That would be a good argument if all the other opponents were loonies. However, if Rewers can get his message on the street, he seems like viable candidate to me. I don't work for him, by the way. All I did was look at his material (the link is in the article), and he sounds pretty good. He made specific recommendations. Tomorrow night, KJ will have a chance to make a gaffe that more people will notice. I suspect he will not disappoint us. I still think KJ is going to win, by the way. And I still think he's trying to get this Council set up with 6+ SMI votes. That's really what this is about: Give me my SMI. If more people knew that, more people would vote for someone else. He wants to set up a government structure where the arena decision is a financial decision that belongs to the mayor, subject only to a veto in the Council. That's all this is about.

I think our current mayor is making a very foolish miscalculation. He's not going to hit 50%+1 in June.

It's pretty well established by now that I think arena deals in general tend to blow up, and that $255.5M was way, way too much for the City to contribute. Nevertheless, the only way to positively determine this is to study it. It did cost nearly $700,000 to study it, but what were the alternatives? They could have said no, and the team would have left last year. I'm actually okay with this expenditure. It's the very next dollar we spend that I'll object to, because it is OVER. I'm surprised at how little notice next Tuesday's agenda item has received. It goes back and unwinds everything. When that passes (and that won't be unanimous), it truly does put us back to square one. Just take every document the City and Think Big have written so far and shred it. Read the resolution. It's pretty interesting. And it will take more than 30 minutes to debate. And there is a chance the Maloofs say, "Well, the bird in hand is getting away, maybe we can still work this out!". http://sacramento.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?meta_id=383134&view=&showpdf=1

And the slowdown isn't just local, either. No link to offer, but arena shows worldwide have been slowing for years. But frankly, two things wouldn't hurt here: 1) The Maloofs maintain PBP as though they actually want people to show up; 2) They then actually try to bring shows in town. They do neither.

It's interesting (well, it is to a geek like me, anyway) that no one ever questioned the Think Big report last summer stating that a downtown ESC would be worth $7B over 30 years to Sacramento. Such a claim would have required an incredible rate of return, so high that if it was true, the City wouldn't need to provide any funding at all for this project, much less around 80% of it. And in that backdrop, we're supposed to believe that Thornberg is not reliable? In what universe does this even make sense?

Jared, he would just ignore the question anyway. We continuously tell our elected officials that, really, arena deals have failed in the very cities they cite as beacons on the hill, and all we hear back is, "What about the KC example?". They're financial drains nearly every time. And frankly, I'm even okay with that -- as long as it's what the voters want. Just tell the truth: Arenas are nice, but they don't make money, so they require tax subsidies. If the voters are okay with supporting them with tax dollars, start digging; but if they reject that option, respect that opinion and move on. KC required TWO tax hikes to make it work, and it's still a drain on their general fund. Here, we're being told that our parking revenues, which currently provide parking funding and a $9M revenue stream, will (in the future) provide parking funding, a $9M revenue stream, profit for some company, and enough left over to help fund an arena. Unless there are huge increases in parking usage AND in prices, that is simply not possible. But really, I'd have been happy with some news organization providing some tough probing of the Think Big report that said a downtown ESC would bring in $7B over 30 years. Too late for that now. Because no one questioned it in the beginning, it's now gospel. Later on, when it comes time to acknowledge (and pay for) a failing arena deal that will require a taxpayer bailout, I plan to vote against any tax hikes that may be required to fund such a bailout. If they don't ask us now, they have no right to ask us later. And yeah, I'll move away.

KJ is both desperate and nearly impossibly stupid. Stop him now. Is he trying for a role in a Dumb and Dumber sequel? I cannot think of a better explanation.

I don't like KJ at all -- I've never hidden that opinion -- but the truth is, in this case, the Maloofs, the NBA and David Stern are the bad guys. KJ made way too generous a deal, the Maloofs said it wasn't generous enough, and Stern and the BoG essentially agreed with that opinion. KJ, a man I don't like, is probably the biggest victim here. And I'm thankful of that, because Thornberg's evaluation of Think Big's report is absolutely spot on. I'm glad to see cooler heads prevailing -- even if the Maloofs did have to shop around for that opinion. That was an interesting tactic -- blame Think Big. Brilliant. The old alliance is now completely obliterated. Think Big will not be reforming now. So, do they move this summer, or next? Going to PBP with 1,700 other die-hard fans will be a little weird. I think there's a strong chance a relocation is approved within a month of the end of the season. I know I wouldn't touch a season ticket for next year. Why would I do that?

I don't really object to the idea that an arena is a good idea, but only if it's done correctly. Now that we're getting rough drafts of site plans, it's pretty clear that an arena doesn't fit where they're trying to put it. It's too close to the river, it will badly congest the transit center, I Street, J Street, I-5, 5th Street, 7th Street, and other streets. The loading dock will be a disaster in that area. Plus, people will pay for the arena who are not using the arena; if I go to an event at Music Circus, STC or Memorial on the same night as an event at the arena, I will pay the higher parking prices -- which means I'll be paying for an arena I'm not using. I think that's pretty unfair. $255M is far too much for the City to pay for this arena. This should largely be a private investment. If private investors can't see much profit in it, why should that risk be put onto the backs of taxpayers who were never allowed to vote on it? And before you say, Because this is a representative democracy, I'd remind you that Jay Schnenirer was "against this before he was for it." People voted for him because he opposed publicly funding an arena, and he now appears to enthusiastically support this. We vote for people because of campaign stands they take. When they abandon those stances, we should have a direct vote. We're strapped as well. How large is our city's deficit? In general, I oppose the parking concession idea, but if we're not going to have this arena, I hope they cancel that plan completely. Frankly, raise taxes first. If the City is that strapped, then raise the daily rates from $13 to $15 (or whatever they are now). A new arena should be adjacent to the old one. The parking is there, as is transportation infrastructure, water and sewer, electricity, freeway ramps... Just run the airport light rail line past the arena. Wasn't that the original plan anyway? An arena at 4th and I is going to jam traffic in that area, 150+ nights a year. If you use I Street daily, as I do, you realize what a show-stopper that is. One lane onto I-5 South. That's a disaster. Caltrans is recognizing this now. We've been given an opportunity to back out of this arena idea. I think we should take it.

For the record, Darrell Fong held a similar meeting prior to the March 6 vote. I know, because I was there. Also, Jay said before he was elected that he felt pretty negative about the use of public funds for an arena. Many voted for him because of this stance. My parents, who know Jay, did so. So if they say one thing to get elected, and do something else while in office -- this is a HUGE flip-flop -- then yeah, we have the right to exercise direct democracy.

One look at the timeline arena proponents have produced and you'd see why that's not even possible. The EIR isn't due back until Sept 12. If that report came back with way too much expensive mitigation, the project would stop there. But if they came back with 50,000 signatures before June 1, do you really think a court would say, "Well, that election hasn't occurred yet, so go ahead with building this arena!"? Hint: They wouldn't. A June vote would have been preferable to a November vote, but the fact is, neither of them will delay this project.

In theory, I really don't think I disagree with your assessment. The problem is that this "spend money to make money"-approach hasn't worked out in other cities. All these cities swear "It'll be different this time!", but it never is. They always mess up something. If this arena gets built, it will eventually require a bailout. Just watch.

After reading this article, and the one in the Bee, I'd vote for McCarty early and often, if I lived in District 6. Good luck, Kevin McCarty. I hope you win.

Of course AEG likes this. They put in $59M and get back $5.7M/year; we put in $255M and get back $1M/year. I would love that deal. Anyone care to give me a similar one? AEG will make all its money back in under 10 years. The Maloofs will start making noise about the arena no longer being adequate in 15, due to poor construction and the rush-nature of that deal back in 2012. And we'll break even in 255 years. Terrific. This is an example what happens when you don't have the smartest guys in the room on your team.

Thank you for your vote, Kevin McCarty. The big question that remains for me: Is there any actual way to stop this process now? Yes, I know that our Council may look at the development plan and decide to halt it there. Theoretically, that is possible. But as a practical matter, would that happen? The issue of the collateral on the current loan is a very big issue. Why we would get to 2015 and then have the Maloofs supply collateral for a new loan is beyond me. I don't believe the Maloofs can supply the collateral at this point in time. Worse yet, I don't think they'll be able to supply it in 2015, either. So what happens to this deal and we get to 2015, it's time for the Maloofs to supply new collateral for a new loan... And they can't? We have this building, and we have a scofflaw anchor tenant who cannot live up to agreements made. What then? I think I know what KJ will do: Supply collateral himself for the new loan. He'll try to sell more revenue bonds to cover that amount. He may even push a small tax increase to pay for it, with the logic that we can either watch the City go bankrupt, or we can have (for example) a .25 cent sales tax hike for 5 years to repay those bonds. I hate to sound mean, but later on down the road, if anyone calls for a "small tax hike" to bail out this deal, I will vote against it.

KJ and his band of Merry Men definitely took a trip down Stockton Blvd on this one. I'm still not sure how they can tell us the arena will cost $391M or $3.91B if they haven't designed the building yet. That estimate is just a WAG. During construction, will they tell us that because some part of the design was so completely unanticipated that we need to either fork over another $300M, or watch Turner go bankrupt? Wouldn't surprise me.

Sure looks like 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 to me. /sarcasm Eh, this will pass on Tuesday anyway. It's the following 2-3 months where things will get more interesting. Here's a hint to help the Council grow a spine: The Kings have nowhere else to go. If you negotiate the final agreement and they threaten to leave, there's nothing to it.

In fairness, that is accounted for in the parking concession. That $2.5B over 50 years sounds mighty daunting, but that's not present-value dollars. It assumes a 3% growth rate. You should see the revenues they anticipate starting in about year 40. Very, very high.

That sounds great in theory, but have you been following real estate trends over the last 7 years? There's no demand for that 100 acres. On a good day, they might find someone silly enough to give them $20M for it. Sure, it will be worth $67M one day... One day in the 2040's, that is.

Yes, there is a plan that would satisfy me. $150 in revenue-anticipation bonds to be towards an arena, subject to voter approval. Very, very simple. We pay for 1/3 of an arena that they locate, design and build. We don't even own it -- that do. Simple, direct, to the point. If they don't like it, they know where to find a more generous offer.