The problem with the comparison to Indianapolis is that the NFL uses revenue sharing, allowing small-market cities like Indianapolis and Green Bay to be on equal footing with the big boys. The NBA doesn't work like that. If you'd like a further explanation of how NFL revenue sharing works, here's a handy video: http://vimeo.com/35003246

Don't worry Serg, you'll be there before you know it...

I noticed that my mavigliometer pegged the needle whenever TheTruthSquad posts...

Not to mention that its use of the existing powerhouse is a great example of "The greenest building is the one that is already built!"

Is there a plan in place for future use of the old Law Library/Hall of Justice building? It would be a shame to see such a beautiful treasure of a building sitting vacant.

Clumsiness? "Whoops, I accidentally dropped this pile of money into your campaign fund!" I wouldn't call that clumsiness. I'd call that corruption! No, I wouldn't call it clumsiness. None of this is personal, or based on personalities, as much as many people want it to be, or accuse opponents of SMI in all its incarnations as based on personalities rather than issues. Personally, I like Mayor Johnson, and all my dealings with him have been cordial. I also like Mark Friedman a great deal, but don't approve of the way he spends his money to influence elections in a city where he does not live. I'm sure Jon Bagatelos is a fine individual as well, but I strongly disagree with his position on this issue and his reasons for running. My issue is not with their personalities, but with the measures they wish to use to govern this city, which veer away from democracy and towards a more authoritarian "my way or the highway" mode of government--otherwise known as "running government like a business." But government doesn't work like a business, and it should not be run like one. That is the crux of the problem, and the basis of the argument against SMI.

Not to mention a seat on the Planning Commission in return for a big check in support of SMI. Looks like KJ's financial backers really do want the best government money can buy!

Sounds like the Sacramento 60 is willing to pull out all the stops to take over City Hall--no matter how much money they have to spend to buy Council seats!

The Sacramento Old City Association will host a District 4 Candidates' Forum on Saturday March 10, at the "Courtyard" building, 1322 O Street, Sacramento. All four candidates have committed to participate. The candidates' forum will be part of SOCA's quarterly "Preservation Roundtable" event. The Preservation Roundtable starts at 9:00 AM, the candidates' forum starts at 10:00 AM. More details will be posted to http://www.sacoldcity.org

"Promising" much...delivering little.

Glad to see a local business take a place on such a prominent corner. The breakfast menu is important--this town can use more reasonably priced corner breakfast spots, and they sound very reasonably priced. Such places become magnets for community as well as places to eat!

There are other factors at work here--can the Maloofs afford to sacrifice ARCO Arena and a share of their team? They pretty much have to, as they don't have the $70 million to buy their way out of town. Can AEG afford to let the Kings move to Anaheim, which would cost them around $500 million in media rights? And how does ARCO become valuable property as long as the North Natomas building moratorium is still in effect? I'm not entirely convinced about the need for a slightly bigger concert hall downtown, or that it would be so inexpensive. I suppose a smaller facility could be put in a smaller space--like the 300 block of Capitol, or in the "Docks" area along the Sacramento River, instead of on top of the Amtrak parking lot like the current arena proposal. But even at a lower cost--who pays for it? And could we get by with Arco, Memorial Auditorium and public events at the Rivercats ballpark across the river, while reinvesting in our own transportation network, local businesses, infill, and, based on response #9, more hustle and bustle on the streets from small/medium sized local music clubs, generating foot traffic and urban interest. That sort of thing can be parlayed into far more private investment in the urban core--ideally, at least doubling the population of the central city. And that kind of vitality CAN draw interest from corporate headquarters and major commerce (or become the incubator for locally-grown business reaching that size) and thus provide both the tax base and the private financing for a strongly-positioned, financially feasible arena proposal.

You had me until you started talking about a slightly smaller arena. How exactly does that work, and how do you propose paying for it--and which of these events are we not currently hosting at Rubberband Pavilion or the Convention Center already?

Ordinarily, residential parking permit programs are based on activism from the neighborhood: neighbors petition the city for things like resident parking programs. Now that there is more housing in Old Sacramento, maybe it's time for an Old Sac neighborhood association that can advocate for the rights of people who live there--currently there is no advocacy group for downtown or Old Sac residents.

I don't think that is the author's point--his point is that a lot of these efforts to change Sacramento's system of government are coming from people who do not live in the city of Sacramento, which brings into question the validity of their effort--even an effort as unscientific and unverifiable as an Internet petition.

Hey now, someone paid good money for those letters!

Yes, that is correct, you can only vote on Sacramento measures if you live in Sacramento. Even if you own a business or work here. You can voice an opinion, but it's nothing more than that--an opinion. Sacramento 2020 isn't just trying to voice an opinion, they are trying to change our method of government--and if it is an organization directed and controlled by people outside our city, that's downright alarming.

Austin has a council-manager form of government, as do most of Texas' major cities like Dallas, San Antonio, and Fort Worth.

Excellent point. By the speaker's own standard, the current arena proposal is a loser.

Actually the day to day operation will still be the job of the city manager, except the City Council won't be able to fire him--which they can currently do on a week's notice.