Tag Cloud
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Natomas leaders 'frustrated' over arena battle
by Suzanne Hurt, published on January 24, 2011 at 5:45 PM
Storyline: Arena
Loading images
Natomas business leaders admitted Monday they’re fighting an uphill battle to avoid losing the Sacramento Kings arena.
At a morning press conference, Natomas Chamber of Commerce leaders said they’re asking Mayor Kevin Johnson and the Sacramento City Council to reject a task force recommendation announced Friday.
The task force, which was appointed by the mayor, recommends Sacramento developer David Taylor and a Colorado sports facility developer be chosen to explore building an arena downtown over the next three months. That team won the recommendation over three others, including one backed by the Natomas chamber.
"Natomas is not giving up the fight to keep the arena in Natomas," said Chamber President Ed Koop, who stood in a soggy field within view of Arco Arena, the Kings’ current home.
The chamber and its arena development team, Natomas Entertainment Sports Center Partners, propose building a new arena on the land – about 100 acres owned by the city.
The chamber and Natomas ESC Partners also encouraged Sacramento residents who support keeping the arena in Natomas to show their support at the City Council meeting at 6 p.m. Tuesday.
The task force is scheduled to present an analysis of four arena teams and recommendations to the City Council then.
The Natomas chamber has gathered hundreds of signatures from residents, business owners and others who want to keep the arena in Natomas, said Marni Leger, who chairs the chamber's arena committee.
Koop and Leger spent the rest of the day meeting with City Council members to discuss their concerns. More appointments were scheduled for Tuesday.
They're asking the City Council to determine how much it would cost to build an arena downtown versus in Natomas.
Skanska, the Natomas team's contractor, looked at two proposed downtown sites – the downtown railyards and Westfield Downtown Plaza – and estimated keeping the arena in Natomas would save $100 million to $200 million, said Bob Moreno, managing director of Brookhurst Development Corp. The company is a partner on the Natomas development team.
The ICON-Taylor team doesn’t have a plan to build an arena yet but asked the city for 90 days to create one. The task force is recommending the city work exclusively with that team, but the lack of a plan will continue to delay getting an area built after another attempt failed last year. The Natomas site is “shovel-ready” and has all the necessary infrastructure, they said.
"It's pretty frustrating to be at this point," Koop said. "From the beginning, we've known we're fighting an uphill battle."
Suzanne Hurt is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press. Follow her on Twitter @SuzanneHurt.
Flag Article As:
Conversation Express your views,
debate, and be heard with those in your area closest
to the issue.
Leave a Comment
Further the reason the Task Force placed the Natomas proposal last is because the main function of a new arena/events center is to draw large conventions to Sacramento. Everyone in the Chamber knows Sacramento continuously loses large conventions, because they will not be bussed from hotels out to ARCO. Sacramento is losing millions of convention dollars, which could be used to support parks and other amenities in communities... like Natomas.
Rhy02: do you just make up these statements or do you have any links to facts to backup your claim?
You could finance it, but the team could leave because of the unfavorable terms. That would be the worst possible outcome.
I agree that the Maloofs have to be given what they want. That is the reality of the situation.
The real question, however, is how can we most cheaply (re)build a new arena. I know some people have mass-transitopian and downtown utopian visions dancing in their heads, but priority #1 is keeping the Kings at lowest cost.
Arco did help spur growth for Natomas, in the form of single-family homes, condos, shopping centers, and chain restaurants, only accessible by car, built on speculation to feed increasing demand for "good real estate investments." Unfortunately, the whole community sprouted up in a flood plain for a river held back by unstable levies, where we now see, a few too many homes & shopping centers were built.
A new arena is something that will last for probably another 30 years, and I will most likely be around for all 30 of those years, until another new arena needs to get build. I can guarantee that the trend to increase urban development and density, and improve life in the central city will be the focus for the foreseeable future. As somebody who's going to take part in enjoying a future arena and the City for a long time, I don't want it to be constructed using an auto-centric model from the previous generation. I want it to be built with the modern ideals of what we now know regarding the importance of connectivity, agglomeration and need for sustainability of large economic centers.
This is off-topic, but I also see, and have researched, the positive externalities that modern and significant cultural and economic centers have on cities, such as parks, theaters, art museums, universities, yes, even a modern entertainment arenas. Given these positive effects, both economically and socially, I endorse the reasoning for public funding, if absolutely needed. It's about more than basketball, and the "Magoofs," as people might argue, and about less than becoming "world class." It's about providing the residents the things that ultimately make them happy to live in Sacramento.
As for "islands of economic activity only accessible by cars", there’s a reason for that. Most people don’t like living in dense urban ghettoes. Some might like dense urban hipster spots, but not people with families. It seems they like to have a yard for their kids to play in.
The real question, however, is how can we most cheaply (re)build a new arena. I know some people have mass-transitopian and downtown utopian visions dancing in their heads, but priority #1 is keeping the Kings at lowest cost.
The task force is recommending that the ICON-Taylor team lead, but need another 90 days to submit a plan? Are you joking? The Maloofs can file for relocation on March 1st, meaning that idea would never even get off the ground!
We have to think practically here people, if Natomas is "shovel ready," then let's put on the hard hats, start digging, and keep basketball (and for all intentsive purpose ENTERTAINMENT) in Sacramento!
I can't see a way through that doesn't involve a public vote, and I don't think the NBA and the Maloofs will back an approach where the plan will require a vote. That would just mean more delays and a probable loss at the polls.
I'm wondering if the Maloofs don't go ahead and file to relocate on March 1. This would at least give them a backup plan, and would also put pressure on the locals to do something. Yeah, it could backfire and the Council could easily put an early end to the 90-day study period, but it seems like the Maloofs have to cover themselves one way or another.
That rumor of a $100M offer from Samueli suddenly makes sense. The Maloofs could continue to make payments on their loan (the arena is still their property, after all) until it's sold, and they'd have $30M to cover part or all of the relocation fees.
I just think filing to relocate is now a given. Even if they don't mean it, it seems like the correct tactic.
(The public would, by about a 10-1 ratio, wish them luck and for the door to not hit them. I want them to stay, but only at a reasonable cost. Q&R was not a reasonable cost. The first Convergence plan was not a reasonable cost.)
The collateral on the loan is the arena plus $25M. Why can't the Maloofs simply hand the deed and the keys to the arena to KJ, along with a check for $25M, and stop making payments on the balance of the loan? I think the combined value of the collateral is less than $68M.
Where would the $25M come from? Samueli.