bbbbmer- Wow, your obvious passion, insight, knowledge into this arena deal, shines. Kudo's on your comment. You should write an article. Perhaps you would shine the light in the direction of so many more. I'd love to read more. Heck, you got my attention and after reading your comment I agree whole-heartedly. Thank you for sharing the above information. Also, I love not just the contents of what you wrote but I love the way it is written --well done!!

bbbbmer, I've seen your posts around the Press, and I'm impressed at the insightful and sometimes sensitive comments you provide (like those above). Yet I'm also left scratching my head at how many times I've seen you calling one particular person a "bloated biker babe." What's got you so agitated that would make you single out one person and behave like that?

Your friend is wise I absolutely agree citizenship does require vigilance for there are inevitably hands in all pockets of the public purse" and in the words of Margaret Mead--- 'Never underestimate the power of a small group of committed people to change the world. In fact, it is the only thing that ever has." I believe you raised the bar. It is the community that sets and raises the bar and some elected officials just hangs on to it as if they carried it. LOL (Big fish swallows litle fish- LOL)

I know for a fact comments are read, received and often used by some we are critical of. Keep watching, speaking, commenting more are watching you, speaking of what you write than they will admit.. bbbbmer I know sometimes your comments can be "colorful" LOL some may get distracted. I wouldn't doubt that the colorful comments is what caught their attention in the first place-- LOL And well, if it isn’t broke don’t fix it.- Do what you do!! Many of us know you have a great deal to offer -- CARRY ON!!!!

"obama care shoved down our throat"--watch FOX News much? Kind of a non sequitur factor here--what does the national healthcare debate have to do with the arena issue? Nothing! And what does OPEC have to do with this? While I share your dismay at RT's pending cuts, the only way to prevent them would be tax increases to make up for the tax funds that were cut from their budget, and I get the feeling that you might not be comfortable with that.

I mean, I don't mind skepticism about the arena, but you might want to turn down the Glenn Beck just a touch.

So, you prefer health ins co's heaping 40% increases year after year, and being declined for preexisting conditions, and service denials just before entering surgery??? You appear to be a person of a certain age, perhaps covered by Medicare, and yet you wish to deny the nearly 50 million other Americans access to basic health care similar to that which you receive??? Your sense of equity seems a tad misplaced...

Not that this arena thing has much to do with health care, except in terms of priority setting, in which case I would agree that the last thing we need in this town at present is a new arena while people are forced out of their homes, their jobs, and basic civil needs... An arena serving the interests of a few overpaid players and irresponsible team owners seems more than a tad off kilter...

REBUILD ARCO INSTEAD!

the obama health care will call for every American to buy insurance at arbitrary figures including all private business for employees taking more money out of the american taxpayer who is already underpaid or out of work. 500 billion in cuts to medicare. so what does this have to do with an new arena issue well sir if a person has an even greater financial burden put on one from horrible health care bill that one can't buy a ticket to a game that has everything to do with why we don't need a new arena. OPEC is just a another burden gas tax wise at over $3.00 a gallon on why most can't afford to see a game at the arena or special event causing a further no need for an new arena. We have always had tax increases up until about 20 years ago when these tax icreases stopped causing our state to go to hell in a hand basket. I agree that tax increase maybe one solution for RT but don't believe that is part of the deal making that is current on the table sir.
and bbbmmeer insurance co's will always get around preexisting conditions as not even a fine will stop that. there are loopholes in this 2,200 page bill bbbmmeer also i do not wish to deny 50 million out of health care i want health care for all, but i would like to start over as this 2,200 page bill will bankrupt this country for real.
now maybe i have this all wrong and maybe that there are hundreds of thousands of rich that can afford a new arena and the one we have is too small and they will always be able to afford to go to a game or event in that case i withdraw my contention we don't need a new arena, but if it is too small and there are those that do have the dough to go then add on to the one we already have in natomas.

This proposal is HARDLY iconic.

Your argument that civil servants adequately do the public's bidding lacks depth, especially since of late, in certain circumstances, the public's bidding at the hands of certain political officials has been to the benefit of private interests at the expense of the public...such as Nestle, or Natomas, or this arena...

Civil servants do what they're told by those we elected to tell them -- unfortunately those we elected sometimes conceal their agendas to get elected, and we couldn't have a more vivid example of that than our mayor.

Yes, "the poor will always be amongst us" -- how 'Christian'.

But why not use public resources to benefit the public, especially the public that is least able to fend for itself??? A novel idea, I know... But this 'deal' is inevitably going to cost millions in public funds, despite its advocates' claims to the contrary -- hell, there's even a tax increment that will kick in should the questionable performance feasibility of the funding firms fail, which, given the markets, especially for commercial mortgages, seems at least possible in the near future...

I question the use of such public funds to principally benefit the irresponsible owners and overpaid players of a sports team that is the main tenant of this build, around whom this 'deal' seems conceived, especially while during this time of amazing economic hardship, fellow citizens are suffering economic catastrophe we haven't seen in nearly a century... ESPECIALLY when such public resources could be put to the use of remedying such hardships...

Investments in housing the homeless, feeding the hungry, and educating the.... educationless... have FAR greater economic multipliers than a gosh darn arena, especially when the 'deal' sculpted to bring this behemoth into being is so one-sided, while our electeds look the other way for reasons borne perhaps by their receipt of campaign cash, or the ego driven need to erect a monument to themselves, or whatever other unknown that causes bad judgment among these deciders.

This whole arena thing began with the premise that ARCO needs replacing, yet even acknowledged in the commission's report is language stating that this could have been a possibility if there had been time and effort made on behalf of this alternative. This most certainly would have been the least cost and greenest potential, especially considering that rehabilitation of existing structures is nearly always greener than a new build.

But NO attention was lent to consideration of DOING NOTHING. And THAT's an error in the composition of ANY strategic plan for ANY enterprise. And I believe the committee deliberately left this off the table (much in the way that Obama has skirted a single payer plan for national healthcare policy) to sweep it under the rug since it would have been the lowest cost option, especially at a time of highly compressed public resources which would inevitably be needed for such a build...

I am NOT against public funds for public facilities that are intended for PUBLIC BENEFIT. But this arena 'deal' is NOT among them.

This 'deal' is just so wrong for everyone but the handful of KJ's supporters and other political benefactors and private interests who brought it to the table.

bbbbmer- WELL DONE!!! AND PLEASE BY ALL MEANS CARRY ON!!

Two million people a year attend events at Arco. They (the public) find benefit (value) or they would not pay to go. It's OK that folks profit from that...from the otherwise unemployed parking attendant to the County Assessor. Some profit more than others. That's OK too.

What's not ok in my opinion is for an emergent city like Sacramento to endure marginal quality by accepting the easy fix. Arco is a cheap, dysfunctional, unprofitable, tattered shed on a suburban floodplain. What's worse, what's much worse, is that it putting a hundred million dollars into it now would enshrine the unsustainable and discredited notion that the suburban model is ok.

The world economy will stick a fork in oil and the urban model will return. Its happening now. And right now, this generation of Sacramentans is about to take a giant step toward that mature city by building an icon of culture, art, entertainment and sport...downtown. It's happening Mr. B. I can hear you snorting and you can wave your clever words at the tide, but it is happening.

So the question is what are you going to do? Are you going to sing from the sidelines, heard as you may be by those that read comments, or are you going to use your considerable artistic sensibilities to raise the bar on the PRODUCT and the CONTENT? Five years from now this center will stand as testament to the talents of this City today. Truly, I hope yours are visible.

You claim ARCO sees 20million people, but actually it sees 20 million VISITS -- not people... which is a very different statistic. ARCO's use mainly involves basketball, which is why the NBA is involved as one of the principals in the project. Sure, there are other uses for the facility, and it would be nice to eventually have a true multi-purpose facility suitable for all intents, but to deny the facility's main use is naive.

The average Kings fan goes to 3 or 4 games per year. If there are 20 million visits, and 75% of those visits are for basketball, and the rest for other affairs, then this amounts to a market somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 to 3 million unique persons -- this in a region nearing 2 million people.

So, the audience for a build like this is somewhat limited to begin with.... and a rather select group, especially given ticket and amenity prices for basketball and other events held at the facility... Given the times, and the income strata of most in this region, it's likely that the facility's market base is perhaps the top 10% to 15% based on income, leaving out a whole lot of people.... people who could potentially be stuck paying the bill to subsidize the facility's events. So, this facility's audience is a rather select group, I would bet.

You claim ARCO is a number of bad things, but even the committee acknowledges that with effort a renovation is possible though more detail would be needed to afford competition with other alternatives. There is not a scintilla of evidence, not even from the commissioned engineering maintenance reports from the NBA and the Ccchamberrrr to substantiate claims of dilapidation -- in fact, the building is quite substantial ... and expandable, per the architect.

All that being said, I'm all for the buildout of a sports and other multipurpose and arts uses -- WHEN WE CAN AFFORD IT. But IF PUBLIC FUNDS ARE AT STAKE, and even despite the claims to the contrary, THIS is NOT the project at which they should be thrown...

Rather, this is merely an opportunistic bleed of the public trough by several financially challenged entities, painting the mere picture of solvency and private financing, but leaving a 'just in case' clause in their proposal providing for public largesse.

Further, this build is hardly iconic or architecturally significant -- it's just a huge blob plopped in the Railyards because Thomas can't raise the capital to put something else there.

In fact, just speaking aesthetics, the most interesting proposal came from the Natomas folks... $4 billion to be spent on the Kamilos 'deal' had better generate something one helluva lot more handsome than their current programme depicts if this turkey is going to fly more than a foot or two....

But of more concern presently is the notion of economic waste and creative re-use of existing infrastructure. Urban models have modified from the 50's -- apparently you hadn't heard, Mr. Rich...

Urban cores are often supplemented by smartly planned unique use zones which provide destinations for identifiable sets of activities that can be both homogeneous as well as diverse. These ideas were at play when ARCO's alternatives were first considered as the building and its use aged and continue in urban planning circles in an attempt to, yes, focus on the urban core, but also use metropolitan amenities already in existence to the fullest possible extent without the need to replicate in each tendril of the core's regional sphere of influence.

More importantly, it is greener to re-use an existing ediface than to build anew and lay waste to existing infrastructure.

As stated earlier, I believe the signfiicant public resources that will be inevitably required for this project would be better used for smaller more user friendly purposes, like housing the homeless, feeding the hungry, and education those who seek to learn...

Finally, and please note this very clearly, I would rather stick needles in my eyes, and I really LOVE having sight, than to participate in a 'deal' that was engineered this collusively, this corruptly, and by the particular players doing the 'deal's' engineering. I do not believe this 'deal' has been composed honorably, for it is just too damned easy to drive a MACK TRUCK through some of its elements...

If and when there are funds available to dedicate to this purpose, and when there is public will to do so, I would be among those cheering from the rafters... But we are nowhere near that time and place at present, and this 'deal' does a disservice to this community for which, if passed, we will pay dearly for a long time to come....

Mr. Rich, Sacramento was "an emergent city" when Arco Arena was planted in the agland floodplain of Natomas two + decades ago. The community has had to "endure marginal quality" in the form of the structure built there, supposedly a multi use facility for sports, events and concerts. Many more than two million people would visit if it weren't know by locals as "Echo Arena" due to acoustics that keep many bands and concertgoers away. Was it built to fail in a couple decades or fail to meet rising standards for how the NBA rewards itself, while regular folks can't afford to buy tickets?

The community had voted twice (and again since then) to not have the proposed arena built in central Sacramento -- even as close as the then-empty land at Bradshaw Road South of Highway 50. "The easy fix" was for the boosters and developers to buy cheap Natomas agland, build "a cheap, dysfunctional, unprofitable, tattered shed on a suburban floodplain" and reap the profits from selling and developing the agland around the arena.

The developers broke their promises about pedestrian oriented development and light rail service. They promised what now would be called "sustainability" and delivered "the suburban model" which you now say is not okay and the notion should not be "enshrined."

You mentioned trite cartoons in a comment above. Have you met our local cast of recurring characters, who built their empires and their power on this Natomas legacy, that now you dismiss as unacceptable? This is what THEY created, this is what THEY enshrined for the community. The story is intimately tied up with the recent scandals, investigations and rushed departures in City Hall and the Economic Development Department.

"What's worse, what's much worse, is that it putting a hundred million dollars into it now would enshrine the unsustainable and discredited notion that the suburban model is ok."

A hundred million dollars is approximately what the Maloof brothers/Kings owners owe the City and people of Sacramento. That would be a nice chunk of change to put into a new facility at the existing Natomas location, where all the parking and freeway access infrastructure exists (minus the Lite Rail connections because the developers reneged and the City let them). The "nearby property" owned by the City is right across the parking lot -- what was the intended baseball stadium. The Maloof's can upgrade to their and the NBA's hearts' content. Arco can be in use until the new facility is ready. Maybe this time they'll even provide the sort of iconic multi use structure you suggest.

That is the "sustainable" answer. That is the most feasible answer. What is "discredited" is the reputation of those who care more about short term profits and less about "a giant step toward that mature city by building an icon of culture."

Many of the same cartoon characters made their promises, the same broken promises, a couple of decades ago. And now you are using the results they created, as a "dysfunctional" negative example, to argue for giving them the chance to do it all over again, profiting from new land/asset giveaways at public expense, with no public input and no certainty of public benefit in the results.

THAT is "enshrining the unsustainable model."

And the further the walk between modes, the more difficult it is for those of us who would LOVE to ride trains instead of driving, but have difficulty walking even what seem like short distances. I think current transportation planners make assumptions about physical challenges based on data contained in large white nameless binders from this governmental agency or that study group, but often do not balance such data against simple empirical observation and the anecdotal experiences of real people...

The walk from the depot entrance to the tracks of the new alignment is no longer than the walk from the entrance of Los Angeles' passenger depot to the tracks. Second, the intermodal depot will fill the intervening space, like the concourse of an airport. It's a bit longer walk but not a "deal breaker" by any means.

Let's just ask a sampling of those of us with ambulatory challenges if a 'bit longer walk' is a 'deal breaker' or not...

How insensitive such surmises can be...

Reading the featured comment I suspect the writer has never been to Union Station in LA. It is several city BLOCKS to reach many of the trains and millions of folks make the trek every day.

If the tracks are not straightened out..high speed rail will never extend to Sacramento.

For riders taking advantage of the "intermodal" nature of the Intermodal, this plan changes nothing. Get off one mode and immediately on to an adjacent mode. Waiting areas, ticketing, baggage, passenger rail, light rail, inter and intracity busses, taxis, bicycle...maybe even streetcars...all converge in one nexus. A careful review of the plans (admittedly hard to do but they are accessible on-line) will reveal that thoughtful people have considered how to make this facility one of the best nationally. Could it be better? Yes, and will improve as the plan matures through constructive input.

I'm soooo glad you're back!!!

so many vital points made by others, including you bbbmer .... thanks for your presence.

You have to be kidding, Steve. There are probably dozens of good arguments for not building a new arena or redirecting focus to mass transit, but saving the "beloved Cal Expo", which has all the charm of a East German government building, has to be the worst I've ever heard. In fact, anything that removes that multi-acre eyesore can't be all bad.

Arena or no arena, I would like to vote Cal Expo off the island. It sucks.

beerzie, don't miss the point. Referring to "our beloved Cal Expo" is not about that particular building. Perhaps you've heard this before, regarding real estate values:

Location, Location, Location.

That "eyesore" can be removed and the State Fair can be renovated where it is. Moving the State Fair to Natomas because it's a convenience for the big players -- and Cal Expo is the next cash cow in their gunsites -- is a ripoff of the taxpayers of Kollyfonia and the citizens of Sacramento.

I agree that the Cal Expo land should not be just given away to developers, but I am not sure the State Fair -- a shopworn event if there ever was one -- is a worthy of holding this prime land hostage. Surely, if we don't want to make this available for development, we could find a better use for the land than the State Fair, RV/Boat/Garden shows and harness racing. I think that making the "land grab" argument fails if the land sits idle except for tired and forlorn events such as the ones it hosts now. The land deserves to be used for something that enriches the lives of its citizens, and if the local governments can't manage it, I am open to discussing private alternatives. Not all developers are bad, and not all of their projects are terrible.