STORYLINE Arena

This storyline has only one article

Viewing thru of

Close timeline

Arena task force begins reviewing proposals

by Suzanne Hurt, published on February 4, 2010 at 10:21 PM

Storyline: Arena RSS Feed

No high resolution image exists...

Progress bar

Loading images

Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson's arena task force will focus on giving all proposals a fair hearing over the next four weeks, an arena team leader said Thursday.

Four task force subcommittees on finance, transportation, site evaluation, and business and community impact will collect more detailed information from the development teams that have pitched seven arena options. The subcommittees will also consider renovating Arco Arena, the current home of the Kings, and a previous proposal to build at Cal Expo, said Chris Lehane, co-chair of the Sacramento First Task Force.

Subcommittee work will not be public. The information gathered will be used to create a scoring matrix to weigh the proposals, and the scoring matrix will be released to the public, he said.

"We're going to be kicking the tires pretty hard on this," he said at a press conference Thursday at the Citizen Hotel.

Lehane unveiled eight priorities created during the task force's first phase that will be used during the evaluation process:

• No Direct Taxes: Other potential revenue sources, including tax increment financing and fees on "tourists," will be considered;
• Economic Impact: Speedy creation of work for local construction companies and construction jobs and long-term economic benefits;
• Full Loan Repayment: Maloofs must address their outstanding $68.5 million city loan by paying it back in a lump sum or payments, through equity in a new facility or in another way;
• Regional Contribution: Financial contribution to construction costs, possibly through event ticket fees but not likely to come from surrounding towns or the county;
• Community Benefits: Could include a labor agreement, affordable housing, environmentally sensitive construction, cultural contributions and more;
• Minimize Environmental Impacts, partly with a focus on public transit;
• Fair Share for Use of City Land: "Given that the NBA and/or the Kings will likely seek a controlling interest in the facility, any facility developed as a true public-private partnership ... must ensure that the team/league pays its fair share," determined by the level of public support, according to a document Lehane provided outlining the priorities. The amount the public is compensated must be adjusted for inflation, Lehane said.
• No funding from the city's general fund.

Lehane would not respond to reports that the National Basketball Association is upset about comments he made on the task force blog Tuesday. He called the NBA's previous attempts to get an arena built here "two air balls" and made other comments in a post asserting that the NBA's support for one arena proposal doesn't guarantee that plan will be adopted by the task force or the city.

Several Sacramento City Council members were also upset about the comments and felt he was speaking on behalf of the city.

"Maybe I should have said 'two fumbles.' Maybe I should have said 'two strikes.' But I said 'airballs,' " he said Thursday.

Lehane also said he recognizes the task force is a group of "citizens" attempting to represent the public in an effort to get an arena built as quickly as possible.

"We're not the City Council," he said.

While Lehane lives in San Francisco and another task force member lives in Los Angeles, nine others live in Sacramento and the other member lives in Stockton, he said.

Lehane said he was recruited to the task force because he has no pre-existing relationships in Sacramento or any vested interest in a particular outcome.

"That allows me to ask the tough questions," he said.

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

February 5, 2010 | 7:41 AM
Sacramento does not need, nor can it afford, a new arena.

Given all of the dimensions necessary to make such a build, any proposal would require specific contractual financial backing, none of which exists or is likely at anytime soon...

The 'star' proposal, the three-way three-card-monty 'land swap' is an intentionally bizarre justaposition of inequivalent properties that intends to gouge public largesse to enhance the pocket books of a few monied interests, and decided not a public benefit facility...

The 'deal' is mounted on the financial backs of a house of cards including the financial fortunes of the Maloofs, whose main liquor distribution facility had to be sold off to pay creditors and other entities facing bankruptcy, Thomas Enterprises, already with projects in bankruptcy, having to reduce staff from 750 to 50 not months ago, Gary Kamilos, whose own financial challenges are local legend or recent years, who is banking on a mortgage lender from Australia, McQuarie Capital, whose commercial lending portfolio is leveraged to such an extent given impending meltdowns faced by commercial mortgage lenders in the coming couple of years that it seems to have avoided thus far by clever accounting rules, among so many other aspects of this 'deal' that make it appear to be not nearly sufficient enough to quell any fears of public contribution to the build's coffers....

In fact, this 'deal's' backers even buried an escape clause to allow a tax increment to be applied to the arena, if necessary - unfortunately Das Bee, and other media, has silenced this issue by rather focusing on pretty pictures and site plans and other bright shiny objects to razzle and dazzle public sentiment in favor of the project....

2 4
REPLY
February 5, 2010 | 8:30 AM
These comments remind me of the wagoneers lament as CP carved a railroad through the Sierra's...yet humans of great intent suceeded to the great benefit of Sacramento. And the wagoneers...
4 2
REPLY
TAB
Author thumbnail
February 5, 2010 | 12:45 PM
friggin amazing!!! if our city fathers have this kind of money to spend for the few that can afford a ticket to any sports or entertainment event why in the heck dont they take that money and help our homeless get good housing. i am not a rocket scientist by i am a humanatarian. its a sad day when a few want a want sports arena when the homeless are hungry and on the streets. lets get our priorities straight city government. loved your comments bbbmer.
2 1
REPLY
February 6, 2010 | 9:35 AM
Central Pacific was only built because the United States wanted a faster way to get troops to the West in case they decided to follow the lead of the South and secede (which was happening at the same time.) The federal government provided funding and loans as a wartime project. Sure, it required humans of great intent, but it also required great public subsidy. Not that it's always a bad thing, but is the funding available, and needed?
0 0
REPLY
edited on  February 7, 2010 | 8:02 AM
EXACTLY, Mr. Tab! If we can loosen the change from our pockets to the extent of building a great big house for a few overpaid basketballers and their irresponsible owners, why can't we finance enough shelter for those who have none???? These priorities are just WHACK, ESPECIALLY in these times of massive financial meltdowns and an absolute GLUT of space -- MILLIONS of available square feet (about 3 million in State owned properties alone) in our own region!

Btw, Mr. Rich, the railroads were also dependent on the near slave labor of starving Chinese immigrants and former southern slaves to build the way west... As Mr. Burg states so very cogently, there were other priorities at work -- and a stadium for overpaid players and drunken owners was not among them...

An arena is not an opening of passage further west, or even an economic panancea, rendering only a hundred or so permanent (and woefully low wage) jobs after the temporary construction jobs have completed their tasks. Where Mr. Rich gets his analog is beyond me....

What an arena does is pad the wallets of a few developers who are caught in some pretty perilous times these days, whose word is dust given their current financial strife, only make baseless claims regarding the mythic financial apparatus constructed to make this build that they'll never be able to realize, leaving ussin's with the tab...

Surely there are pursuits of far greater benefit in this city than the banality of a new arena...
1 1
REPLY
February 6, 2010 | 8:17 PM
There's another side to the story (one the Bee refuses to print). We can only urge you to read our 'Arena Resistance' article in the current Sacramento News & Review (feb 4, p.14) and go to our website www.ceav.us to learn more. Then make up your own minds.
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.

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