STORYLINE Arena

This storyline has only one article

Viewing thru of

Close timeline

Arena coalition members named

by Suzanne Hurt, published on June 13, 2011 at 6:35 PM

Storyline: Arena RSS Feed

1 of 2
close

No high resolution image exists...

Progress bar

1 of 2
Loading images
Slideshow image Slideshow image

Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson released the names of his regional arena coalition Monday, amid hopes the Here We Build campaign will be able to figure out financing options.

But the absence of a representative of Natomas, where Power Balance Pavilion sits, raised protests from the Natomas Chamber of Commerce.

Johnson announced the members of a bipartisan, 15-member executive committee Monday morning. The remaining 45 members of the community coalition were expected to be announced Monday evening, according to the mayor’s office.

No one from the Natomas Chamber of Commerce, which has led a campaign to keep the arena there, had been asked to be part of the coalition as of 5:30 p.m. No Natomas representatives are expected to be in the coalition, Johnson spokesman Joaquin McPeek said.

Sacramento County Supervisor Phil Serna was named to the executive committee. He lives in Natomas and represents the area in his supervisor role. But he hasn’t represented Natomas economic interests in the arena process, Natomas Chamber President Ed Koop said.

"He's never been the voice of anything we've been trying to do here, as far as the economic impact,” Koop said. "In my opinion, that's not a good representation of what we've got going on here."

Frustrated chamber members are refusing to provide a letter of support for the arena effort after Johnson recently asked for one. To be asked for support is "absurd," because building a new arena downtown will "cannibalize" Natomas, said Koop, adding chamber members feel their community has been ignored throughout the arena process.

"Natomas seems to be constantly put in the back seat. We're not asked to participate in any of these things going forward," he said.

Chamber officials want the city to set up a task force to focus on reuse of the Natomas site. But no one from the mayor's office has reached out to talk about the site's future, Koop said.

"I don't believe anyone's seriously looking at what's going to happen to Natomas if this arena leaves," he said.

Johnson asked for letters of support at a regional chamber coalition meeting at Sacramento Metro Chamber headquarters on June 3 – a few days after officially announcing the coalition's formation. Representatives of all six counties were there, Koop said.

The mayor and the mayor's office followed up last week with emails asking to get the letters, which were to be addressed to the city, by June 17.

The Here We Build executive committee will be chaired by state Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, a Democrat from Sacramento, and State Sen. Ted Gaines, a Republican from Roseville.

Other members of the committee include state Assemblyman Roger Dickinson, West Sacramento Mayor Christopher Cabaldon and Sacramento City Councilman Rob Fong.

Also on the committee is San Francisco investor Darius Anderson. He told Johnson at the National Basketball Association team owners' meeting in April he and billionaire Pittsburgh Penguins co-owner Ron Burkle wanted to buy the Sacramento Kings or bring another team here if the Kings left.

The full coalition will consist of stakeholders from around the region: elected officials, labor leaders, corporate and small business owners, grassroots organization leaders, developers and religious leaders.

Johnson said in a press conference Monday that the coalition was put together to equitably represent the metropolitan area.

“We knew if we had 22 cities and six counties, we knew we had to have about 30 electeds and maybe 30 non-electeds,” he said. “So, when it came down to the executive committee, we knew we wanted 12 to 15 members – half elected, half non-elected.”

The mayor's office cast "a wider net" to involve a broad base of the community, McPeek said.

"We want to make sure we have a nice cross section, across the board," he said.

The mayor's office is setting up the arena coalition's first public meeting for Thursday. The time and location are still being determined.

The group will be meeting to explore arena funding options and determine the "critical pathway" to financing a new arena, McPeek said.

McPeek could not say what work the ICON-Taylor group is doing to come up with arena funding options, which were due at their presentation to the City Council in late May. It's not clear how the arena experts will work with regional Here We Build coalition members to answer the funding question.

The Roseville Chamber of Commerce has sent in a letter of support commending the mayor for reaching beyond his borders to promote a regional discussion on a new arena, Roseville Chamber Chief Executive Officer Wendy Gerig said.

"It's not just about the Kings and basketball. It's about economic development and the jobs that will not only go to businesses in Sacramento, but to El Dorado, Placer, Yolo, Yuba and Sutter counties," she said. "Our region is deserving of such a facility."


A link to the other coalition member names will be added in the comment section below.

Sacramento Press staff reporter Kathleen Haley contributed to this report. 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

June 13, 2011 | 10:24 PM
At 7:02 p.m., the mayor's office released a statement with a list of names for the Here We Build Coalition.

The press release lists 70 coalition members, not 60 as Mayor Kevin Johnson announced two weeks ago.

The coalition includes some people who represent Natomas in their official capacities, such as City Councilwoman Angelique Ashby and state Assemblyman Richard Pan.

Here is a link to a scribd document containing the press release:

http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/57813078?access_key=key-25nqjllfunhs8b6m6t8n
1 0
REPLY
June 14, 2011 | 1:14 PM
Here's a scribd document with names that are a bit easier to read:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/57851283/Arena-Coalition-List-June-13
1 0
REPLY
June 13, 2011 | 10:43 PM
Who are visibly ,missing from this list is the business community. Where are the reps from Raley's, Waste Management. one of the major law firms and etc....

The list is in the main a list of politicos and hanger - ons from St Hope.
3 0
REPLY
June 14, 2011 | 11:46 AM
The Maloofs have done very litte to endear themselves to this community. As long as they remain the Kings owners, they'll be an anchor on any initiative to generate public support for a new arena.

I don't follow basketball, and am not among the "Be Heard" fans. However, the idea of a downtown arena is appealing. It would help attract additional convention and trade show business, which the Natomas arena really can't. It would be a venue for ice hockey (one can hope; go Bruins!), concerts, festivals, other performances.

But as long as the Maloofs are the perceived beneficiary, count me among those who would vote no on any tax measure to build a new arena.
4 1
REPLY
June 14, 2011 | 1:54 PM
Maloofs would be a tenant. so city and private members would benifit from most events and parking.
3 1
REPLY
P W
Author thumbnail
edited on  June 14, 2011 | 12:36 PM
The Natomas Chamber might be better served by soliciting ideas and proposals for alternatives to an arena. Face it: It aint gonna be built there. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. With Arco, we in Natomas had all of our economic eggs in one basket. Why repeat this error? Get creative and think of another, more diverse "portfolio" that would serve the business, economic and social interests (i.e., better, higher paying jobs) of Natomas and those who live there. A combination of high-tech, medical, education...even another form of amusement could all find suitable surroundings in Natomas, including where the arena is, and the large, never-to-be developed "park" on the north side of Inderkum High School. Be careful what you wish for!
2 0
REPLY
June 14, 2011 | 1:48 PM
There's a great win for Natomas in moving the event center downtown PW, and that is clearing a perfectly sized and located parcel for a regional mall. The City wins from greater sales tax revenue and Natomas wins because much as it "loves" the arena, it'd "love" a new mall even better.
3 3
REPLY
P W
Author thumbnail
June 14, 2011 | 5:31 PM
Hmm! Good thought...never thought of that, Richard. But i LIKE the idea! The infrastructure, esp. the off ramps from I-5 are already there that could support a mall. But I still maintain that mixed use is key. We ought not have to rely on a single entity for our economic well-being in Natomas.
1 0
REPLY
June 14, 2011 | 2:52 PM
Natomas might not have been opened for development if the responsible parties back in the early 1980s hadn't stumbled across the idea of luring an NBA franchise here, which effectively converted the question from "Whaddaya got against rampant development of valuable floodplain farmlands?" to "Whaddaya got against major-league sports?" among the local hammerheadigentsia. And now the sprawl is here, but to focus on keeping the NBA franchise here, other areas in the region -- downtown Sacramento, Roseville, elsewhere -- must be looked at, too. If the Kings stay, I doubt they'll be playing at a new arena in Natomas. That's just the way that cookie's gonna crumble.
2 0
REPLY
June 14, 2011 | 11:00 PM
What about the intermodal transit center this community has been working on for years and is proceeding on finally? Are we now tossing all those plans out to make room for an arena? The pretty pictures show an arena right where the intermodal is supposed to go. I love how Johnson et. al. don't give a damn about the projects this community has been working on for years just because it doesn't fit his world view.
3 1
REPLY
edited on  June 16, 2011 | 11:09 AM
What about the Inter-Modal?

The Following Document will help:

http://www.sacta.org/pdf/new_measureA/FinalPlanofFinance.pdf

"STA New Measure A Sales Tax Program Plan of Finance"

Open the document and search it for the term "intermodal"

Downtown Intermodal Station

Funding Sources

"Other Local" $ 224,998,882.00
"Measure A Revenue" $ 109,786,959 .00

Total $ 334,785,841.00

Rex Babin's Summary to date: "I Thought You Were Suppose To Put In The Transit Center! "

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/06/02/3669763/doh.html

To Lisa's point and the possibility of fund miss-use if not repaid:

The Spin-The City owns the land

http://sacramento.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?meta_id=216470&view=&showpdf=1

The Railyards Parcels A & B were largely paid for, to the tune of 82%, ($48,000,000.00) using Measure A sales tax funds. (See page 6 of the above document) You know that county-wide extra 1/2% we all pay in sales tax....specifically for transportation projects...So how exactly is a Sports Arena, with no parking, a beneficial transportation project?

How much in Measure A funds did we already spend to build that Arena Blvd I-5 interchange...to facilitate traffic circulation at the current site....ON ARENA BLVD....THE BLVD with the ARENA formerly known as ARCO!

Where's the paying back of Measure A funds for the lands purchased where the Arena proposed site is...since this is a non-transportation project? It's not mentioned anywhere in this fornicated proposal. Yet the amount of transportation-specific-money generated by the Measure A sales tax...that would legally need to be paid back for a non-transportation related project
for that proposed arena site....ballpark guess...20-25 MILLION!

BTW, according to all those "color glossy photos, with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one"...quoting Arlo....they put the Arena right on top of the Light Rail Station that has already been built at the Amtrak Depot....Where's the budget for tearing out , moving and replacing all of that previously thought out, budgeted and completed work?

Don't allow yourself to be HERDED!

Hmmm, $335 MILLION DOLLARS for a transit hub, do you think someone might propose building this arena bamboozle on top of it?

3 1
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