William Burg, I think you misunderstand me: A public market, provides a venue for multiple vendors to offer their products. Some good examples of those include Les Halles - pre 1960, QVM, or the Tsukiji Market. A Supermarket is an outlet for one single vendor who defines the product offering. What is offered at a public market is defined by public demand and the creativity and ingenuity of (typically local) vendors. In my experience (I have shopped at about a dozen of them in France and Australia) they can offer a broader range of specialty, and higher quality products, because they can financially support small producers whose production focus is narrow and is based on quality. Also, the whole supply chain that supports a super market is substantially different to a public market. Typically, produce for a supermarket travels from a farm, through a packing facility, is then transported to a distribution centre and then to a supermarket. It may sit in the supermarket for a day or two until it hits the shelves and due to the number of facings a supermarket has, (because consumers love the image of abundance) and the length of time items sit on the shelves, much of the inventory is days old. In a public market, the farmers picks his produce, loads it on to a truck, and sells it the next day in the market. If one week his peaches aren't sweet and juicy you can tell him about it and ask him to lift his game - or go to another vendor. And Mark, as for the rather attractive Davis farmers market, which lacks walls: Go there on a windy or cold day, but take a friend or you might be very lonely.

William Burg, my question to Councilmember Ashby on economic development is this: Unless new people with extra dollars are being attracted to spend in Sacramento, how can any of this be considered as having a net economic benefit to the region? As I see it, what the arena amounts to is simply an alternative location for (primarily) locals to spend their dollars.

The Sydney Opera House. Now that wasn't expected. Interesting place: The project was finished ten years later than budgeted, and the cost overrun amounted to an extra $95M or 14 X over budget (or $700M in todays money assuming the project was completed on time, as opposed to taking into account income foregone) The designer was effectively sacked, and banished back to Scandinavia, never seeing the project again. But, here is where it gets interesting, the project was funded almost entirely - about $100M - through a lottery which was set up specifically for that purpose. So, in effect taxes were not used for is construction. None of which has anything to do with Sacramento ... apart from the fact that public money wasn't at risk in ensuring the completion of the project.

Frank, I think you might find that the people who snicker at Sacramento don't know it, or haven't lived here. I am an outsider. Sacramento is a great place to live, with plenty of things to keep anyone with even half an imagination entertained. The Kings don't even come into the equation.

Pinning tomorrows hopes of economic development, on the back of a b-grade franchise due to the nostalgia and "pride" it has created for sports fans makes little sense to any rational or responsible investor charged with managing public funds.