STORYLINE Arena

This storyline has only one article

Viewing thru of

Close timeline

1 of 4
close

No high resolution image exists...

Progress bar

1 of 4
Loading images
Slideshow image Slideshow image Slideshow image Slideshow image

A team handpicked by Mayor Kevin Johnson and led by Sacramento developer David Taylor and national sports facility builders has emerged as one of the frontrunners to develop a new arena.

Taylor quietly ended his partnership with developer Gerry Kamilos after their first proposal, a complicated land swap, didn't produce a viable proposal by its October deadline. Taylor is now partnering with the historic railyards' new owner, Inland Real Estate Group of Companies, and others. On Thursday, his group submitted a letter of interest to Johnson's arena task force briefly outlining a proposed process for developing a sports and entertainment center.

Another three teams submitted new or modified arena proposals by a noon deadline Thursday. This time, none of the teams have the backing of the National Basketball Association or the Maloof family, which owns the Sacramento Kings.

The other candidates were among the seven original teams that submitted arena proposals last year. They include the Sacramento Convergence team led by Kamilos; the CORE team led by entrepreneur Ali Mackani and two former arena task force members, real estate attorney Mike Kvarme and developer Larry Kelley, president of McClellan Park; and Natomas Entertainment Sports Center Partners, the only team proposing a plan for the existing Arco Arena site.

The NBA has also ended its partnership with the Convergence team after endorsing that plan in January 2010 during a bold press conference across from City Hall.

"The NBA is not backing any one of the arena initiatives, and we will have no further comment at this time," NBA spokesman Mike Bass said in an e-mail to The Sacramento Press Thursday.

The Maloofs have been trying to get an arena built to replace Arco for 11 years. But the family isn't joining any teams in the current effort to get a new arena built. Johnson, a former NBA player, is leading the effort and will brief the Maloofs on the second round of ideas once he gets the proposals, Kings spokesman Mitch Germann said.

"The Maloofs aren't tied to any of the groups that are giving presentations," Germann said. "They're excited to see the proposals that come as a result of this."

Johnson put out a call for proposals late last year, then put together a task force to analyze the proposals. The mayor reconvened the task force in November and put out a call for a second round of new or updated proposals.

The players left in the game are teaming up with national firms that have substantial experience developing, designing and building stadiums and arenas for professional football, baseball and basketball teams.

ICON-Taylor
Taylor has joined a team put together by the mayor that includes Inland, which owns the land adjacent to city property where some teams have proposed a new arena be built; Populous, a global sports architecture firm based in Kansas City, Mo.; New York-based Turner Construction; former arena task force member Dan Meis, who designed the Staples Center in Los Angeles; and ICON Venue, an owner's representative company whose website says it specializes in delivering home venues for pro sports teams. ICON’s projects have included Denver's Pepsi Center and the Chicago White Sox's new Comiskey Park, named US Cellular Field.

Taylor said Johnson contacted him about joining a new team after he left the Sacramento Convergence team.

"I felt the prior effort was not going to have the legs I would have liked it to have," Taylor said. "After being asked to look at this other team and talking to them at length, I was convinced it made sense to give it another try."

The ICON-Taylor team would focus on identifying strategies to finance an integrated arena and regional transit center in the railyards. The team offered to refine designs, present cost and revenue information and develop a conceptual approach for the project by April.

Sacramento Convergence Team
In a letter submitted to the task force Thursday, Kamilos and his team have altered their original proposal, but key elements remain. The team still proposes to build the arena on city railyards land and the Maloofs would operate the facility under a 30-year lease. The plan would still require state legislation to move forward.

But the team's proposed real estate deal has been simplified somewhat, and the price tag for the "Downtown Events Center" has been cut from $400 million to $350 million. Developers also propose buying an adjacent two to six acres from Inland to accommodate parking and a hotel, retail and dining adjacent to the arena and the future regional transit center, Kamilos said.

However, the team now proposes working with the California Exposition and State Fair board to build new fairgrounds at the existing state fair site and to privately develop 125 acres for destination retail, dining and entertainment and other mixed use, including residential and possibly office. State fair operations would remain with the Cal Expo board, but other events at the site would be run privately by VisionMaker Worldwide, a member of the Convergence Team.

The plan would also redevelop the 184-acre site containing Arco Arena in Natomas for mixed use. The arena would be retooled and existing parking would remain.

Under the plan, the Maloofs would share parking revenue and possibly a ticket fee. The Maloofs would operate the arena and collect revenue from facility rentals. The developers would assume the Maloofs’ $67 million Arco Arena debt and pay it off under the current schedule over 17 more years.

"It's essential in a small market that the facility is operated by the team ownership, especially in these times, in order for teams to break even on a cash flow basis," Kamilos said.

The Convergence team has added new members, including AECOM; Hunt Construction Group, which is building the Barclays Center in Brooklyn; Tutor Perini Corp., which has built sports centers and regional transit facilities; and POSCO Engineering & Construction. The group expects to finish a project analysis by May, which would allow construction to begin in 2013 and the new arena to open in summer 2015, according to the letter.


CORE Team
The CORE team – chosen by the task force as one of the top three candidates last spring – has altered its proposal by adding the railyards as a second possible location for an arena and recruiting Kelley, a former Kings owner, to lead the effort. The team also added Kvarme and his law firm, Weintraub Genshlea Chediak. Kelley and Kvarme were key players in one of the country's biggest infill developments and public/private partnerships involving redevelopment of McClellan Air Force Base.

The team continues to offer Westfield Downtown Plaza as another viable location and met briefly with representatives of Westfield and the Maloofs to discuss whether they might be able to work together on the project. The response was positive, but more information must still be gathered to create a workable financing plan under a public/private partnership, Mackani said.

The team will seek assistance from consultants such as Flintco, which has worked on such projects as the FedEx Forum in Memphis, Tenn., he added.

"But at the end of the day, it's about how to fund a project like this. Not how to build it," Mackani said. "That's where our focus is going to be."


Natomas ESC Partners
Natomas ESC Partners didn't make any significant changes to its proposal, but resubmitted it after getting Johnson's assurance it would be reconsidered, said team member Mike Corrick of Nacht & Lewis Architects in Sacramento.

The plan proposes building a $410.6 million, 950,000-square-foot sports and entertainment complex on 100 acres of city-owned land just north of Arco Arena. Arco would become a science park, possibly containing a science museum. Developers would also add a wetlands greenbelt, 250,000-square-foot office park, a spa hotel, retail and housing built in phases to the site.

The team includes Wisconsin-based Hammes Company, which developed the $1.6 billion New Meadowlands stadium that opened in April for the New York Giants and the New York Jets; Skanska, the construction firm that built New Meadowlands; NBBJ, a Seattle firm that built the Staples Center in Los Angeles and six other arenas or stadiums; municipal financing expert Jeff Baize of Brookhurst Development Corp.; and Nacht & Lewis Architects.

The project would be funded by Citigroup issuing taxable bonds that would be repaid over 25 years through the Kings' $10 million annual lease of the property, 50 percent of game day ticket revenues totaling $25.4 million a year, new naming rights, parking fees, facility rental and other revenue. The city would provide the land.

"We thought we had a very viable plan for the Natomas property and we had a very qualified team and a feasible financing plan," Corrick said.

In an e-mailed statement, Johnson said he recognizes developing the project will be challenging, especially in such a tough economy. But the four teams now vying for the project have substantial track records, he said.

"The game is now on," he said in the statement. "And these four different teams will compete with one another and the people of Sacramento, who care about jobs, will be the real winners of this competition."

The arena task force released the four project concepts shortly before 4:30 p.m. A public hearing is set for 10 a.m. Jan. 6 at historic City Hall. The task force will release an analysis of the concepts on Jan. 21, prior to a Sacramento City Council discussion Jan. 25.

In the end, the winning proposal will be the one with the best financing plan, Corrick said.

"It'll be interesting to see what comes out of this round," he said. 

Graphic 1 provided by the ICON-Taylor team. Photo of Gerry Kamilos by Suzanne Hurt. Graphic 2 provided by the CORE Team. Graphic 3 provided by Natomas ESC Partners. Suzanne Hurt is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press. Follow her on Twitter @SuzanneHurt. 

Liked this article? Share it with your friends:

Conversation Express your views, debate, and be heard with those in your area closest to the issue.RSS Feed

December 31, 2010 | 6:24 AM
We already voted, no taxpayer money!
6 3
REPLY
edited on  January 2, 2011 | 10:00 AM
we also voted -- twice -- for it not to be anywhere near the center of town.

that's why they chose the Natomas location; then profited off the public purse and cheap land as far as they could. let them and their traffic jams stay there.
2 4
REPLY
January 2, 2011 | 12:13 PM
Sorry naga to use a double negative on you here but you did not vote for it not to be downtown. The vote was on public financing, not location. And that vote was as much about the Maloof's (and their ibecilic ad for $6,000 burgers) as it was about finance.

The event center's new location speaks to Sacramento's image of itself. Is it a comfy 'lil town, or ready to be an urban center. Really...THAT's what's a play here.
2 1
REPLY
January 2, 2011 | 1:54 PM
wrong MyQuest. there were two public votes, going back to the 80's. "that's why they chose the Natomas location" and why Natomas got built out the (wrong) way it did.

"The event center's new location speaks to Sacramento's image of itself." Is it a common sense 'lil town that will use the existing Natomas infrastructure/property, or ready to be (another developer greed dream) and nightmare of gridlock at a key downtown interchange. Really...THAT's what's a play here.
1 3
REPLY
December 31, 2010 | 7:50 AM
So they have a team of professional real estate hustlers ready to assist the city in building a sports complex that we don't really need right now.
Why has basketball become such a fascination that it dominates the city's agenda like this?
6 4
REPLY
December 31, 2010 | 1:52 PM
Uh, because may of us see an event center as 200 events a year. Since there are more music and family events than basketball games, you'd at least have been closer if you complained, "why have family events and concerts become such a fascination..."?

Frankly, cowbelllanders like you and YoYo get so twisted up over their ISSUE DU JOUR that you miss the subtle interweaving of facets that make humans, and their environments, civilized.
5 6
REPLY
December 31, 2010 | 2:12 PM
Sorry, but the development of the rail yards is a dominate city agenda. The Transportation/Entertainment and sports complex is slightly more important that the fishing pro shop concept a few years ago.
1 1
REPLY
January 1, 2011 | 6:38 AM
Someone goes to 200 events a year at Arco? Hard to believe because there are not that many events scheduled in several years. Regardless, let the party-crowd with deep-pockets that use the facility pay for the arena.

Us cowbellanders are home trying to pay our bills and feed the kids! Financially responsible not flashy. I agree, no taxpayer money!!!
5 2
REPLY
January 2, 2011 | 2:18 PM
"the subtle interweaving of facets that make humans, and their environments, civilized..." would include info on the entertainment part of the plan. will this place be suitable for touring acts and all the "cowbellanders" who won't waste $$$ on Echo Arena?
1 3
REPLY
December 31, 2010 | 10:15 AM
What a surprise....all the hillbillies run to Kinkos for a computer to complain about the arena!
4 5
REPLY
December 31, 2010 | 10:28 AM
Hehe, Joel. I don't know what arena that is pictured, but I hope it's our future one. Leave your cowbells at the door!
3 1
REPLY
December 31, 2010 | 2:03 PM
Seriously, when will they stop calling this an arena. It's an Entertainment and Spots complex. The kings play there 41 nights a year only. When every NIMBY sees "arena" in any news write up they over generalize about the horrible kings and how the Maloof's have done nothing for this city. No one is putting a tax on the ballot. I will gladly pay a construction fee on any ticket price at arco right now well knowing every dollar spent will boost future development and local tax revenue in the rail yards for the city. What would Natomus look like if Arco was never built? They have their own plan for a building and they know darn well that whole area has been anchored by that building and the people and cash money that has been spent there. They loose that, the place turns into Elk Grove in one night.
4 5
REPLY
December 31, 2010 | 6:08 PM
Can we come up with a better term than "NIMBY" for people who don't want an arena? Pretty much all of the sites are far from people's backyards, and arguments against an arena don't seem to focus much on objection to having an arena close to them. Most of the criticism seems to be based on objection to spending public money on an arena, or those who don't want a handout to the Maloofs, rather than concerns about its location. Maybe "Not In My Wallet" or something?
1 3
REPLY
December 31, 2010 | 7:59 PM
Are you saying don't use the term "NIMBY" in your physical backyard? I thought I did a conscious job at exposing uninformed generalizations with a misused generalization of our "neighbors" that only look at their bottom line.
I'm saying that the PR for this is bad and that there are going to be people that refuse it no matter what because they are just instinctually objectionable. I would assume that is what a NIMBY is, as location to proximity has little relevance in one's ability to find fault with other people's desires for progress anywhere. I feel like California is my backyard and for that matter the world.
2 1
REPLY
January 1, 2011 | 10:36 AM
The term is annoyingly dismissive and overused. Assuming that anyone who opposes a development project is just uninformed and objects to anything out of reflex is an outright insult, declaring that they have no right to judgment or discernment of their own. If the world is your backyard, does that give you the right to tell anyone in the world what they should and should not tolerate or have to endure in the name of progress? And if it does, why would you deny anyone else that same right?

As to what Natomas would look like if Arco was never built, it would probably still look like an open, undeveloped floodplain, and if we had followed a better strategy of transit and infill, the 100,000 or so people who live there would probably live closer to the central city and out of the area currently capped with a growth moratorium due to the risk that it could be physically as well as fiscally underwater. And Natomas already looks like Elk Grove--another overnight boomburb that is now deflating rapidly. The only difference is that Elk Grove isn't within the city limits of the big regional city.
0 3
REPLY
January 2, 2011 | 2:21 PM
"What would Natomus look like if Arco was never built? They have their own plan for a building and they know darn well that whole area has been anchored by that building and the people and cash money that has been spent there. They loose that, the place turns into Elk Grove in one night."

This is ludicrously uninformed.
1 3
REPLY
January 1, 2011 | 11:57 AM
I'm not referring to you Burg, you are one of the most informed people in this city (no sarcasm and that should mean something since i'm very sarcastic). But no one appears to be calling for a tax increase again unless I'm mistaken. These are just proposals here and funding is in the idea/ concept phase at the most for many of these as i infer from the vague text in the article. Let's see what they come up with this spring before we say there is no use for the building. I'd assume you would see some relevance for this to be included as a possibility in the rail yards and as a boon for our city . The comment section is for anyone's opinion, but let's hear more than just angry tax objections and calling people we don't know "hustlers."
2 2
REPLY
January 1, 2011 | 1:30 PM
Fair enough--personally I'm waiting to see the finance part for any of these plans, so far all we have seen are renderings. I'm not impressed by renderings--the financing plan is what really matters to me. It's like a movie with great CGI and no plot...eye candy with no substance. Personally I don't have an opinion about which plan is best, because so far I haven't seen enough actual information to form an opinion--just some pictures. It's easy to make a rendering look good when making a sales pitch. It's not so easy to follow up that pitch with something of substance.

I suppose it is natural for people to assume there would be some public subsidy involved, considering that the last actual arena proposal was based on a rather substantial tax giveaway. The recent showing of "The Next American Dream" focused largely on public-funded projects in Kansas City, including a mostly public-funded arena, and KC's experience so far has not been so great (they got saddled with 60% of the arena's cost, still don't have a team in residence, also got saddled with the redevelopment cost of the adjacent neighborhood, and their separate performing arts center is years behind schedule. Their end result was a central city that is still years behind where Sacramento's is today.) It's easy to be skeptical about projects where there are so many bad examples, and where we have so little actual information to work with regarding the current proposals.

And I didn't think you were referring to me, but I have been pasted with that term often enough to be very uncomfortable with its use, regardless of who is on the receiving end. As to the folks who scream indiscriminately and angrily about their taxes and the gummit in response to pretty much anything, I suppose I share your disdain. I just think we should find a brand-new and suitably pejorative term for them.
2 2
REPLY
edited on  January 2, 2011 | 2:31 PM
"As to the folks who scream indiscriminately and angrily about their taxes and the gummit in response to pretty much anything, I suppose I share your disdain. I just think we should find a brand-new and suitably pejorative term for them."

William, the term is "TeaPartiers"
1 2
REPLY
January 2, 2011 | 2:29 PM
"But at the end of the day, it's about how to fund a project like this. Not how to build it," Mackani said. "That's where our focus is going to be."

The plans call for "public/private partnership." That means public funds will be used. So, will you keep saying there's no tax increase and ignore the use of taxpayers' money?

"The players left in the game are teaming up with national firms that have substantial experience developing, designing and building stadiums and arenas for professional football, baseball and basketball teams."

Great. No mention of a venue for non-sports entertainment appropriate for "the subtle interweaving of facets that make humans, and their environments, civilized."
1 2
REPLY
January 2, 2011 | 12:04 PM
Id have to agree that comments from Bill are in a whole differnt , uh, arena, than comments from the MY ISSUE crowd.

As far as public (finance) support for a center, until labor sees a benefit from the deal its unlikely there'll be any serious support. That may be in part why the mayor's new years resolutions include, right up front, an offering to labor. That, and next year is a campaign year...but that's a different topic...
0 0
REPLY
January 3, 2011 | 5:47 AM
i have a couple of questions for the anti-arena people: to get your support for a new arena, are you saying only private funds should be used and not public funds? if the maloofs said "we will 100% fund the arena if we get 100% of the profits" you would be ok with that?
0 0
REPLY
January 3, 2011 | 4:15 PM
This was done with an assist from FieldOfSchemes, to which this article links, but I think Neil has it completely correct. There are 4 options here, and I don't see how any of them work.

1) Been there, done that. Land swap isn't going to happen.
2-3) The financing details are so vague that there's no point in considering these ideas. I agree that the railyards would be a good location, but it'll be very expensive. Not going to happen without a TIF or some other tax.
4) Maloofs will out-of-hand reject the Natomas location. That's the neighborhood they're trying to leave, not commit to.

That leaves us with 4 ideas that will have at least one proposed partner balking. State won't go along with the land-swap; Locals will object to a general tax hike; Maloofs won't want to stay in Natomas.

Just watch, as soon as our Council chooses one of these options, one or more proposed major partners will not agree to the partnership.

Meanwhile, in Nevada, the legislature is about to fund an arena on the strip. That project is going to happen. Nevada is 2 steps ahead of us, and is about to be 3 steps ahead.

I could never imagine what the end-game here would look like, but it's starting to take shape. It's not very exciting, either: We just ran out of time.

We wouldn't, if this was profitable. If a local company decided a $500M entertainment and sports facility was going to be profitable, it'd open within a year. But what we're proposing is to socialize a private company. Maloofs: Wah, our privately-owned arena is falling apart. Wah! Our response to that should be: It's a private company, you fix it. Yeah, it's for more than basketball, but you already keep the profits from monster-trucks, KISS and Riverdance... What you want is for us to pay for a nice new building, but for you to CONTINUE keeping the profits from monster-trucks, KISS and Riverdance.

Wah.

Eh. Go away.
1 0
REPLY
January 3, 2011 | 9:35 PM
Bill - I agree with some of what you've said in your response to BillyJames4545 but how do you figure, "Their (KC) end result was a central city that is still years behind where Sacramento's is today." I beg to differ having recently visited. It's vibrant, bustling with lots of housing, dining and entertainment options, and a thriving art scene made popular by their "First Friday's". While similar to Sacramento, KC far exceeds what we've accomplished in our downtown to date. Additionally, they may not have a professional sports team but I believe that's actually allowed them to program more non-sporting events, concerts, college basketball, etc. Upon my return to Sac I was left humbled by the progress I saw in KC. I still see KC as a good example of what's possible.
0 0
REPLY
January 4, 2011 | 12:12 AM
It's always easier to book events in a vacant building than one with a regular tenant, but a lot harder to cover the building's regular expenses.

Sacramento isn't exactly starving in the dining and entertainment options, with more on the way, while the Power & Light project in KC reminds me more of our failed "America Live" experiment (it is part of a private mall) than even the three nightclubs about to open on K Street. Both the arena and P&L have become revenue drains on KC's general fund due to bonds floated by the city for most of the development cost. As to "lots of housing," about twice as many people live in Sacramento's central city as Kansas City's in about the same area, and while they have "bus rapid transit" (an express bus) and a late-night shuttle van (in one of those buses that looks like a trolley) they still don't have light rail. KC's two sports teams are out in the suburbs, much like the Kings in Natomas.

And how does their "First Friday" compare to the "Second Saturday" we have had for 20 years?
0 0
REPLY
P W
Author thumbnail
January 4, 2011 | 6:00 AM
I'm looking forward to the controlled implosion of Arco Arena! I hope it's sooner than later. It'll be an ironic twist when more folks show up for that than did those for all of the Kings games the past couple of seasons.
0 0
REPLY
January 4, 2011 | 10:38 AM
if you can't wait to see the explosion of arco arena, imagine the sound of the explosion to the local economy if the kings were to leave. now THAT will be loud.
0 1
REPLY
January 4, 2011 | 8:46 AM
William, that's another thing that local proponents never point out regarding the other large publicly-funded arenas that have been built recently: They turn out to be money-pits for their sponsoring government.

Cincinnati. Indianapolis. Dallas. Glendale, AZ. Memphis.

Orlando's will do the same.

Look them all all up.

The deal Indianapolis got was way to sweet for Sacramento to afford, that's for sure.

When the proponents of these deals, who are nearly always pro sports team owners, use the argument that it'll add tax dollars to local coffers, I tune them out. While there are good reasons to build an arena, "increased tax revenues" never, ever turns out to be a valid argument. They cost money. Which is fine, if that's what the locals want. But if they don't want that, then they should be allowed to reject such proposals (Q&R, 4-1 against; been there, done that).
0 0
REPLY
January 4, 2011 | 12:46 PM
The "increased tax revenue" idea is based on the idea that if you give me a dollar, and I give you a penny a year for the next fifty years, somehow you'll make out better than I did because we split the cost 50/50.
0 0
REPLY
January 4, 2011 | 2:50 PM
do you want the penny for 50 years or do you want nothing for 50 years? that is the real question.
0 1
REPLY
January 4, 2011 | 10:26 PM
Actually, no, it's not. If I keep my dollar, I can spend it like I want, and you get nothing for 50 years. There's a difference.
0 0
REPLY
January 5, 2011 | 10:51 AM
actually no, i get a penny for 50 years. that's why banks have so much money. its called a loan which is paid over time. you can spend you dollar in one fell swoop. i will have steady income over time.
0 0
REPLY
January 4, 2011 | 3:52 PM
Rich E., let's do some quick math.

Suppose we spend $500M on an arena. After bond interest, that'd be about $1B. And in 20 years (that's close to the oldest age of NBA arenas), they'd want another one. $1B/20 years = $50M/year.

Do you think an NBA arena would add $50M/year to local tax coffers? Past experience in other cities (Cincinnati, for example) suggest it would not.

Here are two articles I cite as evidence:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/25/sports/25stadium.html?scp=7&sq=december%2025,%202009&st=cse

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/08/sports/08stadium.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=cincinnati%20sports%20stadiums&st=cse

0 0
REPLY
January 5, 2011 | 11:04 AM
how do you measure it directly? by building an arena other businesses will crop up bringingi income to those areas, plus jobs, plus bringing out of city limits dollars into the city. so could it? yes. would it be measured correctly to show that it is, probably not. case in point:

an arena is built and the need for a local restaurant arises to cater to those fans before the game or event that is happening. people who would ordinarily not care to drive from auburn to go to crappy arco arena and would have nomally spent their money at a restaurant in auburn, now decide they want to make the trip inside the city limits to spend their money. so the restaurant profits which in turn allows the city to profit from tax revenue. on the way they stop at northgate blvd. to fill up the car at the arco station, so that money is now brought into the city. the kings revenues are increased because naturally ticket prices and concession prices increase, thereby increasing tax revenues. mikem, i am sure you are smart, just follow the snowball down the hill.

the alternative is the kings leave and whatever revenue the city accrues from the maloofs is now gone because you have an empty arena for 50 nights out of the year. also, name concerts bypass sacramento because the facility sucks, plus they can play in s.f. or reno or fresno at nicer arenas and those acts know they will pull from the sacramento market that way. so now the city has lost revenue which now snowballs into more cuts or higher taxes anyway to cover the shortfall.

pick your poison. frankly, i would rather be entertained if i am going to get hosed by taxes rather than have zero entertainment and still get hosed. sacramento is different from a place like cincinnati because they have multiple professional sports (baseball and football). ask seattle how they are feeling without the revenues from their basketball team and ask oklahoma city how they are feeling over receiving seattle's basketball team. their arena is packed every night which generate the revenues i have described above.
2 0
REPLY
P W
Author thumbnail
January 5, 2011 | 6:12 PM
I "asked" Seattle, and found this little article from the Seattle Times: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nba/2008007993_sonics20m.html
Basically, it's saying that there is little impact of the team leaving. Sacramento, and Natomas specifically, would be better off with a more diverse, and higher paying industry(s) than an arena. Higher wages would attract more people to live here, rather than to visit, which would enhance revenue more than buying a burger or two. No, a medical supply company, or high-tech facility may not be as entertaining...but this city doesn't "need" more entertainment at this juncture, it needs a strong, sustainable economic infrastructure capable of weathering a dynamic economy...and not the whims of a few millionaires who play with a ball.
0 1
REPLY
January 6, 2011 | 6:00 AM
no one is saying the area couldn't benefit from either of the industries you mentioned. however, why, in your mind, would it be ok for the city council to bend over to a medical supply company or a high-tech facility as opposed to an entertainment industry? and what medical supply company or high-tech facility would want to come to sacramento considering they would also have to pay the outrages business taxes the state of california mandates? the national basketball association is a multi-billion dollar industry and according to forbes magazine (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/32/basketball-values-09_Sacramento-Kings_327146.html) as recently as 2009 the kings were valued at $300million dollars. what medical supply or high-tech industry with the same value would come to california, let alone sacramento? let's not forget the hastle the city council has recently put nestle through because of their water consumption. why would we want to take the chance, and possibly overpay, to get industry here when an industry is already here?
0 0
REPLY
P W
Author thumbnail
January 6, 2011 | 1:42 PM
With all of the hospitals, including UC Davis, Sutter, Kaiser, etc., it seems like it would be a natural fit for there to be a supporting industry...and a rather large one at that...to serve them in this area. Sure, there would have to be an attraction, possibly in the form of various incentives, but there's also "location, location, location" to consider. The NBA may be a multi-billion dollar industry...but how much of that money actually stays in the local communities their teams are in? I'm just not sold any longer on the idea that a sports franchise is the only answer...or a very good one...for a city in economic distress. If perception is reality, the Kings left town a long time ago. There are restaurants in Natomas within mere blocks of Arco Arena that are closing left and right that had hoped for the Kingly derivative that never materialized. Attracting a more diverse economic force, consisting of more than one industry, seems the wise choice to re-stabilize the region. Once we've done that, then we can talk about a new arena.
0 0
REPLY
January 6, 2011 | 2:36 PM
P.W. you are entitled to your opinion, but let's clear a few things up. first, sacramento is not a "hospital-haven". the hospitals you mentioned must be getting serviced already otherwise they wouldn't exist, and i am sure there are some local companies providing the products and services. second, how much money stays in the community? i suggest going to this link: http://www.arcoarena.com/default.asp?lnopt=4&pnopt=0. even if only half of it is true, that is still $6.5million in charitable donations alone (and some of those donations provided local companies with construction jobs, which led to employment and tax revenues, etc). also a lot of players who have come through sacramento have started charities and community projects (bobby jackson, chris webber and vlade divac to name a few). i wouldn't consider those programs to be useless, nor measured on the city budget bottom line. we aren't even talking about employment, taxes paid to the city among other things. third, yes restaurants are closing in natomas, but i would think that would have something more to do with the economic times the area is in more than how the kings are performing on the court. sure, their poor play doesn't help, but i have never argued that people will go to a new arena because the kings are a winning team. does anyone remember the late 80s to the late 90s? the kings were a horrible team, but yet the arena was sold out almost everynight. why? because they were an attraction. a new arena would be sold out everynight for the first few years just because of the attraction. besides, the kings won't always be non-competitive which will also help with the attendance. lastly, can you provide a firm definition of "a more diverse economic force"? that is such an ambiguous statement that we may never meet your expectations. what exactly do you want and when will you be satisfied?
1 0
REPLY
P W
Author thumbnail
January 8, 2011 | 9:08 AM
I'll be satisfied when Natomas is no longer seen as a one-pony show. This area has a potential far greater than what an arena could offer. Arena jobs (other than the owners, top management, and players) are next-to minimum wage...and we already have those aplenty in this area. Business leaders in Natomas would be well-advised to try to attract a more diversified clientele in terms of business, manufacturing, education AND entertainment to make this area more self sustaining instead of placing all of our hopes (i.e., potential prosperity) into one basket such as an arena. Perhaps there is room for both. The suggestions of medical supply/support and/or high tech are just that: suggestions. Communities that I have lived in around the country similar to Natomas (suburbs of larger metropolitan areas) often have an economic "theme" to them, consisting of several companies that compliment each other rather than one organization that serves as the single focus. Natomas does have it's share of small, thriving businesses, retail, services, etc. But we need a major business/industry here that share a common theme, but which are also independent of each other. This would attract a more diverse work force, with more career opportunities for those who live here already.
0 0
REPLY
Leave a Comment
User icon
Type your comment in the box below Edit your comment in the box below

Type tags into the box below. Use commas to separate your tags.

Please Log in or Sign up

Existing Members

Sign In Progress bar Forgot Password?

New Users Create an Account Here
Progress bar
Verification email has been sent. To validate your account open the link provided in the message.
There was a problem sending your verification email. Please contact support@sacramentopress.com
Progress bar Login background Tag cloud top Tag cloud background Tag cloud bottom Login manager background