STORYLINE Arena

This storyline has only one article

Viewing thru of

Close timeline

1 of 3
close

No high resolution image exists...

Progress bar

1 of 3
Loading images
Slideshow image Slideshow image Slideshow image

The ongoing drama over a new Sacramento arena was kicked up a notch Thursday when a consortium of investors and local developers, together with the NBA, proposed a complex real estate deal involving the Railyards, Cal Expo and Arco Arena. Whether or not that deal eclipses all the other proposals on the table remains to be seen.

But regardless of which arena proposal ultimately becomes reality, it will be a game-changer for Sacramento.

Just how much depends on which of seven proposals the city and the Sacramento Kings' owners agree on. The Maloof/NBA proposal involves real estate deals that would lead to Cal Expo being sold to private developers for a mixed-use neighborhood, Arco Arena and adjacent land being transformed into the new state fairgrounds, and a sports arena being built on donated city land adjacent to the train station.

The backers of all seven proposals made brief pitches to more than 120 people at a sometimes raucous, fairly informal open house held Thursday night in the lobby of City Hall. But the biggest surprise came after the event organized by Mayor Kevin Johnson's arena task force, when developers and investors behind a complex real estate proposal held a separate press conference at the Citizen Hotel.

Representing the National Basketball Association at the second press conference, John Moag, who heads the sports investment banking company Moag & Co., outlined a complicated plan spearheaded by developer Gerry Kamilos.

"I think we can all agree we have a building that needs to be replaced. The real question has always been, 'How?' " Moag said. "We came with the assumption we were not going to raise new taxes. That made for a very difficult and complicated scenario."

The NBA has become a partner to negotiate for the project on behalf of the Maloofs, which own the Sacramento Kings franchise and its current home, Arco Arena. The city owns land around the arena. The Maloofs did not attend the press conference.

Kamilos, developer David Taylor and two investment companies would form a private consortium that proposes building a 19,000-seat sports and entertainment arena adjacent to the historic train depot on land donated by the city of Sacramento. That project would be financed in part by the group buying Cal Expo and developing a mixed-use, master-planned neighborhood there. The group also proposes the city and the Maloofs turn Arco Arena and the adjacent land over to the state for the new fairgrounds, Moag said.

The Maloofs would contribute $300 million to the new arena, he said. However, the proposal also calls for retiring a $68.5 million city loan to the Maloofs. The Kings would sign a 30-year lease. The private group would own and operate the new sports and entertainment arena for 30 years, then turn it over to the city. 

Proponents of other projects proposed building at a variety of locations, from the same city-owned railyards land to the east end of Downtown Plaza, the Sacramento River waterfront in the Docks Area and Arco Arena. Some proposed funding mechanisms, but not all.

Thomas Enterprises, which is developing the former railyards, proposes building a sports and entertainment center in the same city-owned railyards location as the third phase of the current regional transportation center project. Under that proposal, the historic train depot would serve as the lobby and ticketing center for the arena, as well as the future transportation center. A passenger concourse would wrap around the side of the arena to the relocated tracks and a multi-level, shared parking garage would be built.

A performing arts center is proposed for a new fourth phase. The proposal would decrease the cost of both the transportation center and the arena and allow the use of transportation funding not available to other projects, Thomas Enterprises Vice President Suheil Totah said.

"It will help establish the historic depot as the Grand Central Station of the West," he said at City Hall. "This event center is the next logical step to the redevelopment of the railyards and the revitalization of Downtown Sacramento."

Graphic provided by Thomas Enterprises.

 

Other proposals include:

— Natomas Entertainment Sports Center Partners, led by Jeff Baize of Brookhurst Corp., proposes building a new entertainment complex on 100 acres of city-owned land adjacent to Arco Arena. The complex would include a mixed-use neighborhood emphasizing green technology and re-purposing Arco Arena as a power generation facility. "That site has been working from a traffic and infrastructure capacity," he said.

— Matt Haines of M & M Group and owner of 33rd Street Bistro presented a plan developed more than a decade ago for then-Mayor Joe Serna. Haines proposes building a sports and entertainment center on the waterfront in the future Docks Area. A location near Miller Park would bring needed development to the riverfront and nearby Capitol Mall, and encourage the use of Broadway and R Street as access routes, he said. "Our river will come alive like never before," he said. He proposes financing the project through equity seat rights, or selling individual seats in the center, which Haines said has raised $200 million for UC Berkeley.

— Ali Mackani, who owns Lounge on 20, and a group called CORE propose redeveloping the east end of Westfield Downtown Plaza into a retail and entertainment district, with two floors of retail and an outdoor public park on the third floor. "Our downtown lacks energy," Mackani said. "We don't have a destination. We need to make sure our core is strong. We have to do a better job in creating an attraction for everyone."

— Rick Tripp of Tripp Development also sees the east end of Downtown Plaza as the best location. This proposal focused on financing, rather than design. Tripp proposed private financing and no requirement for publicly owned real estate — or compensating taxpayers for real estate at market rate, he said.

— Doug Tatara proposes building an entertainment complex including a sports and entertainment arena, a California theme park and a monorail connecting Cal Expo to downtown. He proposes raising money for the arena through the recruitment of 25 corporate sponsors who would have advertising contracts with the arena.

The mayor's task force will visit proposed locations on Feb. 18 and conduct a review of the proposals with each group on March 4. The task force will make recommendations to the mayor on March 11.


Railyards photo by Eric Whalen. 

 

 

 

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

January 16, 2010 | 7:33 AM
It's easy to see why the Maloofs like this deal. They get to walk away with 68.5 million bucks of city money. The Mayor will, no doubt, like this deal too because his developer buddies will get prime riverfront property to develop while the state gets stuck building a new state fair at a time when it's cutting education and jobs. Once again the Mayor and his buddies get rich while the citizens of our city get f'ed.
3 2
REPLY
January 16, 2010 | 8:09 AM
Real estate is not complicated or even overly complex if you take the time to understand how the money moves. With the caveat that you will need to project the future worth of present value. (Present value? They have got to win more games. Very few commercial real estate transactions factor in the value of dollar beer night or T-shirt guns.) Waterfront property is an extraordinary asset, (Ask Baltimore, Chicago and it seems to have worked out pretty well for San Francisco as well.), for a community to have and enjoy and it should remain solely in the control of the people of that respective community. If, big if, private development is considered it should be after MULTIBLE opportunties for that community to comment. And than a LEASE, a lease...no freebies fellas, sorry, for the use of the property might be considered. Any reasonable competent MAI, (There are a few who specialize in sports stadiums and are set up to consider the present,future and potential revenue streams.), could explain each of the proposals in short order. But I'd get the Army Corp of Engineers on the phone first. They have a few rules, regulations, suggestions etc, about cleaning up super-fund sites.
0 0
REPLY
January 16, 2010 | 10:11 AM
This proposed deal was a big point of discussion in a couple of my high school economics and government classes yesterday. Since we've spent the good part of the semester studying the Great Recession, the students had a lot on their minds. I took notes. Some good, smart questions/comments raised:

1. Didn't this whole thing just start as a way to get the Kings and Maloofs a new arena? How did it become something that would completely change three big parts of Sacramento? The NBA doesn't care about Sacramento, it only cares about basketball. This is so weird. Why can't we just make it about a basketball arena again?

2. It might be good because we really need jobs. But how come people think you could count on money from a new housing development and more stores over at CalExpo to finance this thing? Aren't we in a big recession because people built too many homes that no one could really afford all over the place? Can they really get the all money to build the arena in the railyards by promising all this? It just seems like more of the same stuff we did that got us in trouble. And wouldn't they have to spend lots of money fixing the streets and the freeway because of all the traffic? Who would pay for that?

3. With all the budget cuts effecting schools and colleges and the furloughs, how could the state ever afford to build a new fair grounds at Natomas right now even if they got the land for free? Would the state really get enough from selling CalExpo to build a new fair out at Natomas or would they need to spend money that should be spent on other things?

(Many students nodded at this one and wondered how angry people would be if any additional state money is spent on building a new fair grounds. The state angle was very perplexing to the kids generally...especially since for many their college/post high school plans are in serious jeopardy.)

4. Natomas might be okay for the fair because that would be better than houses in a flooding area, but would the federal government allow it to be built there right now? Is it okay to build in a flood zone if it is not housing?

5. If Natomas is good enough for a new fair, why not just fix Arco Arena? It seems like this whole thing would cost a whole lot more than just fixing up Arco or building a new arena in place of the old one.

6. If the Maloofs have to sign a 30 years deal at $10 million a year that sounds goods because it might make them stay. But didn't the city already loan the Kings lots of money and what happens to that? Would that just go away now? And what if they decided to leave anyway? Could they just stop paying and leave? And if that happened, could the city take over the Kings because they gave them the land for the new arena?
___________________________________________
Seems like these are starting point questions most citizens in this city might have...Any takers out there?
5 1
REPLY
January 16, 2010 | 11:19 AM
Bright students. Concerning number 2, there was an overbuilding of homes. That was a result of the rise in residential real estate prices. Note that the vast bulk of economists, column writers and reporters missed the home price bubble. They chose to be bubble cheerleaders, instead.
3 1
REPLY
January 16, 2010 | 5:11 PM
1. Arco hosts 300 events a year, 42 of them are Kings games. You do the math... just go to Ticketmaster and search Arco Arena; you'll soon see the Kings games are in the minority (and this is basketball season). I don't understand how people always conveniently forget about 250 events a year - this argument has been beaten to death.

2. The CalExpo area will be sold to developers, who often pay for many acres of land that won't be developed for many years (long term investment). The State Fair will not be moved quickly, as they have to wait for new fairgrounds. Your commentary on traffic/infrastructure, the railyards have been planned out for many years, it's part of Sacramento's master plan.

3. The fairgrounds money would likely come from the sale of the land. Keep in mind there is an existing arena and practice facility which already can be repurposed. A lot of the state fairgrounds are all temporary structures as it is. The new fairgrounds cost would not be that high when you factor in the existing buildings.

4. Not sure, but I imagine this is something that is not going to hold things up.

5. First of all, this proposal doesn't factor in who pays for it... however the guts of the building are not adequate to be rebuilt. They'd have to tear the whole thing down to start over because Arco was really build very cheaply.

6. Part of the deal factors in the loan, and the Maloofs would make good on it. If they signed a 30-year lease they'd be on the hook for 30 years. That's how a lease works.

I wish people would quit trying to be so quick to poke holes in things... it's practically a free arena, people! You should be super-excited about the prospect of what this could mean to Sacramento! I know I am.
5 2
REPLY
January 16, 2010 | 6:00 PM
Pretty pictures and half baked plans do not a 'deal' make.

The NBA's proposal, aka 'shell game', is just that -- a pile of commitments that have less likelihood of materializing than me voting Republican, including a commitment by the Maloofs of $300 million toward an arena build at the Railyards, when two of their family's firms have declared bankruptcy in the last year, and their Las Vegas holdings are the subject of a protracted dispute part of which involves the plummeting of its market value. Of course, they haven't repaid the nearly $100million outstanding loan to this town yet, but hey, they can 'commit' to mounting a capital campaign of nearly half a billion in what will be additional debt, since they have no cash, to put on a good show for sportos and arena watchers...

Sure, they've hired Chris Lehane to attempt execution of a final deal, with public input as an honorable mention, where the pre-determined intent to consummate a land swap of two vastly different parcels of vastly different market value to offset the actual cost of a proposed arena build. Basically the NBA 'deal' robs California to pay Gavin his tribe, and nothing leftover for local townies -- at least for 30 years...

It's as if the NBA and KJ and Godknowswhoelseamong realtytypes colluded to make a pre-determined outcome seem as if it was actually challenged by others, knowing full well that the thin veil of their 'deal' barely conceals its ripoff since its land use issues are far too imposing on the spheres of influence involved, the financing mechanisms are fake as Monopoly money, opting for the most expensive proposal of all with the least probability that it can be sustained without significant, if not entire, public subsidy.

Those who claim that ARCO is inadequate are simply liars. The 'bones' of the building are to code, and it was designed to be expanded, per the architect. Expanding ARCO to fit a true multi use facility IS the least cost option, and we can't even afford THAT presently, given pressing needs that far outweigh a gosh darned basketball court for overpaid players and ostentatious owners who can't even keep it in their pants....and who perennially threaten to leave Sacramento if somehow we don't comply with their hubris and desires...

Like my late nana from 'old country' used to say, "The HELL with THAT noise!"
3 1
REPLY
TAB
Author thumbnail
January 16, 2010 | 9:41 PM
I was at arco arena 2 years ago and its a nice arena, very fancy and doesn't it hold about 30,000 people. Why do we need a new 30,000 people arena. During rough economic times this sounds insane. If you want more people arena or guilded seats just expand the beautiful arena we already have. it's not rocket scientist stuff guys.
1 2
REPLY
January 16, 2010 | 11:20 PM
Arco Arena capacitates 17,317 people maximum. Other setups (than basketball) for concerts and other sporting types may limit seating to smaller numbers.
0 0
REPLY
January 17, 2010 | 1:22 AM
Is Arco going to be adequate in 10 years? If they got this arena deal done, it will be 2015 before it opens. "Good enough" is not "good enough" for NCAA tournaments and major music acts like Beyonce - and that's today. Do you think Arco will still be "good enough" in 2020?
1 0
REPLY
January 17, 2010 | 11:42 AM
A big question for the current decade concerns jobs. Where will the investment come from for new employment in the capital city of the nation's most populous state, and how does the jobs crisis connect with pro sports?

California's jobless rate has doubled since Dec. 2007:
http://www.economytrack.org/mainchart_3.php?_tab=unemployment

Reducing state and local government spending can only deepen the jobs crisis. This is the current policy choice of our lawmakers.

Note I assume that private investment is the key to economic recovery. That private investment is largely absent, and there appears to be little of it ahead.

Therefore, I conclude that federal deficit spending to help the states is the key to recovery in the short-term. Oh, and one other minor thing.

If our taxpaying dollars can flow to big banks to save them from bankruptcy, the same tax money can bail out the states to save and create jobs.



0 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.

Cancel Submit

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