at? How many concerts of our favorite artists have we missed out on, due to the current aging arena’s lack of amenities that do not meet today’s artists’ expectations? Aside from the joy and excitement that attending such events would bring to our everyday lives, how much revenue have local businesses lost out on from the crowds that these events would have attracted? How much tax dollars has the City of Sacramento lost out on from the purchases that those crowds would make?
The nay-sayers only focus on spending the funds required to build a new arena on any city need other than the arena. They do not look at the big picture, stated above. These opponents do not think about the millions (or more) of dollars that a new arena and the events held within it would bring into the City of Sacramento each and every year. They seem to be very focused on the state of today’s economy, but they don’t pay much attention to the amount jobs the construction of such an arena would provide for people, many of whom will be citizens of this very city. They are very aware of the roughly 12% of Sacramento who is currently unemployed, but don’t seem to care much about the thousands of jobs that would be lost as a result of an arena not being here, and/or the Sacramento Kings leaving this city. Is it really ONLY about basketball? Ask the roughly 1,300 people currently employed by Maloof Sports and Entertainment here in Sacramento, and I guarantee you the paycheck given to them, which helps put food on the table for them and their families has nothing to do with basketball.
It is NOT just about basketball. One may even argue that in the grand scheme of things, basketball is the smaller part of this new arena. Having this Sports and Entertainment Complex is much more than for basketball, and this building wouldn’t be for the Maloofs – it would be for us to have and enjoy.
I agree that we are currently in very bad economic times. I realize that we are in the midst of a recession. However, I also realize two very important things: As a local business owner, I realize that it is very true when it is said that “you need to spend money to make money” – Spending money today on a new arena would make the city money for many years to come in the long run – And given the current economic times, we can probably build this arena for a lot less money today, than attempting to build it when the economy recovers.
I believe a major disadvantage we have here in Sacramento is that because we have always been a “smaller city,” and have never had many of the amenities – dare I call them advantages – that the bigger cities have had, the opponents of this arena simply don’t know what we’re missing, and what more we could have! They are fully content – and that’s fine – but they don’t know what more is out there. Sure, they may have heard of events elsewhere, or know about them in theory, but many of them have never experienced anything like it first hand. I have. Prior to moving to Sacramento in 1994, I used to live in Los Angeles, and I still visit friends and relatives in Los Angeles, Boston, and New York regularly. I see first hand what we are missing, and what we could have. Before attacking my statement with “Sacramento is not LA/NY. Sacramento is a smaller market!,” allow me to ease your minds: I am not comparing Sacramento to any other city or market, and I would never say we should have in Sacramento everything they have in those other cities. I am merely saying Sacramento could have so much more than it does, and when it achieves more – and only then – will the citizens of Sacramento truly know what they’ve been missing all this time. I guess the saying is true, “You can’t miss what you’ve never had.”
Having said everything about enjoying the events and amenities that a new arena would bring to our everyday lives, I cannot stress enough the financial benefits that said arena would bring to our city. To keep it simple and recap:
Building a new arena would create jobs for the people who build it, and for the people who will be employed at the finished product. Small, out-dated “Power Balance Pavilion” employs roughly 1,300 individuals, so a larger, up to date facility would stand to employ more. People attending the games, concerts, or any other events, will be spending money, the tax of which would go to the City of Sacramento. They would be dining at area restaurants before/after any event, creating not only more revenue for the city by way of taxes, but also creating more revenue for area businesses. Area businesses will experience a boost in business and would be more likely to hire more employees, creating more jobs for the citizens of Sacramento. Events and attractions held at a new arena would likely draw crowds from the entire region, and possibly beyond; crowds that today have no reason to visit Sacramento. Extra traffic to and from Sacramento would mean more money for the city. This cycle would continue for years to come, and is likely to snowball and grow. Does this sound like it’s only about the Kings or just about Basketball? Not to me.
It’s time to achieve the most that we can for our city, and prepare it for growth in the 21st century. The time is now to think big and show that we can have progress. Standing idly by will only lead to regression. Think BIG, Sacramento!
Comments
Powered by Facebook Comments
Related posts:
Labeling concerned citizens ‘naysayers’ is not helping your case. You cast aside all rational perspective when merely asserting THINKBIG talking points, rather than parcing out their deceptive portrayals of benefits that will never materialize and costs that have already escalated through the roof…
The Railyards siting of an arena started with the mere footstomping demands of the Maloof’s for a facility they did not wish to pay for, and have been in dogged pursuit of since they took over ownership of the Kings in the late 1990′s…
Business conventions require strategic planning process, including a needs analysis and feasibilities, NONE of which were performed in connection with the Railyards siting of an arena…
ALL other alternatives for siting and for the use of funding should have been equally weighted in the first considerations, but they were not. Instead, David Taylor’s proposal was selected because of his insider status with local pols, even though it had not met all the criteria imposed by city council…including a cost proposal…
Cheaper alternatives were cast aside, including renovating ARCO and the Brookhurst proposal for a new facility that would be entirely privately funded — all to serve the interests of the Metro Chamber and Downtown Partnership, who are incidently KJ’s largest backers…
David Taylor’s cost proposal lacked and lacks infrastructure spending required for parking and utilities, and banks know this, which is why banks turned him down at least seven times that *I* know about, and probably a lot more…
The city’s staff recommendations patched the Taylor proposal’s infrastructure holes with an allocated portion of the infrastructure necessary for the entire Railyards site, or about $200Million…
Then there were add-ons, such as subterranean construction and additional land to site next to the Intermodal facility made by the Urban Land Institute, which potential costs in the range of $100Million to $150Million…
…and then there’s that pesky issue of the Maloof’s debt to Sacramento which remains at nearly $70Million…..
…and the necessary budget contingencies that accrue inevitably as projects like this proceed — an estimated $70 Million to $100 Million….
By now, all tolled, all infrastructured and tricked out, we’re approaching ONE BILLION BUCKS….
Now, about financing — the selloff/lease of public parking assets is in SUBPRIME territory, and the experience of other cities has been DISASTROUS…
Sure, there are other uses for such a facility, but the primary motivator has been BASKETBALL, which simply hasn’t the draw necessary to finance this project…
Sacramento has ARCO, or whatever it’s called now — it works, whether its detractors care to admit it or not… and until Sacramento can actually afford a new palace of play, it’s going to have to do…
Sacramento cannot hock its seed corn to feed the elite tastes for entertainment….
Oh no! You sunk my straw man!
Here’s a different straw man for you to take a shot at:
If NBA games are such a huge draw, why haven’t a crop of local eateries sprung up around Arco Arena to reap the benefit of those 44 days of crowds? My guess is because most Kings fans don’t actually eat nearby, pre- or post-game.
Why? Speaking strictly for myself, it’s because I don’t dig the Natomas vibe very much. I just get in and get out, then maybe have a drink at my local- Pangaea or The Shack.
Problem now is that, by my reckoning, most Kings fans now live in Sacramento’s suburbs. They’ll feel just like me coming to a downtown arena: “Love my Kings, but this place is weird!” They’ll be in and out, then have a drink at *their* local. Probably BJ’s or Applebee’s.
If you want Downtown/Midtown to thrive, I think you have to focus on what Downtown/Midtown residents want. They live there. They eat, drink and play there. That’s where real renewal can start. Our nascent locolvore dining renaissance has a much better shot.
Mattozan, with gratitude for taking the time to reply to my article, I must say.. I am offended that you either didn’t read my entire article, or didn’t comprehend its contents before coming back with a reply. I did my best to show every angle OTHER than NBA/KINGS aspect of having an arena, and yet that is the ONLY point you focused on in your reply. In response to your reply:
Do you really expect ANY business to open up in Natomas for the sole purpose of 44 days of basketball traffic? If so, I have one word of advice: Don’t go into business for yourself; witht hat ideology, you’re sure to fail.
Secondly, this new arena – if it happens – will not be in the Natomas, so you don’t have to worry about the negative vibe you get from the area. Also, the revitalization of downtown means that it will change. New businesses, new restaurants, new attraction – all of which will draw crowds. It will not be the same old downtown that that we have today. That’s kinda the whole point, here! TO CHANGE IT and SHAKE IT UP! And by your assertion, not everyone will eat/drink in downtown before and/or after an event, and instead some will opt to dine in their own neck of the woods. So, you mean to tell us that a new arena would bring traffic and business to ALL areas of Sacramento, and not just to businesses in the vacinity of the arena?! Thanks for making my argument FOR an arena even stronger!
amirlak: I’m a little unclear on this statement:
“Do you really expect ANY business to open up in Natomas for the sole purpose of 44 days of basketball traffic? If so, I have one word of advice: Don’t go into business for yourself; with that ideology, you’re sure to fail.”
First, that is not an “ideology”, perhaps you should look up the definition of ideology, maybe you meant business acumen.
Second couldn’t you just say: “Do you really expect ANY business to open up DOWNTOWN for the sole purpose of 44 days of basketball traffic? If so, I have one word of advice: Don’t go into business for yourself; with that ideology, you’re sure to fail.”
bbbbmer, your reply was lenghty and very interesting. In response to your opening statement: The term “Nay-sayer” is simply one who says no. There’s nothing wrong with that, so I’m not sure why you say it doesn’t help me case. (I wasn’t aware I had case – I thought it was just a viewpoint) You go on to say the benefits pointed out will never materialize, but fail to state why. In response to to your second paragraph: Simply false. The Maloofs, if given a choice, prefer a Natomas site for a new arena – They prefer NOT to be in downtown.
I completely agree with your 3rd and 4th paragraph, and it is very well put. I think the unfortunate lack of planning and analyzing the issue is due to the time crunch. I am not excusing it, mind you. I agree with you. This process absolutely needs adequate studies, analyzing, and strategic planning – all of which have come short of what is needed so far.
As for your assertion that it would be cheaper to renovate “Arco” (I will always call that building Arco): That is also incorrect, my friend. I can’t recall the article, and the source slips my mind – But please believe me when I say I remember an independent study done a while back (over a year ago) that explained and describe why and how renovating the existing arena would actually cost MORE than building a new one.
I also agree with your assertion of David Taylor’s cost proposal. It is absolutely not the perfect plan, and could absolutely use a “face lift.”
LET’S NOT get into the Maloofs’ debt to the city. They have a debt to the City of Sacramento that they have ALWAYS made the payments of, and have NEVER been late – a FACT that even the City of Sacramento has openly acknowledged. So the debt is a non-issue. I liken this situation to someone who owns a house with a mortgage that they owe on. If you have a a mortgage that you owe on, and you ALWAYS pay your load on time every month, why should anyone (including the bank) keep shoving the mortgage in your face, and keep mentioning it? You owe it, and you’re paying on it as promised. NON-ISSUE. It would, however, become an issue – a red flag, if you will – if you start defaulting on said load. Until that happens, though… Maloofs’ debt = NON-ISSUE.
Furthermore, please explain your fuzzy math to me. How did you approach $1 BILLION?? Please spell those dollars out for me, and give me a list of items and dollar amounts that correspond to those items.. and make sure they reach $1 BILLION.
Lastly, Sacramento DOES still have “Arco.” But it DOESN’T work. It may work for you and I. But it clearly does NOT work for the NBA, and many other events that have flat out refused to come to it, because of it’s status. This includes many artists who have refused to come to Sacramento on their tours and perform at “Arco.” Oh yea.. The NCAA also called the building insufficient for them. Last I knew, the NBA > NCAA. So.. it clearly DOESN’T work.
My reply to the second comment, by Mattozan, to follow..
PS: bbbbmer, thanks for your input. I appreciate the time you took to read my article, and take time to reply to it. I enjoyed your well-written reply, sir
Sir, I have been involved in this process from its inception. You are incorrect in your assertions about the fitness of ARCO, and I have read the report you reference. Both the Convergence engineers and ARCO’s architect have expressed that the building is fit for renovation, even submitting a plan to do so, which was cast aside by KJ’s hand picked Chris Lehane led team, which had predetermined a Railyards siting, per demands from the Downtown Partnership and Metro Chamber…
Your assertion that the Maloof’s prefer Natomas is groundless — they will do whatever they can for a free or as near free facility regardless of location…
With regard to the Maloof’s debt to Sacramento, this is VERY MUCH on the table and relevant and a cost of this facility — it is NOT like a mortgage, except for the SUBPRIME facilities — and they’ve been paying on interest, with no principle, and it remains an outstanding feature should they enter bankruptcy, which is highly likely given their precious financial position, or if they leave town, when a $10Million bonus accrues to their debt….
My numbers are based on my experience in working with big dig gigs like this — I am in the financial industry, and work for a real estate investment trust, and have been intimate with the consideration of banks on this proposal. Whether you care to believe or not is inconsequential to me…
Please share your numbers as long as they aren’t DAVID TAYLOR’s numbers, because his have been found lacking, by the banks themselves that considered financing based upon his numbers…
Your wish that this is a ‘non issue’ is groundless…
One last thing — referencing me as your ‘friend’ is as groundless as your illusory claims about this project. I am not your ‘friend’, and given your opinions, as baseless as they are, it’s doubtful that I would ever consider this… especially in the condescending manner in which you use the term…
You seek to impose standards of proof that you yourself fail to…. I’d suggest you become more informed about these issues, rather than merely reciting THINK BIG talking points — doing so causes your credibility to plummet…
Calling you “friend” was a gesture of respect, which you clearly have shown you are not worthy of. When you take your head out of your ass and calculate for me how you ended up with a $1 BILLION budget (this, being my second request for such numbers) I will read it, and respond accordingly.
My assertation of the Maloofs preferring Natomas was in response to what you had previously said, and it is not groundless – it is fact. Your statement of “the Maloofs will do anything for a free or near free facility” indicates that you perhaps think this is too much for the to ask for. I will bring it your dinkle-brain attention that this is how professional sports works. No owner in professional sports HISTROY has ever financed an arena with their personal funds. It doesn’t work that way, and again.. once your head is free and you can see the light, you may realize that.
I, unlike you, enjoy conversing with people of opposing viewpoints, and have the ability to keep it civil and respectful. Your baseless and unnecessary verbal attack shows that you are incapable of the same. So shove your opinion where the sun doesn’t shine, and don’t reply again if you can’t keep it civil, dinkle-brain! (Yea, I used it twice because you’re SO worthy of the title)
HISTORY*
Fabulous. I was born/raised in Sac, and my family has had at least one home in Land Park since 1941…
$400 M for Taylor’s budget lacking infrastructure without which banks refused to finance
$200 M for city recommendations for infrastructure omitted from Taylor’s cost proposal
$150 M for subterranean construction and additional land necessary to site immediately adjacent to the Intermodal recommended by the Urban Land Institute which was a major P.R. selling point last summer
$10 – $20M to reimburse Intermodal’s prop 84 funded land
$70 M to liquidate the Maloof’s loan from the city
$100M for a budget contingency commensurate with the growth in size of the budget to hold the city harmless for inevitable cost overruns….
…and none of this includes potential debt service for bonding which will no doubt be required in the absense of any other qualified bonding agent…
You’re right — you are not worthy of friendship….
i actually thought i included this in my first statement, but i was in a hurry and forgot…
Amirlak:
You say: “No owner in professional sports HISTROY (sic) has ever financed an arena with their personal funds.” They haven’t? How about PacBell park and Gilette Stadium? And guess what these stadiums have been windfalls for their owners because they were built on-time and on-budget without huge debt loads owed to cities.
All of your claims regarding the economic impact have been repeatedly disproven when studies have been done. Just wishing an arena will create economic development does not make it so.
Also, I was over in West Sac the other day and I saw all the economic development around Raley Field. Oh, wait there isn’t any, my mistake.
Please see: http://www.scribd.com/doc/81499097/Professional-Sports-Facilities-Franchises-and-Urban-Economic-Development
If the stadium is such a great deal then why don’t the Kings pay for it themselves?
There was slated to be significant development around Raley field by Mark Friedman, et al., and significant infrastructure work had begun in earnest last year, but it was ALL funded through RDA money, and that well has dried up…
I forgot to mention SF’s experience in my earlier comments — my office in SF is directly across the street from ATT, and the much vaunted claims about arena projects acting as catalysts for surrounding areas is an exception rather than a rule….
Just to set the record straight, yes, ATT was NEARLY entirely privately funded, save land, and one teeny tiny TIF for a specific purpose that I cannot remember — and that’s all the public investment there was …. In fact, I remember when the project’s developers had PROPOSED public funding of some kind — the PUBLIC came UNGLUED about it, and hence, it wasn’t until MUCH MUCH later that the TIF was approved by the SFBOS….
Over the past five years at least five highrises that were slated in the blocks immediately surrounding ATT have been cancelled for lack of financial feasibility, including one on our own site.
Condo developments in the adjacent area have hit rock bottom prices, not only because of the economy but because of the location, and there are more for sale signs in the windows of such projects than there are people to buy them…
And there are only TWO such projects that are offering units to date, with fewer than eight percent sold prior to public offering — usually banks won’t finance without TWENTY percent pre-sold…
Arenas are NOT panaceas… and I pray for at least a LITTLE bit of wisdom as Sac’s city council proceeds BEFORE it sells off the furniture to light a fire for a very very few interests, including the Metro Chamber and Downtown Partnership, the members of which are KJ’s biggest backers, and whom have not committed ONE DIME in private investment toward their arena….
bbbbmer: I couldn’t agree more and when I said that PacBell has been a windfall for its owners, I wasn’t implying it had been good for the surrounding area just that the Giants are making a lot of money off the stadium for the team.
Oh, please, by no means was I critical of your assertions, which were SPOT ON… I was just trying to supplement and clarify them…. I very VERY much appreciate your comment…
bbbbmer: I figured you got what I was saying, just wanted to be clear for any readers not as knowledgeable about PacBell/ATT park. I appreciate your excellent comments as well.
Interesting that people in SF would never pay for a stadium for either the Giants or 49ers, both teams that are older and consistently better than the Kings, yet people in Sacramento are falling all over themselves to give the Maloofs anything they want.
I honestly believe any support for the Maloof’s, for this arena, and for KJ, is WAFER THIN…. which is why arena backers have done everything they can to preclude a public vote, including some of the dirtiest campaign tricks on this planet, including some waged against an old queen like me…
I liken it to KJ’s relationship with the Bell, McAndrews law firm, steeped in GOP circles, authors of his SMI’s, all three of ‘em, and which firm specializes in election related dirty tricks and their defense — they also rep’d GAS, and Darrell Issa, who engineered the ouster of Gray Davis, but is so compromised himself that he dare not run for statewide office because of his history detailed in a STUNNING article in THE NEW YORKER by Chris Lizza…
But this arena project is so typical of all-things KJ related, and those who are aware of his history and his cultlike following all marching in lock step in support of his corporate right backers, as documented by writers including the scandalous articles by former Bee investigative reporters Terry Hardy and Dottie Korber, which have now been excised from Das Bee’s database for some reason…
There is a wonderful novel by John Lescroat called TREASURE HUNT which is reputed to have used much of KJ’s history as inspiration….. and it all colors his current performance in office….
Past is prologue with us all, including KJ, and now Sacramento is suffering the consequences…
If there was a public vote the arena plan would lose by a landslide, just like it did last time and KJ knows it.
Amen, to both of your most recent comments… The Maloof’s seek corporate welfare regardless of their financial condition… and they have the perfect mayor of Sac to enable their pursuit, corporate welfare queen that HE is, paving the way with SHRA funded blight reduction projects in Oak Park, only one of which was ever realized, the rest incurring nearly $200k in code violation penalties, none of which have been paid, some now purchased with additional SHRA funds from KJ’s firm by Sotiris Kolokotronis, who is now bankrupt… with not one penny returned to SHRA….
…perfect business model for the Maloof’s to pursue, with KJ’s backers, most of whom are corporate welfare queens themselves, at the helm….
I think another point that hasn’t been raised is why the Maloofs refuse to sell the Kings.
At first glance you would think the Maloofs with their money troubles would be more than willing to sell the Kings. Which would be true if a basketball franchise was like any other kind of business, but it’s not. The Maloofs know the Kings are the only business front they own that will allow them to get free money directly from taxpayers without even trying. If the Maloofs asked the city of LV for money to help with their casino they would be laughed at. But ask the city council and mayor of Sacrament for money and they will fall over themselves to give it to you. Now why would you ever sell a business like that?