I agree. There is a lot of room for improvement in the functioning of the city officers, the council, and the mayor. I have to imagine that the City legal team would have a lot of influence in the wording of the contract. Is it possible that the City actually realizes that it holds a poorly written contract and it is now trying to cover its tail end with a new demand for a new contract?

From http://basketball.ballparks.com/NBA/SacramentoKings/index.htm (copyright MediaVentures Sep 9, 2010): "...The arena and the immediate acreage around it are valued by the county assessor at $47.4 million. According to county documents reviewed by the Bee, the Kings have requested that the official value of Arco Arena and surrounding land be reduced to $23.7 million..." So, if we "split the difference" between the Maloofs number and the City's number, we arrive at an unscientific guess of $35M. If the Maloofs can "walk away" from $77M for the price of giving up a $35M property securing that loan, it's almost like "gaining" over $40M for them. Of course, this is based on the bold assumption that "nameless arena" is worth $35M. The numbers are different, but this is similar to a homeowner/investor walking away from a mortgage on a home that is grossly underwater. Only problem is the the City and the taxpayer instead of the "bank" is getting the raw end of this deal. Amazingly, the City is also junior to the $75M NBA line of credit extended to the Kings, based on a 2003 change reported in the article linked above. That's similar to my mortgage holder agreeing to line up financially behind my credit card issuer. It remains to be seen how the City's $25M stake in the team will shake out. For sure, no one is asking me, but since I am a City resident and taxpayer, I would not recommend that the City engage in arena management.

I have to trust that the City already has a written contract for the $77 million (or so) loan. It's simply idiotic if the City loaned or obligated $77M without a contract. What good would another written assurance provide? The original written contract is as it stands and that is what will bind the two parties--in court if necessary. I would like to see the contract. That document would be a public record, since it involves public funds, and the City is a party to the contract. It might even be to the City's disadvantage if they obtained something "new" in writing. That would make it a new contract which might cloud the enforcement of the original contract. It might be worth noting the operating costs and upkeep of the arena and its surrounding property. In addition, I would like to know the property tax that the City would "lose" if it were to take over the arena. The "real value" of the arena might be it's "market value" less $77M. Let's determine "market value" -- What is the value of the annual cash flows to/from the arena over the years that the City seeks to own and operate the arena? What is the value of annual property tax payment "lost" by the City when the City takes ownership? What are the annual operating/maintenance/insurance costs? When we figure out the costs, we can add in the annual revenue that might be earned through bookings other than the Kings. After all that, what is the price that the City can get for the arena when it decides to sell it (residual value)? An example of why it is risky to take ownership of the arena is the Pontiac Silverdome. Check out the financial history on that one. The City of Pontiac sold the Silverdome maybe a year or two ago--for $583,000. It cost about $55M to build in 1975 (not sure if that figure is inflation-adjusted). Yes, that's about half a million. The operating costs were about $1.5M per year. The City of Pontiac owned the property and consequently they didn't collect property taxes on their own property. They desperately needed to get that Silverdome property off their hands. An example of a successful arena operation might be Green Bay. Of course, these are/were NFL and not NBA but the financial principles should still apply. I would be interested in how Green Bay operates (but they also own/operate the NFL franchise).

According to these two section the in Sacramento City Code, it appears that power tools are allowed at 7 am, but blowers are not allowed until 9 am (is there a conflict between two sections of the City Code?) "8.68.200 Specific unlawful noises. E. Tools. The use or operation between the hours of ten p.m. and seven a.m. of any power saw, power planer, or other powered tool or appliance or saw or hammer, or other tool, so as to disturb the quiet, comfort, or repose of persons in any dwelling, hotel, motel, apartment, or other type of residence, or of any person in the vicinity." from Title 8 HEALTH AND SAFETY > Chapter 8.68 NOISE CONTROL > Article III General Noise Regulations. "8.68.180 Portable gasoline-powered blowers. A. It is unlawful for any person to operate any portable gasoline-powered blower on residential property or within two hundred (200) feet of residential property, except between the hours of nine a.m. and six p.m. Monday through Saturday and between the hours of ten a.m. and four p.m. on Sunday." from Title 8 HEALTH AND SAFETY > Chapter 8.68 NOISE CONTROL > Article II Noise Standards Waste disposal vehicles are rated by noise level produced, and there seems to be no specific prohibition of that type of vehicle (except by the level of noise that it produces). 8.68.130 Waste disposal vehicles. "It is unlawful for any person authorized to engage in waste disposal service or garbage collection to operate any truck-mounted waste or garbage loading and/or composting equipment or similar mechanical device in any manner so as to create any noise exceeding the following level, when measured at a distance of fifty (50) feet from the equipment or any agricultural or residential property."